Atlantis not in the Sahara or Antarctica

[vextryyn]

Plato first wrote about Atlantis in the Critias and Timaeus. But many people like to read further than is described. Many people want Atlantis to be a circular island, which it was not. They want it to be in an area that has not touched the ocean for eons.

We must first need to remember that many other cultures used oral tradition. These stories have been subject to change and many were written well after Plato’s death.  This means we must assume that these were influenced by Plato’s work, meaning they are some stories I cannot use as evidence. Plato’s story is so specific in its description of the island that, I feel I must consider it with a higher level of validity. Plato claims he received his stories form Socrates, which means we should consider that there are parts of his story that could be faulty.

Beginning with the description of the island, there are many people that would like to believe the island is circular. This is completely false and no matter how you translate the dimensions of the island are always the same. The rings themselves were said to be completely circular described as if they were turned with a lathe, but Plato describes the island as an oblong island. The measurements of the island are 3000 stadia in length and 2000 stadia in width. The ring structure itself was a total of 27 stadia in diameter and with the perimeter wall 127 stadia. We know the city was positioned 50 stadia from the sea as the trench from the outermost water ring was 50 stadia in length. To put this all into perspective, one stadia is about 185m, which makes the island about 555kmx370km.

From everything previously described, we can understand how the Richat could not have been the location of Atlantis. We also find that the island itself is not circular. There are others that search in Antarctica, based on maps made centuries after Plato. The Piri Reis map according to some shows us southern Africa and part of Antarctica with the island of Atlantis in between. While compelling, the figures drawn on the map clearly show us rainforest animals, meaning it is from west Africa and eastern south America. The island in the middle was likely an inaccuracy or an island with a size that was misinterpreted. If we go under the assumption that the map was accurate then one has to assume that the areas had the pictured animals and people around 1500 CE. We already know this is not the case, and I can not conclude that the Piri Reis map is a valid source.

If the Piri Reis map were accurate, there is only one location that could be Atlantis and that is the Kerguelen Islands.  The elevation of the ground beneath the ocean is in my opinion shallow enough to have been at the surface, this is the Kerguelen Islands. From google earth we can see that the land under the islands is just about the size described by Plato, not to mention there are locations to the south that could have been islands. The depth is where there is an issue, but that will also be an issue for my proposed location, which I will discuss a couple scenarios which I believe may have happened. As for the finer details, the region lacks the features suggesting that it was surrounded by mountains, not to mention the area would likely have been covered in ice during the last ice age. This area is also not what I would consider as beyond the Pillars of Heracles.

The location I propose as mentioned previously is well below the ocean’s surface, but I find the land mass matching Plato’s description better than any others. This is an area south of the Faroe Islands known as Rockall. While most of this region would be too far below sea level, I believe that the area likely originated near Iceland and shifted toward Europe over time. We can see Iceland preparing for the same destination based on how the fault lies.

The theory that I propose, the first is that the area was originally at a higher elevation. If the area were to have originated near Iceland’s current position, then the island would likely have been composed of weaker igneous rock. Both Hawaii and Iceland are similar, but the Hawaiian Islands do not grow as long over their hotspot meaning they decompose more rapidly. All around the northern region are all remnants of volcanic activity, Hasselwood rock is the destroyed cone of an extinct volcano. I believe over time the island would have become more and more unstable. The rising sea levels would likely bring water into empty lava tubes, weakening the ground, forcing the island to collapse into the sea. In this scenario, I don’t see an asteroid impact doing more than aid in the destabilization of the island.

This scenario is what I would also consider is unlikely to leave easily accessible evidence of Atlantis. This comes from the fact that, if that were the case, it would be buried under an excessive amount of sediment. The asteroid impact may also have had another effect, since it likely hit a glacier, it also may have caused a tsunami. If this is the same asteroid that hit Greenland, that direction would likely explain the western face having a lower elevation. This means that if there is remaining evidence of Atlantis, it will likely be buried under sediment along the eastern bank.

Something else we must consider is that, oceans rise slowly. This means that there were likely hundreds of years where the former island would have been only partially submerged, which means any structural foundations were likely worn away by the harsh erosion. One ray of hope comes from the fact Atlantis was in the center of the island. This area would likely have been protected from the harsher effects of the ocean. Since it likely would have been the first area to sink deeper into the ocean, one can only hope there may be some remaining foundations. If this is not the case, we will likely only be destined to find artifacts buried in the rubble.

 

I would also like to add I have the same post on atlantisrising, but it seems slow over there, seems more active here, just looking for conversation about it. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by vextryyn

[aztek]

interesting theory.  

[Essan]

Well I agree Atlantis wasnt in Antarctica or the Sahara

I am intrigued as to why a civilisation based on a hypothetical landmass around the Kergulen Islands would invade the Mediterranean though?

btw the Pire Reis map wasnt very accurate

[Space Commander Travis]

I'd say that was very likely. Anyway, it was all a metaphor or allegory wasn't it? 

 <-- Plato gives his opinion 

[Imaginarynumber1]

Atlantis is in my basement

[Piney]

........you have to be kidding me.......

[Piney]

1 hour ago, vextryyn said:

 If the area were to have originated near Iceland’s current position, then the island would likely have been composed of weaker igneous rock. Both Hawaii and Iceland are similar, but the Hawaiian Islands do not grow as long over their hotspot meaning they decompose more rapidly.

No, the Siberian Craton formed over the hotspot where Iceland is now and Islands turn into virtual continents over hotspots.

1 hour ago, vextryyn said:

The asteroid impact may also have had another effect, since it likely hit a glacier, it also may have caused a tsunami. If this is the same asteroid that hit Greenland, that direction would likely explain the western face having a lower elevation. This means that if there is remaining evidence of Atlantis, it will likely be buried under sediment along the eastern bank.

Since the Greenland meteor probably dates from the end of the Eocene.......No

No asteroid or comet hit North America when it was occupied by us Native North Americans. I looked for evidence myself

[Imaginarynumber1]

29 minutes ago, Piney said:

........you have to be kidding me.......

No, man. It's really there. 

Have you ever known me to lie?

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

No, man. It's really there. 

Have you ever known me to lie?

Are you lying now?

[vextryyn]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

No, the Siberian Craton formed over the hotspot where Iceland is now and Islands turn into virtual continents over hotspots.

Since the Greenland meteor probably dates from the end of the Eocene.......No

No asteroid or comet hit North America when it was occupied by us Native North Americans. I looked for evidence myself

I would like to point out that the Siberian Craton is significantly further away and is in the center of Russia. By your statement that would mean that the entire country of Russia would have been formed by that. If that was the case it would have happened well before the Rockall area was formed. If you look at the Hawiian islands you can see a hotspot does not make a continent. 

 

As for the Asteroid impact, Currently we are still waiting on an actual dating of the crater. Based on the structure it could be as little as 12000 years old, but the ice also indicates it could be older. The current range is 12 thousand to 3 million years old. The unfortunate thing about the crater is that it is still mostly covered by ice, along with the fact there is little to compare it to. We should assume it is not at the maximum end of the spectrum based on the depression's lack of erosion. I also acknowledge the fact that the Ice may indicate it is older than 12000 years. If it is not anything related to the younger dryas, then the composition of the island coupled with the rising water is still enough to collapse it even if there was just a normal tsunami.

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, vextryyn said:

I would like to point out that the Siberian Craton is significantly further away and is in the center of Russia. By your statement that would mean that the entire country of Russia would have been formed by that. If that was the case it would have happened well before the Rockall area was formed. If you look at the Hawiian islands you can see a hotspot does not make a continent. 

Continents "drift".

Geology 101. There was once this mountain range called the Central Pangean Mountains. When Pangea drifted over the CAMP. (Google it) it split in half. Those mountains are now parts of the Appalachians, the Scottish Highlands and the Little Atlas Mountains in Africa. Meanwhile the camp stayed active and still is. The next thing to form was Iceland. It's a really slow process. Nothing formed there before that. 

 Do you know how to read a magnetic anomalies map? I can

Have you every looked up and down the Eastern U.S for a debris field? I have

The only ones found date to the Eocene and are connected to the Chesapeake Bay-Tom's Canyon impacts.

[vextryyn]

5 hours ago, Essan said:

Well I agree Atlantis wasnt in Antarctica or the Sahara

I am intrigued as to why a civilisation based on a hypothetical landmass around the Kergulen Islands would invade the Mediterranean though?

btw the Pire Reis map wasnt very accurate

I actually added that part in to point out that Antarctica has a lack of regions that would be suitable to match the description of Atlantis. There is also the fact it would not be considered "beyond the Pillars of Heracles".

That also mostly came from the idea that the earth was once sideways, or had a pole shift, Antarctica moved etc. Graham Hancock states that the Piri Ries map indicates something to that effect. 

The last note, I hate the piri ries map, whenever people try to use that argument I hate it. I just wanted to flat out show that I don't believe the map at all (after rereading, I could have done that better). That also goes for most sources. If it was made in 1000CE or later, then it is something that likely should not be used to connect the two. 

 

[Piney]

7 minutes ago, vextryyn said:

 Graham Hancock states that the Piri Ries map indicates something to that effect. 

Last time I checked he didn't have a geology background. 

[vextryyn]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Continents "drift".

Geology 101. There was once this mountain range called the Central Pangean Mountains. When Pangea drifted over the CAMP. (Google it) it split in half. Those mountains are now parts of the Appalachians, the Scottish Highlands and the Little Atlas Mountains in Africa. Meanwhile the camp stayed active and still is. The next thing to form was Iceland. It's a really slow process. Nothing formed there before that. 

 Do you know how to read a magnetic anomalies map? I can

Have you every looked up and down the Eastern U.S for a debris field? I have

The only ones found date to the Eocene and are connected to the Chesapeake Bay-Tom's Canyon impacts.

3

In any case, the island was still a volcanic island, even if the point of origin was not over the Icelandic hot spot. 

Yes I know how to read a magnetic anomaly map, I do understand where you are coming form there. 

As for the search for a debris field, it doesnt take more than a quick look at craters to show the 1000 year old craters have just as little debris as the 50000 year old craters. If you are assuming the entry point was over florida and are looking for a path of craters you won,t find it, from what i can tell we are looking at a counter orbital insertion over Africa (this is an estimate by me done by connecting likely impact points known and user found on google maps with similar structures and date ranges, so grain of salt). 

[vextryyn]

27 minutes ago, Piney said:

Last time I checked he didn't have a geology background. 

Yea, I am aware of that..... I do not like him..... but he is who a lot of people point to when they talk about these things. whenever the Piri Ries map is brought up in conversation he is always included.

 

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, vextryyn said:

As for the search for a debris field, it doesnt take more than a quick look at craters to show the 1000 year old craters have just as little debris as the 50000 year old craters.

Huh? Do you know how long ago the Eocene was? The Chesapeake impact had a lot of debris.

 

3 minutes ago, vextryyn said:

Yes I know how to read a magnetic anomaly map, I do understand where you are coming form there. 

Then show me the igneous province that was formerly Atlantis. 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, vextryyn said:

Yea, I am aware of that..... I do not like him..... but he is who a lot of people point to when they talk about these things. whenever the Piri Ries map is brought up in conversation he is always included.

And his facts are generally wrong. 

[vextryyn]

40 minutes ago, Piney said:

Huh? Do you know how long ago the Eocene was? The Chesapeake impact had a lot of debris.

 

I guess I now need to ask; What are you using to see debris, I was under the impression google earth.

40 minutes ago, Piney said:

Then show me the igneous province that was formerly Atlantis. 

 

 

The entire region is a 0-3 as far as I can tell which means igneous and sedimentary, with the exception of the southeast corner(which seems to be a 6 or higher). Do you have a place to find a better map because what I have is from 1994 and black and white (I have access to all journals). 

 

****I found an overlay for earth from noaa

paper doi for fields https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1995.tb06886.x

Edited February 28, 2019 by vextryyn
addition

[Hanslune]

Oh Kerguelen. I did a lot of research on those islands for another project and I believe the main 'continent' sank about 20 million years ago.

Yep (went looking for something that talked about that). 20 years ago....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/353277.stm

Hmm the geology goes thumbs down on that one.

Quote

Drilling by the Joides Resolution research vessel, which traverses the seas extracting samples from beneath the sea floor, suggests that the continent, about a third the size of present day Australia, sank from sight only 20 million years ago.

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Hanslune

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, vextryyn said:

The location I propose as mentioned previously is well below the ocean’s surface, but I find the land mass matching Plato’s description better than any others. This is an area south of the Faroe Islands known as Rockall. While most of this region would be too far below sea level, I believe that the area likely originated near Iceland and shifted toward Europe over time. We can see Iceland preparing for the same destination based on how the fault lies.

Just to be really honest, I don't understand why Plato's work is viewed as an actual description rather than an allegory.  To me it seems a bit like looking for the entrance to Dante's Inferno and arguing whether it is in this or that cavern system. 

Every interpretation assumes that Atlantis is real, but then is forced to diverge from Plato's description of location, place, and time, and say it  was not really in that location, or that time period or that shape or size.  In  later periods of time, it was all Athens could do to survive Sparta and on another occasion Persia.  Those seem historically documented.  Athens depended on their fleet.  Defending themselves against a seafaring advanced force seems a little dicey.  

Is  there any evidence of Minoan contact with this advanced culture?  They were some of the greatest mariners and merchants  in the Med at the time.   People get excited about dating the Thera event, that tsumani left evidence on the Cretan coast and nearly put an end to the Minoans.  From all of the physical evidence left on Thera, those people were Minoans too, not Atlantians.  Are there any artifacts of indeterminate provenance in Cretan palace excavations?   Nothing to give additional evidence for Plato? 

Plato was not a historian or ethnographer.  He did not delve into the field of foreign places and people on a habitual basis.  Why is Atlantis more likely than the one legged men and the  one eyed-men Herodotus so faithfully described?

If I could recommend a fruitful field of study, spend some time looking at evidence of sea level and climate over say the last 20,000 years.  Look for abandoned settlements where rivers dried up or changed course and left a settlement untenable. Look for ports and river bank cities now submerged.  Get excited about what will turn up in Dogggerland, or around the Black Sea in physical evidence and DNA samples.  Piney could verify East Coast, I know Pacific Coast settlements have been destroyed more than once by tsunamis.  Likely some sites in Central and South America that have been inundated.  Get excited about remote drones surveying the sea floor in the Med and Black Sea among other sites.  What is the earliest ship we will find?  How about Doggerland?  Will we find the remains of coastal capable vessels?  That would be a Scoop of major importance.  There is plenty to search for that might bear more fruit than Atlantis

Also a word; anyone who wants to explore beyond the edges of the known will benefit from familiarity with the tools available beyond Google earth and Wikipedia. No offense meant.  I wish you well. Regards.

[Piney]

23 minutes ago, vextryyn said:

I guess I now need to ask; What are you using to see debris, I was under the impression google earth.

43 minutes ago, Piney said:

No, you actually have to do soil tests, take cores, dig and sift. 

 

24 minutes ago, vextryyn said:

 Do you have a place to find a better map because what I have is from 1994 and black and white (I have access to all journals). 

They are all over the web. Just Google it. I use USGS but that is just for North America. 

[cormac mac airt]

8 hours ago, vextryyn said:

Plato first wrote about Atlantis in the Critias and Timaeus. But many people like to read further than is described. Many people want Atlantis to be a circular island, which it was not. They want it to be in an area that has not touched the ocean for eons.

We must first need to remember that many other cultures used oral tradition. These stories have been subject to change and many were written well after Plato’s death.  This means we must assume that these were influenced by Plato’s work, meaning they are some stories I cannot use as evidence. Plato’s story is so specific in its description of the island that, I feel I must consider it with a higher level of validity. Plato claims he received his stories form Socrates, which means we should consider that there are parts of his story that could be faulty.

Beginning with the description of the island, there are many people that would like to believe the island is circular. This is completely false and no matter how you translate the dimensions of the island are always the same. The rings themselves were said to be completely circular described as if they were turned with a lathe, but Plato describes the island as an oblong island. The measurements of the island are 3000 stadia in length and 2000 stadia in width. The ring structure itself was a total of 27 stadia in diameter and with the perimeter wall 127 stadia. We know the city was positioned 50 stadia from the sea as the trench from the outermost water ring was 50 stadia in length. To put this all into perspective, one stadia is about 185m, which makes the island about 555kmx370km.

From everything previously described, we can understand how the Richat could not have been the location of Atlantis. We also find that the island itself is not circular. There are others that search in Antarctica, based on maps made centuries after Plato. The Piri Reis map according to some shows us southern Africa and part of Antarctica with the island of Atlantis in between. While compelling, the figures drawn on the map clearly show us rainforest animals, meaning it is from west Africa and eastern south America. The island in the middle was likely an inaccuracy or an island with a size that was misinterpreted. If we go under the assumption that the map was accurate then one has to assume that the areas had the pictured animals and people around 1500 CE. We already know this is not the case, and I can not conclude that the Piri Reis map is a valid source.

If the Piri Reis map were accurate, there is only one location that could be Atlantis and that is the Kerguelen Islands.  The elevation of the ground beneath the ocean is in my opinion shallow enough to have been at the surface, this is the Kerguelen Islands. From google earth we can see that the land under the islands is just about the size described by Plato, not to mention there are locations to the south that could have been islands. The depth is where there is an issue, but that will also be an issue for my proposed location, which I will discuss a couple scenarios which I believe may have happened. As for the finer details, the region lacks the features suggesting that it was surrounded by mountains, not to mention the area would likely have been covered in ice during the last ice age. This area is also not what I would consider as beyond the Pillars of Heracles.

The location I propose as mentioned previously is well below the ocean’s surface, but I find the land mass matching Plato’s description better than any others. This is an area south of the Faroe Islands known as Rockall. While most of this region would be too far below sea level, I believe that the area likely originated near Iceland and shifted toward Europe over time. We can see Iceland preparing for the same destination based on how the fault lies.

The theory that I propose, the first is that the area was originally at a higher elevation. If the area were to have originated near Iceland’s current position, then the island would likely have been composed of weaker igneous rock. Both Hawaii and Iceland are similar, but the Hawaiian Islands do not grow as long over their hotspot meaning they decompose more rapidly. All around the northern region are all remnants of volcanic activity, Hasselwood rock is the destroyed cone of an extinct volcano. I believe over time the island would have become more and more unstable. The rising sea levels would likely bring water into empty lava tubes, weakening the ground, forcing the island to collapse into the sea. In this scenario, I don’t see an asteroid impact doing more than aid in the destabilization of the island.

This scenario is what I would also consider is unlikely to leave easily accessible evidence of Atlantis. This comes from the fact that, if that were the case, it would be buried under an excessive amount of sediment. The asteroid impact may also have had another effect, since it likely hit a glacier, it also may have caused a tsunami. If this is the same asteroid that hit Greenland, that direction would likely explain the western face having a lower elevation. This means that if there is remaining evidence of Atlantis, it will likely be buried under sediment along the eastern bank.

Something else we must consider is that, oceans rise slowly. This means that there were likely hundreds of years where the former island would have been only partially submerged, which means any structural foundations were likely worn away by the harsh erosion. One ray of hope comes from the fact Atlantis was in the center of the island. This area would likely have been protected from the harsher effects of the ocean. Since it likely would have been the first area to sink deeper into the ocean, one can only hope there may be some remaining foundations. If this is not the case, we will likely only be destined to find artifacts buried in the rubble.

 

I would also like to add I have the same post on atlantisrising, but it seems slow over there, seems more active here, just looking for conversation about it. 

Not in 11,600 years even based on the highest estimated movement in the Northern Atlantic of circa 10 cm/3.937 inches per year. That would only be a distance of about 3,805.76 feet which is just a bit more than 7/10ths of a mile, which is negligible. 

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/ZhenHuang.shtml

cormac

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

JESUS CHRIST DO WE NEED ANOTHER BLOODY ATLANTIS THREAD?

[jaylemurph]

Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

JESUS CHRIST DO WE NEED ANOTHER BLOODY ATLANTIS THREAD?

Apparently, we're now the clearing house for anyone with too much time on their hands and/or a seeping head wound who comes up with an Atlantis-related thought and needs to bray it out.

--Jaylemurph

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Just now, jaylemurph said:

Apparently, we're now the clearing house for anyone with too much time on their hands and/or a seeping head wound who comes up with an Atlantis-related thought and needs to bray it out.

--Jaylemurph

We need a moderator to clean this part of the forum.