Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why I Believe Scientist Are Looking In The Wrong Places For Atlantis

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
The Sargasso, although interesting, poises no difficulty to ships with sails. I've not seen any reference to that in sources from the 15th century on.


Nothing about being caught in the "Dolrums," which would be a combination of dragging along in the Sargasso Sea with no decent wind to help you out of it?


Until recently no sign of any early culture on the Azores. There were reports a year or so ago but I have seen the publication and if they were Phoencian or otherwise.


I wouldn't expect there to be much evidence left on the mountaintops, particularly after 12,000 years. All the potentially interesting sites are way underwater and have been for a long, long time.




posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Hanslune
The Sargasso, although interesting, poises no difficulty to ships with sails. I've not seen any reference to that in sources from the 15th century on.


Nothing about being caught in the "Dolrums," which would be a combination of dragging along in the Sargasso Sea with no decent wind to help you out of it?


Until recently no sign of any early culture on the Azores. There were reports a year or so ago but I have seen the publication and if they were Phoencian or otherwise.


I wouldn't expect there to be much evidence left on the mountaintops, particularly after 12,000 years. All the potentially interesting sites are way underwater and have been for a long, long time.


The doldrums are much father to the south along the equator the sargasso is farther north.

There is nothing on the mountains or the shore lines of the Azores, no pottery, no stone tools, nothing to demonstrate a human present, no domesticate plants either, no oddities in the sediments, no charcoal. No sign of people at all - no sign of domesticated animals either.

Things come up out of the water onto beaches the way a gold coin from a wreck comes up on a beach - not even a sherd for the Azores or anywhere else for the Atlanteans



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I read an article a few month ago, probably Reader's Digest, that hypothesized that Atlantis was actually underground now(not under water), in Spain. It made some compelling archeological arguments that made sense.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I read an article a few month ago, probably Reader's Digest, that hypothesized that Atlantis was actually underground now(not under water), in Spain. It made some compelling archeological arguments that made sense.


Yes Taratulus (spelling) is a likely partial basis of the story. It at least is on the other side of the Pillar of Hercules



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I have a theory that Atlantis was a large island in the south Atlantic. When it went down it's Penguin population was spread to South America,Antarctica and the coast of Africa.Why else would the penguins be dispersed on these three continents ?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by intrepid
I read an article a few month ago, probably Reader's Digest, that hypothesized that Atlantis was actually underground now(not under water), in Spain. It made some compelling archeological arguments that made sense.

Yes Taratulus (spelling) is a likely partial basis of the story. It at least is on the other side of the Pillar of Hercules


If it's at all associated with Atlantis, I would expect this to be an outpost port, if anything. Maybe an old port that could be the contact point for trade between Europe and the mid-Atlantic island. Dating it will illustrate the problem. Without massive stone architecture, it's very difficult to establish valid archeological sites 12,000 years old. And even then.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Yes, I am with Hanslune on this. I believe the part from T & C gives a description of the area post-Atlantis as being a (paraphrasing) 'shoal of mud due to the subsidence of the island'. The Sargasso Sea is primarily seaweed not mud. Also, I believe that the Azores are some of the 'other islands' which Plato said can be used to hop across the Atlantic Ocean to the opposite continent. Besides, the Azores Plateau isn't exactly "just beyond the Pillars of Heracles" by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, you must realize that most anyone who planned to travel the Atlantic by sailing ship would not have made a straight shot; they'd have tried to use currents as much as possible as long as it carried them in the general direction they wanted to go. Even back in Plato's time(and earlier), these currents would more than likely have been the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current which not only go around the area of the Sargasso Sea but are actually instrumentally in its formation and continued existence.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mad Simian

Hi Mad Simian

You wrote: QUOTE - "The exact line, according to most translations I've read, is that Atlantis was an "island the size of a continent". 1)It was literally a humongous island similiar in size to Greenland or Australia

2) It was a [ ...] big island [...] that had the equivalent political, military, and economic might of an entire continent at its disposal.

Going by the subsequent descriptions of Atlantis' societal structure ..., it seems Plato more than likely meant Interpretation 2.

Also, he later states that beyond Atlantis lies "the way to other Islands, and from these one could pass to the whole of the Opposing Continent....if Atlantis and this landmass beyond it were BOTH continents, why would he have bothered calling Atlantis an 'Island' in the first place then contrasting it with the 'true' continent beyond it?

[...] this is actually a pretty accurate geographical description of what lies within the Atlantic Ocean between the Strait of Gibraltar & N America (including the existence of the North American Continent itself).

UNQUOTE

So we have some interesting facts ref 'Atlantis' stated here by Plato who seems to be speaking of a continent size Island ('larger than the whole of Libya and Asia-minor put together') which lay beyond some islands already known (e.g. the Azores) but before 'the whole of the opposing Continent beyond...' which sounds alot like what we call North America to-day.

Since the ancient Phoencians, the ancient Greeks and the ancient Egyptians (as well as possibly the Hittites etc.) all were familiar with the 'Pillars of Hercules' in antiquity and where they lay (we still see the remains of ancient Phoenecian Tin mines off the coast of Cornwall in the UK) it seems that Plato IS referring to a large Island or group of large islands that lay beyond the Azores -

It is possible that many Caribbean islands e.g. Bermuda, Jamaica, and Hispaniola & Cuba etc. are the smaller remains of what were the tops of much larger mountainous islands c. 10,500 years ago (when the ocean levels were approx. 1000 feet lower than where they are to-day) - and this would account for many of the local modern words and place-names in central America (e.g. in ancient Mayan Central America, Guatemala & Mexico etc,) using derivations of the root for ATLANTIS

e.g. MazATLAN, or TuTLAN or TinochtITLAN etc. where the ATL or ATLAN root is encoded into ancient Amerindian place names, gods & words.

It seems that the proto-Olmecs and cvery earliest Mayan root-cultures may have had their cultural beginnings after 10,500 BCE when the 'parent root race' of these later peoples endured rising sea levels and other devastating natural catastrophes in antiquity (possibly several over several thousand years with all the major earth changes taking place c. 10,500 BCE to at least 3,500 BCE).

The massive Mayan (and later Aztec) stone temples with their highly accurate 365 day solar stone steps in the form of a giant solar calendar though physically built after 200 CE may well have been the result of later re-building of earlier pyramid like structures that may well have been originally 'Atlantean' in design - and may lay underneath the existing structures.

That plus the fact that only about 40% of these ancient central American stone monuments have actually been escavated to - date.

Edgar Cayce's infamous Bimini Stone Steps in the Caribbean seem to point to very ancient man made structures (c. 10,500 BCE) which are clearly NOT natural ones...

crypticconspiracies.fullcircleblogs.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
There is nothing on the mountains or the shore lines of the Azores, no pottery, no stone tools, nothing to demonstrate a human present, no domesticate plants either, no oddities in the sediments, no charcoal. No sign of people at all - no sign of domesticated animals either.

Things come up out of the water onto beaches the way a gold coin from a wreck comes up on a beach - not even a sherd for the Azores or anywhere else for the Atlanteans


Island Reconstructions Based on Submarine Feature Data

Depending on how far the plateau dropped, the current shorelines could have been 10,000 feet higher than they are now. There wouldn't be many artifacts there to begin with. Combine that with being scrubbed by huge earthquakes, tsunamis, and 12,000 years of storms, and you're right. Chances of finding any kind of identifiable Atlantean artifacts on the Azores islands now are impossibly slim.

Unfortunately, except for the plateau dropping, you'll have the same problems with finding evidence at potential foreign ports, such as those in South America or Africa. The catastrophe might have been huge, and it was a very long time ago. Quite a challenge.

edit on 16-11-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


And, if they needed a port for their expansion in Europe, they'd need a sister city on the african side of the Strait. For that, I'd like to suggest Lixus or, more exactly, the location that Lixus was eventually built upon.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
It is possible that many Caribbean islands e.g. Bermuda, Jamaica, and Hispaniola & Cuba etc. are the smaller remains of what were the tops of much larger mountainous islands c. 10,500 years ago (when the ocean levels were approx. 1000 feet lower than where they are to-day)


That's a LONG way acrossed a nasty bitch. I'm from Nova Scotia. I know the Atlantic. It would be the equivalent of winning the lottery today to any GIVEN expedition, OF THAT TIME, crossing the Atlantic. She's just not that nice.
edit on 16-11-2011 by intrepid because: Syntax.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Thank you all for at least not saying it was somewhere on another planet or that the aliens made it and caused its destruction. For once, a thread that does not implicate aliens. Stars for everyone.

(Now watch, someone will come in and post about aliens).



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I read an article a few month ago, probably Reader's Digest, that hypothesized that Atlantis was actually underground now(not under water), in Spain. It made some compelling archeological arguments that made sense.


That has been on History International, it was just on tonight as a matter of fact.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid


Hi Intrepid -

One wonders what crossing the Atlantic c. 10,500 years ago would have been like - what trade winds existed, etc. especially when the level of the ocean was c. 1,000 - 1,500 feet lower than it is to-day -

I assume that if we were to lower the Atlantic ocean water by 1500 feet, many islands would appear, and that ancient mariners could well have island hopped across ....

Food for thought, anyway !!



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


I wasn't dissing you dude, thanks for the thought.
Would the Atlantic have been different back then?

That makes it more feasible imo.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by intrepid


Hi Intrepid -

One wonders what crossing the Atlantic c. 10,500 years ago would have been like - what trade winds existed, etc. especially when the level of the ocean was c. 1,000 - 1,500 feet lower than it is to-day -

I assume that if we were to lower the Atlantic ocean water by 1500 feet, many islands would appear, and that ancient mariners could well have island hopped across ....

Food for thought, anyway !!




Yes, that makes perfect sense. There could be many places that Atlantis could indeed be.

But the legend says it was such an advanced culture compared to the Egyptians and the Greeks, I wonder what qualifies as advanced in those days.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad Simian
And, if they needed a port for their expansion in Europe, they'd need a sister city on the african side of the Strait. For that, I'd like to suggest Lixus or, more exactly, the location that Lixus was eventually built upon.


It's hard to look at the satellite imagery and imagine what it might have been like 12,000 years ago. The African port could be a very ancient site, long gone on the now submerged coastal plain west of the town of Agadir, Morocco. Looks like the rivers leading there and emptying into the Atlantic could have been much more active before the climate change. Could have traded halfway into the Sahara. And you could also take advantage of the Canary Islands as stopping points. They would also have been a bit larger with a 400 ft. lower sea level.

I don't know where a North American trade port might have been be located. Virginia or North Carolina, perhaps? Would have been hit by massive tsunamis, either way. And these aren't going to be huge stone harbors, at any rate. Most likely simple wooden piers, storehouses and residences. What would their ships be like? Bigger versions of Phoenician ships? Don't know.




posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Ah well no it isn't



it's very difficult to establish valid archeological sites 12,000 years old.


Why would you think that?

Oddly if the 'Atlanteans' had a port there and did trade why are no items from Atlantis found? No pottery, no items that cannot be associated with known sites - so what did they trade?

Here is a link to a real trade port: Arikamedu the Roman trade port in Eastern India

Roman trade port in Eastern India

If you follow the various links you'll see the extensive array of artifacts found there, there is no doubt it was a Roman trading port.

Now there is mention of trade - but traded what? We have definite proof of the tin trade between Cornwall and the Med, we have proof of caravans crossing the Sahara to the Med, we have evidence of merchandise coming from east asia to the med, we have trade with India to the med, so why absolutely nothing 'Atlantean"?

The cry will go up - it was long ago, but we have no difficulty finding stuff from the Neanderthals who existed tens of thousands of years earlier.

Its very hard to destroy sherds!
edit on 16/11/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Actually, the ruins existant at Lixus are not really that far from the modern shore. However, if these ruins were built upon older ones leftover from an Atlantean city or staging ground/port, they likely would have been from the core buildings of the settlement. This is because a larger island(like Atlantis) subsiding would cause tsunamis that would have devastated the city. If there was anything left after that, it would have been at the highest point structures had been built upon...which is exactly where the ruins at Lixus are located.


edit on 11/16/2011 by Mad Simian because: spelling



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad Simian
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Actually, the ruins existant at Lixus are not really that far from the modern shore. However, if these ruins were built upon older ones leftover from an Atlantean city or staging ground/port, they likely would have been from the core buildings of the settlement. This is because a larger island(like Atlantis) subsiding would cause tsunamis that would have devastated the city. If there was anything left after that, it would have been at the highest point structures had been built upon...which is exactly where the ruins at Lixus are located.


edit on 11/16/2011 by Mad Simian because: spelling


Howdy

I've been to Lixus; its a fortified site about 75-60 meters above the river. It was excavated down to base rock as far as I know and all they found were Phoencian ruins and nothing more. Like most sites it wasn't completely uncovered but I don't recall any mysterious artifacts they couldn't explain. The site reports are in French I believe
edit on 16/11/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join