Atlantis Found: For Real?

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by II HAL II

 

I watched the full documentary when it originally aired late last year and also when it was repeated the other week on BBC4. Along with a myriad other other documentaries.

And none of them can challenge the very simple notion that i mentioned originally, earlier on in this thread. Which is that Greek society knew of the Minoan society and had dealings with Minoan society. Therefore they would have been described as Minoan by Plato, not Atlantean. There is no way around this glaring fact, unfortunately.

In which case both you and Sparta missed the point, I will quote the OP -

Plato used stories of real places of wonder and combined them, embellished them and wrote about them. I believe that Plato based Atlantis on the examples of wonder around him and added some fiction to make this place even more amazing.

Plato wasn't a historian, he wanted his work to be seen, what better way?

This idea was taken from the documentry.

For me, the exciting thing is if it is actually a real place. It would make it Neolithic - and would therefore be the most truly amazing archeological discovery of all time. Mind you though, it may be a let down in the sense it would provide more questions than answers! As such, if it is ever found, it will be wall to wall MSM, not (interesting but still) pseudo archeology documentaries that disseminate the information.

I agree with you here man, it would re-write history, and the base of this is already being re-written nowdays anyway, but your right if it was found it would create way more questions than answers and can you imagine trying to excavate that place for any historical fact? Take alot of funding and in the end we will end up with as we know more questions haa

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by II HAL II

 

I watched the full documentary when it originally aired late last year and also when it was repeated the other week on BBC4. Along with a myriad other other documentaries.

And none of them can challenge the very simple notion that i mentioned originally, earlier on in this thread. Which is that Greek society knew of the Minoan society and had dealings with Minoan society. Therefore they would have been described as Minoan by Plato, not Atlantean. There is no way around this glaring fact, unfortunately.

Ah if this is the BBC one I have watched this on BBC knowledge when it came out. It is a very good argument but I am hoping for something more, until more evidence is found. Linking a couple pieces of information together doesn't do it for proof to me.

Originally posted by II HAL II
reply to post by Sparta

 

Of course it doesn't make it true.... I don't think anyone is saying this is 100% fact, but logic and evidence point to this theory over others, without the concrete, 100% answer, we will never know 100%... but you can lean to one idea over another, can you not?

There is a very good chance this is the place and for me that is enough, for others they prefer fantasy, what's your take on Atlantis then? if not here, do you have any ideas where?

No there is no evidence in the slightest letter of the word, there is logic which puts certain links together that put the two into one. But thank you, you pretty much just wrote my first post in an easier form to read. Although you can lean to one side, but to say it is true and to say the others to be wrong is exactly back to my first point, ignorance, and no I am not calling you ignorant matey haha.

And for me I'd be happy to say Atlantis was in South America.

Originally posted by II HAL II

In which case both you and Sparta missed the point, I will quote the OP -

Plato used stories of real places of wonder and combined them, embellished them and wrote about them. I believe that Plato based Atlantis on the examples of wonder around him and added some fiction to make this place even more amazing.

Plato wasn't a historian, he wanted his work to be seen, what better way?

This idea was taken from the documentry.

Well sorry mate I didn't miss that but you missed my point in my first post

Besides using your logic of Plato using stories of this to come up with the basis of Atlantis how do you know he didn't using another city that actually did sink in the sea as his base? We don't I mean did this city actually end up under water?

Originally posted by Sparta

No there is no evidence in the slightest letter of the word, there is logic which puts certain links together that put the two into one. But thank you, you pretty much just wrote my first post in an easier form to read. Although you can lean to one side, but to say it is true and to say the others to be wrong is exactly back to my first point, ignorance, and no I am not calling you ignorant matey haha.

And for me I'd be happy to say Atlantis was in South America.

I see evidence here which is strange when you don't but hey if you wish to discount what's being shown that's fine and up to you.

And who said this was TRUE and others are wrong, where is this so called ignorance? All I see is the OP and myself preferring this theory.

I am curious as to why you favour a less logical theory though.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by II HAL II
I see evidence here which is strange when you don't but hey if you wish to discount what's being shown that's fine and up to you.

And who said this was TRUE and others are wrong, where is this so called ignorance? All I see is the OP and myself preferring this theory.

I am curious as to why you favour a less logical theory though.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I never called anybody ignorant, nor say ignorance was present did I? I said (aswell quoted by you)

to discount anybody elses theory because this one has logic is just as ignorant as them saying this theory cannot be true either.

You sir was the one who came out and said it didn't make sense, and you would discount any other because this has logic and so called evidence (which by the way if it was evidence this would not be another theory)

It is ignorant to discredit/discount somebody elses theory because the one you 'believe' in has some more logical points than another. If you cannot see my meaning behind that please re-educate yourself on the definition of ignorance.

Also I favour a so called less logical position because I refuse to believe anything that has to be proven by 'logically' linking different facts together and making them fit, such as a reason I would never believe the AA theory, not because of the logic they use but the way the present their facts.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I couldn't agree more man! This I think is a never ending argument!

Originally posted by Sparta

Well sorry mate I didn't miss that but you missed my point in my first post

Besides using your logic of Plato using stories of this to come up with the basis of Atlantis how do you know he didn't using another city that actually did sink in the sea as his base? We don't I mean did this city actually end up under water?

This isn't the OP's logic.... it's a Plato experts, are you sure you watched this documentary?

Originally posted by II HAL II

Originally posted by Sparta

Well sorry mate I didn't miss that but you missed my point in my first post

Besides using your logic of Plato using stories of this to come up with the basis of Atlantis how do you know he didn't using another city that actually did sink in the sea as his base? We don't I mean did this city actually end up under water?

This isn't the OP's logic.... it's a Plato experts, are you sure you watched this documentary?

Dude I'm not even going there with that, I know it was from the documentary but I'm not addressing the expert from the bloody documentary am I, just as when we talk about the theory I'm talking to the person who believes it not the damn writer, if I wanted to do that I would have emailed it to them.

I actually cannot believe you quoted that, because that right there is exactly what I mean by linking things together and using logic to prove a theory, it's all just crap at the end of the day whether Atlantis was really crete or the bottom of the ocean

reply to post by Sparta


People forget that there little cultural continuity between mycenean Greek culture and Dorian ( the culture of classic Greece). The myceneans did defeat the newly weakend minoans , which occurs within a few decades of the eruption. It was only after minoan control of trade collapsed was this possible.
Mycenean culture only lasted 500 years and there was a steady decline in the level of Greek civilization throughout that period. It would take another several hundred years and the Dorians to bring Greek civilization back.
Like I said when the myceneans got to thera shortly after the eruption they had no idea there was a major city there before.

Originally posted by Sparta

Originally posted by II HAL II

Originally posted by Sparta

Well sorry mate I didn't miss that but you missed my point in my first post

Besides using your logic of Plato using stories of this to come up with the basis of Atlantis how do you know he didn't using another city that actually did sink in the sea as his base? We don't I mean did this city actually end up under water?

This isn't the OP's logic.... it's a Plato experts, are you sure you watched this documentary?

Dude I'm not even going there with that, I know it was from the documentary but I'm not addressing the expert from the bloody documentary am I, just as when we talk about the theory I'm talking to the person who believes it not the damn writer, if I wanted to do that I would have emailed it to them.

I actually cannot believe you quoted that, because that right there is exactly what I mean by linking things together and using logic to prove a theory, it's all just crap at the end of the day whether Atlantis was really crete or the bottom of the ocean

So you claim this is the OP's logic on page one and now say you know it's not, your confusing -

Originally posted by Sparta

Besides using your logic of Plato using stories of this to come up with the basis of Atlantis

I cannot believe you don't understand this.

Dude this is over I cannot be bothered with this man, you completely missed the entire point of the sentence and going for a personal argument looking for inconsistencies in the language, rather than even attempting to understand what I wrote, I called it his logic because he also subscribes to the idea the logic is correct and not false, I was challenging the overall thinking of the idea why would Plato do what was quoted with Minoan Culture and not somewhere else, get a grip and keep with it. Who said it does not matter, all that matters is that it was stated and is part of the theory you subscribe too.


I am not arguing with the original writer of the statement but merely somebody who believes in it to challenge what he believed to see if he had any sort of reply, instead I got some muppet who decided to go into a different argument about something that is meaningless, how could I argue the logic with the expert if he is not present in the forum?

Originally posted by punkinworks10
reply to post by Sparta

 

People forget that there little cultural continuity between mycenean Greek culture and Dorian ( the culture of classic Greece). The myceneans did defeat the newly weakend minoans , which occurs within a few decades of the eruption. It was only after minoan control of trade collapsed was this possible.
Mycenean culture only lasted 500 years and there was a steady decline in the level of Greek civilization throughout that period. It would take another several hundred years and the Dorians to bring Greek civilization back.
Like I said when the myceneans got to thera shortly after the eruption they had no idea there was a major duty there before.

Yes from what I remember they were a pretty epic Naval community relying on merchants coming to and from to survive.
Although I did not know the Mycenaeans didn't know they where pretty well established on their little island.

Thanks man

This is brilliant! I watched this documentary when it was on the bbc last year I think it was. It does provide loads of factual evidence and logically it provides us with a fairly factual way of stating whether or not Atlantis did exist.

It basically is laying out all of the facts in front of you and asking you as a viewer to look at it and to work it out for yourself. Its everyones own agenda to want to believe in something or not.

Personally if factual evidence is brought to my attention then all I can do is make an educated guess at whether or not this proves or disproves any theories. That is until any kind of concrete evidence saying 'here it is' is put forward.

This could however be an ancient Minoan site. This could be viable as the Greeks did know of the Minoans and did eventually conquer them. This means that what Plato wrote in his writings could be fictional, in the way that 'Atlantis' could just be the story of the conquering of a Minoan site. This is just my theory correct me if i'm wrong guys.

I thought they said that atlantis was near tenerife in Europe? They even did some photo shoots down there If I remember correctly. I must go and see if I still have the links. Thank you for the intel.

reply to post by tearuone


Would love to see them links if you still got them mate!