Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Egyptian-Illuminati

Could Atlantis be under Greenland's Ice?

1,167 posts in this topic

I want to know where Atlantis isn't.

It's been identified on these forums as being located in Greenland, Antarctica, North Africa, South America, North Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, etc.

You forget Mexico, the Caribbean, Scandinavia, south-west Spain, the North Pole (really!) and the North Sea.

It's like God: He's everywhere, but no one can see Him and hides in mysterious ways.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The depths of the ocean have always meant the deep parts of the ocean below the surface. They knew the difference between underwater and beyond the horizon so even the Timaeus doesn't support Greenland moving away past the horizon.

Quaentum,

It could have been a metaphor perhaps? As "Phaeton's fall" metaphor?

If there was, in fact, a large island in the Atlantic, in front of Gibraltar, then, under the

modern geographical circumstances, it is not visible anymore, correct? I ask, where could the supposed island go?

Since the crust does not “sink” into the Asthenosphere, it (the island) could only have moved “horizontally” and not “vertically”, as many fiercely believe. The sole possible explanation (in my opinion) is that, hypothetically, Atlantis island crust traveled through a momentarily molten ocean floor, horizontally to the plane of the planet’s surface. One should ask under which conditions does liquefaction of the crust occurs. Plato nearly describes an impacting event, at least a very strong earthquake.

It is not possible for a less dense body (island) to sink into a more dense medium, however, it can, if applied a force, move through space, changing its location in time...

When you said:

If the Egyptians told Solon, they would also have told other visitors so there should be other accounts. It is highly unlikely they would have told but one person nor is it likely that all written references to Atlantis would be missing.

I agree that it is odd that there is no other reference to the island of Atlantis, it is even very unlikely, as you put it. Nevertheless, i have my own opinion about it. I believe Plato was entirely correct, except fot the scaling of the whole Atlantean empire.

Your hypothesis has not received support here because the evidence does not support it. If evidence does come to light that supports it, then the skeptics will re-evaluate the concept.

For a hypothesis to be valid it must take into account evidence that exists as well as any new evidence that comes to light

Neither have i been supported here nor anywhere else...

It is already satisfactory to know someone is reading whatever i post here, believe me.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not in my back yard

Are you sure? Have you dug there? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herodotus, Pliny, Pindar, Cicero and Virgil said that Hyperboreans lived thousand years. Hecataeus of Abdera wrote a book about Hyperborea which is now lost. Some connect Hyperborans with Indo Europeans. Some suggests that was Atlantis far on north. That was ice kingdom. What if is that true? Could they built houses from snow and ice like Eskimos? Maybe there was ice castle as fairy tales told us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herodotus, Pliny, Pindar, Cicero and Virgil said that Hyperboreans lived thousand years. Hecataeus of Abdera wrote a book about Hyperborea which is now lost. Some connect Hyperborans with Indo Europeans. Some suggests that was Atlantis far on north. That was ice kingdom. What if is that true? Could they built houses from snow and ice like Eskimos? Maybe there was ice castle as fairy tales told us.

"Hyperbprean" was a Greek mytho-historical construct. It's never clearly defined who exactly they were, other than vaguely defined peoples living north of Thrace. For all we know it could describe the original regions from which the Greeks and others came, before they migrated to the south in prehistoric times. That Hyperbpreans might have been Indo-European is a safe bet, as it describes the original homelands of Indo-Europeans. Beyond that, there's no certainty who these people were or if they were even real. Still, no connection with Atlantis need be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hyperbprean" was a Greek mytho-historical construct. It's never clearly defined who exactly they were, other than vaguely defined peoples living north of Thrace. For all we know it could describe the original regions from which the Greeks and others came, before they migrated to the south in prehistoric times. That Hyperbpreans might have been Indo-European is a safe bet, as it describes the original homelands of Indo-Europeans. Beyond that, there's no certainty who these people were or if they were even real. Still, no connection with Atlantis need be considered.

While Hyperboreans were likely to be Indo-European, recent studies tend to run counter to the belief that the area north of Thrace was the original homeland of IE speakers. Actually placing such in Anatolia.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120823175406.htm

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Hyperboreans were likely to be Indo-European, recent studies tend to run counter to the belief that the area north of Thrace was the original homeland of IE speakers. Actually placing such in Anatolia.

http://www.scienceda...20823175406.htm

cormac

I've read about the Anatolia theory and must confess I am as yet sold on it. I certainly am not dismissing it but I want to avoid jumping on the bandwagon, as it were. I keep meaning to discuss it with one of the researchers as the O.I. but have yet to have the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I will post here my last compositions regarding Greenland’s being Atlantis, as reported by Plato in Critias and Timaeus. My latest albums, are about different map projections (such as Azimuthal equidistant projection, Lambert, Tobler hyperelliptical, etc)

A map projection is any method of representing the surface of a sphere or other three-dimensional body on a plane. Map projections are necessary for creating maps. All map projections distort the surface in some fashion. Depending on the purpose of the map, some distortions are acceptable and others are not; therefore different map projections exist in order to preserve some properties of the sphere-like body at the expense of other properties. There is no limit to the number of possible map projections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projectionsA

Auld Lang Syne

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/AuldLangSyne

Beyond The Pillars Of Heracles

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/BeyondThePillarsOfHeracles

other aspects of Atlantis topic, as the Variscan orogeny or the shape of Greenland

greenland-topog2.jpg

Greenland’s hull

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/GreenlandSHull

Variscan orogeny

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/VariscanOrogeny

Geoid imagery (from the latest tools available for online geoid viewing):

Geoid Viewer webGL (Politecnico Milano)

http://geomatica.como.polimi.it/elab/geoid/geoidViewer.html

IMO the geoid map of the earth, detailed in this particular software, can give an extraordinary range of additional information to Plato’s story. It is now used also for geological purposes and its data concerning orogenic events might shed some definite light on the demise of Atlantis. By observing the different important mountain ranges (Atlas range, Himalayas, etc) on the planet, in the geoid map, one can easily understand that “gravitational anomalies” are coincident with the mountainous regions all over the earth, as if it was an “exagerated” topographic and bathymetric map of the earth’s crust:

Untitledtr7fyu.png

TheNakedApeDesmondMorris1968 (Geoid Viewer)

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/TheNakedApeDesmondMorris1968

Cape Verde/Greenland_Geoid Viewer II

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/CapeVerdeGreenland_GeoidViewer

The Geoid album has images from different browsers. Each browser can give slightly different image results, especially with respect to the geoid’s height ratio capability.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshot%2520from%25202012-12-17%252017_41_41.png

Hello again,

Since no comments were made, i am taking the liberty to talk about some of the issues that have been going on in my mind, for the last years.

It seems like orogenic events are coincident with geodetic data. It is also apparent that the north Atlantic suffered some kind of geologic influence, otherwise there would *not* be such enormous anomaly in that region alone, of all the places in the world, right?

I ask, why does the northern MAR anomaly exist anyway? and why is it so powerful?

- Do you deny the existence of a strong gravitational anomaly in the Azores/Gibraltar region? The Azores triple junction, is just a coincidental three continents “salutation”?

Why only the northern MAR (Mid Atlantic Ridge) is highly anomalous and not the rest of the huge MAR mountain chain, that reaches Antarctica? Why would the location where Plato posits Atlantis to have been situated, have the highest gravitational anomaly on the planet? Or why is there an actual gravitational trail, in front of Gibraltar, towards Greenland and the magnetic North Pole?

That specific gravitational “mark” must indicate something, i believe it surely was the sign left by the passage of something big across the north Atlantic sea-floor. The north pole was once located under Greenland. The largest island in the world once reached the southern hemisphere. I ask, is it not also great coincidences? The CAMP (Central Atlantic Magmatic Province), is really also a huge magmatic flow that occurred where Plato’s Atlantis is to be located:

The Central Atlantic magmatic province (CAMP) is a large connected magma flow formed during the breakup of Pangaea during the Mesozoic Era. The initial breakup of Pangaea in early Jurassic time provided a legacy of basaltic dikes, sills, and lavas over a vast area around the present central North Atlantic Ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_igneous_province

The province has been described as extending within Pangaea from present-day central Brazil northeastward about 5000 km across western Africa, Iberia, and northwestern France, and from the interior of western Africa westward for 2500 km through eastern and southern North America (McHone 2000). If not the largest Province by volume, the CAMP certainly encompasses the greatest area known, roughly 11 million km², of any continental large igneous province.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_igneous_province

I ask how come the Geoid imagery of the northern Atlantic show a substantial anomaly, coincident with said magma flow?

Similarly, why is the region immediately under Gibraltar latitude (the Sahara desert), responsible for more than 60% of all the aerosols of our atmosphere and also rich in fossils and benthic sand?

The Sahara is the major source of mineral dust, which subsequently spreads across the Mediterranean (where is the origin of rain dust) and Caribbean seas into northern South America, Central America, North America, and Europe. Additionally, it plays a significant role in the nutrient inflow to the Amazon rainforest.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_dust

Not only the Sahara desert is a major source of mineral dust, but also the fact that a great amount of extremely small shreds of plants and organisms, are mingled with it, as Darwin already had mentioned:

Generally the atmosphere is hazy; and this is caused by the falling of impalpably fine dust, which was found to slightly injured the astronomical instruments. The morning before we anchored at Porto Praya, I collected a little packet of this brown-coloured fine dust, which appeared to have been filtered from the wind by the gauze of the vane at the mast-head. Mr. Lyell has also given me four packets of dust which fell on a vessel a few hundred miles northward of these islands. Professor Ehrenberg finds that this dust consists in great part of infusoria with siliceous shields, and of the siliceous tissue of plants. In five little packets which I sent him, he has ascertained no less than sixty-seven different organic forms! The infusoria, with the exception of two marine species, are all inhabitants of fresh water. I have found no less than fifteen different accounts of dust having fallen on vessels when far out in the Atlantic. From the direction of the wind whenever it has fallen, and from its having always fallen during those months when the harmattan is known to raise clouds of dust high into the atmosphere, we may feel sure that it all comes from Africa. (Darwin 1897, 4–5)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Tv-8cg8abhkJ:journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-86-9-1295+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjsJC43cgsssAHwNbOR5hS03fejWXrl3o_nLypZZwV91pikbXE5kLz0i8Os0aN--Laov_ym8iZh27D4jGy2lK3M0mXc4UYdgRlhhqfMbGow5zjCrX5j1WnadX5nQowkCjUHoa4K&sig=AHIEtbQQUC03J6NMz4DDcAbcmPGhwBRaFg

I believe the sand and dust in the Sahara must have been “deposited” when unimaginable large amounts of muddy waters covered that region of the planet, and thus became, very rich in fossils. The formation of the Guelb er Richat structure in Mauritania is perhaps likewise related to the event of Atlantis demise. The Infusoria Darwin had analysed does not belong to living Infusoria found in Africa, but some specimens being found in South America:

It is however, a very singular fact, that although professor Ehrenberg knows many species of infusoria peculiar to Africa, he finds none of them in the dust which i sent him; on the other hand, he finds in it two species which hitherto he knows as living only in south America(Darwin 1897, 4-5)+

Maybe the Sahara dust did not originally belonged to the Sahara? I again ask why? Perhaps a previously existing sand and dust nearby got to cover that region?

Furthermore, there is the strange fact that within the northern mid Atlantic region, three continental plates meet, at the “Azores triple junction”. The region in front of Gibraltar, if observed from Plato’s perspective, contains all the ingredients to explain what, supposedly, happened, 10.000 years ago, exactly at the end of the last glacial period, the Pleistocene. An extinction event took place during that time, involving sea level rises as high as 140m and the lead to the disappearance of Megafauna mammals. Nevertheless, since the experiment does not follow current dating standards, dinosaurs from the Jurassic, Triassic or Cretaceous could also be related to the above mentioned Pleistocene extinction period? The reason why i am saying this is because if there was a sizable event, 10.000 years ago, how would science interpret it? Gradualism and Uniformitarianism do not exactly explain the eventuality of a sizable impact on earth, at the beginning of the Holocene:

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.

Uniformitarianism was formulated by Scottish naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologistJames Hutton, which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

Geology’s “Uniformitarianism”, has came to that point where “strict gradualism” is questioned and “third parties” may come into play. There should have been an impact against our planet and that was the reason why Atlantis disappeared (if it ever really did). Major tectonic shifts might have occurred and everything that existed before was either “metamorphosed” rock, newly created, or ones that did not suffer any considerable geological “mutation”, during the hypothetical "upheaval" (for lack of a better word, but not wanting to sound Velikovskian).

Stephen Jay Gould, in his book “Time’s arrow, Time’s Cycle”, says the following:

The catastrophists of Lyell's day, Gould nevertheless maintains, were right all along. The literal fossil evidence of major rapid changes in previous faunas does not need to be interpreted away, as Lyell tried to do by appealing to the imperfection of the geological record.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%27s_Arrow,_Time%27s_Cycle

Science, today, know of amazing things about distant planets and stars, but ignore, nevertheless, its basic and earthly “backyard”. There is not yet enough information regarding a great deal of things on earth. We ignore that plates can move rapidly and what can happen when some certain “conditions” are met, e.g crust liquefaction, polar shifting, mega-tsunamis, etc. A rapid continental plate “drift”, is possible, although, highly improbable. The thin oceanic crust (5-10km) and thicker continental crust (30-50km) float on the upper mantle, but are nevertheless, very small compared to the sheer size of the earth’s diameter (approx. 12 million km). If an hypothetical sizable enough body would “touch” or even “pierce” the earth’s crust, with enough force and in the right angle, it could certainly induce rapid tectonic movements, through a semi molten ocean floor. Of course, this all seems crazy and devoid of any truth, i totally agree, but the facts are speaking otherwise.

Untitled423.png

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I found another interesting continental element in my model of Greenland facing Gibraltar ! The highest part of the Atlas range (near the coastline) has, coincidentally, the same angles and proportions as the southerner region of Scoresbysund fjord (the largest fjord in the world). There are also located Greenland's highest mountains:

Gunnbjørn Fjeld (also called only Gunnbjørn) is Greenland's highest mountain and also the highest mountain north of theArctic circle. It is located in the Watkins Range on the east coast, which contains several other summits above 3500 metres. It is a nunatak, a rocky peak protruding through glacial ice. Its height is often given as 3,700 metres (12,100 ft), although figures vary slightly.

http://en.wikipedia....unnbjørn_Fjeld

While the Atlas range's highest peak is 4147 meters:

The Atlas Mountains (Berber: idurar n Watlas, Arabic: جبال الأطلس‎) is a mountain range across the north-western stretch of Africa extending about 2,500 km (1,600 mi) through Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. The highest peak is Toubkal, with an elevation of 4,167 metres (13,671 ft) in southwestern Morocco.

http://en.wikipedia....Atlas_Mountains

3.2.jpg

Greenland/Atlas Range Orogeny (Geoid)

https://picasaweb.go...ngeOrogenyGeoid

Why, i should ask, is Watkins range, in Greenland's eastern coast, exactly coincident with the Atlas range in north Africa, when the two continental formations are facing each other?

[...]the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world[...]

http://classics.mit....to/critias.html

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Untitled.jpg

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad!"

Salvador Dali

Spanish Catalan Surrealist painter (1904 - 1989)

There is ample proof (in my opinion) that Greenland eastern borders resemble those of the Gibraltar region (southwestern Europe/northwestern Africa). If people chose not to comment any of it, fine.

The Atlas mountains (Berber: idurar n Watlas) region could not have had a better name since it should most certainly be the byproduct of a continental “encounter” with Atlantis itself.

The Atlas range could have been formed when Atlantis “disappeared”, due to a tremendous earthquake...

Mediterranean centered Atlantis theorists forget that the reason why researchers started to look for Atlantis somewhere else other than the Atlantic ocean in the first place, is because Atlantis was never found there (in the Atlantic), although that was exactly what Plato said! And that is maybe the reason why Atlantis was never discovered!

To understand how the hypothetical famed continental sized island moved from A to B, firstly, it should be necessary to assume that there was a crustal move (where to, nobody knows)! But Plato’s island did “hypothetically” move!

the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea

<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html">http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

This should be considered an “hypothetical” fact, right? Secondly, the earth’s crustal structure represents only 1/300 of the planet’s hot mass. Is it not a thin “eggshell” layer, compared to the whole planet? Is it not apparently fragile and weak?

I ask, is it possible for an island to literally “sink” into the upper mantle? I do not think so, since the crust is less dense than the mantle and therefore, buoyancy will always force the crust upwards, staying “float”, upon the hot magma. It is impossible for a continent to “sink” (hope everybody agree)!

Now, could Atlantis island (crust) have performed a motion on the spherical earth? That is to have moved across the globe, or more exactly rotating about an hypothetical Euler pole?

Euler's fixed point theorem states that any motion of a rigid body on the surface of a sphere may be represented as a rotation about an appropriately chosen rotation pole, called an Euler pole.”

http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/demos/BRICK/brick.html

In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of Plato’s tale, against the scientific “status quo, is that: if his(tory) is to be true, then science would be necessarily mistaken (in the particular subject of Atlantis).

By avoiding scientific dating, we can yield innumerable evidence that in fact Greenland was Atlantis. Ignoring dating systems can reveal unthinkable geologic processes. In fact, what is happening today, at plate boundaries, could be nothing more than the result of the late impacting event (10.000 years ago), where plates motioned in such a fashion as that we can actually observe in present day motions of the crust. That is, modern plate boundary behavior would be the geologic consequence (and evidence) of diverse forces applied to continents, while buoying over a semi molten ocean floor, by means of a crust liquefaction impact on earth, at that moment in time.

I still do not have all the dots, but i can assure you that it should be impossible for such number of coincidental facts to be there for no good reason. The problem posed by Atlantis existence should be that scientific dating “standards” had to be fundamentally wrong since the possibility of a rapid continental shift was not taken under consideration, that is, the kind of havoc that could have derived from a recent impact catastrophic scenario (there just was no evidence of it). Nevertheless, thanks to the melting of the huge Pleistocene ice that existed 10.000 years ago, sea level rose as much as 140m, certainly extinguishing the huge heat, generated at the time of the impact. Arctic and Antarctic ice are (probably) the remains of a larger and ancient cryosphere (water in the solid state) that existed before, when Atlantis was (supposedly) in front of Gibraltar.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

athanasius_kircher2+%281%29.gif

C%C3%B3pia+de+Atlantis_greenland.jpg

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting theory!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure? Have you dug there? :D

Yes I did. It was the yearly inspection of the underground vault where everything the U.S. government wants to keep hidden is stored. Area 51 bodies; Ancient Alien tools; Biological specimens from Bigfoot, Nessie, Springheel Jack and an assortment of Vampires, Werewolves and Zombies; The space ship from Forbidden Planet and of course Osama Bin Laden and Elvis are there too. We did it in the guise of having the septic tank cleaned. :lol:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you just connected my theory with the very worst material on the internet! What is the matter with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4523423424.jpg

Interesting theory!

That was nice of you, thank you...

Catalog of images regarding Atlantis being in Greenland:

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722

Hope you like it!

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

athanasius_kircher2+%281%29.gif

C%C3%B3pia+de+Atlantis_greenland.jpg

I almost forgot to repost it for the x-th time:

Athanasius Kircher's other map:

pl17.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin,

I have told you before that Athanasius Kircher's chart is not fundamental to my theory. Nevertheless, it "does" have some resemblance with Greenland in front of Gibraltar, do you not agree?

In my opinion Kircher's map was drawn after shreds of an ancient map, but it could be that Kircher made it up. Again i state here that there isn't the slightest worry over Kircher's map legitimacy. The only reason why i kept showing them (or making up fantastic models) is that in fact they are similar, they do look alike...

I promise not to show Kircher map anymore here, satisfied? This way we could talk about something else other than Kircher's "nonsense". I believe i have provided much more information than you suggest.

Thanks for stopping by...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kircher put Greenland at the top of the map I posted, and Iceland below it.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you just connected my theory with the very worst material on the internet! What is the matter with you?

Had you actually bothered to read what was written starting with Archimedes wanting to know where Atlantis wasn't, my reply to him, kmt_sesh reply to me and my reply that you are complaining about, you would have seen that while it is in this thread, it never touched your theory or tied it into anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Quaentum,

Maybe it was not your intention to connect my theory with any of the "trash" material stated before, but the truth is that you did! The internet is one big melting pot and as soon as you introduce such comments in any site's thread, it will automatically be linked to those key words. I am sorry if i lost my temper, please accept my sincere apologies.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has some value.

For all the pretty pictures.

That's about it.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really sorry to pooh-pooh this theory...

But Atlantis isn't buried underneath Greenland.I believe it's closer to home in the shape of the Greek islands.You'll have to consider that Plato cannot see anything beyond his own world.He clearly described seas of mud which is interpreted as pumice coming from a volcanic explosion.In his own little world the only thing that fits the bill is the modern day island of Thira which used to be called Santorini before Plato's time.

He also mentioned an island within an island. Just Google Earth piccies of if you don't believe me.Plato didn't say anything about seas of ice.And beyond the Pillars Of Hercules is a bit of a red herring because Plato didn't mean it is a literal history but just a story.So if anybody who reckons that Atlantis is beyond the Pillar Of Hercules is incorrect even though they are thinking outside the box.It dosn't matter if somebody says the climate was different those many thousands of years ago.

Edited by Medium Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really sorry to pooh-pooh this theory...

But Atlantis isn't buried underneath Greenland.I believe it's closer to home in the shape of the Greek islands.You'll have to consider that Plato cannot see anything beyond his own world.He clearly described seas of mud which is interpreted as pumice coming from a volcanic explosion.In his own little world the only thing that fits the bill is the modern day island of Thira which used to be called Santorini before Plato's time.

He also mentioned an island within an island. Just Google Earth piccies of if you don't believe me.Plato didn't say anything about seas of ice.And beyond the Pillars Of Hercules is a bit of a red herring because Plato didn't mean it is a literal history but just a story.So if anybody who reckons that Atlantis is beyond the Pillar Of Hercules is incorrect even though they are thinking outside the box.It dosn't matter if somebody says the climate was different those many thousands of years ago.

The problem with that theory is that Plato never mentions a volcanic eruption in his tale about Atlantis. And it was the largest volcanic eruption in human history.

Btw, the island was called Santorini from medieval times.

And it had other names too:

Before then, it was known as Kallístē (Καλλίστη, "the most beautiful one"), Strongýlē (Greek: Στρογγύλη, "the circular one"), or Thēra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorini

.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.