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 7
stevemagegod

Atlantis

2,243 posts in this topic

Thanks Leonardo.

But do you know what 'Pillars' Procopius is talking about? Does he mean the strait between Italy and Sicily or something?

I haven't read that particular passage before, and haven't checked any landmarks mentioned, but some of the names of places he mentions leads me to gather he is talking of the Bosphorus (modern day Istanbul Strait.)

But, that is only an educated guess.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read that particular passage before, and haven't checked any landmarks mentioned, but some of the names of places he mentions leads me to gather he is talking of the Bosphorus (modern day Istanbul Strait.)

But, that is only an educated guess.

If he had not mentioned the Ionian Gulf, that's what I would have thought too.

The eponym of the Ionian Sea (whose name was more often, particularly by Aeschylus, attributed to Io's voyage; previously the Ionian Gulf was thought to have been called the sea of Cronus and Rhea). Ionius was the son of King Adrias of Illyria who gave his name to the Adriatic.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greece/Regions/IonianSea.html

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

Now the distance from one of the Pillars of Heracles to the other, if one goes along the shore and does not pass around the Ionian Gulf and the sea called the Euxine but crosses from Chalcedon[6] to Byzantium and from Dryous[7] to the opposite mainland,[8] is a journey of two hundred and eighty-five days for an unencumbered traveller. For as to the land about the Euxine Sea, which extends from Byzantium to the Lake, it would be impossible to tell everything with precision, since the barbarians beyond the Ister River, which they also call the Danube, make the shore of that sea quite impossible for the Romans to traverse--except, indeed, that from Byzantium to the mouth of the Ister is a journey of twenty-two days, which should be added to the measure of Europe by one making the computation. And on the Asiatic side, that is from Chalcedon to the Phasis River, which, flowing from the country of the Colchians, descends into the Pontus, the journey is accomplished in forty days.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Wars/Book_III

+++++++++++

EDIT:

From that same link, and just before the quoted text:

Now the earth is surrounded by a circle of ocean, either entirely or for the most part (for our knowledge is not as yet at all clear in this matter); and it is split into two continents by a sort of outflow from the ocean, a flow which enters at the western part and forms this Sea which we know, beginning at Gadira[1] (Cadiz) and extending all the way to the Maeotic Lake.[2](Sea of Azov) Of these two continents the one to the right, as one sails into the Sea, as far as the Lake, has received the name of Asia, beginning at Gadira and at the southern[3] of the two Pillars of Heracles. Septem[4] is the name given by the natives to the fort at that point, since seven hills appear there; for "septem" has the force of "seven" in the Latin tongue. And the whole continent opposite this was named Europe. And the strait at that point separates the two continents[5] by about eighty-four stades, but from there on they are kept apart by wide expanses of sea as far as the Hellespont. For at this point they again approach each other at Sestus and Abydus, and once more at Byzantium and Chalcedon as far as the rocks called in ancient times the "Dark Blue Rocks," where even now is the place called Hieron. For at these places the continents are separated from one another by a distance of only ten stades and even less than that.

:blink:

hellespont.GIF

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he had not mentioned the Ionian Gulf, that's what I would have thought too.

The eponym of the Ionian Sea (whose name was more often, particularly by Aeschylus, attributed to Io's voyage; previously the Ionian Gulf was thought to have been called the sea of Cronus and Rhea). Ionius was the son of King Adrias of Illyria who gave his name to the Adriatic.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greece/Regions/IonianSea.html

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

Now the distance from one of the Pillars of Heracles to the other, if one goes along the shore and does not pass around the Ionian Gulf and the sea called the Euxine but crosses from Chalcedon[6] to Byzantium and from Dryous[7] to the opposite mainland,[8] is a journey of two hundred and eighty-five days for an unencumbered traveller. For as to the land about the Euxine Sea, which extends from Byzantium to the Lake, it would be impossible to tell everything with precision, since the barbarians beyond the Ister River, which they also call the Danube, make the shore of that sea quite impossible for the Romans to traverse--except, indeed, that from Byzantium to the mouth of the Ister is a journey of twenty-two days, which should be added to the measure of Europe by one making the computation. And on the Asiatic side, that is from Chalcedon to the Phasis River, which, flowing from the country of the Colchians, descends into the Pontus, the journey is accomplished in forty days.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Wars/Book_III

I must admit, that threw me as well. I rationalised it as this being Procopius giving the direction of travel (i.e. north along the shore, and not south). It could also be that Procopius did not himself know the region very well, or had never been there, and was working off second-hand )or worse) information and poorly drawn maps.

Having looked a bit further into the landmarks mentioned, it would seem I may have been wrong. This particular passage...

"crosses from Chalcedon[6] to Byzantium and from Dryous[7] to the opposite mainland"

...suggests Procopius is talking about crossing the Bosphoros - but that it is not itself the Pillars of Hercules. Perhaps he is referring to the Hellespont (Dardanelles)?

This would make better sense as he speaks of not going around the Euxine Sea (Black Sea) and so the shore he is speaking of must be the shoreline of the Sea of Marmara.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, that threw me as well. I rationalised it as this being Procopius giving the direction of travel (i.e. north along the shore, and not south). It could also be that Procopius did not himself know the region very well, or had never been there, and was working off second-hand )or worse) information and poorly drawn maps.

Having looked a bit further into the landmarks mentioned, it would seem I may have been wrong. This particular passage...

"crosses from Chalcedon[6] to Byzantium and from Dryous[7] to the opposite mainland"

...suggests Procopius is talking about crossing the Bosphoros - but that it is not itself the Pillars of Hercules. Perhaps he is referring to the Hellespont (Dardanelles)?

This would make better sense as he speaks of not going around the Euxine Sea (Black Sea) and so the shore he is speaking of must be the shoreline of the Sea of Marmara.

Check my edit, please: he mentions both the Hellespont and the Bosphorus (Chalcedon/Byzantium).

EDIT:

"And on the Asiatic side, that is from Chalcedon to the Phasis River, which, flowing from the country of the Colchians, descends into the Pontus, the journey is accomplished in forty days."

As fas as I know Pontus is the south-east coast of the Black Sea...

ActsMap_Pontus.jpg

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check my edit, please: he mentions both the Hellespont and the Bosphorus (Chalcedon/Byzantium).

EDIT:

"And on the Asiatic side, that is from Chalcedon to the Phasis River, which, flowing from the country of the Colchians, descends into the Pontus, the journey is accomplished in forty days."

As fas as I know Pontus is the south-east coast of the Black Sea...

ActsMap_Pontus.jpg

.

Yes, but he mentions Pontus in the context of a different journey, so I disregard that.

I disagree with the association of the "Dryous" that Procopius mentions, with modern-day Otranto in the 'heel' of Italy's 'boot'. The journey as described - if that association is correct - makes no sense at all.

Edit: As a caveat to the above - it makes no sense if we consider it was known one could walk south from Byzantium to the tip of the Greek side of the Hellespont. If that was not known, then the journey might make a little sense - but not much!

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but he mentions Pontus in the context of a different journey, so I disregard that.

I disagree with the association of the "Dryous" that Procopius mentions, with modern-day Otranto in the 'heel' of Italy's 'boot'. The journey as described - if that association is correct - makes no sense at all.

Edit: As a caveat to the above - it makes no sense if we consider it was known one could walk south from Byzantium to the tip of the Greek side of the Hellespont. If that was not known, then the journey might make a little sense - but not much!

Procopius writes about the Vandalic Wars. Here's a map:

post-18246-0-84919000-1334762743_thumb.j

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f9EYmFuvRKw/T01TxdhjkHI/AAAAAAAADss/Y5fRIiaBuS4/s1600/11-Vandalic_War_campaign_map.png

http://byzantinemilitary.blogspot.com/

And maybe then it makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. When he writes "the unencumbered traveller", do you envisage a sea voyage, or a voyage on foot?

And, if the "Dryous" he refers to really is Otranto, then he is talking of crossing the Adriatic from mainland Italy back to mainland Greece. This after walking to Italy via the Adriatic shore from Greece (starting in Byzantium and crossing northern Greece to it's Adriatic shore). I'm not sure his speaking of the separation of the Pillars of Hercules (by foot travel) has anything to do with any of the campaigns of the Vandalic Wars, but is just an unassociated commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. When he writes "the unencumbered traveller", do you envisage a sea voyage, or a voyage on foot?

And, if the "Dryous" he refers to really is Otranto, then he is talking of crossing the Adriatic from mainland Italy back to mainland Greece. This after walking to Italy via the Adriatic shore from Greece (starting in Byzantium and crossing northern Greece to it's Adriatic shore). I'm not sure his speaking of the separation of the Pillars of Hercules (by foot travel) has anything to do with any of the campaigns of the Vandalic Wars, but is just an unassociated commentary.

His way of describing the route is very puzzling to me.

I wouldn't ask this guy for directions when I was a tourist in a foreign country, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of energy an impact would have to impart to effect the crustal movement you are envisaging. If an impact in the Indian Ocean could impart enough energy to melt (or partially melt) the sub-oceanic crust of the Atlantic, then consider the effect it would have closer to the point of impact!

You are essentially suggesting an impact that melts the crust of half (or over half) the planet. This is a monumental impact, larger than any we know of other than the postulated impact which caused the formation of our Moon. It would sterilise the planet, which would even now not be out of the global winter caused by that impact. On top of this, we have no evidence from geological records, nor from climatological records, to indicate this impact ever occurred.

Notwithstanding all this, you would have to show the motion caused by this impact was slowly abating. Yet there is no data that I know of that indicates of any slowing of the movement of the crustal plates over time.

Screenshot%2520at%25202012-04-20%252022%253A54%253A36.png

Leonardo,

Sorry if it took me so long to decide wether to answer or not!!

I also propose in my experiment, that the earth might have expanded as a consequence of the impact. A fellow named Neil Adams conceived an expansionning earth (rough) model that can elucidate how this might have taken place (although i do not entirely agree with his theorization):

Continental plates might have been "lubricated" by the supposedly expansion, too. I believe that there is no geological impeachment for continents to move fast if oceanic floor suddenly becomes "buoyant". I did a new album with some printscreen images of the video shown above. Notice the gap in front of Gibraltar even when South America is attached to Africa:

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

Regarding evidence from the geological records:

http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/content/158/2/331.abstract

Also, one should have in mind that such (sudden) shattering of the huge Pleistocenic ice would invariably provoke long lasting rains and tsunamies that would erode the crust and reshape the planet's figure to an unrecognizable degree.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~SNIP~

Regarding evidence from the geological records:

http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/content/158/2/331.abstract

Also, one should have in mind that such (sudden) shattering of the huge Pleistocenic ice would invariably provoke long lasting rains and tsunamies that would erode the crust and reshape the planet's figure to an unrecognizable degree.

The timeframe, c. 2130–1848 Ma (2.1 - 1.8 BILLION years BP) per your link, is irrelevant to a discussion of anything concerning Homo sapiens which dates to c.200,000 BP.

As to the latter, that would be incorrect as much of the glacial melt happened within the last 10,000 years when continental landmasses were much as they are now. No "eroding the crust and reshaping the planet's figure to an unrecognizable degree" as you speculate is in evidence.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, you CAN be less relevant to the discussion already at hand. And here I thought it wasn't possible.

cormac

It's not particularly relevant to the hypothesis of a significant impact within the last couple of tens of thousands of years, however.

That article linked to suggests a bombardment of small meteorites ablating in the upper atmosphere (i.e. a 'meteor shower'), and the subsequent fallout of recondensed particulate matter from those meteorites fell to Earth in a constant 'rain'. The presence of iridium etc, found in the Greenland core does not suggest a large impactor, so does not provide any evidence for your theory I'm afraid, Mario.

As for your previous post, the 'expanding Earth hypothesis' has no scientific basis of credibility. If you are going to pin your impact hypothesis to this, then I'm afraid you simply reduce your own credibility in doing so.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God. Geology has been just vomited on all over the last many pages. I want to cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is any of this Greenland business the least bit relevant to the subject of Atlantis? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is any of this Greenland business the least bit relevant to the subject of Atlantis? :unsure:

It's not. Mario's all over the geological timeframe of the last few billion years trying, and failing miserably, to be relevant to the discussion. Micro-meteoric particles would have no effect on the geological layout of the planet, nor any small section thereof.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is any of this Greenland business the least bit relevant to the subject of Atlantis? :unsure:

I think (but I'm not 100% positive) that Mario is suggesting that Greenland was Atlantis, and it originally resided outside the Gibraltar Strait until a very large impact broke it away from the crust (or maybe the impact caused all the tectonic motion of the plates) and started it moving northwest to it's current location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (but I'm not 100% positive) that Mario is suggesting that Greenland was Atlantis, and it originally resided outside the Gibraltar Strait until a very large impact broke it away from the crust (or maybe the impact caused all the tectonic motion of the plates) and started it moving northwest to it's current location.

Unfortunately, he disregards everything that's known about plate tectonics and tectonic movements (amongst other things) in an attempt to validate his proposed movement of Greenland within the timeframe of anatomically modern humans (US). There's no evidence for any of it beyond his willingness to disregard reality.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (but I'm not 100% positive) that Mario is suggesting that Greenland was Atlantis, and it originally resided outside the Gibraltar Strait until a very large impact broke it away from the crust (or maybe the impact caused all the tectonic motion of the plates) and started it moving northwest to it's current location.

I'm aware of Mario's Greenland premise. I stopped participating in this thread some time ago because of the Greenland premise. It's not just because he thinks Greenland was Atlantis, but his open denial of the geologic timeline. He's compressing millions if not billions of years without a thought to scientific reality. I for one resoundingly say no, you cannot ignore the geologic timeline. Everything that follows is by necessity pointless and does not contribute to any avenue of study. Good grief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C%25C3%25B3pia%2520de%2520Atlantis_greenland.jpg

“Oh God. Geology has been just vomited on all over the last many pages. I want to cry.”

You should never underestimate the power of independent research!

I have decided that i will not continue here any longer. Stick with you predictable agendas and good luck in finding the golden pot at the end of the rainbow. I will make a final statement (can i have this much?) to those who might be interested in reading about a four year research, that has consumed much of my personal life...

I wonder how could you just ignore what has been shown here. Images are worth a thousand words! I doubt that any of you has taken time to analyse them. You discard the obvious! There is a continental fit between Iberia, northwest Africa and eastern Greenland, to say the least. But you deny it because it is uncomfortable? Can you tell me in all honesty that nothing was presented here? All “evidences” forwarded do not have the least bit of credibility?

You tell me that it is a mere coincidence that my images are showing a continental fit, between three continents. Nevertheless, nobody ever “explained” here why there is no continental fit in that exact region, in the north Atlantic. Nobody ever explained why the largest positive anomaly on earth is located exactly on the northern MAR, again, where there no continental fit at all. The Sahara holds secrets that in due time will be revealed by archaeologists, there is no doubt in my mind. The mud related by Plato in Timaeus and Critias is everywhere, even in the atmosphere and also in Greenland’s bottom ice cores:

“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; this war I am going to describe. Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of 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.”

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html

“But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth,and the island of 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. ”

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

cores.jpg

How come Greenland’s silty ice core (at the bottom) can have a thickness of more than 13 m? What provoked that “shoal of mud”? Not even science has a sure answer for it, but i believe you certainly do have an explanation! or worse, a reason to contradict it.

You failed to understand (and i must say you only understand experts) that a strangely geologic similitude between two far apart regions in the world exists on top of a undeniable continental fit. I feel like i am wasting my time here and that no good result will ever come out of such a discussion, maybe i should look for a geology forum instead...

You speak like Greenland was situated in Mars and not in the northern Atlantic ocean. You speak like Greenland is not the largest island in the Atlantic, or in the world...

Greenland moved from a southerner location (nearly positioned in front of Gibraltar) to its present position (nearest to the north pole), does this ring any bells to you? Read Plato’s dialogs well first!

Does Greenland have any of the of the valuable minerals referred by Plato, such as gold? (let us not forget that only less than 20% of the entire island’s barren territory is just now starting to be explored):

“Today there are several gold occurrences known in Greenland. These are primary in-situ deposits of gold. Secondary deposits of gold, i.e. placer gold, have not been found in Greenland. Over the last three decades a number of significant gold mineralised areas have been discovered and described.”

http://www.geus.dk/minex/go11.pdf

What about the plain?

“The whole country was said by him to be very lofty and precipitous on the side of the sea, but the country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea; it was smooth and even, and of an oblong shape, extending in one direction three thousand stadia, but across the centre inland it was two thousand stadia. This part of the island looked towards the south, and was sheltered from the north. The surrounding mountains were celebrated for their number and size and beauty, far beyond any which still exist”

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html

Greenland's golden rectangle:

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

Is that a coincidence that in two different sets of images by Google Earth, the results are one and the same? There is something beneath Greenland’s ice, whether you like it or not!

Much has been said in the past years about Greenland’s anomaly object:

Now that Google Earth’s update has been issued, there is the proof that a perfectly rectangular shape exists below the ice. What do you have to say about that? I hope you do not close this thread...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_IeijkUello/To5CSdpPP9I/AAAAAAAAHF4/t4_qOTXmYHk/s512/Atlantis%2520A2.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VRqHUzEYaKU/To98K-h4NxI/AAAAAAAAHGw/1QgMJ4l8FtM/s512/QWE.jpg

The northern MAR is also another matter of importance:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JAP1hZyMskc/TTS5PywzZFI/AAAAAAAAEuk/CxYacLleYcU/s512/Atlantis6.jpg

You deny that the bulge formed by the northern MAR, has exactly the same shape as Greenland? GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program)!

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FHvqKw0s_O4/TcWVa-m2JkI/AAAAAAAAFig/yKSprNGFywY/s512/A2.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-G9YRRa-MT6k/TcWII9rQqiI/AAAAAAAAFiI/vpXm7EnDn4M/s512/Atlantis%2520Iberia.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-LV1CPbfmzzg/TcXAxr_MKNI/AAAAAAAAFio/N256Ym-6gqk/s512/A11.jpg

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new around here and I've been reading quite a few of the posts and links on this thread about atlantis. Some interesting one's which gets the mind thinking to some down right fabrications. But this link here really made laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new around here and I've been reading quite a few of the posts and links on this thread about atlantis. Some interesting one's which gets the mind thinking to some down right fabrications. But this link here really made laugh.

I can't believe this thread is still alive. Considering its been 3 years now lol. But ya i do have to agree with you there are some ridicously theories on here but theres also a lot of scientific facts to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe this thread is still alive. Considering its been 3 years now lol. But ya i do have to agree with you there are some ridicously theories on here but theres also a lot of scientific facts to.

1000 miles opposite the pillars of Hercules (Gibralter) the Eurasian, Carribbean and African tectonic plates meet.

Oil exploration has reported vast magma chambers under the seabed there the type of which feeds supervolcanos. There is the possibility Atlantis was built on an island there similar to Yellowsone Park. When the magma chambers emptied the height of the land mass descended to 1000s of metres below sea level.

There is also the possibility Atlantis is older than thought so instead of looking what coastal regions were land at the end of the last ice age we should go back further to where open ocean was land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1000 miles opposite the pillars of Hercules (Gibralter) the Eurasian, Carribbean and African tectonic plates meet.

Oil exploration has reported vast magma chambers under the seabed there the type of which feeds supervolcanos. There is the possibility Atlantis was built on an island there similar to Yellowsone Park. When the magma chambers emptied the height of the land mass descended to 1000s of metres below sea level.

There is also the possibility Atlantis is older than thought so instead of looking what coastal regions were land at the end of the last ice age we should go back further to where open ocean was land.

There have been enough core samples take by both the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) as well as the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) to date the area around the Atlantis Massif, the area you're talking about, to the last 1.5 - 2 million years while showing no evidence for anything remotely like Plato's Atlantis having ever existed. And Plato never placed his Atlantis that far away from the Straits of Gibraltar, but sufficiently close enough to block the straits with a shoal of mud upon its destruction.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.