Ancient 2500 yr Old Map Shows The Lost City of Atlantis is The Eye of The Sahara

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Completely agree with this logic. Its a horrible shame the one place that brought all those histories into one place where scholars could have access to all those histories, was taken from mankind. The Library of Alexandria.

A more in-depth reading list would reveal that this notion is not very accurate.

The Library had originals of books that were copied many times over and distributed to thousands of libraries, both personal and temple and other. Books get lost or discarded as they are no longer useful... which may mean no one in the family wants them (we have a personal library of around 10,000 books (result of collecting books for about 40 years) and none of the kids will want these old books, so they'll be donated and discarded, etc.)

When writing a history or a critique, you don't preserve the original. You're doing something original so you refer to the source. If your book updates things (like histories) then the other copies will go out of circulation and vanish.

Example: I doubt very much if there are any copies of the history book that I was taught from in the 5th grade.

Scholars who wanted to read the books from the Library often sent people down there to copy the books and bring them back (or buy paid copies.) So the knowledge actually flowed out from the Library and was used all over the world... used and updated. While there were unique books there, the most important ones were preserved in commentaries or in scholarship that emerged from those proto-ideas.

So the really important science in the Library got out and was used and improved.

You are correct that some knowledge survived, but much more was lost.

I remember watching a discovery show about the greek physician Galen. He produced a prolific amount of work and most of it was lost to history. One of the problems that was cited is that though, ancient physicians indeed did copy down portions of his work, they only copied what was important to them in their current studies and practices. They said because of that everything we know about his works are just a fragment of all he had ever written. Many of his works were destroyed in the fire of the Temple of Peace.

Galen may have produced more work than any author in antiquity, rivaling the quantity of work issued from Augustine of Hippo.[58] So profuse was Galen's output that the surviving texts represent nearly half of all the extant literature from ancient Greece.[24][58] It has been reported that Galen employed twenty scribes to write down his words.[citation needed] Galen may have written as many as 500 treatises,[59] amounting to some 10 million words.[citation needed] Although his surviving works amount to some 3 million words,[60] this is thought to represent less than a third of his complete writings. In 191, a fire in the Temple of Peace destroyed many of his works, in particular treatises on philosophy.[61]

Because Galen's works were not translated into Latin in the ancient period, and because of the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, the study of Galen, along with the Greek medical tradition as a whole, went into decline in Western Europe during the Early Middle Ages, when very few Latin scholars could read Greek. However, in general, Galen and the ancient Greek medical tradition continued to be studied and followed in the Eastern Roman Empire, commonly known as the Byzantine Empire. All of the extant Greek manuscripts of Galen were copied by Byzantine scholars. In the Abbasid period (after 750) Arab Muslims began to be interested in Greek scientific and medical texts for the first time, and had some of Galen's texts translated into Arabic, often by Syrian Christian scholars (see below). As a result, some texts of Galen exist only in Arabic translation,[62] while others exist only in medieval Latin translations of the Arabic. In some cases scholars have even attempted to translate from the Latin or Arabic back into Greek where the original is lost.[58][63][64] For some of the ancient sources, such as Herophilus, Galen's account of their work is all that survives.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: themessengernevermatters

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Completely agree with this logic. Its a horrible shame the one place that brought all those histories into one place where scholars could have access to all those histories, was taken from mankind. The Library of Alexandria.

A more in-depth reading list would reveal that this notion is not very accurate.

The Library had originals of books that were copied many times over and distributed to thousands of libraries, both personal and temple and other. Books get lost or discarded as they are no longer useful... which may mean no one in the family wants them (we have a personal library of around 10,000 books (result of collecting books for about 40 years) and none of the kids will want these old books, so they'll be donated and discarded, etc.)

When writing a history or a critique, you don't preserve the original. You're doing something original so you refer to the source. If your book updates things (like histories) then the other copies will go out of circulation and vanish.

Example: I doubt very much if there are any copies of the history book that I was taught from in the 5th grade.

Scholars who wanted to read the books from the Library often sent people down there to copy the books and bring them back (or buy paid copies.) So the knowledge actually flowed out from the Library and was used all over the world... used and updated. While there were unique books there, the most important ones were preserved in commentaries or in scholarship that emerged from those proto-ideas.

So the really important science in the Library got out and was used and improved.

You are correct that some knowledge survived, but much more was lost.

Lots of "knowledge" was lost over the last 2500 years. Very little knowledge was lost when the Library closed. Anything worth taking had already been relocated to MUCH finer Roman libraries.
Losing the Library had nothing to do with losing that knowledge.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

People don't realize the library was in decline starting 100 years before the fire. And the part they dont tell you is most of the library was philosophical and had nothing to do with lost science. In fact, the science it did contain was wrong most of the time. when it claimed women were not responsible for childbirth and not truly a parent of the child. They were claimed to be but a vessel for sperm to grow. Or the revelation that the sun was pulled by horses.

The idea that the ancients had amazing scientific knowledge that was lost when the Library of Alexandria was destroyed that we still haven’t recovered today is pure fantasy. In truth, ancient peoples generally had extremely limited knowledge of science and medicine. Any knowledge they had modern people long ago surpassed.

originally posted by: Byrd


Scholars who wanted to read the books from the Library often sent people down there to copy the books and bring them back (or buy paid copies.) So the knowledge actually flowed out from the Library and was used all over the world... used and updated. While there were unique books there, the most important ones were preserved in commentaries or in scholarship that emerged from those proto-ideas.

So the really important science in the Library got out and was used and improved.

As you pointed out: demand dictates whether copies are made.

If the book is in a language nobody understands, it might get left uncopied.

Or if it uses a mathematic system or geometry that nobody knows how to use.

Worse: if the author chose to write everything in a code, to conceal a truth they consider important (or "truth", since it may not be true at all but only believed to be) .

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Harte

People don't realize the library was in decline starting 100 years before the fire. And the part they dont tell you is most of the library was philosophical and had nothing to do with lost science. In fact, the science it did contain was wrong most of the time. when it claimed women were not responsible for childbirth and not truly a parent of the child. They were claimed to be but a vessel for sperm to grow. Or the revelation that the sun was pulled by horses.

The idea that the ancients had amazing scientific knowledge that was lost when the Library of Alexandria was destroyed that we still haven’t recovered today is pure fantasy. In truth, ancient peoples generally had extremely limited knowledge of science and medicine. Any knowledge they had modern people long ago surpassed.

People also kept a lot more secrets.

The stuff out front in the library's lobby would be full of popular works that the most wealthy patrons wished to see a copy of. And probably mostly books that were already in wide circulation (so the draw was they get to see an "original" or near original, and feel very important for having done so.)

Stuff that scholars, and dedicated students wished to see, or rare items, was probably in a different room, which only those scholars would know how to navigate.

Partly to preserve their trades. "Guilding" is almost unheard of today. The idea of jealously guarding the secret to an industry so you can control prices is antithetical to modern economic reasoning. But it was the norm in ancient times.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
As you pointed out: demand dictates whether copies are made.

If the book is in a language nobody understands, it might get left uncopied.

Or if it uses a mathematic system or geometry that nobody knows how to use.

Worse: if the author chose to write everything in a code, to conceal a truth they consider important (or "truth", since it may not be true at all but only believed to be) .

If they're writing in code, they're hardly likely to put the book in a public library. It'd be handed around to friends (and over the course of thousands of years it would be lost when someone looks into the rooms where the Old Bachelor Mage lived and found it full of undecipherable scribblings -- unless the Old Bachelor happened to be someone incredibly famous and a wealthy king wanted to preserve their library.

And if nobody can use the math, then what good is it other than someone's fantasy?

Ditto with the language.

Stuff that scholars, and dedicated students wished to see, or rare items, was probably in a different room, which only those scholars would know how to navigate.

That's who the Library was for... scholars. Plus it had an early form of a university attached to it PLUS an early form of a research lab. There were thousands of people who came and went and studied there.

Partly to preserve their trades.

They wouldn't have written books. That's for scholars. They'd have kept financial records of payments but they didn't write "how to" guides. That's what apprenticeships were for.

"Guilding" is almost unheard of today. The idea of jealously guarding the secret to an industry so you can control prices is antithetical to modern economic reasoning.

Don't play the stock market, I take it? Or do patent research?

originally posted by: Byrd
And if nobody can use the math, then what good is it other than someone's fantasy?

Yeah... I'm taking issue with this statement.

See, the LARGE majority of Mathematics can't be "used" today. Other than just mathematical physical descriptions, even some of the math we "use" today couldn't be used only 200 years ago.

Math isn't concerned with whether or not it has a use. There's math out there that you don't even wanna know about. Beautiful and perfectly logical Mathematics that has no known application in reality, other than to be used to figure out more math.

Harte

Stuff that scholars, and dedicated students wished to see, or rare items, was probably in a different room, which only those scholars would know how to navigate.

originally posted by: ByrdThat's who the Library was for... scholars. Plus it had an early form of a university attached to it PLUS an early form of a research lab. There were thousands of people who came and went and studied there.

Yes. A library in those days wasn't like the local library in downtown Poughkeepsie. Definitely not a popular public place, which is what it appears bloodymarvelous is imagining.
Steering the public throng away from the "real" truth, eh?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Byrd
And if nobody can use the math, then what good is it other than someone's fantasy?

Yeah... I'm taking issue with this statement.

See, the LARGE majority of Mathematics can't be "used" today. Other than just mathematical physical descriptions, even some of the math we "use" today couldn't be used only 200 years ago.

Math isn't concerned with whether or not it has a use. There's math out there that you don't even wanna know about. Beautiful and perfectly logical Mathematics that has no known application in reality, other than to be used to figure out more math.

Harte

I'll debate this with you (g) since I'm married to a mathematician:

What I mean by "use" is that "not even other mathematicians will use it." So you may not have a use for P-verus-NP, but it's useful to physicists and mathematicians and many other people, including game theory wonks. The math that *I* mean is stuff like we see here where people are proving/disproving Einstein.

They think they've got gold, but...

originally posted by: Harte

Yes. A library in those days wasn't like the local library in downtown Poughkeepsie. Definitely not a popular public place, which is what it appears bloodymarvelous is imagining.
Steering the public throng away from the "real" truth, eh?

Harte

Yes. We all know I'm dreadful like that.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Harte

Yes. A library in those days wasn't like the local library in downtown Poughkeepsie. Definitely not a popular public place, which is what it appears bloodymarvelous is imagining.
Steering the public throng away from the "real" truth, eh?

Harte

Yes. We all know I'm dreadful like that.

LOL
I meant the Librarians, not you.

Harte

a reply to: lostbook

Ancient 2500 yr Old Map
drawn 2400 yrs ago

First I'd like to focus on the fact that you're substituting 'yr' and 'yrs' for 'year' and 'years'. Is it that hard to type 'year' or 'years'? I don't get this, you have written so many words completely, why make an exception on arguably the most important word in your headline? Why not write 'assembled' as 'smbl' or 'investigate' as 'vstg'?

(Sorry, I have to shake my head at this..)

The next point is, why say 'Ancient', if you're going to specify the age anyway? That's like saying 'young 20-year old'. What's the reason for this redundancy? If it's ancient, you might not know its age, but if you know it's 2500 years old, then why also add 'ancient', when at that point, it becomes a matter of debate/interpretation anyway? What's 'ancient' to you, might not be 'ancient' to me. 2500 years old isn't that old to me, even Atlantis isn't 'ancient' in my opinion, although it sank around 11500 years ago (if I remember correctly).

To me, ancient would be something like hundreds of thousands of years ago or older.

Wouldn't there need to be punctuation in there somewhere anyway, like 'Ancient, - COMMA -'? What about hyphens?

In any case, so the map itself is two thousand and five hundred years old, but someone decided to wait a HUNDRED years before drawing anything on it? What? Why??

What kind of sense does that make? Or could it be that there were lots of 'map pergaments' in some storage room that no one thought to use for a hundred years (so why even make them if no one's going to use them?), and then after an EXACTLY hundred years had gone by, someone decided to start drawing a map on it?

I have barely gotten a few words into your post, and I am finding this many mistakes, errors, implausibilities and questionable things, it isn't a good sign as to what awaits me of I dare proceed further. A bad tree can't form a good fruit, as they say, and I have a bitter taste in my mouth after all these bad fruits already.

As a last point; PLEASE stop trying to make Atlantis exist in Sahara, it isn't going to happen!

Atlantis' old place can be seen even in Google Maps, the closed up 'wound' in the Atlantic (how did this get its name if Atlantis was in SAHARA? Sheesh!) Ocean's floor should be obvious enough. It was between Africa, America and Europe, and it had walkable .. what do you call those, land bridges to each continent. This couldn't have happened had it been inside Sahara - and holy cow, do you think it was THAT small??

Other than these small points, please go on, interesting stuff..

a reply to: Shoujikina

Atlantis' old place can be seen even in Google Maps,

Please supply a image of what you consider to be Atlantis in the Atlantic. Please point to the exact area you are considering.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Shoujikina

Atlantis' old place can be seen even in Google Maps,

Please supply a image of what you consider to be Atlantis in the Atlantic. Please point to the exact area you are considering.

Its the Azores plateau many believe that is the location Here is a woman explaining her scientific evidence lol

a reply to: dragonridr

There is no doubt that in the rift area in the Atlantic there once was a larger continental area that "sunk". There is little doubt that this land mass was part of the allotment named Atlantis. The "age" of the ocean bed certainly can not be argued, except when the data is being suppressed or manipulated.

The age at which this land mass sunk is debatable, as to what might be found at certain depths, and when it was part of the allotment. Then you have the complication of the ocean waters rising by 300- 400 ft. Certainly, ruins will be found in that zone around the present day islands. But what you wont find, is the ringed city.

I am absolutely certain the Richat Structure, is, the ringed city... --- Was............

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: dragonridr

There is no doubt that in the rift area in the Atlantic there once was a larger continental area that "sunk".

I don't know of any geological evidence for this. Do you have some?

Then you have the complication of the ocean waters rising by 300- 400 ft.

When did this happen, and what's the geological evidence here?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: dragonridr

There is no doubt that in the rift area in the Atlantic there once was a larger continental area that "sunk".

I don't know of any geological evidence for this. Do you have some?

Then you have the complication of the ocean waters rising by 300- 400 ft.

When did this happen, and what's the geological evidence here?

There isn't in the video, I posted she was trying to convince people the Vema fracture zone was Atlantis. She was using geology studies that showed it was above water. What she didn't realize is that was 3 million years ago that this was above water.

Luckily she's cute because she isn't going to be a science major.

This is no different than people trying to claim the eye was Atlantis when it was never underwater. Geologically thats one of the oldest areas of the planet.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: dragonridr

There is no doubt that in the rift area in the Atlantic there once was a larger continental area that "sunk".

I don't know of any geological evidence for this. Do you have some?

Then you have the complication of the ocean waters rising by 300- 400 ft.

When did this happen, and what's the geological evidence here?

There isn't in the video, I posted she was trying to convince people the Vema fracture zone was Atlantis. She was using geology studies that showed it was above water. What she didn't realize is that was 3 million years ago that this was above water.

Luckily she's cute because she isn't going to be a science major.

This is no different than people trying to claim the eye was Atlantis when it was never underwater. Geologically thats one of the oldest areas of the planet.

The entire allotment by the name of Atlantis did not sink in the ocean, but some parts did. The Ringed city was destroyed by ocean water as evidenced by all the salt and sand in the area. It did not sink under the oceans. The water washed off towards the ocean, leaving thick mud in its wake.

How does a small oceans worth of salt water get dumped in a day and night. Ill wait till Joe Biden tells us all about UFO's lol

It's not impossible that whole areas of continents that are above water today could have gone under water in the ice age.

Just got to remember that Laurentide Ice Sheet in the Americas was VERY HEAVY. More than a mile thick in some parts.

If you push down real hard on one area of the Earth, that's likely to cause something else to pop up elsewhere.

Or something more complicated could happen, where something else pops up, but pops up a little too much, causing some other land mass to go down. The surface of the Earth is floating on top of a core that is still largely liquid. No part of the Earth is free to move completely independent of the other parts.

originally posted by: Harte

Stuff that scholars, and dedicated students wished to see, or rare items, was probably in a different room, which only those scholars would know how to navigate.

originally posted by: ByrdThat's who the Library was for... scholars. Plus it had an early form of a university attached to it PLUS an early form of a research lab. There were thousands of people who came and went and studied there.

Yes. A library in those days wasn't like the local library in downtown Poughkeepsie. Definitely not a popular public place, which is what it appears bloodymarvelous is imagining.
Steering the public throng away from the "real" truth, eh?

Harte

What you two are both forgetting is : somebody paid for it.

The library would certainly cater to wealthy patrons. Wealthy patrons aren't so much interested in knowledge as they are interested in status.

So I'm thinking early (and where possible original) copies of famous books are out in the lobby. Your average peasant can't even enter the building at all, unless they are there to clean it.

You know how important you are by what books they will let you take out and handle, or which ones they will let your staff of scribes make a copy of.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Byrd
And if nobody can use the math, then what good is it other than someone's fantasy?

Yeah... I'm taking issue with this statement.

See, the LARGE majority of Mathematics can't be "used" today. Other than just mathematical physical descriptions, even some of the math we "use" today couldn't be used only 200 years ago.

Math isn't concerned with whether or not it has a use. There's math out there that you don't even wanna know about. Beautiful and perfectly logical Mathematics that has no known application in reality, other than to be used to figure out more math.

Harte

I'll debate this with you (g) since I'm married to a mathematician:

What I mean by "use" is that "not even other mathematicians will use it." So you may not have a use for P-verus-NP, but it's useful to physicists and mathematicians and many other people, including game theory wonks. The math that *I* mean is stuff like we see here where people are proving/disproving Einstein.

They think they've got gold, but...

Taking in too many of those kinds of books might be what put the library into decline.


But I'm thinking with books from the Ice Age, the book might be written in a language nobody anywhere can speak anymore. The aftermath of the ice age saw hunter gatherer cultures getting simply wiped out by the emerging agricultural societies. Their traditions, ... everything.

The "new way of life" created by agriculture was harder than the old way of life. Nearly every anthropologist that ever comments on the transition says exactly that.

Trouble is: the old way of life didn't work anymore. There simply weren't any more herds of giant mammals wandering around that were big enough to feed a whole tribe in a single kill. Hunter/gatherers ended up needing to claim more land than they could defend, and maintain young-to-old ratios that lead to perpetual growth or overhunting.

The ones that held on to gathering died out. The ones that moved to agri purged their memories (in order to feel less regret over the painful transition.)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It's not impossible that whole areas of continents that are above water today could have gone under water in the ice age.

Oceans were shallower during the last glacial period, because the water was in the glaciers. There is lots of evidence of this.

If you push down real hard on one area of the Earth, that's likely to cause something else to pop up elsewhere.

Indeed. But it doesn't happen very suddenly. The Pacific coast of Alaska and Canada are still slowly rising, after losing that ice 15,000 years ago.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

The entire allotment by the name of Atlantis did not sink in the ocean, but some parts did.

Plato disagrees.
...was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became
an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean. - Critias

The whole thing sank. A city wouldn't b an "impossible barrier of mud" that prevented people from sailing beyond it. The actual city of Atlantis would have been less than 20 miles in width; a day's sailing easily surpasses that.

The Ringed city was destroyed by ocean water as evidenced by all the salt and sand in the area.

Plato disagrees with you.

So does geology (which says the salt was formed when the area was under the oceans, long before humans evolved.) That's why there's layers of salt and not just salty sand.