QUOTE(Piney @ Oct 7 2007, 10:41 PM)

"Atlantis" was Minoan Crete. It's refugees, the "Sea People" or Phillistines brought their story to the Egyptians who exaggerated it when they told it to Plato.
Lapiche
Plato's Atlantis may well have been based on stories of what happened on Thera and Crete a thousand years earlier. These stories could well have come from Egypt, but that's not really necessary. Crete was overrun by the precursors of the Greeks, so the story may well have already been in the Greek's past.
The Minoans were certainly
not the Sea Peoples. Not according to the Egyptians, anyway.
Crystal,
Your first quote is from "Atlantis, the Antediluvian World." A classic tome, but filled with errors because it was written from an armchair in 1882 by a retired politician. So it's actually beneath my effort to dispute it.
QUOTE(crystal sage @ Oct 8 2007, 03:42 AM)

They are digging up evidence... or finding submerged evidence of what must have been some very advanced civilizations that were wiped out some time between 2000.. to 5000 years ago... Egypt is showing remnants of that time... there are the Japanese submerged cities...
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan.htmlThis is the underwater formation off Yonaguni-Jima. It's unquestionably a natural formation.
QUOTE(crystal sage @ Oct 8 2007, 03:42 AM)

This is Nan Madol, a ruined city in Micronesia that dates to
1500 AD.
That little factoid is usually left out on the sort of websites frequented by Crystal Sage.
Here's a quote from that site:
QUOTE
Apparently in the ancient Indian Vedic writings there are references to a major nuclear war between a pre-historic civilisation in India and that of this now sunken Pacific civilisation of Mu. The Indians claim in the Vedas to have come originally from the far south after a large Earth catastrophe. This fits in with new ideas concerning Atlantis having been located in Antarctica (see Rand & Rose Flem-Ath "When the Sky Fell"). Evidence of this nuclear holocaust is claimed to exist in the section debris underneath a northern Indian city - including hundreds of radioactive charred skeletons - all hand in hand running away from the city centre--evidence for a major Earth catastrophe about 11,600 years ago is now forth coming from several researchers. The nature and type of event is roughly agreed upon by these avant guard workers - but it's cause is not.
There is no evidence whatsoever of any "ancient nuclear war" anywhere on Earth, much less in Northern India.
The "radioactive skeletons" are from Mojendaro. They are not what is claimed here and Mojendaro dates to about 2600 BC. Not exactly Atlantian, not even as old as Sumerian.
QUOTE(crystal sage @ Oct 8 2007, 03:42 AM)

the one off India...
9,500-Year-Old City Found
Underwater Off India
Discovery in Bay of Cambay Will Force
Western Archaeologists to Rewrite History
..
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/oldcity.htm
The Bay of Cambay is usually called the Gulf of Cambay for those that want to Google it. It's
actual name is the Gulf of Khambhat.
Our old friend Graham Hancock has made several dollars from misrepresenting the finds there.
Ancient objects (pieces of wood) that date to 9500 BC dredged up from the bottom there are the main basis of these outlandish claims. But, the Gulf is the endpoint of a major estuary system, and current thinking is that these pieces were washed down into the gulf by the rivers.
"Pottery" shards found on the bottom are likely not pottery at all, but geofacts which are completely explained by Geologist Paul Heinrich
at this site so click here to have your bubble burst.
You may conmtinue to believe in the ancient city off Cuba if you wish, for the time being anyway.
National Geographic was supposed to join with the discoverers in a second expedition, but they backed out.
The second expedition took place, but they couldn't do anything because of weather and equipment failure.
QUOTE(crystal sage @ Oct 8 2007, 03:42 AM)

http://www.s8int.com/water25.html New Underwater Finds in Sri Krishna's City-
This is about the submerged city of Dwaraka - today called Dwarka.
The underwater portion, which was originally
reclaimed from the sea by the Hindus living there, dates to no earlier that 1700 BC.
Wiki has an interesting article on this. Here's a quote:
QUOTE
Explorations between 1983 and 1990 revealed the well-fortified township of Dvaraka, that extended more than half a mile from the shore. The township was built in six sectors along the banks of a river. The foundation of boulders on which the city's walls were erected proves that the land was reclaimed from the sea...
The findings of Bet Dwarka may be divided into two broad periods: Protohistoric period which includes seal, two inscriptions, a copper fishhook and late Harappan pottery (circa 1700-1400 BC) and the Historical period consisting of coins and pottery. Onshore and inter-tidal zone explorations have indicated some kind of shoreline shifting around the Bet Dwarka island as a few sites get submerged during high tide.
(My emphases)
Source:
WikipediaAgain, not exactly Atlantean in age.
QUOTE(crystal sage @ Oct 8 2007, 03:42 AM)

Both of these are about Nan Madol (
again C.S.?)
QUOTE(crystal sage @ Oct 8 2007, 03:42 AM)

I think... like today... all those civilizations could have traded with each other...or when some lands were flooded via some natural.. or (

reading about the old nuclear wars) man made catastrophies .. they would have settled other lands and brought their ancient knowledge .. technologies with them... hence the various building style... eg... various styles of pyramids... all over the world... throughout history....
Not at all likely, hardly even possible. Look at the vast differences in dates.
QUOTE(crystal sage @ Oct 8 2007, 03:42 AM)

Also just think of the fantastic ancient building styles of ancient Syria...
http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/lebanon/baalbek.htmThey just suddenly didn't become great builders...
You're right here. Baalbek was built by the Romans. The Romans were among the greatest builders that have ever existed.
It's a Roman site through and through, from the giant blocks through the foundation all the way down to bedrock.
Roman, not "ancient."
See:
QUOTE
The stones in Baalbek are not as heavy as claimed by many authors. The three actually moved weigh just under 800 tons each, and only the not-moved block in the quarry weighs about 1000 tons.
The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim.
As you might know, Rome is the city with the most obelisks outside of egypt. They stole the things by the dozen and took them home. The heaviest known obelisk weighs 510 tons, and it was transported some 1000's of *kilometers*. This transport was documented by the roman author Marcellinus Comes. The romans even left detailed paintings and reliefs about the ways to move such things : as on the bottom of the Theodosius-obelisk in Istanbul.
They used "Roman-patented" winches, in German called "Göpelwinden" which work with long lever ways. To move a 900 ton stone, they needed only 700 men. The transport was slow, about 30 meters a day, because they had to dismantle and rebuild the winches every few meters, to pull the obelisk with maximum torque. But in Baalbek, where they moved several blocks, maybe they built an alley of winches, where they passed the block from winch to winch.
But its irrelevant, because they needed only three weeks per block, and that's OK. Oh by the way, the Romans worked a few hundred years on the temple, until the project was finally canceled.
Source:
Archaeologist Frank DoernenburgThank you to
Doug's Archaeology Site.
I wonder why you never cut and paste any of the articles found at Doug's?
QUOTE(crystal sage @ Oct 8 2007, 03:42 AM)

What I am basically trying to put across is that they were all connected.... all known to each other... commercially at least!!!!
A minute and a half on the internet would have shown the ignorance implied by the above remark. You are postulating that the people of Nan Madol had trade relations with other peoples that predated them by, and had disappeared by, over a thousand years before Nan Madol was built.
Please.
Harte