Atlantis finally found?

Atlantis has been "found" all over the world, including Antarctica and off the coast of Scotland. There probably is not a significant piece of ocean that has NOT been claimed to be Atlantis over the last couple of hundred years. Add to this the certainty that there are many areas of the world where you can find underwater structures. Off the coasts of India and Japan come to mind as well as many others. Why? because since the last ice age ended the sea level has risen many dozens of feet. Any seacoast culture that built close to the sea had to have been inundated. There have been over 20,000 books alone written about the Atlantis legend.

But as for Atlantis? My favorite is Santorini. It matches Plato's tale pretty well, though not perfectly. It's more or less in the right place at the right time. We know it blew up with much more power than Mt. St. Helens. We know the blast got as far as Crete. We have reports of survivors reaching the coast of Egypt. We know it was an important trade center and seaport. And we can see the results today. It's not really that much of a stretch, and it is by far the simplest explanation offered. Take away a couple thousand years worth of wishful thinking and embellishments, use Occam's Razor, and Santorini is a prime candidate.

People have been arguing over this for centuries, and I don't presume to change anyone's mind, but I've been reading about Atlantis for quite a few years as well, and have the books to prove it, and I haven't found anything more convincing. Of course there's always room for a few more theories, but I think we need more than finding yet another underwater structure of some sort to be more convincing that what we already have.

reply to post by schuyler


Hi schuyler,
You are absolutely correct about thera (santorini). It was the template for Plato's Atlantis. The minoans controlled a vast trade empire that stretched from Asia minor(the agean coast of Anatolia) to Britain and Scandinavia.
Frescoes found in the ruins of Akrotiri show the concentric ring harbor that Plato mentions. The minoans were very warlike and subjugated the early Greek maritime city states(the Myceneans and plato's war against "athens").
They had hot and cold running water plumbed into their houses( a per Plato).
The " sea of mud" blocking the way to Atlantis was the huge pumice rafts that would have been created by the eruption of thera.
The loss of thera was a thousand years before Plato was born, it might as well have been ten thousand as the memory of the lost trade partners was recounted by the Egyptians.

Text Purplereply to post by punkinworks10


Hi
I was just wondering, do YOU have more info on your statement? Url's, links, anything?

Atlantis was not Santorini,Thera.
Atlantis was not anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea. Read the dialogues of Plato's Timaeus and Critias carefully.

The island of Atlantis was just outside and before the pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar Straites) in the Atlantic Ocean.
They told you in the dialogues that the Mediterranean Sea was a mere harbor in comparison to the Atlantic Ocean.

Santorini erupted ca1625.bC according to geologists. The flood of Deukalion was 1529.bC according to the Greek Marmor Parium. This probably was the same event.

Atlantis sank in the 3rd flood BEFORE that of Deukalion's flood, which also would not have been Santorini.

When Solon was talking to the priest, the farthest back Solon could account to was Phoroneus, the first man of Greece who dates around 1800.bC. Atlantis also sank before this date.

Blaine91555
reply to post by Stari

 

This might be helpful on a large scale, but you need something showing objects the size of walls or small buildings. That is likely something you would have to buy from a company that specializes in that.

Thank you Blaine, that website shows the same depression in the same place. It is there, something.

Thanks again Blaine.

Stari

reply to post by Evanor1


I have read the dialogues, very carefully, have you read the newest translation, by a modern Greek scholar, who is one of the foremost experts in classical Greek.
The differences are very subtle, but profound. The term"beyond the pillars" Hercules is more accurately translates to "in the direction of" which is consistent with how navigators of the period would have described how to get to somewhere.

reply to post by Evanor1


And Athens was still little more than a collection of huts at the time that Plato said that Atlantis was destroyed.

reply to post by punkinworks10


Timaeus dialogue;

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.

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.

Critias dialogue;

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;

Atlantis, which, as was saying, 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

For the fact is that a single night of excessive rain washed away the earth and laid bare the rock; at the same time there were earthquakes, and then occurred the extraordinary inundation, which was the third before the great destruction of Deucalion.

Clearly as you can see, the island of Atlantis was in the Atlantic Ocean, outside the gibraltar straits and was the way to the Americas (boundless land). The island of Atlantis also had to be in the vicinity of the straits, some 300 or so miles to have blocked the straits with mud when it sank. This disaster was the third before Deucalion (1529.bC).

Santorini,Thera is not Atlantis, nor anywhere else except an island near Gibraltar straits and in the Atlantic Ocean.

Greater in extent than Libya or Asia most likely refers to the coastline of Atlantis island.

okamitengu
get a kickstarter, raise money.. go do a dive.

Whatever that may be, its about 16,000 feet deep.
You're going to need a little more then some “kickstarter” funding to go for that little "dive”.
You can pretty much rule out doing any kind of excavation at that depth as well.

Clearly as you can see, the island of Atlantis was in the Atlantic Ocean, outside the gibraltar straits and was the way to the Americas (boundless land). The island of Atlantis also had to be in the vicinity of the straits, some 300 or so miles to have blocked the straits with mud when it sank. This disaster was the third before Deucalion (1529.bC).

The eastern side of Atlantis should be near Spain. Plato explained that the region of Gades was named after one of Poseidon's twin sons, Gadeirus. Gades is now known as Cadiz, Spain. This place was originally named by the Phoenicians and known as Gadir or Agadir, which means "The Wall". The western portion of Atlantis could have been near the Caribbean which would likely be named after the twin son Azaes.

These are the names of the 5 pairs of twins that came from Poseidon and Cleito:

Atlas and Gadeirus
Ampheres and Evaemon
Mneseus and Autochthon
Elasippus and Mestor
Azaes and Diaprepes

Names in the Atlantic ocean and the Americas with Az in them:

Azores - islands
Aztec - people
Aztlan - mythological place to the Aztecs
Aztalan - Middle Mississippian culture of Cahokia in central USA
Azcapotzalco - pre-Columbian Nahua state in the valley of Mexico

I wish to apologize for my absence from this thread right after starting it. I had a GREAT loss in my life. My best friend of 36 years was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and died before I was able to get to her. I have been in a depression and dropped all of my research completely. She was the one and only person I could talk to about everything and she would never judge me. I loved her truly and miss her badly.

I do not need your sympathies I just ask for your understanding. I am wishing to get back to where I left off in this thread and I am hoping for everyone's understanding. Please be patient with me while I reread the whole thread.

Thank you for your patience.

This is not all of my info, I do not have much left and if I said some where in this thread that I had proof I guess I meant to say I have evidence that points to the Caribbean. It could be refuted and or praised by people. But it is what I have found so far.

MIT Classics

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. 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."

Yes Plato writes that Atlantis (for lack of a better name) was situated in front of the straits, or Pillars of Heracles. But with this being said I wish to bring to light the work of the Flem-Aths. They believe in crustal displacement. Their book can be purchased at Amazon.com. Could it be possible that the Caribbean Sea was once located in the Atlantic?

Now I decided to go back to Google Earth and look at the strait of Gibraltar and see which direction it was pointing.



It is not pointed directly across it is pointing down. So I zoomed out and then drew a line to see what it hits. It took me directly to the Caribbean Sea.



In the subject line of this thread I used a ? after saying Atlantis found? This says that it is still a question of whether or not it has been found. Like I have also said nothing less then the temple of Poseidon would make me believe we have finally found her.

a reply to: coredrill

Thank you for the link about dating rocks. I had no idea they came up with a way to do that. But my question to this is, how can they know that is the date that the formation was built and not just the date that the rock came to existence? I am still reading that page you linked to so hopefully they address this question.

Stari

originally posted by: Stari
I have been studying Atlantis for over 20 years. I have proof that it was once was in the Caribbean Sea.

The amount of years do not matter in comparison to the methods of your research and the validity of the information you use in your research.

Atlantis was located between the continents - in fact, it had actual necks of land that you could use to travel to other continents, like Europe, America, Africa, etc. Caribbean is too small for all that. How about..

THE ATLANTIC (!!) OCEAN?

Atlantic? Hello? Come on. That's a hint, right there!

You see I believe that Atlantis was covered in water not submerged in water. Where the Caribbean Sea is not located was once a valley and I believe inside that valley is where Atlantis was located safely tucked in with the rings of mountains all around them.

(I think you mean to say "now", instead of "not", in your "Caribbean sea is not located"-sentence - otherwise your statement doesn't make much sense)

It must be fun to believe things, because I see it all the time, people declaring this or that belief. I do not believe, because I see no point in blindly thinking something is true without anything to back it up. I rather know, take as a possibility, ponder, speculate, use likelihoods or have faith in something that has proven to be faithworthy, trust or maybe even 'assume' - but I have no room for any kind of 'belief'. That's for the blind, who do not want to know the truth, but who just want to feel 'secure' 'in their belief', or whatever. Even the Oiled One never spoke of 'belief' - he spoke of 'faith'. Of course you should and can have faith in the Hand that Created You, as He has proven all your life to have kept you alive and well (even if it means 'well according to your karmic needs'), so there is a basis for it - it's not blind.

Unfortunately, your assumptions and beliefs contradict the more logical theory that I intuitively know to be at least closer to the truth. Atlantis did indeed sink, and it sank deep. There was no submergence, although there is some truth to that, as masses of water did rush onto this planet (even the bible mentions this as the 'great flood' - when it was really the protective layers of water that were protecting Earth getting split in half by the explosion of the other moon and the pieces of the moon raining down on Earth, causing of course enormous friction and looking like fiery meteors - this caused the water masses to move to the poles, where the magnetic resistance is the weakest, so at the poles, all this water did rush down and cause the 'great flood' -- but the following negative pressure immediately froze great masses of this water (among other things), which caused the ice age), but Atlantis did indeed sink.

And wouldn't you think that instead of 'sinking', even the legends that were written afterwards, would speak of 'submerging' instead? There were no mountains surrounding the continent, although the highest parts of these continents (Atlantis and Lemuria) are still visible as small islands, like Hawaii and such (not sure if Hawaii exactly, but similar islands anyway - and it could be one group of them).

Below is link to image. I can't seem to get my media to bring up any of my images I have saved in that directory on ATS.

mars2earth.com...

Yes this is what I believe is part of Atlantis.

Even very logically sounding and seeming theories can be completely against the truth and false, like the theory about 'evolution' (spiritual evolution is a fact, and microevolution no one surely can deny, but macroevolution - well, it's just not supported by any of the evidence - I have transcribed an interview of someone who has researched and studied all this, and his very rational and clearly-worded explanation on the topic - 'evolution' is a very logical theory, but it just didn't happen that way. I am sure that transcription of mine still exists somewhere in ATS).

How trustworthy is Google Earth when it comes to oceanic cartographing? That could be just a compression artifact, or the result of combining the pictures together carelessly (you see similar oddities in Google Street View and other parts of the maps all the time, where they have tried to compose a larger map of photos taken from slightly different angles and different times - these things just can't be avoided), or some other Google Earth-specific oddity, that doesn't correspond to anything in real world. Don't put too much weight into anything you see in these simulated programs. I mean, just look at the area around the square - does it all look natural or even plausible to you, that there would be that kind of artifacts in the actual ocean floor? The long line, for example, that has these color-changing bits to it, and seem to consist of squares...

How much do you know about the process and procedures of how Google Earth did these parts of the ocean?

Even if you are right and that is -something- signifigant, and even if that shape really exists in the ocean floor, it could still be bits of Lemuria/Mu, or it could be something completely different, like an E.T. base (don't laugh), or a natural formation (yes, it'd be rare, but not impossible for nature to form THAT kind of squares).

Your information about Atlantis seems to be based on something other than what actually happened and the truth - there seems to be more wild guesses, beliefs and assumptions. This just goes to prove that the amount of years do not prove anything, when your methods and information aren't solid.

Sorry to burst your bubble a bit, but I must bring out the truth, I can't help myself. To me, it's the right thing to do - else, why would human beings even exist on a planet, if they can't even tell the truth?

If you like, I -= COULD =- (not promising anything, just stating a possibility) perhaps, possibly, maybe, translate more of the Atlantis-section of my information for you, so you can get the fuller picture of what more likely happened (of course even this information might not be 100% truth in all accounts, but when compared to pretty much anything else that I have ever seen about Atlantis, it fits all the facts and makes perfect sense in all accounts and is pretty detailed as well - an impossible feat to pull off if you are just writing a story or faking it).

Now that I looked a little closer at the area where you say it was located, I can see that it might have been part of the commissure that connected the continents to Atlantis. According to my information, Atlantis was somewhere in the North Atlantic Ocean - perhaps at the exact spot, where that text is located (how do you think that ocean got its name..?). Just look at THAT part in Google Earth, and you will see what looks like remains of a continent that sank and was perhaps crushed by the ravine walls or something. It does seem like a peculiar bit of the ocean surface, for it to be just 'nothing', doesn't it? You can even roughly see where the necks of land were that connected to the continents. So your theory might just be slightly too focused on a small PART of Atlantis (or its commissures).

Still, remember what I said about Google Earth - how trustworthy is it? I don't know. But it's fun to look at these things and speculate, as long as we keep all the other explanations with us. We don't have to make immediate conclusions, we can just toy around with theories, ideas and information until everything fits. To me, it looks very clear that the ocean floor at that point is the remains of a large continent that was Atlantis, and it's even called "Atlantic" (how many clues do we need?), and I can clearly see the commissures and everything. To ome, there's really no confusion about this.

But we must all realize the truth for ourselves in the end.. Perhaps you thought Atlantis was something very tiny, when it was actually pretty big, bigger than a lot of countries.

Btw, as for Lemuria - I have no exact information as to where it was, but just look at the ocean floor to the upper right of Australia - doesn't that seem awfully 'suspicious' with all the tiny islands and the peculiar shapes, as if there used to be a continent right there..?

Let those that have eyes, see..

a reply to: Shoujikina

That was an awfully long post for something that Plato based on a fable.

Your more likely to find Atlantis near existing shores just offshore or look at the under water mountain ridges or old volcanoes that sunk. Where your looking at is to deep. If Atlantis succumbed to the ocean it wont likely be very deep. There is nothing near the area you think is a building that has been above the water for much longer than humanity has been building stuff.