Pyramid from ATLANTIS ancient civilization may been discovered at Açores - Portugal

reply to post by 3n19m470


Haha, and palls we shall be!

reply to post by Panic2k11


I'm not here to defend anything. sorry.

bottleslingguy
and of course you know all about how the Atlantean civilization worked and lived in order to make that statement.

Howdy Bottleslingguy may I infer from your question that you've never read Plato's CRITIAS & TIMAEUS?


Just read T & C and it explains what the Atlantean culture was like and how it would show up in the archaeological record (of the Mediterranean, I'll give a few examples.

From Critias

The entire area was densely crowded with habitations; and the canal and the largest of the harbours were full of vessels and merchants coming from all parts, who, from their numbers, kept up a multitudinous sound of human voices, and din and clatter of all sorts night and day.

Merchants - trade - trade with who?

The leader was required to furnish for the war the sixth portion of a war-chariot, so as to make up a total of ten thousand chariots; also two horses and riders for them, and a pair of chariot-horses without a seat, accompanied by a horseman who could fight on foot carrying a small shield, and having a charioteer who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses; also, he was bound to furnish two heavy armed soldiers, two slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelin-men, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships.

So they have merchants and a military technology equivalent to what existed in Asia minor and Greece at that time - both of which leave traces archaeology - in Asia Minor and Greece - no sign of Atlantis materials in any archaeological site ever dug.

Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe. Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis

They fought a war with Athens and other nations which means bases, burials, food storage, ships, etc.

Not a trace...

For because of the greatness of their empire many things were brought to them from foreign countries, and the island itself provided most of what was required by them for the uses of life. In the first place, they dug out of the earth whatever was to be found there

Resource use - mines leave traces

they filled a bowl of wine

Use of pottery and pottery lasts hundreds of thousands of year the oldest stuff goes back 18,000 years - it lasts

Another contra indicator is that Athens didn't exist at that time whereas in the story it does, makes one think eh?

Etc.

I've just taken the time to read this entire thread and all its posts from beginning to end. I think both sides have put up some very good arguments but as each side must attest there is no sure way of proving/debunking the story until someone physically goes out there and takes a look at what it is.

It's all well and good to say the equipment gave a false or misleading read but on the other side of the coin...what if it didn't?

I am fairly sceptical that this is indeed a pyramid sitting forlornly under the sea seemingly isolated from any sub ocean topography that might lend itself to a reason for the structures existence but...

We are being asked to deny ignorance, does that mean we deny possibility as well? Potentiality? Ignorance exists on both sides of this case.

Yes, we want the facts...reality is that the facts are not at hand, merely speculation. Yes I agree that it can be fun to speculate but in this instance the conversation is just going around and around because no one really has any answers and people are falling back into their classic pointing fingers and calling names. That's not conducive to finding answers but really the realm of small mindedness which I would think is not about denying ignorance but in fact promulgating ignorant people.

At this point in time, based on the information we do have I prefer to speculate on the nature of the find. Maybe it is merely a worn down hilltop under the ocean, some remnant of a distant volcanic or seismic event...but what if it isn't? Wouldn't that be interesting? The jury is surely out on this one.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Food for thought is good for the soul.

Always grab the Crystal Skull from the sunken pyramid before disclosing to public!!

reply to post by Hanslune


Just a picked a ransom reply.

Plato was an incredible man. He knew the world collapsed 9000 years before his time. He knew there were 'gods' on earth before that time (those who read his works don't even have to read between the lines).
He was a defender of women s rights (you have to see this in a context where talking about women as almost equal to men could be sentenced as a crime with as a consequence a cruel death). He said the island was in the neighborhood of todays discovery (I don't believe the discovery is part of Atlantis). I think Atlantis is lying on the sea floor, some 4000 meters deep. And I m sure the real rulers of this world will not let us know the truth about it.

Plato said that his story was based on the truth. He would probably never have said that if it was otherwise (He was a story teller but nu a liar). He had to walk on thin ice because just like his mentor he faced death by every word he spoke against the rulers of that time.

Off course he made a story with Athens as protagonists some 12.000 years ago (Athens did 'nt exist at that time). What would a clever man do if he had to mix truth with fantasy? He would flatter the rulers.

For years Plato's story about Atlantis could never be true. How could an Island disappear in one day? How could he know it was 9000 years before his time. How could he know the nature of the disasters?
All those who believed Plato where fantasts.
In the mean time everything Plato said about the things above are proven to be a real possibility.

Remenber he said the Island was gone in one day and it was a muddy place just under the waterline. And now thnk about the Island that popped up recently after an earthquake. It is named a muddy island. Oké not exactly the same Plato said, but it goes in the same direction.

www.evawaseerst.be... (it's in Dutch but some chapters are in Englisch - not the chapters about Atlantis)

reply to post by Hanslune


If, hypothetically, Atlantis did exist 11,000 years ago, and its ruins lay at the bottom of the ocean, exactly what kind of artifacts would you expect to find? That's a *long* time - even the few items which could survive so long, i.e. pottery, would almost surely be buried under ocean sediment.

Because of this context, it seems almost disingenuous to say "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

A very logical reason why experts in various fields will not endorse the claims of artificial underwater structures - Ridicule. Professional integrity, which they perceive (rightly so) as being threatened by the association with "ancient aliens", etc. Similar to why experts in demolition and construction have been so quiet about 9/11. Because there is an atmosphere in various disciplines which pushes certain theories to the front, and other theories to the back, based not on science but social dominance. They need not be fully aware of this for the effect to hold true.

I personally believe that pyramids or megalithic stonework are possible links to this older civilization - many disparate cultures use pyramids, and megalithic monuments have literally been found all over the world, neither of which are practical (pyramids are often lauded as simple , quick and easy to build, but - other structures are vastly easier to build, like box-shaped homes, and the quality of craftmanship is so high that these cultures clearly had pyramids in mind from the start). As for megalithic stoneworks, I got nothing! Except for their global distribution, great antiquity, and consistent association with astronomical phenomena. So, I believe that these elements are the best evidence we have so far, aside from underwater ruins.

I've never heard a good explanation for what I put in that last paragraph... The argument "well, they built the pyramids because it's an obvious construction choice" seems patronizing, a sort of non-answer.

zandra
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Just a picked a ransom reply.

Plato was an incredible man. He knew the world collapsed 9000 years before his time. He knew there were 'gods' on earth before that time (those who read his works don't even have to read between the lines).
He was a defender of women s rights (you have to see this in a context where talking about women as almost equal to men could be sentenced as a crime with as a consequence a cruel death). He said the island was in the neighborhood of todays discovery (I don't believe the discovery is part of Atlantis). I think Atlantis is lying on the sea floor, some 4000 meters deep. And I m sure the real rulers of this world will not let us know the truth about it.

Howdy

Yep Plato was an interesting guy

Why would the government of say, Luxembourg care about Atlantis. Please explain why any government would have the slightest concern about this?

Plato said that his story was based on the truth. He would probably never have said that if it was otherwise (He was a story teller but nu a liar). He had to walk on thin ice because just like his mentor he faced death by every word he spoke against the rulers of that time.

Edgar Rice Burroughs said his Martian series was based on the personal story of one John Carter - were they?

Off course he made a story with Athens as protagonists some 12.000 years ago (Athens did 'nt exist at that time). What would a clever man do if he had to mix truth with fantasy? He would flatter the rulers.

yes but now you are selectly noting that parts of his story are false and some are true, how about it being just that, a story?

For years Plato's story about Atlantis could never be true. How could an Island disappear in one day? How could he know it was 9000 years before his time. How could he know the nature of the disasters?
All those who believed Plato where fantasts. In the mean time everything Plato said about the things above are proven to be a real possibility.

Possible yes plausible and probable no.

And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

Son of Will


If, hypothetically, Atlantis did exist 11,000 years ago, and its ruins lay at the bottom of the ocean, exactly what kind of artifacts would you expect to find? That's a *long* time - even the few items which could survive so long, i.e. pottery, would almost surely be buried under ocean sediment.

Howdy Son of Will

As I have carefully noted above I am referring to those portions of the world said by Plato to have been conquered and held by the Atlanteans.

From Timaeus Timaeus

Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. .

If we take Plato's story as truth the Atlanteans were on and had conquered the western Mediterranean.

Because of this context, it seems almost disingenuous to say "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

As noted you are applying my argument to the 'island' and not Europe which still exists

A very logical reason why experts in various fields will not endorse the claims of artificial underwater structures - Ridicule. Professional integrity, which they perceive (rightly so) as being threatened by the association with "ancient aliens", etc. .....snip...... Because there is an atmosphere in various disciplines which pushes certain theories to the front, and other theories to the back, based not on science but social dominance. They need not be fully aware of this for the effect to hold true.

Yeah most scientist are completely dim on the rules of evidence, ask Professor Kimura and Schloch how they were thrown out of their positions and denied tenure for expressing alternative views, oh wait that didn't happen..... People don't support Atlantis scientifically because......wait for it....there isn't any creditable evidence, if there was they would be all over it in a flash as they were in the 19th century when people searched for evidence of it and found - nothing.

I personally believe that pyramids or megalithic stonework are possible links to this older civilization - many disparate cultures use pyramids, and megalithic monuments have literally been found all over the world, neither of which are practical (pyramids are often lauded as simple , quick and easy to build, but - other structures are vastly easier to build, like box-shaped homes, and the quality of craftmanship is so high that these cultures clearly had pyramids in mind from the start). As for megalithic stoneworks, I got nothing! Except for their global distribution, great antiquity, and consistent association with astronomical phenomena. So, I believe that these elements are the best evidence we have so far, aside from underwater ruins.

The only problem is that these pyramids and megalithic work can be associated in most cases with cultures who can be indentified archaeologically in the area and at the time of their probable construction - no items of 'Atlantean' (ie unknown but having similar cultural traits to other items found around the world)

I've never heard a good explanation for what I put in that last paragraph... The argument "well, they built the pyramids because it's an obvious construction choice" seems patronizing, a sort of non-answer

You mean an explanation that you will accept? It is an obvious construction choice and one can in the case of the AE see the progression from mastaba, to step pyramid to true pyramid.

The issue is the waters off Azores and the region are quite famous for the clarity and we can see upto 30 feet deep from top.
So how come this "Pyramid" wasn't "Noticed" at all?
Forget fishermen, why hasn't marine surveys missed on such a "wonderful" find?

simple reasoning - there isn't any "pyramid" but maybe a natural formation which by luck has some straight angles. And why the fuss? the fisherman wants to make a buck!



Now the question is ....where did the OP get the idea that there was something Atlantis- ish in the Pyramid????

reply to post by coredrill


The NAA (new age Atlantis) theory associates pyramids with Atlantis. Why you may ask? No idea!

Except maybe that in new age mythology pyramids have 'magical' powers.

Got one of those gopro 3 cameras this weekend and was going over the specs and it reminded me of this thread.

WTH does the navy need to be involved those things are good for a hundred meters. All they need is a light source long line and a gopro to see what's down there.

reply to post by Hanslune


In that Hanslune I must disagree, the Pyramid connection come's from the idea that there being pyramid's in south America and Egypt that there may have been a intermediary civilisation existing in between them.
Now as you immediately can see there are a number of flaw's with that argument anyway, the south american pyramids (Teotihuacan) are more like those in china and the mayan so called pyramid's are actually not pyramids at all but step temple's like those in cambodia.
I actually believe plato's fable to have been a moral tale not a factual accounting but what if he based it on an actual story told him by Solon.
I do believe there are many sunken places (some very deep indeed) that through geological - subcrustal or otherwise, Sea water level variance or simple time were human's not that different to ourselve's may once had dwelt and though some see this as an immediate link to technology as you yourself would point out there is little or no evidence even anecdotal to support this but we can live in hope that just maybe somewere there might one day be found something to change the perception of history though would it ever see the light of day.

Information is power and power based on this can fall if it's information is shown to be erronous so will sometimes seek to eradicate such information and maintain the charade in it's own self interest.

There are truncated pyramid like step structure platforms on the canary island's and there have been rumours of ancient carved mountain side's in west africa showing an asiatic (according to the source I read though it looked african enough to me) woman in a dress that would put mount rushmore to shame but eroded over time as to be only visible in profile and if outlined from in front looking into the west, IF there ever was an atlantic atlantis whom is to say the atlanteans were all white and how old was the Carthaginian civilisation if it was based on the sea not the land but had settled Tunisia like all the other pheonician settlement's.

Could they also have settled or even originated in the bronze age on island's now lost.

reply to post by Hanslune

The only problem is that these pyramids and megalithic work can be associated in most cases with cultures who can be indentified archaeologically in the area and at the time of their probable construction - no items of 'Atlantean' (ie unknown but having similar cultural traits to other items found around the world)

That's exactly what I mean by a "non-answer" - it's pefectly reasonable that newer cultures either stumbled upon the ruins of, or were ancestors of, older cultures which built those amazing structures which LABTECH referred to above. And the "time of probable construction" is, in most cases, completely theoretical based on just such circular reasoning.

And you ignored my arguments about how building pyramids or pyramid-shaped structures is not an immediately obvious building technique. It's deceptively difficult to build them in a geometrically-precise fashion. There are far-easier styles of building. I'm not a stupid guy, if I see an argument that makes sense, I'll listen to it. I just haven't heard a decent argument for *why* these cultures would resort to massive pyramids, whether tombs or temples or otherwise. It speaks of a fascination with geometry which most of these "associated cultures" had no knowledge of.

So what's going on here? If every incident of a pyramid can be traced to localized cultures who had no contact with each other, then why are they all building pyramids? Maybe you've got the chicken and the egg mixed up here. While there's not much direct evidence for that ancient "Mother culture", the hypothetical existence of one provides a far, far better explanation of the evidence that we DO have. In my opinion.

I've never heard a good explanation for what I put in that last paragraph... The argument "well, they built the pyramids because it's an obvious construction choice" seems patronizing, a sort of non-answer



You mean an explanation that you will accept? It is an obvious construction choice and one can in the case of the AE see the progression from mastaba, to step pyramid to true pyramid.

I'm just after the truth, or at the very least, an explanation which doesn't strain credulity to the breaking point.

LABTECH767
reply to post by Hanslune

 

In that Hanslune I must disagree, the Pyramid connection come's from the idea that there being pyramid's in south America and Egypt that there may have been a intermediary civilisation existing in between them.

Yes, I was being satirical.

but we can live in hope that just maybe somewere there might one day be found something to change the perception of history though would it ever see the light of day.

Yes that would be cool. However, that happens all the time with Hobbits, Denisovians, GT and other sites and finds being made. I disagree with you on your perception that it would 'never see the light of day' - it would be on twitter within 43 seconds after discovery....

Information is power and power based on this can fall if it's information is shown to be erronous so will sometimes seek to eradicate such information and maintain the charade in it's own self interest.

That's the fringe meme yes but it is meaningless when compared to reality. Ancient archaeology has limited power, as shown by the limited effects of the some of the discoveries I've mentioned above. In whose 'self-interest' is it to 'hide' say Atlantis? How would they do it? Why didn't they 'hide' the other civilization that were found?

Could you give us an idea of what you think would happen to the world if say an Atlantean naval base was found on the coast of say, Spain.

There are truncated pyramid like step structure platforms on the canary island's and there have been rumours of ancient carved mountain side's in west africa showing an asiatic (according to the source I read though it looked african enough to me) woman in a dress that would put mount rushmore to shame but eroded over time as to be only visible in profile and if outlined from in front looking into the west, IF there ever was an atlantic atlantis whom is to say the atlanteans were all white and how old was the Carthaginian civilisation if it was based on the sea not the land but had settled Tunisia like all the other pheonician settlement's. Could they also have settled or even originated in the bronze age on island's now lost.

Well no ancient pyramids in the Canaries (Yes I'm well aware of Guimar), but I'm not sure of what you are referring to about the woman in the mountain - link please.

I don't quite understand your Carthaginian comment, Carthage was not a particularly old settlement of the Phoenicians, could you explain what you meant please?

reply to post by Hanslune


I will try to find the woman in the mountain as you here call it, the formation natural or otherwise was not named as far as I know though if artificial was hundred's of feet high, I'll try to find it but considering Mount rushmore was made by one man and completed by his son the comparison is not fair and that is a genuine modern wonder of the world in my humble opinion, still here is a fringe web page to chew over and some of it is interesting and not unrelated though I suspect you may already have seen this one.

www.templeilluminatus.com...

Ah the woman in the mountain, here you go.
This is not the image I was talking about but is the same formation, to my mind it look's enigmatic but what if it is really a carving made by an ancient culture?.
projectavalon.net...
The actual image on this page is under the heading Guinea, West Africa
The likely reaction will be but it is just a rock, yes but could it have been carved.
What if the blue stone's found there and claimed to be artificial up to 50 feet down along with carved and ceramic figure's indicate a thriving and much more advanced culture in the region that may not have been in global isolation.
Assuming 50 feet down and not knowing the rate of soil deposit for those find's once can only assume a great deal of time.

Ah here it is under the Title lady of Mali.
en.wikipedia.org...
supermegalitos.com...
www.facebook.com...

For comparison here is a page on the crazy horse memorial that is being carved in the state's, now if it is ever completed how do you think it will look in 10 to 12 thousand years.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by coredrill


Coral that tends to grow all over anything close enough to the surface and with enough nutriant's in the water for photosynthesis to occur and the coral to feed, a pyramid or artificial mound/tumulous or other structure that reached to a level where it was visible would most certainly be enshrouded by them so no you would likely not see a pyramid but you might see a coral formation?.

there are also much deeper cold water coral in the region, www.lophelia.org...

Fossil and Recent shallow coral formations in the area.
www.repository.naturalis.nl...

Can not find any evidence on the net of current living shallow coral formations in the area so your point may have even more merrit if there is no indiginous living corral at that depth in the area.

Son of Will
reply to post by Hanslune

 

If, hypothetically, Atlantis did exist 11,000 years ago, and its ruins lay at the bottom of the ocean, exactly what kind of artifacts would you expect to find?

Evidence fairly similar to that for the pre-pottery Neolithic-A cultures: en.wikipedia.org... (only better)

Let's think about the points of Plato's Atlantis:
* large land that was known throughout the world (so they traded with other countries and other sites)
* domesticated horses (an important point that I'll cover in a bit)
* had the same religion as Greece (the EXACT same religion... another important point)
* did not sink to the bottom of the ocean but became impassible mud flats.

A large-scale culture like that imports artifacts and exports them -- so we see Greek pottery traded around the Mediterranean, and grain and cloth and stones, and technology moving from one land and culture to another. So if there was an Atlantis, there would be a special kind of pot or alphabet or metal (Plato describes metalworking in cultures before the Bronze Age) that showed up in most areas around the Mediterranean.

There aren't artifacts from an unknown widespread civilization around.

Horses... were domesticated fairly late in human history. Horses were bought, sold, stolen, traded everywhere once they became domesticated. Domesticated animals look different than wild animals (there's skeletal changes) -- horse skeletons show no evidence of domestication before 4,000 years BC (5,000 years after the purported Atlantis and its horse races.)

Finally... the idea that Plato would have disguised things -- he didn't. That's one of the reasons he was poisoned.

reply to post by Hanslune


FWIW, Hans, there are things that are similar and seem to uncannily link far flung civilizations. In some cases, they are the spirals an other abstract shapes carved in caves. In other cases, they may simply by pyramids.

There are explanations that preclude ancient connections. But like all of science, it is all open to change.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


There are lots of maybes but you have to look at context and the whole picture.

Yep, scientific theories get changed on a daily basis.