Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ancient World Maps showing Lemuria, Atlantis and more

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   


Atlantis Insula.




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Sorry i didnt provide a reference map.

This is where Edgar Cayce also said the capital city of Atlantis was.

They are also finding underwater cities off the coast of Biminii and Cuba.

Modernday -Postflood.



The lighter blue seas represent waters that are more shallow I assume, and the dark blue is deeper waters. Therefore, to trace out a continent, or island, that was once there but is no longer there, wouldn't the first place to look be the shallow depths near the various islands of various sizes in the Caribbean area?

Look at the shallow depths between Florida and Cuba, and between Mexico and Cuba, as well as between Cuba and what I think is the island shared by Haiti and Jamaica? or is that Haiti and Dominican Republic? it's a tad east-southeast of Cuba in your picture. Anyways, if the water's were lower, these would be exposed Earth areas, and the Mexican peninsula may have been connected to Cuba, which may have been connected to Florida for all that we know, as well as Haiti.

What I mean is, in your picture I quoted, you can see where Cuba is, and on the edge there beside it, you can see what is I believe to be either Jamaica/Haiti, Costa Rica, or the Dominican Republic, lol, im sorry but its one of these. Im thinking Jamaica/Haiti, as it is an island split into two countries.

Anyways, the seas are quite shallow in your picture inbetween Cuba and this island beside it. If the waters were imaginarily receeded, perhaps a big land mass, one large peculiar shape island, would take form in the place of not only Cuba but those island nations directly beside it and around it. If they were all connected together, and the waters were lower, you'd have varying elevations of land, which is normal on all of our land masses currently. Just some thoughts..

Edit: Let me add that I have driven through the Florida Keys, down to Key West, and to the 90 mile marker from Cuba. This chain of islands, the Keys, are barely connected by land, I believe many have manmade roadways where water used to exist. some are only connected by an 8 mile bridge. Anyways, if the waters were lower, all of these islands, these keys, would be connected. if the waters were REALLY low, the keys would extend 90 miles down and connect to Cuba, but the depth of the water inbetween them would determine exactly how much water we are talking about, which would determine if this is feasible.

[edit on 1/28/2008 by runetang]

To go one further, if there was at least one massive globalish flood, at the right time, perhaps it would've done in Atlantis right then and there.

[edit on 1/28/2008 by runetang]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Here is a map of florida. As you can see about 200m below current sea level, you can see ancient rivers, etc.




posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale
Even raising the sea level by more than 160 metres doesn't change the shapes of the landmasses as much as you would expect does it.


Ah, but remember!


The tectonic plates all FLOAT! And also it is the RE-distribution of water-weight - leading to tectonic re-adjustment - which changes the shapes of land-masses...and these processes occur over longer term periods than any human being has so far remembered or observed; however their effects CAN be dramatic and quite literally geographically-altering.

And these ideas are pretty much accepted by science and so must be taken into account. We don't have yet any first-hand evidence that is objective but we do have science, observation, and logical reasoning.

After all...the idea of Pangea is generally accepted and considered 'proven' according to those methods...anything is possible!



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
To go one further, if there was at least one massive globalish flood, at the right time, perhaps it would've done in Atlantis right then and there.


At least one in the last 13,000 years! When the last ice age melted! Even though the sea-levels were considerably lower when the water was mostly locked in ice...comparatively speaking, when it melted, the sea-levels no doubt rose sufficiently to cover any/many/all coastal civilizations that might have been before. And certainly the coasts were heavily populated (if at all) at that time since the temperate climate comfortable to human beings not covered with hair would have been a lot narrower around the equator.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Excellent work. I always wanted to see these oceans minus some water to determine how large they might have been before the hypothetical great flood.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mojo4sale
 



I have to disagree with you about the age of stonehenge i think maybe you are off by a thousand years or so and those dates are the earliest any scientist will agree to even though they know the tests performed on artifacts discovered, seem to show dates which would throw other ages of other monuments around the world way off scale, However the truth about these dtes is there just not confirmed as of yet, But that is for another thread im working on, Just collecting evidence.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by azzllin
 


Your not willing to supply evidence as to why i'm wrong by a "thousand years or so" but your happy to tell me i'm wrong anyway.

What i said was "Correct me if im wrong but Stonehenge is no older than say 2500bc - 1500bc."

The actual bluestone Stonehenge is generally accepted as being erected at around 2500bc with construction continuing for a few century's. The original location of the henge was not much more than a ditch and possibly a circle of wooden poles. So where exactly have i gone wrong with my timeline, if you dont mind me asking.


www.britainexpress.com


There was a henge at the Stonehenge site before the Bronze Age, built sometime around 2800 B.C. It was really nothing more than a ditch and bank enclosing a open space. The stone now called the Heel Stone lay outside the ditch. There may at some point have been a circle of wood or a hut inside the enclosure; there certainly was a tradition of wooden henges in the area. Inside the henge a ring of 56 holes were dug, called today "Aubrey Holes" after a 17th century "discoverer" of the site. These holes were filled with cremation materials.



About 2200 B.C. the Beaker People swung into action. Perhaps to impress their superiority on the local population, they began the process of building a double ring of stones inside the henge.


wikipedia


Archaeologists believe that the standing stones were erected around 2200 BC and the surrounding circular earth bank and ditch, which constitute the earliest phase of the monument, have been dated to about 3100 BC.


www.stonehenge-avebury.net


For some 400 years beginning about 2950 BCE the site was little more than a simple circular earthwork, inside of which was a space about 85 metres or some 90 yards in diameter but at the centre of which there appears to have been a simple wooden structure or timber circle.



Not until about 2550 BCE did construction of a ring of stones commence.



Stonehenge was completed in the Early Bronze Age by Beaker folk. At a later date (perhaps towards 1500 BCE) some disaster or systems collapse progressively brought the impressive Megalithic Age to an end, not only here but throughout the whole of Britain and Ireland


Theres a bit of discrepancy with the dates of around 250 - 300 years for the actual Stonehenge, if you,ve got evidence to the contrary by all means lay it on me i'm not averse to learning something new.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsen

I have to disagree whole-heartedly with that whole joke that Lemuria was a made-up name of a possible continent which maybe existed to possibly help Lemurs move from land mass to land mass. Such a convenient cover and one which people always refer.


What?

Next you'll be disagreeing that aircraft fly ..... Or saying you don't believe Australia really exists!

This isn't idle speculation. This is well known, well documented fact. The idea of a land bridge between Africa and SE Asia called Lemuria (named after the lemurs) was invented by Philip Sclater in 1864. It was quickly discarded when it was realised that continents move.

There's a great chapter on this subject in Ted Neild's new book Supercontinent. I suggest you read it. Ignorance is no excuse you know



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Next you'll be disagreeing that aircraft fly ..... Or saying you don't believe Australia really exists!



Oi, leave us aussie's out of it.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mojo4sale
 

Look at that "Atlantis Insula" map. If its proof that America is in fact Atlantis, it must also be proof that Australia doesnt exist!!!



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Essentially, by focusing upon materiality and ignoring their true spiritual nature, the people brought upon themselves a series of three cataclysms. The first, about 50,000 B.C., destroyed their major power source. The second, about 28,500 B.C., caused the continent to break into three smaller islands: Poseidia, Og, and Aryan. The third and final destruction – which is the one mentioned by Plato – occurred about 10,500 B.C. and caused the three islands to sink, forcing those who survived to migrate to other parts of the world.


Edgar Cayce describes Atlantis' location

Hundreds of readings discuss the lost continent of Atlantis – a civilization which was one of the most advanced that the world would ever know. According to the readings, records of this society exist to this day in Egypt, the Yucatan, and near Bimini. In fact, the readings considered the Bimini Islands the remnant of a mountain range from this once-massive continent.




posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
IvanZana,

At work, so cannot have proper search, but there is a similar 'underwater' river-type system on the east coast of Australia, near the Barrier reef region.

You can see it quite clearly. There seems to be a major 'trough' where a vast amount of water looks to have once flowed... Perhaps these gigantic 'rivers' are more like overflows from the global flood.

Picture when a dam breaks and how violent the water is. Now picture a global flood and imagine the troughs that must have been dug into the land by the floodwaters....


Cormac mac airt,

Before the word Lemuria was 'created' in 1864, there is a common acceptance that 'Lemuria' was known as Mu or Murias. The word Lemuria was simply taken on more widely.

In the Pacific Region there is an large amount of place names, people, kings, words and so on which contain the root "Mu" - and it often refers to a past motherland or sunken continent. Read Frank Joseph's work on Lemuria for more.

It is also referred to as Murias. Murias was one of the Tuatha De Danaan's four major cities. There is a line of research which suggests the Tuatha were indeed descendants of Atlantis. Interesting coincedence.


Essan,

It is apparently 'fact' that 'Lemuria' is no more than the continent for which lemurs passed from continent to continent. OK, so IF thats true, then why does that make EVERY OTHER reference to Lemuria incorrect?

Remember, it was 'fact' in 2002 that Iraq had WMDs. 'Fact' that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman. 'Fact' that the earth used to be flat. 'Fact' that the universe revolved around the Earth and so on.

i'm sorry mate, but i just cant 'buy' into every official explanation.

As ATS says, we are here to Deny Ignorance. by questioning such 'official facts' am i not at least attempting to do just that?

Its just that i find it very convenient that, in the same way they told people you'd fall off the earth if you ventured too far West, they now deny Lemuria by getting some old scientist to name his Lemur land mass theory 'Lemuria' and then erase all other record of it.

But Mu and Murias lives on with no such obstruction. The truth is out there and its not always found in text books.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   


Before the word Lemuria was 'created' in 1864, there is a common acceptance that 'Lemuria' was known as Mu or Murias. The word Lemuria was simply taken on more widely.


Considering that Augustus le Plongeon MISTRANSLATED Mu using the "de Landa alphabet" on the Troana Codex at about the same time, WHO commonly accepted your statement?




In the Pacific Region there is an large amount of place names, people, kings, words and so on which contain the root "Mu" - and it often refers to a past motherland or sunken continent. Read Frank Joseph's work on Lemuria for more.


Commonality of sounds or names doesn't prove anything. Besides if I wanted to read fiction I would rather read Piers Anthony, imminently more entertaining.




It is also referred to as Murias. Murias was one of the Tuatha De Danaan's four major cities. There is a line of research which suggests the Tuatha were indeed descendants of Atlantis. Interesting coincedence.


What part of the Irish BOOK OF INVASIONS, Annals of the Four Masters, etc., do you NOT understand? The Tuatha de Danann believed they came from the EAST. Further forward in time their successors believed they themselves came from the LAND OF THE DEAD in the West, which was Spain. How is it that you think you know more about the Irish than the Irish do themselves?

[edit on 30-1-2008 by cormac mac airt]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
What part of the Irish BOOK OF INVASIONS, Annals of the Four Masters, etc., do you NOT understand? The Tuatha de Danann believed they came from the EAST. Further forward in time their successors believed they themselves came from the LAND OF THE DEAD in the West, which was Spain. How is it that you think you know more about the Irish than the Irish do themselves?


wait a second, lets agree on something here:

History is written by the victors

Its true enough right?

So how EASY would it be to either misinterpret (according to your own world view, from BOTH perspectives to be honest) or misrepresent such statements.

Does it not make more sense that the 'Land of the Dead' in the west WAS Atlantis? Doesn't this make much more sense than Spain? If you had survived the sinking of your continent and then generations later your descendants where referring to it i would think the 'Land of the Dead' would be a fairly accurate depiction of your sunken homeland.

There is numerous reasons for those who write these histories to distort the truth. I am not doubting what is written in the Book of Invasions, i am merely questioning how it has been interpreted and taught over time.

And for the record, the whole East to West migration story, which is what you will read in text books, only picks up the story half way. The East to West migration DID occur but it was a RETURN TRIP back to their homelands. The original migrations were West to East, out of the ruins of Atlantis.

Read Tsarion, McDari, Beaumont and more. It is part of an almighty cover-up to hide the fact that Atlantis, Lemuria and so on existed and were wiped out.



Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Considering that Augustus le Plongeon MISTRANSLATED Mu using the "de Landa alphabet" on the Troana Codex at about the same time, WHO commonly accepted your statement?


The countless Pacific tribes and cultures who place so much importance of 'Mu'. I'll quickly highlight Tahiti.

The Tahitian word for island is actually mu-tu, as memorialized in Moorea, near the Northwest coast.

Interestingly, the reverse - tu-mu, means tree. Curious as Mu/Lemuria is strongly linked with the Tree of Life.

The Goddess of Moorea was Tu-metua, who lived in the sunken land of Avaiki (another name by which Mu was known in French Polynesia).

Tahiti's high priest was known as U-mu, literally meaning "he of Mu".



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsen

wait a second, lets agree on something here:

History is written by the victors

Its true enough right?


But what about genetics, biology, archaeology, anthropology, geology, zoology, oceanography and numerous other disciplines? Are you saying everyone involved in such research corrupts their data to perpetuate a historical lie?


It is part of an almighty cover-up to hide the fact that Atlantis, Lemuria and so on existed and were wiped out.


Why would anyone want to do that?

Isn't this really just the old "there's no evidence because it's all be suppressed, therefore the lack of evidence proves it's been suppressed therefore my theory is right and everyone else is wrong" circular reasoning again? Always a good way out of having to actually explain away contrary evidence by scientific methods



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsen

The Tahitian word for island is actually mu-tu, as memorialized in Moorea, near the Northwest coast.


Or motu

www.thetahititraveler.com...

Moorea means 'yellow lizard'

www.thetahititraveler.com...

(Although the Tahitians may of course be lying
)




The Goddess of Moorea was Tu-metua, who lived in the sunken land of Avaiki (another name by which Mu was known in French Polynesia).


As far as I can determine, Tu-metua was a male deity.

Avaiki seems to have been the Polynesian nether world - although some myths say that is where they came from (genetics show they came from SE Asia) it would appear to be an underground place, not an underwater place or sunken land

www.pantheon.org...



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
srsen,

You want so badly for there to be a conspriacy of suppressed information concerning the Irish that you ignore any known facts and, in effect, call the Irish a bunch of liars. Here is something for you to read, maybe you will learn something.




www.bradshawfoundation.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
cormac....harte...essan...hanslune...merka...

...will we ever see you post in favour of alternative- or non-mainstream history posts?



Do not generalize the answer with "When I see evidence...".



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Well I do believe there may have been humans in the Americas for maybe 30,000 years
I certainly don't agree with the 'post Ice Age' arrival (or Clovis First) idea. But I don't think they were Atlanteans






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join