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

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.

Not quite. I've told you what the evidence shows. And since Plato gives a rather specific location, size and technological capability for his Atlantis that has left absolutely no evidence whatsoever of its own existance, then we can rule it out as a real place. And we don't need to figure out what he meant by "Pillars of Hercules" as he says exactly where they are, namely the western Mediterranean. By giving us all the information he does, even if it existed, he's ruled out everywhere else. Wanting something to be real does not make it real.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely need to know what The Pillars of Hercules meant. How could Plato know the exact dates? We may of already found evidence of Atlantis and explained it in another way or forgot about it then building over Atlantis. Atlantis or something resembling it would appear to be the first large civilization, but how many other civilizations accomplished what Atlantis or something resembling it did? There was a lot. Atlantis was probably an after thought and the stories got tossed around and things changed. Plato was pretty vague about the location unless you spoke directly to him I would hope.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely need to know what The Pillars of Hercules meant. How could Plato know the exact dates? We may of already found evidence of Atlantis and explained it in another way or forgot about it then building over Atlantis. Atlantis or something resembling it would appear to be the first large civilization, but how many other civilizations accomplished what Atlantis or something resembling it did? There was a lot. Atlantis was probably an after thought and the stories got tossed around and things changed. Plato was pretty vague about the location unless you spoke directly to him I would hope.

Not hardly as vague as you'd like others to believe. In reference to Atlantis, Plato says:

...and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles...

You've already admitted to not having read Plato's works. The only reason to do so would be so you can play fast and loose with what he says. Try actually reading Timaeus and Critias for a change. That would greatly help.

cormac

1 person likes this

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.

...

Cormac is right, Plato's overall description is primarily Bronze Age in nature. The same is true for Homer and his tale of Troy. These writers were describing events out of time and ascribing their contemporary technologies on the events about which they wrote. Homer's description of chariot usage in battle is, for example, quite fully inaccurate. This is not how chariots were used in battle. Homer can be forgiven, of course, because he was jotting down the Iliad around 750 BCE and chariots were no longer part of Greek culture by that time. And had not been for centuries, since the time of the Mycenaeans.

In the same vein, Plato's description of ships is quite unrealistic. At the height of its power in the Peloponnesian War, Athens was the supreme naval power in the Greek world. Sparta and its allies could not match the Athenians at sea until much later in the war, which is why they usually tried to avoid engaging Athens at sea. And at the height of its naval power, Athens at most probably possessed around 300 triremes. That would've been a considerable naval force at the time.

An exception was Persia. This empire possessed no navy of its own, and so used vassal states to supply naval forces. This included Egyptian and Ionian vessels, but especially Phoenician vessels. All told, the Persian vassal navy may well have numbered over 1,000 vessels. In framing the fable of Atlantis, it's more than likely that Plato was drawing from the Persians and what they could bring to the battlefield (be it land or sea). In fact, long after most states of the region had abandoned chariots, the Persians still used them in their military.

But the fact remains that there's simply no evidence that Atlantis was ever a real place, nor is there the slightest evidence that a sophisticated and burgeoning civilization like Atlantis existed 12,000 years ago.

Editing to add: Don't rely on Wiki for your knowledge on Atlantis. Wiki can be only so helpful, and is sometimes just plain wrong. If you're truly interested in Atlantis, you should read Timaeus and Critias. These two works of Plato are the origin of the Atlantis tale, so if you're not familiar with them, you're not familiar with the Atlantis tale.

Edited by kmt_sesh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

...and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles...

Wait now it got that specific? We built over it then.

It seems naive to not read what Plato wrote. I shouldn't have to though. I chose Wiki and you guys/girls. In my opinion Plato created his own version and named it Atlantis but some type of civilization existed that resembled it. What he wrote was allegory but for everyone that has ever existed. Not just Athens. I see what you've been saying.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

...and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles...

Wait now it got that specific? We built over it then.

It seems naive to not read what Plato wrote. I shouldn't have to though. I chose Wiki and you guys/girls. In my opinion Plato created his own version and named it Atlantis but some type of civilization existed that resembled it. What he wrote was allegory but for everyone that has ever existed. Not just Athens. I see what you've been saying.

And yet you've admitted you haven't but apparently have no problems making it up as you go along. That's not research of any kind, that's a fabrication.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're truly interested in Atlantis, you should read Timaeus and Critias. These two works of Plato are the origin of the Atlantis tale, so if you're not familiar with them, you're not familiar with the Atlantis tale.

Cormac and kmt_sesh are both right. Read Timaeus and Critias, critically! It's an allegory, an 'old wive's tale'. The tale of Atlantis has no, none, not any, zilch basis in historical fact.

Don't fall for the old, "Well, some old guy wrote it, so it must be true," fallacy. If you succumb to that, then you'll fall for anything.

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.

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

dm.jpg

Let's have a more accurate, detailed and more open-minded view of that BS notion of artificial structures in Cydonia on Mars.

citycomplex.jpg

Why do people insist on using 30+ year old images of Mars (that are awesome in themselves and very useful for looking at the large-scale nature of the surface, but far inferior in detail to recent images) when the newer images are so much more better?

The supposed Cydonia city-scape, pyramids, face, etc. simply disappear when looking at new images of the area.

edit: I misdentified the Tholus hill in my pic above. Not that it matters, it's no more interesting than the dull looking lump I identified in my picture.

Edited by Archimedes
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archimedes,(unrelated to the topic), but those are some really neat photos of Mars. Thanks for that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

...and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles...

Wait now it got that specific? We built over it then.

It seems naive to not read what Plato wrote. I shouldn't have to though. I chose Wiki and you guys/girls. In my opinion Plato created his own version and named it Atlantis but some type of civilization existed that resembled it. What he wrote was allegory but for everyone that has ever existed. Not just Athens. I see what you've been saying.

Here's one. Imagine if 'Gulliver's Travels' was one of the few extant English language books, still in existance 2,000 years from now. Would people try to rediscover Lilliput, Brobdingnag, Laputa etc. thousands of years from now?

I would hope that they realized that the story was written as a satire based on contemporay events. Yet if you read the first lines of the story, you're told to believe that it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet you've admitted you haven't but apparently have no problems making it up as you go along. That's not research of any kind, that's a fabrication.

cormac

Well I just went off of yours and I said they would of had to of built over it. I think a long time ago. I can't prove it. Maybe they did before I would guess. Sometime. And your going to say no evidence exist. Ok. What do you say if we find something else like a civilization on a grander scale back in 7000 BC and no evidence existed before of it and it could be anywhere in the World? - Except word of mouth.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I just went off of yours and I said they would of had to of built over it. I think a long time ago. I can't prove it. Maybe they did before I would guess. Sometime. And your going to say no evidence exist. Ok. What do you say if we find something else like a civilization on a grander scale back in 7000 BC and no evidence existed before of it and it could be anywhere in the World? - Except word of mouth.

And how exactly would they have built over it if it sank into the ocean?

First of all one would have to show evidence of such having existed. In other words, find the evidence FIRST and then speculate.

Secondly, show evidence that it was an actual "civilization" versus a culture. And there are specific criteria for a civilization, so no, the two are NOT exactly the same thing.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how exactly would they have built over it if it sank into the ocean?

First of all one would have to show evidence of such having existed. In other words, find the evidence FIRST and then speculate.

Secondly, show evidence that it was an actual "civilization" versus a culture. And there are specific criteria for a civilization, so no, the two are NOT exactly the same thing.

cormac

What if it dried up and Plato made a mistake? What if Plato made a mistake? If it sank into the ocean then the land under the island was sliced in half and sank like a boat kind of. Tsunamis and Hurricanes can flood and entire Island or most. Barbarians and Goths weren't much of a civilization yet Visigoths sacked Rome. I mentioned before all you need is a hand and a brain to accomplish what "Atlantis" did. Isn't word of mouth evidence? What if Atlantis was kinda like the Visigoths? Barbarians and Visigoths were more like a culture.

What do you say if we find something else like a civilization on a grander scale back in 7000 BC and no evidence existed before of it and it could be anywhere in the World? - The only evidence there is is word of mouth before discovery.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it dried up and Plato made a mistake? What if Plato made a mistake? If it sank into the ocean then the land under the island was sliced in half and sank like a boat kind of. Tsunamis and Hurricanes can flood and entire Island or most. Barbarians and Goths weren't much of a civilization yet Visigoths sacked Rome. I mentioned before all you need is a hand and a brain to accomplish what "Atlantis" did. Isn't word of mouth evidence? What if Atlantis was kinda like the Visigoths? Barbarians and Visigoths were more like a culture.

What do you say if we find something else like a civilization on a grander scale back in 7000 BC and no evidence existed before of it and it could be anywhere in the World? - The only evidence there is is word of mouth before discovery.

If such a place sank, it would leave evidence in the geological strata of the area involved. It doesn't just vanish into thin air. And as science has shown, there is no evidence for any such occurance in the area Atlantis was supposed to have been in. And no, word of mouth is not evidence. At best, it's hear-say.

To your second question. If there is no evidence for it to begin with, then there would also be no way of knowing about it either. So no "word of mouth".

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word of God and all religion is hear say. Even the entire theory of Evolution is hear say.

What do you mean by sank? The hurricane and tsunami way or slicing the land underneath it? Like I stated before, I think Platos take on the story is totally bogus to make Athens seem superior to everyone during the time he told the story again to Athens.

If "Atlantis" was similar to the Visigoths, it would make sense that there's barely anything to find. Maybe we did and/or built over it without knowing.

"To your second question. If there is no evidence for it to begin with, then there would also be no way of knowing about it either. So no "word of mouth".- Word of mouth is how a lot of things got discovered it would appear to me. That's how "Atlantis" became to exist as far as I can understand. Plus humans never leave the land usually once they're there. Unless forced too by Nature. It could of dried up or we've found something and don't realize.

It doesn't seem like "Atlantis" or the civilization resembling it existed for very long. Pretty coincidental that there city got wiped out real quick after raping and pillaging the Mediterranean and losing to Athens where Democracy was discovered. It does remind me a lot compared to the Visigoths.

Again I'm saying screw Platos story. Maybe we can find something resembling it that existed a good time before Plato was born. Take your pick on what a good time would be and there's your Atlantis. The question is how far can we go back? Maybe further then we already know and we need to discover it.

I would think you're right cormac.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word of God and all religion is hear say. Even the entire theory of Evolution is hear say.

Please go to your nearest museum of natural history to see a small fraction of the physical evidence collected from all around the world that supports Evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did. I'm talking about everything regarding Evolution.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did.

Good. You now know that Evolution is supported by physical evidence therefore it's not here say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how they dwelt, being the guardians of their own citizens and the leaders of the Hellenes, who were their willing followers. And they took care to preserve the same number of men and women through all time, being so many as were required for warlike purposes, then as now-that is to say, about twenty thousand.

Critias

Question how early did Athens maintain a army of twenty thousand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word of God and all religion is hear say. Even the entire theory of Evolution is hear say.

No it's not.

The "entire theory of evolution" is an utterly amazing scientific theory backed up and supported by evidence from everything from evidence via paleontology, biology, genetics, comparative morphology, zoology, geology, etc. The great thing about evolution (and just about all of modern science) is that all sorts of otherwise independent strands of science tie together to prove each other right and form a coherent worldview. It's thanks to evolution and its related sciences, quantum physics and its contribution towards modern understanding of the solar system, geology, astronomy and its understanding of stellar evolution, etc, etc, etc. that leads towards our modern understanding of a 5 billion year old solar system and all the wonderful things that have happened since a gas cloud started gravitationally contracting and how physics, geology, quantum physics, chemistry, astronomy, evolution, etc. help us put all this stuff into a big picture that makes me in awe of modern science.

Modern science is accepted because.... it works. Creationists, be they YECs, Old Earth Creationists, Old Earth Evolutionists, can't agree on anything (evolution, age of the world, decay rates of elements, etc.) because they're trying to hammer an old religious book into the real world when the Real World should be dictating their book and not vice versa.

Edited by Archimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how they dwelt, being the guardians of their own citizens and the leaders of the Hellenes, who were their willing followers. And they took care to preserve the same number of men and women through all time, being so many as were required for warlike purposes, then as now-that is to say, about twenty thousand.

Critias

There was never a "leader" of the Hellenes, per se. What existed was a hegemon, in effect the superior military power at any one time. This was never a stable condition and tended to vacillate between Sparta, Athens, and Thebes. Once one city-state rose to power, other leading city-states grew wary and usually formed alliances to upset the hegemon. Then a new city-state would take the lead, and others would conspire against it...and on, and on, and on. The country we now now as Greece was never a nation-state in ancient times because the situation of the polis, or city-state, was the overarching defining characteristic in socio-politics.

As it was, Athens was never a key player among the other city-states until the onset of the Persian wars. It was due to failed Persian invasions that Athens emerged from backwater obscurity to great status.

Question how early did Athens maintain a army of twenty thousand?

It's quite possible Athens never reached an army of that size. We know when Darius I sent an invasion force to Greece in 490 BCE, Athens could field only around 9,000 men (they were joined by a small force of 1,000 Platean soldiers). I suppose it might have been possible during the early years of the Peloponnesian War, when around 200,000 people might have been living in Athens before the plague reduced it's population by around a quarter. But that's not a certainty, and the number would've included mercenaries in the Athenian army.

All of this is to say, in his dialogs Plato was presenting Athens as a great and influential power from very ancient times, which we know was not the case. Plato probably could not have known that, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. You now know that Evolution is supported by physical evidence therefore it's not here say.

Yeah that's what they try to do.

Why's is there still debate about God? How come we haven't figured out how humans got here?

God theory is bulletproof. The Bible, Quran and others are worth reading still because they teach a lesson. God is however you want to take God in my opinion.

Evolution is a kevlar vest all shot up not worthy of wearing anymore. Then people put on a new one and it gets shot up again. Science and Evolution are different. We're using Science and shooting up the Evolution theory. We used Science to shoot up the Bible too. The guy probably should but shouldn't of died after the guy from the movie Predator unloaded a entire mini gun clip into him. Yeah Evolution is an invisible/cloaking monster(theory) taking trophies from millionaires and all sorts of people. "If it bleeds we can kill it" It's a zombie now in my opinion.

Some people say we were created for slavery to do nothing by Aliens. If your making humans make your own gold and there wasn't any evidence. In my opinion its slavery for entertainment. (Reasons why were here in my opinion - For entertainment, to invent things and for us to have life.

Then a lot of people say we stem from bigfoots AKA Evolution.(Just the 4 - 6 foot tall ones)

Then most of people claim God.

Remember the television show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" and contestants had life lines? One was poll the audience. What if the question was how did Humans come to existence and the life line was poll the entire world. Most pick God. I know the question could never happen yet.

I don't want to argue about Evolution. I wanted to point out that it's not proven at all.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be truthful to those who complained - I believe in my opinion at least one part of the theory of evolution is correct. I already looked at it in school, media and friends like mostly everyone else. If you ask me why I might say Blue Footed Boobies. I don't know why I remember without looking back. Maybe the name. Micro evolution maybe at the smallest level possible. I don't know it seems like I'm typing about genetics. I'm being truthful. I couldn't take it anymore when reading/looking at it. Really. It was hard at school to take it seriously. I didn't get an A on everything.

We surely do resemble these hominids though. What's a hominid though? Bigfoot or a walking primate? It's like they slapped a brain on us and fixed some bones. Ancient Sumer sure had a great idea for there time. I'm staying away from Ancient Aliens though but not entirely.

- Something resembling Atlantis could be something south of Athens...to stick with the topic..maybe the Pillars of Hercules were two statues by Athens if you want to even use them in your story. Maybe that's why the Egyptians could of heard something about it. You can take conquering Western Europe and North Africa like Libya , Malta, Sicily and Italy resembling a Visigoth culture pillaging the Mediterranean or take the Visigoth idea out. I just find it funny out they got wiped out by "mother nature" after losing to Athens if you want to use that idea. They should probably have to face Athens somehow at some point if your taking the South of Athens idea. It's crap further west and (maybe) a power house in Egypt farther South. Egypt and maybe Persians to the East. I don't think they lasted very long either.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that concerns me is how did they get the man power to accomplish or even consider sacking/attacking Athens if you use that idea? Should I throw out the idea of having them invade Western Europe and North Africa? Should I say they just sacked them for profit and moved on? It would seem Crete or somewhere around there would be there Capitol. There Culture would appear to resemble a Pirate. It's compares to a Pirate Nation that really only has an Island or few under total control. I'm still trying to understand Malta.

Edited by kampz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Malta was built during three distinct time periods why couldn't "Atlantis" been apart of one? Evidence of human activity started at 5000 BC. 5000 BC is closer to 9600 BC like Plato said."Atlantis" could of just conquered it too. Crete seems alright to though. I would think they were on both Islands.

Worthless post. Sorry

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.