ATS: Satellite Images Reveal... Atlantis?

Analysis of satellite images of southern Spain has convinced one German scientist that the famed Lost City of Atlantis has been found off the coast of Spain.

---

Full Story: BBC News Online

New-Age mysticism aside, these discoveries seem to be in close agreement with Plato's original descriptions of Atlantis - particularly since a source quoted in the above story says that Greek historians may have mistranslated an Egyptian word meaning "coast" as "island".

Could we be on the brink of resolving one of the world's great unsolved mysteries? Time, as ever, will tell.


[edit on 6-7-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 7-6-2004 by John bull 1]

WOW...thats all i can say WOW, this is awsome lets just hope it is the real thing and not something else huh

I can wait to see what they find when archeologists start excavating this site is going to be interesting.

If this does turn out to be the real Altantis, and it WAS abandoned quickly after a flood, there must be some REALLY interesting archiology under the old circular lakes. It's feasable that the beds of these moats haven't been disturbed all that much.

Send in Tony Robinson and the Time Team I say!

Well I wouldn't hold your breathe just yet. The excavation of areas under the sea that would have been dry land during the last ice age would seem to me to be obvious candidates. However it is archeaolgical heresy to suggest any civilisations that old therefore they are not excavated. Couple that with the established idea that Atlantis is a myth (as opposed to a legend) and there's not a chance in hell. It could be done by somebody who disagrees with the mainstream.....but then they will be accused of falsifying/misinterpreting evidence by the establishment. The establishment will not look at the evidence since they already "know" what the truth is.

Flood legends/myths exist worldwide across all cultures so it is reasonable to assume a global event like rising seas after an ice age melt. I think the true history of human civilisation is under water.

Yes this will be interesting, if its the real deal.

Heres a question to pose to the members....

If artifacts/knowledge are/is discovered that are more advanced then our current abilities, should this be shared with the world or kept repressed and released slowly under goverment control for it might be to much for mainstream to handle at once?

My opinion is mixed but leans in this direction mostly, I would want to know the truth/discoveries. And if this place can answer or shed light to alot of unknown questions to understand a part of all our human past then it should be shown for the better of mankind, for it is part of everyones history(IMO)

Then on the other side of the coin, if the knowledge gained would shatter the masses at all levels then it should be brought out bit by bit, yet leaving the window open completely to the ones that wish to know now, and not be in the dark.

Hopefully more info will continue to flow thru as this develops and not suddenly vanish, not to be heard of again....


Firepoker

This discovery was made by Dr Kuehne of the University of Wuppertal and came to the attention of the public in an article in the respected archaeology journal Antiquity. These guys are the establishment. And remember, most of what people "know" about Atlantis is mythological, yes, but Plato was reporting what he perceived as fact. I don't see any reaosn to believe that the Atlantians were any more advanced than their contemporaries.

The truth won't be known until the site can be analysed further, excavated and dated, but this is certainly the best and most convincing case for Atlantis that I've ever seen.

Good sources and excellent academic speculation -- but I'm going to bet that it won't turn out to be Atlantis.

Beyond the fact that I don't think Atlantis ever existed (that it was a parable made up by Plato), here's why I think it's implausible:

The dates:
Plato was born in 427 BC. The site date on that is said to be 500 BC to 800 BC. Now, if it was sunk in 500 BC, Plato's father and everyone else would know about it. There'd be writing and artifacts galore.

So let's say it was 800 BC, then (the oldest date given). However, this was the time of the poet, Hesiod, who came after Homer. He and others would have left poetry or prose about the event -- surely as cataclysmic to the Greeks as 9/11 was to our world.

college.hmco.com...

And older? Well, the Greeks did document (in plays, poetry, and songs) the Trojan war, and the approximate date of that is around 1200 BC.

There are no older great sources mentioning Atlantis. This is the stuff of high tragedy, greater than even the stories about Troy and the ruling houses of Greece. And yet Greek history and literature is silent on the matter except for the single parable of Plato.

And that's why I think they're not going to find Atlantis.

[edit on 7-6-2004 by Byrd]

True, Byrd, although there's every reason to believe that there are significant gaps in the documentary record. It's been two thousand years, after all.

Without wishing to play devil's advocate, if Atlantis was indeed the ancient world's 9/11, then the Trojan War was the ancient world's WW2 - and how much evidence exists of Troy? I don't think that it's unbelievable that more contemporary records of the Atlantean disaster have not been recovered by modern scholars and archaeologists.

In any event, Atlantis or not, it's a very interesting find.

Right. But it would only have been 100 years for Plato. And EVERYBODY would be writing about it. We have documents, plays, poetry, monuments, and lots of things from that era. It's not mentioned elsewhere in literature or art of the time.


Lots. Museums full of the stuff. And before Schliemann uncovered the site, there were more things about it -- in addition to the Homeric poems, there was a whole cycle of Greek tragedies about Troy (including the plays Agamemnon, Women of Troy, Antigone (and so forth).)

There were statues and vases painted with scenes from the legends and stories of Troy.

There is zip, zilch, nada, nothing about Atlantis anywhere in any ancient sources except in Plato.

[quoteIn any event, Atlantis or not, it's a very interesting find.

Just a comment here...

Atlantis being "the ancient world's 9/11"...

Yes, 9/11 was a tragic event. around 3000 people died as we know. Horrible... Nasty...
In China however, there was about 800.000 people believed to have died in a single earthquake. How much have we heared about that event, compared to 9/11? And that earthquake didn´t happen too long ago either...

This will be an interesting thing to watch. I hope they can find some that are willing to excavate the site.

I also hope that the Spainish are willing. I'm not so sure that the American government would allow such a thing. I haven't heard of anyone being able to dig up a national park, although I could be wrong.

We'll see. This could get very exciting.

Man... I wanna go check the site out just to see if I can pick up some 'vibrations'. I wonder what Edgar Cayce would have to say about this, lol...

I just hope they find it soon to silence the wackos, conmen, fruitloops, and fringe dwellers who have said its anywhere from the arctic to the South Pole.

Lets get this bronze age settlement out of the way so we can be free from the crystal / power ley line / ufo / et / superhuman / cults who use the story as a justifcation for their wacko beliefs to sell books and suck in people with minds so open their brains fall out...

Personaly I think we give too little credit to ancient Historians/Writers. The structure of the human brain has not changed in over 100,000 years. We are not any smarter than the Greeks/Romans/Babylonians we've just kept better records allowing the knowledge of 1 generation to serve as the foundation for the next.
In terms of atlantis also see this theroy
aliaga.cnb.net...
as for troy this one is interesting
www.troy-in-england.co.uk...

Writing has been around for a long time, so have pictures and oral traditions. To say that people of today are not any smarter than people of antiquity seems to lack merit on the face of it (I say, as I type on my computer.)

If you are saying that if you took an infant from, say 500 BC and raised them in today's environment they would have an average/or better IQ at the end of their education, then I would say possibly; but that would be because they are a modern human, not ancient, with all the inferit benefits of a modern society. Most of what we are, as humans, is based on the social structure of the environment we live in. Take a modern human child and raise them in 500 BC and would have another ignorant, superstitious, brutal person, more than likely.

There is a good book about how western society became the way it is, it's called Guns, Germs and Steel. Although the author is a guilt ridden liberal, the book has some great information in it. Just don't believe all his personal musings.

Variable

To say that we are more intelligent than those who lived 500 1000 or 10000 years ago is IMHO arrogant. Yes writing has been around a long time but widespread literacy has not. It was not untill literacy was a common as opposed to uncommen factor that the basis for todays society could be created. Yes you write on your computer but could you build it? could you mine/fabricate the materias, create the componetns, assemble the componants, program the software? Do you understand how every piece of that computer works and interacts with every other? 2000 years ago a greek philosopher calculated the circumfrence of the earth amazingly accuratly (within 5 %) based on the shadow cast by a well, could you? 4000 years ago sun tzu wrote the art of war which is still used by generals as a reference today. The chinese had building codes and code inspectors 5000 years ago. the romans invented concrete 4000 years ago and it was not rediscovered till 200 years ago.
The reason we have had such a profound advancement in technology over the last 2-300 yers is beacause of the increasing literacy rates. In the renaissance it took a genius like Da vinchi to understand concepts that schoolchildren can understand today. s literacy incresed it allowed common men to understand wht had previously only been understood by the elite. the more people who understand a concept the greater the liklehood someone will advance that concept.

As einstein said "if i have seen further than others it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

With respect, you guys are arguing about education, not intelligence. The biological fact that our brains haven't evolved significantly in the last 2000 years is unavoidable - what we have done is establish a framework whereby even the people at the lower end of the IQ bell curve can be educated to a minimum level (and become President of the US). The fact that we can sit in our homes and workplaces discussing ancient history, archaeology, and the philosophy of intelligence isn't testament to our increased wit - it's testament to all those who went before us. The reason a modern schoolchild can understand Da Vinci is that no-one was around to explain it to Da Vinci - he had to figure it all out from first principles! That doesn't mean the schoolchild is more intelligent - it just means that he has access to more information.

That framework is what civilisation really is. Yes, take an ancient Greek or an Egyptian or a Babylonian (or an Atlantian ) and they would be as smart as anyone you'd meet walking down the street. But culturally, contemporary civilisations are the pinnacle of human achievement.

Archaeology is all about interpretation, its no science. But the raw data will be available to anyone who wishes to interpret it as they please. As its been underwater for so long it should be nicely preserved, perhaps even some wood for denrochronology, then we can check Plato's dates properly.

The whole framework of civilization is what makes us more intelligent than ancient people. The average person alive today has a far greater breadth of knowledge on all subjects, than ancient people. What makes civilization is not just educating the young; it is the quality and quantity of food intake, minimizing disease, the ability to survive until old age (safety), job specialization, and freedom of action.

Post modern people were not special, they were not erudite; Most lived a short and harsh life, filled with fear and superstition. Their days were spent in toil from a young age until their bodies gave out or they were killed. A few small areas had plentiful food and those areas were constantly invaded by their neighbors. It is not arrogance, it is historical fact. Da Vinci was special, he did not represent the average person of his time... We live in the best time period ever in the history of man. It is not even that old of a period, and many parts of the world still exist in "post-modern" state.

In order, to first better educated you have to have all the building blocks that civilization provides. In order for your brain to function optimally you have to have good nutrition for instance. I'm not saying that humans today are genetically better than our forbearers. I was arguing that this quote
is not valid; we are smarter than all those civilizations. It isn't arrogance, it's simple truth.

Variable