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

I probably shouldn't stick my nose in but just to clarify, and maybe Proctis covered it above but isn't it Critias the Elder who tells it at Apaturia, not hears it..? Critias the young hears it as a child about 10, and also has the unfinished poem.

I will tell an old-world story which I heard from an aged man; for Critias, at the time of telling it, was as he said, nearly ninety years of age, and I was about ten.

Yes. C the E heard it from Dropides (who heard it from Solon) and re-told it at the festival when he was ninety. My bad.

Harte

Edited by Harte
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My attitude has reasons, my dear fellow forists! *SIGH*

First, you fully ignore the fact mentioned by me, that Plato opposes Greek oral and Egyptian written tradition. You simply just ignore it. This is so pseudo-science ... ha! You are not willing to find out the truth, it is obvious that you only search for reasons to debunk my ideas, but not for the opposite. This is not scientific. *sigh* again.

Then, Critias 113b: (Critias the participant of the dialogue is speaking):

"My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child."

I know your next move: "These are only the names! The writings contain only the names! Only the names! The names!! Only!!!"

My answer is: These writings are the draft of Solon's planned poem which center around the names of the dramatis personae, as usual when drafting such a poem. You never saw how a writer drafts a novel or a drama or the like? He begins with writing down the persons and how they interact. --- And how can someone carefully study in a paper which only contains names?!

Plato's Atlantis story as "oral tradition"? Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.

I only included the term "orally" because Critias the Elder heard it that way.

If you want my opinion, is wasn't a "tradition" of any kind, of course, Plato having made it up and all...

And you're right. Critias is talking about the names the Egyptians had translated into Egyptian from "Atlantean" - as if there ever was such a language. It clearly states that Solon had copied these names down and "hellenized" them for future use in a poem he was planning :

Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners.

I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language.

My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child. Therefore if you hear names such as are used in this country, you must not be surprised, for I have told how they came to be introduced. The tale, which was of great length, began as follows:-

Same part of the Critias you quoted from, only a more contextual quote. Now, from Timaeus:

Crit. Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages. He was a relative and a dear friend of my great-grandfather, Dropides, as he himself says in many passages of his poems; and he told the story to Critias, my grandfather, who remembered and repeated it to us. There were of old, he said, great and marvellous actions of the Athenian city, which have passed into oblivion through lapse of time and the destruction of mankind, and one in particular, greater than all the rest. This we will now rehearse. It will be a fitting monument of our gratitude to you, and a hymn of praise true and worthy of the goddess, on this her day of festival.

Soc. Very good. And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?

Crit. I will tell an old-world story which I heard from an aged man; for Critias, at the time of telling it, was as he said, nearly ninety years of age, and I was about ten. Now the day was that day of the Apaturia which is called the Registration of Youth, at which, according to custom, our parents gave prizes for recitations, and the poems of several poets were recited by us boys, and many of us sang the poems of Solon, which at that time had not gone out of fashion. One of our tribe, either because he thought so or to please Critias, said that in his judgment Solon was not only the wisest of men, but also the noblest of poets. The old man, as I very well remember, brightened up at hearing this and said, smiling: Yes, Amynander, if Solon had only, like other poets, made poetry the business of his life, and had completed the tale which he brought with him from Egypt, and had not been compelled, by reason of the factions and troubles which he found stirring in his own country when he came home, to attend to other matters, in my opinion he would have been as famous as Homer or Hesiod, or any poet.

The above very clearly shows that Critias the Elder heard Dropides recite Solon's poem, remembered it, and recited it decades later. Critias (elder or younger) never read any draft of this poem (that, in fact, Solon never wrote.) Not only did Solon never write this poem, the entire scene is an utter fabrication.

So, here's what I said:

Critias (the younger) never read Solon's poem.

Please point out how what I said disagrees with Plato's allegory.

Here's what you said:

You did not read that Solon had some written stuff on it in which Critias read when he was young?

As you said, the statement from Plato is that Solon wrote down the names of people and places and translated them. That is all Plato says on the matter, isn't it. So, if by "wrote down some stuff on it" you mean wrote down names and translated them ("hellenized" them,) then you're right.

Anything else is simply not the case, since Solon never wrote the poem in the first place, and Egyptians never had some story about Atlantis in the second place, and Atlantis is an allegorical location that never existed in the third place.

This is according to what Plato wrote. What posters on internet forums write does not counter this fact.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read the last 10 pages and it does seem Proclus is deriding others well supported points while putting forward his own opinions and claiming they have greater authority. He seems to clearly be ignoring or discounting actual physical evidence and relying mainly on his own opinions.

I'm going to have to side with the Skeptics on this, that Atlantis is an unevidenced creation of Platos mind. Why would he make up such a story? That has been figured out for many centuries. He was making a political, ethical and moral point using Atlantis as an example. Using a fictitious nation absolves him of anyone being offended.

Critias also says that the Gods created the world and divided it by lots and that people sprang up out of the earth. Does anyone believe that? Or is SOME of Critias true and some false? Hummm.... and how to tell?

Edited by DieChecker
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want my opinion, is wasn't a "tradition" of any kind, of course, Plato having made it up and all...

I really do not intend to continue this debate, especially not on this low level :-)

But let us stop the debate here, let us think silently on the words of Plato's dialogue (in a usually bad translation):

"I will briefly inform you ................ the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers [no "registers" in the original, but written text] themselves"

The priest: "O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. .........
there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition
, ................... And I will tell you why. There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind ...................... Whereas in this land [Egypt], neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below;
for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient
. ............... And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been
written down
by us of old, and are preserved in our temples."

"Solon, who was intending to use the tale [the original Greek never says "tale"!] for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides,
had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me
when I was a child."

etc.

etc.

@DieChecker:

( a ) The physical argument does not count in my case since I do not search an Altantis 9600 BC in the Atlantic but a historically-critically deciphered distorted tradition --
again the phenomenon that a late-comer starts the discussion at zero-point, but no blame on you, DieChecker
.

( b ) You ask: "Critias also says that the Gods created the world and divided it by lots and that people sprang up out of the earth. Does anyone believe that?"
The answer is:
Plato believed that. The point is, as I pointed out in the Gomperz thread, that Plato believed greater parts of the story than modern people usually imagine. (PS: You do not describe Plato's position exactly, but ok, this is not so important here.)

( c ) I will not discuss this all again.

( d ) Thank you that you acknowledged that I make my points.

_
Edited by Proclus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not intend to continue this debate, especially not on this low level :-)

But let us stop the debate here, let us think silently on the words of Plato's dialogue (in a usually bad translation):

"I will briefly inform you ................ the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers [no "registers" in the original, but written text] themselves"

The priest: "O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. .........
there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition
, ................... And I will tell you why. There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind ...................... Whereas in this land [Egypt], neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below;
for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient
. ............... And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been
written down
by us of old, and are preserved in our temples."

"Solon, who was intending to use the tale [the original Greek never says "tale"!] for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides,
had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me
when I was a child."

etc.

etc.

@DieChecker:

( a ) The physical argument does not count in my case since I do not search an Altantis 9600 BC in the Atlantic but a historically-critically deciphered distorted tradition --
again the phenomenon that a late-comer starts the discussion at zero-point, but no blame on you, DieChecker
.

( b ) You ask: "Critias also says that the Gods created the world and divided it by lots and that people sprang up out of the earth. Does anyone believe that?"
The answer is:
Plato believed that. The point is, as I pointed out in the Gomperz thread, that Plato believed greater parts of the story than modern people usually imagine.

( c ) I will not discuss this all again.

( d )
Thank you that you acknowledged that I make my points
.

_

If you got that from his post I have a good explanation why you believe in the existence of Atlantis and the content of Plato's fable factual.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you got that from his post I have a good explanation why you believe in the existence of Atlantis and the content of Plato's fable factual.

As I understood, DieChecker wanted to point out that I allegedly tried to push away themes and arguments which easily could debunk my positions by putting forward less important themes where I can make some points. Yes, that is how I understood DieChecker. Let's talk on the exegesis of DieChecker's words! In contrary to Plato he is still alive and we can ask him what he really meant!

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DieChecker:

( a ) The physical argument does not count in my case since I do not search an Altantis 9600 BC in the Atlantic but a historically-critically deciphered distorted tradition -- again the phenomenon that a late-comer starts the discussion at zero-point, but no blame on you, DieChecker.

( b ) You ask: "Critias also says that the Gods created the world and divided it by lots and that people sprang up out of the earth. Does anyone believe that?" The answer is: Plato believed that. The point is, as I pointed out in the Gomperz thread, that Plato believed greater parts of the story than modern people usually imagine. (PS: You do not describe Plato's position exactly, but ok, this is not so important here.)

( c ) I will not discuss this all again.

( d ) Thank you that you acknowledged that I make my points.

Isn't the Physical arguement CORE to the existance of Atlantis or not? Why argue about flying pink elephants if the Candyland they live in can not be located. And the writings about these elephants then would be equally ficticious. If Atlantis's physical location cannot be located, then it cannot be physically supported as being real. Without a real place to point to, arguing about their culture, motives and if the histories handed down are real is futile. At least IMHO.

Did not Critias say 10,000 years? How it is you can discount some of what he says and not other very specific parts? Do you only take what supports your own ideas?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understood, DieChecker wanted to point out that I allegedly tried to push away themes and arguments which easily could debunk my positions by putting forward less important themes where I can make some points. Yes, that is how I understood DieChecker. Let's talk on the exegesis of DieChecker's words! In contrary to Plato he is still alive and we can ask him what he really meant!

Yes, there were many examples in the first several pages of your postings that did exactly that. Other posters wrote facts and you basically dismissed the facts because you wanted to focus on "What if".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other posters wrote facts and you basically dismissed the facts because you wanted to focus on "What if".

Thank you that you support my understanding of your first posting, but no, really, save me from writing again and again the same ... there are several threads now started by me in the last weeks, you will find them easily and there you will find that I do not dismiss "facts" (if they are facts) and that I do not focus on "what if" - it's more complicated, the "factual" perspective is a "what if", too, in many cases. Thank you for your understanding and good night! PS: I inserted the "not" :-)

Edited by Proclus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Atlantis's physical location cannot be located, then it cannot be physically supported as being real. Without a real place to point to, arguing about their culture, motives and if the histories handed down are real is futile. At least IMHO.

But there were empires in recent history that we know little about. Or even wars.

Take example of Khazaria. And Arab-Khazar wars. We dont know nothing about Khazar Arab wars.

Imho, if Atlantis physical location cant be located that doesnt mean it wasnt real. Who say that we wouldnt find it?

People think on Helike was myth untill we re discover it.

Lets try some thought experiment.

How long modern human exist? Lets say 50 000 years. Isnt logic that civilization rise and fall all the time?

Maybe we have had civilization before Atlantis. Lets say 30 000 years ago which flourished 2000 years and disapeared.

Thats is second reason why I got interested in history. First was rise and fall of civilizations. Second was, why history is written last 10 000 years differently?

Historians are specalized in certain period. Short periods. But if you look at history on long periods many interesting questions are raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there were empires in recent history that we know little about. Or even wars.

Take example of Khazaria. And Arab-Khazar wars. We dont know nothing about Khazar Arab wars.

Imho, if Atlantis physical location cant be located that doesnt mean it wasnt real. Who say that we wouldnt find it?

People think on Helike was myth untill we re discover it.

Lets try some thought experiment.

How long modern human exist? Lets say 50 000 years. Isnt logic that civilization rise and fall all the time?

Maybe we have had civilization before Atlantis. Lets say 30 000 years ago which flourished 2000 years and disapeared.

Thats is second reason why I got interested in history. First was rise and fall of civilizations. Second was, why history is written last 10 000 years differently?

Historians are specalized in certain period. Short periods. But if you look at history on long periods many interesting questions are raised.

If its physical location and timeframe, as claimed by Plato whose account is the only one that matters, can't be located then yes it DOES mean it wasn't real. Particularly since there are no other accounts of its existance by any other name prior to Plato's writings that are relevant and known to both Greece and Egypt. Which are the two countries it's supposed to be concerned with.

30,000 years ago was both in the Stone Age as well as the latter part of the last glacial period when the population of anatomically modern humans/Homo sapiens sapiens/US was too low and two widespread to develope a civilization. Specific criteria of which have to be met in order to qualify as such. This was also well before the domestication of agricultural foodstuffs such as wheat, barley and grapes, etc. as well as before the domestication of livestock such as pigs, goats, cattle and horses. All of which plays its part in what qualifies as a civilization. No such evidence for a culture meeting these requirements prior to 10,000 BC exists.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you that you support my understanding of your first posting, but no, really, save me from writing again and again the same ... there are several threads now started by me in the last weeks, you will find them easily and there you will find that I do not dismiss "facts" (if they are facts) and that I do not focus on "what if" - it's more complicated, the "factual" perspective is a "what if", too, in many cases. Thank you for your understanding and good night! PS: I inserted the "not" :-)

"What do you mean?" he said. "Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?"

- Gandalf

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there were empires in recent history that we know little about. Or even wars.

Take example of Khazaria. And Arab-Khazar wars. We dont know nothing about Khazar Arab wars.

And have there been mentions of Khazaria in the texts of historians? Have items attributed to Khazaria been authenticated? Hasn't the broad area of where these people lived been outlined? The Khazars ived in what is now southern Russia, the Caucus, and the northern Middle East. Where did the Atlantians live?

Did the Arabs write of the wars? Yes, I think they did.

Looks like the Byzantines knew where they lived and traded and even allied with each other. Who did Atlantis trade with and who did they ally with?

Imho, if Atlantis physical location cant be located that doesnt mean it wasnt real. Who say that we wouldnt find it?

People think on Helike was myth untill we re discover it.

Hey, I'm willing to admit there was likely a real inspiration for Atlantis in the real world, but the Discussion of where and when and who was there is Core to the discussions of Atlantis itself. You can't distance the location of Atlantis from the history of Atlantis.

Lets try some thought experiment.

How long modern human exist? Lets say 50 000 years. Isnt logic that civilization rise and fall all the time?

Maybe we have had civilization before Atlantis. Lets say 30 000 years ago which flourished 2000 years and disapeared.

Thats is second reason why I got interested in history. First was rise and fall of civilizations. Second was, why history is written last 10 000 years differently?

Historians are specalized in certain period. Short periods. But if you look at history on long periods many interesting questions are raised.

Sure. There may be some lost civilizations/cities out there. Some may have even had "advanced" technology for their day, but the whole story of Atlantis reads like a fairy tale. It is like saying that Narnia, or Middle Earth is real because you identify some real world item, legend, story or place with something from those fictional worlds.

I do agree that history is often not as simple as lines drawn on a map and labeled 869 Europe (year taken at random). It is actually usually much, much, much more complicated then that. Because everywhere in history are real people. Who have alliances, treatys, truces, fueds, wars, trade, marriages.... ect... which all complicate things and often don't show up in the history books or maps for 869. But can a gigantic civilization that conquored Africa, Asia and Europe hide from history, except for a single man's morality tale? Could the Athenians, a single tribe of Proto-Greeks (in 10,000 BP), probably numbering in the tens of thousands defeat an army that conquored every one else? The answer is that it is almost certainly no. But, could Atlantis be based on a real even, and a real society... sure. But where, and when is the question??

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30,000 years ago was both in the Stone Age as well as the latter part of the last glacial period when the population of anatomically modern humans/Homo sapiens sapiens/US was too low and two widespread to develope a civilization. Specific criteria of which have to be met in order to qualify as such. This was also well before the domestication of agricultural foodstuffs such as wheat, barley and grapes, etc. as well as before the domestication of livestock such as pigs, goats, cattle and horses. All of which plays its part in what qualifies as a civilization. No such evidence for a culture meeting these requirements prior to 10,000 BC exists.

Far as we know we are widespread. You tell that for rising civilization we need wheat or barley? Or pigs, goats, horses? Euroasia isnt only example of civilizations.

We have civilizations in America which didnt have nothing you mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diechecker,

We know less about Khazaria then others empirse. We dont know where their capital was. And we dont know nothing about their wars with Arabs. Or if you want we know very little.

Almost nothing. And Arabs didnt wrote much either.

Atlantians lived beyond pillars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far as we know we are widespread. You tell that for rising civilization we need wheat or barley? Or pigs, goats, horses? Euroasia isnt only example of civilizations.

We have civilizations in America which didnt have nothing you mentioned above.

No, I gave examples of what was utilized by cultures in Eurasia and Africa for them to develope into civilizations. While the domesticated agricultural produce and livestock would have been different for the Americas no such examples exist until well after the end of the last glacial period. Another requirement for a civilization is writing or a similar means for record keeping. Something of which also doesn't exist in the Americas prior to the end of the last glacial period.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dialogue as a genre in the Middle East and Asia dates back to the year 1433 in Japan, Sumerian disputations preserved in copies from the late third millennium BC[2] and toRigvedic dialogue hymns and to the Mahabharata.

Literary historians commonly suppose that in the West Plato (c. 437 BC – c. 347 BC) introduced the systematic use of dialogue as an independent literary form: they point to his earliest experiment with the genre in the Laches. The Platonic dialogue, however, had its foundations in the mime, which the Sicilian poets Sophron and Epicharmus had cultivated half a century earlier. These works, admired and imitated by Plato, have not survived but scholars imagine them as little plays, usually presented with only two performers. The Mimes of Herodas give us some idea of their scope.

Plato further simplified the form and reduced it to pure argumentative conversation, while leaving intact the amusing element of character-drawing. He must have begun this about the year 405 BC, and by 400 he had perfected the dialogue, especially in the cycle directly inspired by the death of Socrates, and is considered a master of the genre. All his philosophical writings, except the Apology, use this form.

Following Plato, the dialogue became a major literary genre in antiquity, and several important works both in Latin and in Greek were written. Soon after Plato, Xenophonwrote his own Symposium; also, Aristotle is said to have written several philosophical dialogues in Plato's style (none of which have survived).

Dialogue is formed by the two words 'dia' and 'logos', which can be literally interpreted as 'dual meaning' or more appropriately the 'two way flow/exchange' of meaning, which is the tone suggested by Boehm, and many modern philosophical (and management) writers.

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

Plato wrote extensively and most of his writings survived. His works are in the form of dialogues, where several characters argue a topic by asking questions of each other. This form allows Plato to raise various points of view and let the reader decide which is valid. Plato expounded a form of dualism, where there is a world of ideal forms separate from the world of perception. The most famous exposition of this is his metaphor of the Cave, where people living in a cave are only able to see flickering shadows projected on the wall of the external reality. This influenced many later thinkers, particularly the Neoplatonists and the Gnostics, and is similar to views held by some schools of Hindu dualistic metaphysics.

http://www.sacred-te...plato/index.htm

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Proclus,

I must admit you are in fact "boxing" these guys away like a pro, keep up the good job! I do not know why is it really such a big fuzz about Atlantis while people are going after "UFOs" instead or betting on big foot and the such. Atlantis is one of Plato's legacy, be it true or not.

I thought i could discuss about an Atlantis "thought experiment" on a hypothetical geologic level. Soon there will be proof that in fact something stood in front of Gibraltar, as Plato explicitly told us. I do not want to "derail" anything, just joining conversation.

Human history, according to Plato, was completely different from what we know today. Probably there weren't "cavemen" during Atlantis... but this all is garbage when you do not have undeniable proof confirming your claims. Geology is probably the answer to Atlantis enigma and modern data is confirming that. The problem is in fact that this provoked a huge and destructive "fingerprint" on the planet and the surviving civilization. The way i understand things now, there occurred something approx. 10.000 years that changed the face of the planet forever. Our planet's morphology might have been completely different before the Holocene period. The rest of the Quaternary had considerably lower sea levels and much less continental surface than today. The planet was certainly smaller, rotated faster and in a different way...

Can this be possible that the earth was "completely" different? Would it be possible for tectonic plates move fast across a molten medium? Could it be that all the oil in the world is just really a byproduct of the Atlantis demise? I am happy that i am able to discuss this subject with clever and enlightened people, regardless opinions and even plain negative feedback from a myriad of posters. We are most definitely the survivors of a past age, in which there existed a different planet, different people? This is all fantastic and completely wrong under canonical scientific parameters, surely. But could the truth be subtler than what is perceived at "first" glance?

Just today i came across a document by Chevron on fuel oil

1. How is a crude oil field formed?

The generally accepted theory is that crude oil was formed over millions of years from the remains of plants and animals that lived in the seas. As they died, they

sank to the seabed, were buried with sand and mud, and became an organic-rich layer. Steadily, these layers piled up, tens of meters thick. The sand and mud became sedimentary rock, and the organic remains became droplets of oil and gas. Oil and gas passed through the porous rock and were eventually trapped by an impervious layer of rock, collecting at the highest point.The formation of an oil/gas field requires the presence of four geological features:

• Source rock: contains suitable organic matter, which, under the conditions of heat and pressure, produces hydrocarbons

• Reservoir rock: a porous layer of rock in which the hydrocarbons are retained

• Cap rock: a rock or clay, which prevents the hydrocarbons from escaping

• Trap: a rock formation bent into a dome or broken by a fault which blocks the escape of the hydrocarbons either upward or sideways

Most importantly, these four factors have to occur at the right time, place and in the right order for oil and gas to be formed and trapped.

http://www.chevronmarineproducts.com/docs/EverythingAboutFuels_v0108_LO.PDF

I ask, where are the most prolific oil fields on the planet and why are they there? There is a different reality for oil origin other than abiogenic or others, a giant concealment by sand and mud of extraordinary amounts of organic matter, immediately trapped under enormous pressure and heat...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proclus,

Another thing i forgot to mention is my full support to the Atlantis Research Charter. Without science, there isn't a possibility for Atlantis. The Atlantis subject is researched by various scientists, and even win important media's attention from time to time, therefore, it is not so linear that Atlantis was yet another story invented to just make some point...

Dr. Ulf Richter's exceptional contribution for the Atlantis research is another aspect, i would like to add since many of his conclusions are being proven right now especially the important dimensioning ratio of the tale (i believe he was a great friend of yours). I firmly believe he was the first researcher to have definitely discovered the real “physical” (geographic) Atlantis within the intricate world of all possibilities available, as to what Atlantis really looked like, e.g. the correct diameter of the city of Atlantis, the length of protective walls outside the city, the dimensions of the race course, the details of the Poseidon’s palace or the circumferential canal around Atlantis rectangular plain, etc, etc...

13. CONCLUSIONS

It is fascinating how detailed a picture of Atlantis can be found by thoroughfully reading the texts in Plato´s “Timaeus” and “Critias”, considering what they really could mean, and comparing the results with well-known examples from our time. In this way we have acquired a nearly complete description of the general geography of Atlantis, which can now be used to locate the sunken city.

A new and amazing result is that we have to divide all measures given by Plato by the factor 3,5, or in other words to replace the Greek “Stade” in his narration by the Egyptian “Khet”. All the newly calculated dimensions are credible and probable. In a similar way it should be possible to find out the exact location of the sunken Atlantis, and the time of the catastrophe that destroyed it.

http://www.black-sea-atlantis.com/richter.pdf

Of course this is all nonsense because there “seems” to be no such thing in our recorded history or our geologic "record" about any island in front of Gibraltar, but the fact is, there are structures that appear to be “man-made”, or at least identical to Plato’s account, under Ulf Richter’s “Khet” dimensioning system:

Plato´s Atlantis was in a River Delta

Ulf Richter

Schwabenheim. Germany

ABSTRACT

Reading Plato´s two books about Atlantis and comparing the described facts with modern knowledge about geology, tectonics, archaeology and technology gives us new insights about how Atlantis looked. This is necessary before we can seek its proper location.

We know that around the Royal City of Atlantis lay an absolutely flat and even plain, irrigated by a widely-branched system of canals that drain into the sea. This plain was formed by alluvial land in a large river delta. To feed such a delta, the area of the whole country must have been at least 10 times as large as the plain. There must have been a chain of high sand dunes along the shore.

The hill with the central temple was formed by tectonic forces during the uplifting of a salt dome. The 3 circular ditches were formed by natural erosion, and the two springs on the central island brought water from the distant mountains. For the irrigation of the fertile alluvial plain a central organisation was necessary, which led to the formation of the high culture of Atlantis, as was the case in most of the worlds´ other early cultures.

The canals in the alluvial plain were V shaped. The excavated silt was used to build dams on both sides to protect the fields against flooding by the tides and from the mountains. The reported depth of the canals shows that Plato´s “stades” must be translated as Egyptian length units “Khet” (1 khet = 52,4 m), and so we get realistic dimensions for the plain (length 157 km, width 105 km) and the Royal City (diameter 6,6 km). Tables show the dimensions of Atlantis in comparison with buildings and canals in ancient and modern times.

1. INTRODUCTION

Atlantis has been written about for over 2000 years. The main source is: Plato´s dialogues “ Timaeus” and “Critias”. There have been many attempts to locate Atlantis, but no one has really been successful. Here is a new attempt to describe how Atlantis must have looked, using Plato´s descriptions and the knowledge of our times. This description of Atlantis will be a useful condition for determining its location.

http://www.black-sea-atlantis.com/richter.pdf

My models based on Ulf Richter’s “new” Atlantis metrics:

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

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/TheIsland02

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

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes its real and kept infinity hidden by the Guardian of dimension. not even the other beings is allowed to reveal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was hidden from any beings from all dimension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plain%2520round%2520the%2520Royal%2520City.png

"Plato's Atlantis Was In A River Delta"

Dr. Ulf Richter

The%2520Plain.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cross%2520section%2520Canal%2520one%2520trireme.png

trirreme%25202.jpeg

"Plato's Atlantis Was In A River Delta"

Dr. Ulf Richter

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why wouldnt Atlantis fit into todays existing islands in Atlantic. Madeira,Azores, Canary, Ireland or perhaps Iceland.

Maybe there was one utopian society. Since I mentioned Iceland maybe there was society who was very mush alike any others at that time. Yet only different to Egyptian priest or Solon himself. Today people who live on Iceland are very like anyothers to most of people. Yet I see them as different. As realy utopian society.

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.