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 18
ISAEYEALLSEEING

Atlantis is a reality find out where here

2,202 posts in this topic

If you'd actually do some research, you'd already know that Aztlan was believed to have originally been to the north of Mexico, NOT in the Atlantic.

cormac

Believed? yes belief in something does not necessarily make that theory true though. I might believe in things, but that does not necessarily mean my belief is true either. However, i do see correlation between pyramid constructions, i believe there must have been a prototype culture that influenced the pyramid culture.

South america.

mexico-teotihuacan-s.jpg

Asia.

piramide_china05_13.jpg

Africa.

GreatPyramid.jpg

White Gods with red hair teaching knowledge and pyramid constructions being constructed in different continents. There was a prototype origin and that origin might not be of earth.

Lol, i love that one. If the boring and the mundane seems unbelievable, then the spectacular and controversial must be true.

dm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believed? yes belief in something does not necessarily make that theory true though. I might believe in things, but that does not necessarily mean my belief is true either. However, i do see correlation between pyramid constructions, i believe there must have been a prototype culture that influenced the pyramid culture.

~SNIP~

Yes, believed. By the actual people involved. Which again makes your speculation meaningless.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"White Gods with red hair teaching knowledge and pyramid constructions being constructed in different continents. There was a prototype origin and that origin might not be of earth."

Why not manifest or create "very intelligent" humans. How do some of these guys in the past get there ideas? Examples Nostradamus, Leonardo, Newton, Einstein, Galileo and Telsa.

There's more evidence of Bigfoot, Jesus, Mohammed, UFO's and Ghosts then an intelligent civilization in our Universe creating Pyramids on Earth.

What I'm saying there's a possibility that there were "White Gods with Red hair teaching knowledge and pyramid constructions in different continents." But they also might not of been "Gods" at all. Just another very intelligent human like Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"White Gods with red hair teaching knowledge and pyramid constructions being constructed in different continents. There was a prototype origin and that origin might not be of earth."

Why not manifest or create "very intelligent" humans. How do some of these guys in the past get there ideas? Examples Nostradamus, Leonardo, Newton, Einstein, Galileo and Telsa.

Better yet, why not provide some evidence that some ancient cultured worshipped "White gods with red hair..." instead of just making the comment?

The "white gods" thing post-dates the Spanish Conquest.

Care to speculate on why that is the case?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people went to the extent of crusades and how big religion is/was. People keep telling me that Atlantis never existed without giving others evidence other then Plato is a liar and a lot others.

If you want me to speculate it's because of Bigfoot and Religion.

"White Gods" thing post dates the Spanish Conquest. Yeah and I bet it's because they looked the same.

Back to Atlantis.. - If they're a strong Naval force at the time... Morocco and Spain have the most wood. You need wood to build ships. I'm leaning toward Morocco or Spain. Like were Gibraltar is like Plato said. Really? Nothing has been found? Hmm

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac you stated before that "Atlantis was an allegory, meant to teach a lesson." Are you saying Atlantis was an idea the symbolized that you better not attack Athens or you will get your butt kicked? Atlantis got taken to extreme lengths.

Would you say Plato lied to keep other states and countries away from attacking? To build up Athens morale and strength falsely? Wouldn't everyone before living in Athens or the Mediterranean already know something like this? How could you lie to an audience?

He I guess would usually state his work as fictional or factual. It's tough to write this off as fake. I still don't know what to think. You could be right or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac you stated before that "Atlantis was an allegory, meant to teach a lesson." Are you saying Atlantis was an idea the symbolized that you better not attack Athens or you will get your butt kicked? Atlantis got taken to extreme lengths.

Would you say Plato lied to keep other states and countries away from attacking? To build up Athens morale and strength falsely? Wouldn't everyone before living in Athens or the Mediterranean already know something like this? How could you lie to an audience?

He I guess would usually state his work as fictional or factual. It's tough to write this off as fake. I still don't know what to think. You could be right or not.

That's one way of putting it.

No I wouldn't say Plato lied, because he wasn't writing history.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't Plato lying in your eyes? You said him telling this story about Atlantis was sci-fi fiction. Are you saying he told this story of Atlantis during his time as fictional and told everyone living in that time knew it was fiction then somehow it got taken out of context and now we believe it's real?

Plato did write history. He's history.

Plato also spoke/told history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't Plato lying in your eyes? You said him telling this story about Atlantis was sci-fi fiction. Are you saying he told this story of Atlantis during his time as fictional and told everyone living in that time knew it was fiction then somehow it got taken out of context and now we believe it's real?

Plato did write history. He's history.

Plato also spoke/told history.

He wrote it as an allegorical tale which was later interpreted by others as actual history. They're the ones who've taken the story out of context. And all during a recognized gathering of story-tellers of that time. It was never meant to be anything other than a story.

What I actually said was "any reinterpreted attempt to rationalize it into existance...is sci-fi". Plato clearly never meant it to go beyond being the allegorical tale it was.

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac you stated before that "Atlantis was an allegory, meant to teach a lesson." Are you saying Atlantis was an idea the symbolized that you better not attack Athens or you will get your butt kicked? Atlantis got taken to extreme lengths.

Would you say Plato lied to keep other states and countries away from attacking? To build up Athens morale and strength falsely? Wouldn't everyone before living in Athens or the Mediterranean already know something like this? How could you lie to an audience?

He I guess would usually state his work as fictional or factual. It's tough to write this off as fake. I still don't know what to think. You could be right or not.

I'd like to chime in. First, no one is saying Plato lied. That's an unfair assumption and not a correct way to interpret or understand his writings Timaeus and Critias. How familiar are you not only with these two works but with Plato's writings in general? He used the format of dialog and allegory quite a lot in what he wrote—not to present actual historical accounts but to craft philosophical arguments and cautionary tales.

Second, how familiar are you with the Athens of Plato's time? What traumatic historical event did Plato live through that profoundly affected Athens at that time, as well as all of the people living in it? Plato's tale was hardly written as a warning against those who might threaten Athens, but was in fact a cautionary tale of the hubris of a people and its city-state. It was self-reflection, in other words.

Plato was a philosopher, not an historian. Too many people in the twenty-first century do not take this into account, nor do they consider (or even know of) the actual events that lay behind the reason Plato concocted Atlantis in the first place. Far from being a lie, Plato's Atlantis was a brilliant allegorical construct.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wrote it as an allegorical tale which was later interpreted by others as actual history. They're the ones who've taken the story out of context. And all during a recognized gathering of story-tellers of that time. It was never meant to be anything other than a story.

What I actually said was "any reinterpreted attempt to rationalize it into existance...is sci-fi". Plato clearly never meant it to go beyond being the allegorical tale it was.

cormac

Ok I got it. Would you say he wrote this fictional story not just for Athens but everyone in the Mediterranean/Western Europe/North Africa or World? Considering he told a tale that a civilization conquered everyone but Athens.. I would be upset if someone told me my lands were conquered before when they really weren't. I guess not or I'm wrong. Nobody cares.

Maybe something resembles Atlantis in the past or maybe not. Not really fictional when your city or lands were probably always under attack throughout history.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I got it. Would you say he wrote this fictional story not just for Athens but everyone in the Mediterranean/Western Europe/North Africa or World? Considering he told a tale that a civilization conquered everyone but Athens.. I would be upset if someone told me my lands were conquered before when they really weren't. I guess not or I'm wrong. Nobody cares.

Maybe something resembles Atlantis in the past or maybe not. Not really fictional when your city or lands were probably always under attack throughout history.

He wrote it for the peoples of his time and location. It really wasn't meant for anyone else.

Which is probably why he placed the events of Atlantis so far in the past. A time that no one had any real information about. It's kind of hard to base an argument on information one doesn't really have.

Even if he used the disappearance of other locations, such as Helike or Santorini, as an inspiration for some of his tale this still wouldn't validate an island civilization just outside of the Pillars of Hercules.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe his name and work was known outside of Athens. I don't know, but if he got this big then I'll go out on a limb and say that's true.

I see your reasonings for placing Atlantis so far back. Makes sense. I give it to you. But I'm sure he just made a ball park estimate of the years or he didn't.

I don't think Plato would want us to take it this far if his story is fictional. Dang it.

I have a question. Do you believe something resembling Atlantis could of existed back in 9.600 BC or whenever? I do. I realize there's no proof of anything. But that's why we made the word discovery.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe his name and work was known outside of Athens. I don't know, but if he got this big then I'll go out on a limb and say that's true.

I see your reasonings for placing Atlantis so far back. Makes sense. I give it to you. But I'm sure he just made a ball park estimate of the years or he didn't.

I don't think Plato would want us to take it this far if his story is fictional. Dang it.

I have a question. Do you believe something resembling Atlantis could of existed back in 9.600 BC or whenever? I do. I realize there's no proof of anything. But that's why we made the word discovery.

Not with the population or technological/maritime capabilities that Atlantis was claimed to have had. This all pretty much says "Bronze Age". And we know from archaeological finds in and around Spain that there were no such populated not technologically advanced cultures in the area c.9600 BC.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing different between the technological/maritime capabilities of humans compared from 9,600BC to Platos time. If there is, it's slightly and the ideas of how to run a country. Why are you giving the assumption that human beings were not as technologically advanced in 9,600 BC compared to Platos time? If you can built a boat....well you can build a boat. If you have a hand and a brain, you can draw a map. If you have a brain, you can remember where places are. Take the taxi driver originally from a different country as an example. If you can make a blunt object or sword, you can invade opposing lands. They could of been more technological advanced then we give them. We know barley anything from 9,600 BC anywhere.

An example are the Barbarians and Goths. People usually write them off as dumb and not technologically advanced. Clearly they weren't, but that's what they were labeled. They invaded mighty Rome and Europe.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing different between the technological/maritime capabilities of humans compared from 9,600BC to Platos time. If there is, it's slightly and the ideas of how to run a country. Why are you giving the assumption that human beings were not as technologically advanced in 9,600 BC compared to Platos time? If you can built a boat....well you can build a boat. If you have a hand and a brain, you can draw a map. If you have a brain, you can remember where places are. Take the taxi driver originally from a different country as an example. If you can make a blunt object or sword, you can invade opposing lands. They could of been more technological advanced then we give them. We know barley anything from 9,600 BC anywhere.

Which suggests to me that you haven't paid particular attention to Plato's Critias. We're not talking simple dugout canoes here. Plato actually mentions the following:

As to the population, each of the lots in the plain had to find a leader for the men who were fit for military service, and the size of a lot was a square of ten stadia each way, and the total number

of all the lots was sixty thousand. And of the inhabitants of the mountains and of the rest of the country there was also a vast multitude, which was distributed among the lots and had leaders

assigned to them according to their districts and villages. 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. Such was the military order of the royal city-the order of the other nine governments varied, and it would be wearisome to recount their several differences.

This is technology that didn't exist in 9600 BC.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned to you before I only read Wiki's page regarding Atlantis. I've never read Platos Critias and I don't need to if I want to say that something resembled Atlantis. By the way your right, it's impossible to know 10,000 chariots and 1,200 ships. What about every take on war in our past history. It's all just estimates other then wars recent. I would think he over estimated majorly to make Athens seem impressive. In ancient times things were tough.

Here's my first take -

You invade. Steal horses and wood. Keep doing it until Athens is reached. Total chariots and boats add up to a lot. Pretty basic technological wise and it's basically the same to Platos time. To say the wheel got invented when it did is foolish in my opinion. I know I'm just making claims but so are you. You'll never know if you are right and the same with me. That's why this forum is great.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you need is a hand to carry a weapon of destruction and a brain to accomplish what Atlantis did according to Plato.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned to you before I only read Wiki's page regarding Atlantis. I've never read Platos Critias and I don't need to if I want to say that something resembled Atlantis. By the way your right, it's impossible to know 10,000 chariots and 1,200 ships. What about every take on war in our past history. It's all just estimates other then wars recent. I would think he over estimated majorly to make Athens seem impressive. In ancient times things were tough.

Here's my first take -

You invade. Steal horses and wood. Keep doing it until Athens is reached. Total chariots and boats add up to a lot. Pretty basic technological wise and it's basically the same to Platos time. To say the wheel got invented when it did is foolish in my opinion. I know I'm just making claims but so are you. You'll never know if you are right and the same with me. That's why this forum is great.

There's a difference. My claims are based on the available evidence. None of which supports anything that could be remotely misconstrued as Plato's Atlantis. Contrary to popular opinion, all opinions are NOT equal. Especially when the evidence supports one over the other.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that 100% cormac. I'm just saying nothing really is known about that time period. I just won't write this off that easily. It's just my opinion. That's why we created the word discovery. I admit I might one day proclaim Atlantis in the same way you did.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that 100% cormac. I'm just saying nothing really is known about that time period. I just won't write this off that easily. It's just my opinion. That's why we created the word discovery.

And my take on that is that one can't base a claim on something that hasn't been discovered. It's pretty much putting the cart before the horse.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I looked at everything the way you did with Atlantis, I would never be where I am right now.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I looked at everything the way you did with Atlantis, I would never be where I am right now.

If you actually believe in Atlantis, then I'm glad I'm not where you're at.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you say so.... ??

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously though, we both have told each other that were both wrong until we check every inch of this Earth thoroughly, spending meaningful time at each inch or less. That means underground, under civilization currently and under the sea. Nobody knows at December 10, 2012 what the Pillars of Hercules meant unless somebody does. Like I and others have said, we could of already found it and didn't think twice unless that guy did. Oh and that unlikely chance in my life time someone intelligent that made us or some manifestation/Jesus/Mohammed tells me different. Atlantis to me does seem like a bunch of crap in a way, but I won't know. Something resembling it probably did exist.

Edited by kampz

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 18

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.