Atlantis

[Nungali]

Anyway, to add to my side of the scales ... yet again .

 

The map is obviously of Kirchers period and not a Roman or Egyptian map of the time claimed.   

 

There is a high probability that it was copied from another map  that was drawn from this one, and the lower continent just moved over and up a bit  , to locate it  where it 'should' be.  

 

 

 

 

 

In fact it's most likely he used a map of South America as his template, whether he chose so consciously for a conceptual view of Atlantis or whether he was pranked into it. One of the most notable pranks played upon him included a forged Egyptian manuscript, which he accepted as genuine. Did someone provide him a forged Egyptian map of Atlantis?

 The image portrays the continent of South America from Abraham Ortelius' 1592 Typus Orbis Terrarum alongside Kircher's Atlantis map. They both correctly depict a recessed southeastern coastline interrupted by the Rio de la Plata (E), but both also present erroneous depictions of a straight western coastline © as well as a blunt west to east rising southern tip (D). In the northwest corner they both also include the same signature double scalloped coastline (A,. 

 

Perhaps even more telling of Kircher's fascination with this South American design is the fact that he resurrects this very same 73-year-old design of the continent within his 1665 world map (Image below). Kircher only makes very very minor adjustments to the design to conform with contemporary knowledge of the continent: the addition of a crease along the western coastline and the redirecting of the continent's point toward south-southwest instead of due south. 

 

 

 

" It seems highly improbable that the two proposed islands and a mid-Atlantic continent could simultaneously coexist.

This is a rather simple and clear concept. Raise the mid-Atlantic to form a continent and the displacement of water forces the sea level to also rise...significantly. The continental shelf where you locate the two islands would be submerged much further beneath the Atlantic as would be much of North America, not to mention the rest of the world.

Lower sea level to expose a mid-Atlantic continent and the continental shelf where you locate the two islands would be completely and prominently raised above sea level, so much so that the sea sitting far below could in no way divide the raised shelf into islands."

 

 

http://www.atlantismaps.com/forum/index.php/topic,43.0.html

Edited December 12, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

[Michael Sternbach]

Okay, let's talk about Atlantis some more. There is a lot of ground to be covered (LOL) - but the time I can devote to this right now is limited. Thus I may have to go slowly and present the evidence in favour of the Atlantis theory in suitable installments.

 

So you stated that Plato invented Atlantis as a model for his perfect state. For some time, the Atlanteans were admittedly doing well. But eventually, as the Critias tells us, things went down the drain:

 

 

 

By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power.

 

So much so that Zeus found it appropriate to punish them by sinking the whole island. Tell me... How is that supposed to be an ideal state?

[Marblehead]

Well, here we are talking about Atlantis again.  Hopefully not the one in the Atlantic Ocean tha hasn't been found yet.

 

A volcano blowing its top will wipe you out no matter how idealistic your state is considered to be.  Volcanos don't care.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

So you stated that Plato invented Atlantis as a model for his perfect state. For some time, the Atlanteans were admittedly doing well. But eventually, as the Critias tells us, things went down the drain:

I don't have time to find out who said that Plato invented Atlantis "as a model for his perfect state", but they are wrong.  Plato first introduces Atlantis in the Timaeus, where it is contrasted with and defeated by an ancient Athenian state which supposedly followed the structure which Plato had described in the Republic.  This is part of his introduction to the Timaeus and is too long to quote here, but this is from the Wikipedia article:

 

Introduction

 

The dialogue takes place the day after Socrates described his ideal state. In Plato's works such a discussion occurs in the Republic. Socrates feels that his description of the ideal state wasn't sufficient for the purposes of entertainment and that "I would be glad to hear some account of it engaging in transactions with other states" (19b).

 

Hermocrates wishes to oblige Socrates and mentions that Critias knows just the account (20b) to do so. Critias proceeds to tell the story of Solon's journey to Egypt where he hears the story of Atlantis, and how Athens used to be an ideal state that subsequently waged war against Atlantis (25a). Critias believes that he is getting ahead of himself, and mentions that Timaeus will tell part of the account from the origin of the universe to man. The history of Atlantis is postponed to Critias. The main content of the dialogue, the exposition by Timaeus, follows.. (Wikipedia, Plato's Timaeus, Introduction, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

This, by the way is something of a distortion, because in the Timaeus, it was Atlantis that was represented as a tyrannical state which started a war of conquest aimed at the whole Europe and Asia and it is the Virtue of ancient Athens, which in defeating Atlantis, saved everyone, even the ancient Egyptians, from conquest and enslavement, which is the point of the story:

 

[24e] . . .  For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot (Perseus Digital Library, Plato, Timaeus, 24e)

 

All of this, however, is more than likely a complex and masterful allegory, which because of its skillful presentation, has taken on a life of its own.  Ernest G. McClain proposes in his book, The Pythagorean Plato: Prelude to the song itself (Nicolas-Hays 1978), that all of Plato's cities are complex allegories based on ancient musical theory.

 

McClain passed away a few years ago, but it looks like his website is still maintained and you can download The Pythagorean Plato in PDF format here:

 

Musical Adventures in Ancient Mythology

 

and judge his work for yourself.

 

Strictly speaking, from a Platonic point of view, the search for Atlantis focuses on the wrong city, it should be a search for ancient Athens, but in either case it would be a mistake to be looking for ruins of some ancient civilization, or civilizations, based on Plato's discussions of them.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Minor spelling

Edited July 3, 2016 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Nungali]

Okay, let's talk about Atlantis some more. There is a lot of ground to be covered (LOL) - but the time I can devote to this right now is limited. Thus I may have to go slowly and present the evidence in favour of the Atlantis theory in suitable installments.

 

So you stated that Plato invented Atlantis as a model for his perfect state. For some time, the Atlanteans were admittedly doing well. But eventually, as the Critias tells us, things went down the drain:

 

 

 

 

So much so that Zeus found it appropriate to punish them by sinking the whole island. Tell me... How is that supposed to be an ideal state?

 

Tell me how this demonstrates that Atlantis was a real island  or presents any evidence in favor of 'Atlantis Theory'. 

 

Let's not lose track of what the debate is actually about.  However, to answer your  question , yes, I may have made a mistake (in that it was ancient Athens that Plato considered an ideal state and not Atlantis - a mere mix up of words ... but yes, a mistake and in that I admit error )  ; Plato is talking about what can happen to an ideal state, how corruption can settle in,  it is an analogy about how times were perceived in the past in a 'Greek Golden Age' and how and why they degenerated 

 

BUT  I am no  Classical Greek scholar, and lets NOT let that interfere with the  issue at hand. 

 

My mistake in no way gives the concept of Atlantis being a real island  that sunk and a surviving civilisation that spread throughout the world teaching advancement  any validity whatsover.

 

- which maybe we should clarify ; I contend that Atlantis was never a real place and  any ideas about it being real (even if Plato said it was - for effect ) , an actual island, that sank and people 'went out' and  delivered their supreme tech, society and all good stuff into the world , is a load of post Donelliean post Victorian as yet un researched and un investigated hogwash ... a la Donovan (singer ) , rehashed New Age  stuff   etc . 

 

But dont take my word for it :  

 

" Atlantis (Ancient Greek: Ἀτλαντὶς νῆσος, "island of Atlas") is a fictional island mentioned within an allegory on thehubris of nations in Plato's works Timaeus and Critias, where it represents the antagonist naval power that besieges "Ancient Athens", the pseudo-historic embodiment of Plato's ideal state (see The Republic). In the story, Athens repels the Atlantean attack, unlike any other nation of the (western) known world,^%5B1%5D supposedly giving testament to the superiority of Plato's concept of a state.^{%5B2%5D%5B3%5D} At the end of the story, Atlantis eventually falls out of favor with the gods and famously submerges into the Atlantic Ocean. " 

 

i.e.   Is a fictional island ,  the story is an allegory, it is psuedo-historic,  the story is about the idea of Plato's ideal state,  and at the end that is when Atlantis 'falls out of favour'

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

 

(also note ;  " On the other hand, 19th-century amateur scholars misinterpreted Plato's account as historical tradition, most notably in Ignatius L. Donnelly's Atlantis: The Antediluvian World.

 

(my emphasis) 

 

... looking forward to next 'installment'    

Edited July 3, 2016 by Nungali

[Michael Sternbach]

Tell me how this demonstrates that Atlantis was a real island  or presents any evidence in favor of 'Atlantis Theory'. 

 

Let's not lose track of what the debate is actually about.  However, to answer your  question , yes, I may have made a mistake (in that it was ancient Athens that Plato considered an ideal state and not Atlantis - a mere mix up of words ... but yes, a mistake and in that I admit error )  ; Plato is talking about what can happen to an ideal state, how corruption can settle in,  it is an analogy about how times were perceived in the past in a 'Greek Golden Age' and how and why they degenerated 

 

BUT  I am no  Classical Greek scholar, and lets NOT let that interfere with the  issue at hand. 

 

My mistake in no way gives the concept of Atlantis being a real island  that sunk and a surviving civilisation that spread throughout the world teaching advancement  any validity whatsover.

 

Maybe we need to clarify: Short of unambiguous archeological proof, only circumstantial evidence can be used in a debate about Atlantis. A recurrent argument of yours was that a sociological model by Plato was mistaken for historical reality. Now that this has been refuted, you admit that your assumption was wrong, but - it's irrelevant?! Perhaps then, your other arguments are irrelevant too?

 

I mean, if this was a crime investigation with you as the prosecutor, you would have lost the motive for Plato's alleged lie now.

 

For he states three times alone in the Timaios that the story Solon had heard from the Egyptian priest in Sais is true, "not a mere legend but an actual fact." Whereas he readily admits that, in other parts of this work, he speaks about hypotheses.

 

Nor does the clever twist that Plato created Atlantis as nemesis for his "ideal state" really save your case.

 

- which maybe we should clarify ; I contend that Atlantis was never a real place and  any ideas about it being real (even if Plato said it was - for effect ) , an actual island, that sank and people 'went out' and  delivered their supreme tech, society and all good stuff into the world , is a load of post Donelliean post Victorian as yet un researched and un investigated hogwash ... a la Donovan (singer ) , rehashed New Age  stuff   etc . 

 

No, that Atlantis really existed is by no means a New Age idea. It was assumed to have been an actual island already by Plato's student and commentator Crantor who even travelled to Sais himself  to have the story of Atlantis confirmed, as the neo-Platonist Proclus (4th century CE) tells us (who had access to Cantor's commentaries which were lost later). Later, the Stoic philosopher Posidonius considered Atlantis a historical reality. And so did the great Greek geographer Strabo and the Roman historians Marcellus and Ammianus Marcellinus.

 

This is not to say that Atlantis was universally accepted as a fact in the ancient world; rather, this was a matter of debate already back then. Among the neo-Platonists, besides the aforementioned Proclus, Syrianus and Iamblichus considered it to be real. With the decline of the ancient world, Atlantis indeed wasn't talked about much any longer (neither pro nor con) for centuries, until this and other ancient topics were revived in the Renaissance by people like Athanasius Kircher.

But dont take my word for it :  

 

" Atlantis (Ancient Greek: Ἀτλαντὶς νῆσος, "island of Atlas") is a fictional island mentioned within an allegory on thehubris of nations in Plato's works Timaeus and Critias, where it represents the antagonist naval power that besieges "Ancient Athens", the pseudo-historic embodiment of Plato's ideal state (see The Republic). In the story, Athens repels the Atlantean attack, unlike any other nation of the (western) known world,^%5B1%5D supposedly giving testament to the superiority of Plato's concept of a state.^{%5B2%5D%5B3%5D} At the end of the story, Atlantis eventually falls out of favor with the gods and famously submerges into the Atlantic Ocean. " 

 

i.e.   Is a fictional island ,  the story is an allegory, it is psuedo-historic,  the story is about the idea of Plato's ideal state,  and at the end that is when Atlantis 'falls out of favour'

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

 

(also note ;  " On the other hand, 19th-century amateur scholars misinterpreted Plato's account as historical tradition, most notably in Ignatius L. Donnelly's Atlantis: The Antediluvian World.

 

(my emphasis) 

 

What kind of "evidence" is this supposed to be? This only shows what we knew all along: That Wikipedia is full of crap. The statements that you highlighted in a - may I say - rather obtrusive manner are nothing but conjecture, partially already refuted by me in the foregoing.

 

... looking forward to next 'installment'  

 

But with pleasure!

 

[Nungali]

 

 

 

Maybe we need to clarify: Short of unambiguous archeological proof, only circumstantial evidence can be used in a debate about Atlantis. A recurrent argument of yours was that a sociological model by Plato was mistaken for historical reality. Now that this has been refuted, you admit that your assumption was wrong, but - it's irrelevant?! Perhaps then, your other arguments are irrelevant too?

 

 

No. I was responding to the current idea  that 'the  Atlantis story as evidence of some reality becasuse Plato wrote about it ', just one of my tacs ( rememberer Kircher's map, tha Azores sea floor map etc etc , My object is not to foucus on Plato as I know little of the subject. However I do value Donald's opinion on this subject (I will get to that below) . 

 

I guess we won't know how irrelevant my other arguments here have been [  the Map, the other 'new age' evidence presented all over the internet via you tube , etc. ,,, the 'revival' of post Victorian occultists concepts and the popularization of Atlantis a la Donelley *  by those  same , still popular with some post victorian 'occult teachers'  (ie. it was part of the 'curriculum)  ]  if they are glossed over and  a slip up here by me has ruled them out as irrelevant. 

 

If I were to apply that standard to your argument , many things would have been knocked out ages ago ....  eg.  Kircher's map is upside down ... why go further even looking at it , he made a big mistake, maybe the whole rest of the map is wrong.

 

(I think it is, but for a whole variety of interconnected reasons - thats how I came to my conclusion - not just trying to find some hole in it so I dont have to examine things further . 

 

 

I mean, if this was a crime investigation with you as the prosecutor, you would have lost the motive for Plato's alleged lie now.

 

Nah ....   mere slip up Your Honor  <bows>  I hope to be able to show Your Honor ... and the Jury, the validity of my points , made past (lets not forget them) and to come . 

 

( actually I did very well in our in Supreme Court case here to defend and maintain ownership of our 200 acres and 15 houses ... and appeal (in front of , then, three Supreme Court Judges )   

 

For he states three times alone in the Timaios that the story Solon had heard from the Egyptian priest in Sais is true, "not a mere legend but an actual fact." Whereas he readily admits that, in other parts of this work, he speaks about hypotheses.

 

Yes, I realize that was claimed in the story, and used before as a point in its favor , that's why i referred to it above  (  " even if Plato said it was - for effect " ) 

 

Nor does the clever twist that Plato created Atlantis as nemesis for his "ideal state" really save your case.

 

As Donald pointed out :  "   '  ... Atlantis that was represented as a tyrannical state which started a war of conquest aimed at the whole Europe and Asia and it is the Virtue of ancient Athens, which in defeating Atlantis, saved everyone, even the ancient Egyptians, from conquest and enslavement, which is the point of the story:" 

 

In other words; this whole old school occult idea about Atlantis ( which is actually the focus of my protests and always has been ... and its extension into ;New' Age Atlanteanism )   being a superior type of Utopia and spreading out to the nations of the world  delivering spiritual enlightenment, technology, etc  and being the central root culture  that others got theirs from ( even though they collate Egypt and South America together - civilizations 1000s of years apart )  is certainly not based on this  idea  from Plato of what Atlanteans were .

 

 

- which maybe we should clarify ; I contend that Atlantis was never a real place and  any ideas about it being real (even if Plato said it was - for effect ) , an actual island, that sank and people 'went out' and  delivered their supreme tech, society and all good stuff into the world , is a load of post Donelliean post Victorian as yet un researched and un investigated hogwash ... a la Donovan (singer ) , rehashed New Age  stuff   etc . 

 

No, that Atlantis really existed is by no means a New Age idea.

 

You must realize I was not saying this. Of course I dont think it was a new age idea. The protests from me started  from atlantean new age ideas or old fashioned occultist ideas that have been touted in threads here.  

 

It was assumed to have been an actual island already by Plato's student and commentator Crantor who even travelled to Sais himself  to have the story of Atlantis confirmed, as the neo-Platonist Proclus (4th century CE) tells us (who had access to Cantor's commentaries which were lost later). Later, the Stoic philosopher Posidonius considered Atlantis a historical reality. And so did the great Greek geographer Strabo and the Roman historians Marcellus and Ammianus Marcellinus.

 

This is not to say that Atlantis was universally accepted as a fact in the ancient world; rather, this was a matter of debate already back then. Among the neo-Platonists, besides the aforementioned Proclus, Syrianus and Iamblichus considered it to be real. With the decline of the ancient world, Atlantis indeed wasn't talked about much any longer (neither pro nor con) for centuries, until this and other ancient topics were revived in the Renaissance by people like Athanasius Kircher.

 

Exactly !   And his map ?   That was one thing you were going to get back on me about, as I thought you were researching other new evidence

 

Then when you said it was on again, its all about my little Plato mistake (not being as learned as My Friend   < bows to defendant  .... winks at Judge  > ) .... and how that maybe has eliminated all the other points I made ?  Which relate to people coming up with 'site evidence ' for a location. 

 

" Atlantis (Ancient Greek: Ἀτλαντὶς νῆσος, "island of Atlas") is a fictional island mentioned within an allegory on thehubris of nations in Plato's works Timaeus and Critias, where it represents the antagonist naval power that besieges "Ancient Athens", the pseudo-historic embodiment of Plato's ideal state (see The Republic). In the story, Athens repels the Atlantean attack, unlike any other nation of the (western) known world,^%5B1%5D supposedly giving testament to the superiority of Plato's concept of a state.^{%5B2%5D%5B3%5D} At the end of the story, Atlantis eventually falls out of favor with the gods and famously submerges into the Atlantic Ocean. " 

 

i.e.   Is a fictional island ,  the story is an allegory, it is psuedo-historic,  the story is about the idea of Plato's ideal state,  and at the end that is when Atlantis 'falls out of favour'

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

 

(also note ;  " On the other hand, 19th-century amateur scholars misinterpreted Plato's account as historical tradition, most notably in Ignatius L. Donnelly's Atlantis: The Antediluvian World.

 

(my emphasis) 

 

What kind of "evidence" is this supposed to be? This only shows what we knew all along: That Wikipedia is full of crap. The statements that you highlighted in a - may I say - rather obtrusive manner are nothing but conjecture, partially already refuted by me in the foregoing.

 

Please excuse my  obtrusion ... my hearing aid was turned down too low, now it has been adjusted . 

 

I suppose to go beyond conjecture ... to show how it DID exist, I still await the evidence ... in the mean time, I would like to call in some learned testimony , if he is available ....

 

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Nungali

[Nungali]

Donald, 

 

What is your take on Kircher's  Map of 'Atlantis' and any validity it has   (as it was put up previously as some type of evidence ) ?

Edited July 4, 2016 by Nungali

[thelerner]

imo, shit happens and there were probably several 'Atlantis's'.   I doubt Plato's exact version, yet it could well be echoes of a disaster that befell ancient Crete.  Or any civilization, Island or otherwise that grows to great heights and gets mauled by natural disaster.

 

I'd put good money that there were advanced civilizations that influenced the world and vanished.  Not as technological as we are, not ancient aliens, but very advanced and something- barbarians or mother fckin nature buried them.  The ancient world was incredibly fragile.  Our image of classical Athens, was constantly in danger of absolute destruction, mostly from without, but also from within.  It's greatest teachers and orators were often imprisoned or murdered straight out, see Socrates and Demosthenes. 

 

Athens survival was incredibly unlikely.  Yet it did and changed and guided the course of Western civilization, only by sheerest luck.

Edited July 5, 2016 by thelerner

[Nungali]

imo, shit happens and there were probably several 'Atlantis's'.  

 

(quote function not working ) ... 

 

Indeed !  Using a broad definition - I assume you mean .    Civilizations and societies rise and fall. There was supposedly a large advanced one in Central Asia. It just sort of disappeared from the 'story line' in the Avestas . 

 

I doubt Plato's exact version, yet it could well be echoes of a disaster that befell ancient Crete.  Or any civilization, Island or otherwise that grows to great heights and gets mauled by natural disaster.

 

I'd put good money that there were advanced civilizations that influenced the world and vanished.

 

Some partially vanished, left footprints and re-emerged, or their influence re-emerged later. The above collective of 'Nations' described in the Vendidad seemed to have it all happening,;  from North India, through the Hindu Kush, 'Bactria', up to the north Silk Route and across to Mitanni (in Turkey ) . They were mostly Mazdazasni (Zoroastrians and pre-Zoroastrians with some  and pre-Hindus ( Devatti, Daev or 'Deva worshippers' ) .  Then the record of them just peters out into the 'gap in Aryan history' ..... gone ! 

 

The Daevas eventually  spread down int Dravidian lands and effected great change there.  Nothing is heard from the rest until there are some Mesopotamian  reports of  tribes encountered emerging out of the mountains to the north , eventually becoming the Partha  and eventually  Parthia supporting Cyrus the Great.  The links are tenuous but the earlier civilization in the Vendidad was said to have come about by a wise king adopting Zoroastrianism , and following their code of good kingship and creating a type of empire. Then the same tradition emerges with Parthia and the good kingship and Zoroastrianism of Cyrus. 

 

Also in 'The Great War of Religion'  ( The Mazda worshipers against the Deva worshipers )  we could even have the 'battle aspect' of the Atlantis story.

 

 

- not that I am putting this forward as an Atlantis location, just an example of the general dynamic, and how one can influence another, leave some traces ... or perhaps none. No doubt it passes into mythology, scripture and epic / heroic tales in some forms. 

 

  Not as technological as we are, not ancient aliens, but very advanced and something- barbarians or mother fckin nature buried them.  The ancient world was incredibly fragile.  Our image of classical Athens, was constantly in danger of absolute destruction, mostly from without, but also from within.  It's greatest teachers and orators were often imprisoned or murdered straight out, see Socrates and Demosthenes. 

 

​The early central Asian civilizations seemed to have been beset  by climate change, first, bad cold conditions, a freezing, also locking up rainfall and at a later period a warmer period which may have caused some disastrous melts and floods on the plains below ( the larger Oxus basin down to the Aral Sea - today it is suffering extensive drying out ) , 

 

​Most collapsed civilizations I have looked into, the majority seem to be related to water shortage . That can make an are be abandon REAL fast ! 

 

 

 

Athens survival was incredibly unlikely.  Yet it did and changed and guided the course of Western civilization, only by sheerest luck.

 

Yes. A tenuous thread may be the only thing - like the story above, the (known) surviving remnants ( Medes and Parthians  ) .... the  the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great. *

 

Of course, there is also the 'Bronze Age  Collapse' idea.      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse

 

(for those that can bear Wiki )

 

 

*  ( some may protest that Cyrus was great or followed the code of ' Zoroastrian God Kingship'  ,  there is much evidence to it though, not only did he release the Jews ... consider, it was not just a case of 'letting them go';

 

"In the first year of Cyrus the king, the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house be built, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits." (Ezra 6:3) 

 

"...let the expenses be given out of the king's house. And also let the golden and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored and brought again unto the temple, which is at Jerusalem, every one to its place, and place them in the house of God." (Ezra 4:5,6) 

 

 In the spring on 537 BCE, after lengthy preparations, a caravan consisting of forty two thousand three hundred and sixty Jews, seven thousand three hundred and thirty seven servants, two hundred singers, seven hundred and thirty six horses, two hundred and forty five mules, four hundred and thirty five camels, and six thousand seven hundred and twenty asses, assembled for the one thousand three hundred kilometre journey to Jerusalem. 

When Cyrus allowed and financed the exiled Jews to return home, he encouraged them to return to their previous religious practices and worship Yahweh. In doing so, he helped create the Jewish nation that had previously been a kingdom that had all but disappeared.

 

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/achaemenian/cyrus.htm

[roger]

What I've heard (and of course, I'm aware that this information could be false) is that the citizens of Atlantis became very egocentric and destroyed themselves.

 

They were very advanced technologically, but lacked the moral maturity to responsibly handle their technological advancement.

 

REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING??

 

I just hope that won't end up being the case with humankind.

 

Another thing is that (and several channeled entities have said this) there have been civilizations on planet earth that have "completed" their work, and transcended their physicality. The civilization became an enlightened utopia, and no longer needed physicality.

[Nungali]

It seems to be a human societies  cycle ? 

 

Things are great until someone comes along and stuffs it up ... or a group of someones - usually fascist dictator types ... or kings 'fall from grace' .   

 

Look at the freedom  pre Stalin ... or   in Cambodia pre Kymer revolution ....   the ore WWII movements in Europe. 

 

heading towards some Golden Age  (but usually at some expense to others somewhere)  then wham! ... or the 'golden age' is happening -  well, nothing lasts forever. 

 

probably one of the oldest human moral stories their is  :  Cain and Abel ... Ahriman ... etc . 

 

 

The rest 'from channeled entities'  .....       a whole civilization   ascends to Nirvana ???  

 

Okey dokey . 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Nungali

[Michael Sternbach]

Nungali, on 04 Jul 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

In other words; this whole old school occult idea about Atlantis ( which is actually the focus of my protests and always has been ... and its extension into ;New' Age Atlanteanism )   being a superior type of Utopia and spreading out to the nations of the world  delivering spiritual enlightenment, technology, etc  and being the central root culture  that others got theirs from ( even though they collate Egypt and South America together - civilizations 1000s of years apart )  is certainly not based on this  idea  from Plato of what Atlanteans were .

 

 

You are targetting a whole bunch of ideas in this single paragraph that we need to look at one by one:

 

It is in fact an old idea that a body of spiritual knowledge existed in and was dissiminated from a lost culture. While identifying that source as Atlantis may indeed be relatively modern idea, there was a wide spread assumption amongst Church Fathers as well as Renaissance occultists  that wisdom emanated from Hermes Trismegistos in an unbroken chain to Plato and beyond (see Frances Yates: Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, i.e. p. 15 f.). Hermes (or Thoth/Tehuti) was seen as the founder of the ancient Egyptian culture, establishing writing, mathematics, law, and other topics, including the occult sciences.

 

The Egyptians were convinced that the Gods once ruled their country directly. Further, there was a belief in a primaeval island on which they originally lived (see A. E. Reymond: The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple, p. 55 ff.) - so it takes no great leap to link this to the isle of Atlantis, the knowledge of which was preserved by Egyptian priests according to Plato.

 

It is also quite remarkable that the ancient Egyptians encoded the time of about 10.500 BC in the orientation of the Great Pyramid towards the Orion constellation, which was the time of the destruction of Atlantis previously given by Edgar Cayce and which doesn't deviate all that much from Plato (who gives 9500 BC).

 

Talking about South America, your objection that its cultures are too far removed in time from the Egyptian civilisation doesn't hold up to scrutiny, as, similarly to the latter, the Mayans and Aztecs believed that their cultures had descended from earlier times. The first period or "First Sun" ended with a great flood (Popol Vuh, Codex Vatico Latinus), which (according to the latter source) occurred in 11.025 BC.

 

Is it just coincidence that the Great Pyramids of Teotihuacan in Mexico were obviously built to represent the three belt stars of Orion, and that the larger of them has exactly the same base and half the height of the largest pyramid in Giza?

 

http://coolinterestingstuff.com/ancient-pyramids-match-the-alignment-of-orions-belt

 

[Nungali]

Nungali, on 04 Jul 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

 

 

You are targetting a whole bunch of ideas in this single paragraph that we need to look at one by one:

 

It is in fact an old idea that a body of spiritual knowledge existed in and was dissiminated from a lost culture.

 

 

Sure, happens all the time.  I dont dispute that at all. Thats what I was detailing above.

 

 

While identifying that source as Atlantis may indeed be relatively modern idea, there was a wide spread assumption amongst Church Fathers as well as Renaissance occultists  that wisdom emanated from Hermes Trismegistos in an unbroken chain to Plato and beyond (see Frances Yates: Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, i.e. p. 15 f.). Hermes (or Thoth/Tehuti) was seen as the founder of the ancient Egyptian culture, establishing writing, mathematics, law, and other topics, including the occult sciences. 

 

of course, I am aware of that, I encountered the concept  years ago in my early occult studies. Now I am also fascinated with Egyptology, History and other fields of research to get a more accurate picture.  Things have come a long way since those days ... even in the last 20 years !    Even if the above founder is considered mythology, I have read accounts where some Greek philosophers are supposed to be Egyptian - its just that a Greek version of their name was passed down, or they were Greek but had an Egyptian teacher.  Then again ancient Egypt was heavily influenced by the Mesopotamian cultures  at various times. 

 

Indeed, the 'sudden' rise of the advance tech of Ancient Egypt has lead to man a theory and is one of my favorite subjects ... but nowadays from an empirical view.  This is a huge subject. Most notably, modern advances in archaeology, ( one of which is we now have Aboriginal, Egyptian, Indian, South American archaeologists )  has been the revision and elimination - to an extent -  and also due to newer finds , of the old 'Empire model' of developing cultures . 

 

I am rather chuffed at this , so I will repeat it here.  After a lot of debate with professionals and others I came to the conclusion about why Egypt was able to advance the way it did , it has to do with a large multi-cultural input, a solid core of past tradition/practices ( building, religion, farming, etc ) , and the way they treated, interacted and adopted those cultures and technologies. Also how parts of it split of, developed further in isolation and came back to blend in the new - a type of social alchemy of 'circulation'. I put my idea out there.

 

To my surprise one of the people I converse with, learn from,   question, agreed with me . he is a curator and guide at an Egyptian museum in Chicago . He said "That is my view too ! many times visitors to the museum ask me that question, how did Egypt rise the way it did, and I tell them that is the conclusion I came to .:

 

I can give you his online discussion address if you want to check on that.    Or to follow the conversations. 

 

An excellent book on this is 'Ancient Egypt - from the First Farmers to The Great Pyramid'  by John Romer  (and John has an excellent intro on 'empirical based evidence' and the above mentioned dynamic of assuming cultures developed by bringing civilization to savages the way the British Empire did  .... also, both ( empirical evidence and old ideas about Egypt being advanced by some advanced race - usually across the Red Sea into Upper Egypt  via the Easter desert and Wadi Hamnamet )   are looked at in another good book ( to get an empirical perspective )  Genesis of the Pharaohs  by Toby Wilkensen (which I reviewed on another thread here )

 

The Egyptians were convinced that the Gods once ruled their country directly. Further, there was a belief in a primaeval island on which they originally lived (see A. E. Reymond: The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple, p. 55 ff.) - so it takes no great leap to link this to the isle of Atlantis, the knowledge of which was preserved by Egyptian priests according to Plato.

 

Yes, I know about that. Its a central core beginning part of Egyptian mythology.  I do think you are taking a great leap to link the two together.  If we detail Plato's Atlantis  and the concepts of the 'primeval island'  side by side, they would be very different. 

 

If we just say , they were both islands so there is no great leap to ink them as the same thing or related to the same thing .... nah !

 

The myth of Egyptian origins and the first island is clearly related to  a later period anyway and to do with the flooding and receding of the Nile, the 'Dog Days' , agriculture, etc . 

 

It is also quite remarkable that the ancient Egyptians encoded the time of about 10.500 BC in the orientation of the Great Pyramid towards the Orion constellation, which was the time of the destruction of Atlantis previously given by Edgar Cayce and which doesn't deviate all that much from Plato (who gives 9500 BC).

 

Now you are fudging Michael ... the ancient Egyptians did no such thing !  Its modern people that claim that.    Now, you are giving Edgar Cayce as a source , that is occult history, I am talking about real history, archaeology, dating, cross referencing to vast amounts of knowledge collated and compared for years by Egyptology, anthropology, and translation of texts that the ancient Egyptians wrote themselves. 

 

Talking about South America, your objection that its cultures are too far removed in time from the Egyptian civilisation doesn't hold up to scrutiny, as, similarly to the latter, the Mayans and Aztecs believed that their cultures had descended from earlier times. The first period or "First Sun" ended with a great flood (Popol Vuh, Codex Vatico Latinus), which (according to the latter source) occurred in 11.025 BC.

 

and the gap ?   Are you suggesting that the recent development of South American cultures  (and specifically I was thinking about how people relate the pyramids there to those of Egypt )  both had a mythology or contact with someone that enabled them somehow to build fantastic pyramids , 5000 years ago in Egypt, but somehow held the knowledge  until the time the South American pyramids were built ? 

 

Or are we going to claim all the dating is wrong and the Sphinx is also older and so are the pyramids in South America.

 

Or is it a 'great leap' to think that people work in stone, eventually they get good at it,  a pyramid is a structure naturally lends itself to such design ,,,, heck, its  basically a pile of rocks stacked together ! 

 

Is it just coincidence that the Great Pyramids of Teotihuacan in Mexico were obviously built to represent the three belt stars of Orion, and that the larger of them has exactly the same base and half the height of the largest pyramid in Giza?

 

http://coolinterestingstuff.com/ancient-pyramids-match-the-alignment-of-orions-belt

 

 

That is not an idea that is currently accepted * , it floated for a while, but as I said above, a lot has been researched and discovered lately .... there is a wealth of interconnected resources and people with access to all the previous research and findings and papers ( peer reviewed thanks) and using today's modern IT  ... are we really going to let that be over ruled by a guy sleeping and dreaming up stuff ? 

 

I read the Orion Theory in the 70s and loved it ...  but errrmmm .... haven't we moved on a bit from there ? ? / 

 

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/scott-wolter-robert-bauval-and-the-orion-correlation

 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/piramides/esp_piramide_9.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes ... mixed with other stuff . 

 

 

 Do you think that is outdated pop occult woo you might be reading  ?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

Here is a start, John Legon worked with Duval on the original concept but 

 

" ... Despite my theological objections to the equation between S3h and the constellation of Orion which I have described on another web page, I would not have discounted the Orion correlation theory if a satisfactory correlation had been shown to exist; but this simply is not the case. I find it surprising that Bauval should have attempted to ...  "

 

 

http://www.legon.demon.co.uk/orion.htm

[Apech]

Here is a start, John Legon worked with Duval on the original concept but 

 

" ... Despite my theological objections to the equation between S3h and the constellation of Orion which I have described on another web page, I would not have discounted the Orion correlation theory if a satisfactory correlation had been shown to exist; but this simply is not the case. I find it surprising that Bauval should have attempted to ...  "

 

 

http://www.legon.demon.co.uk/orion.htm

 

 

Yeah I quite like Bauval though he is a complete showman and a bit of an egotist.  But it's interesting how the more mainstream people, having first thought that the 'orion Correlation Theory' quite interesting quickly scuttled away when they found it was a raging controversy.

 

There is nothing at all outlandish to suggest that the Egyptians (like the Vedic and Chinese cultures) put a lot of focus on an 'as above so below' /microcosm - macrocosm correlation.  I think this is practically universal and we must assume as an idea it originated somewhere.  Where we don't know.

 

The Egyptians interest in stars seems to be two fold.  In terms of star mapping they were mainly interested in time - that is charting the hours of night -  because the successful progress of the sun god was dependent on navigating certain obstacles - so knowing when these events were occurring was essential - so the right ceremonies could be conducted.  In terms of certain stars - they were representative of deities.  And has been mentioned the dead king aspired to become like one of them.

 

They divided the sky north from south because the northern (in the northern hemisphere) is dominated by the Ursa Major which has the distinct feature of not rising or setting below the horizon.  They just rotate round the astral north.  As such they are imperishable that is they are not born and they don't die.  The southern constellations - most notably Orion and Sirius do set and rise an thus are related to the ideas around birth and death.

 

Sahu - which Legon points out is called the Toe Star - probably refers to one of the stars of Orion - but as a specific star probably a decan star - that is a time marker - and not the constellation as a whole - but given it is called 'Toe' it has to somebodies foot (yes/no) and so that does not discount the whole constellation also being thought of as Osiris/Orion.

 

If you make a number of reasonable assumptions - that the Giza Pyramids were probably erected on sites already sacred (as has been shown to happen all over the world), that the stars of Sirius and Orion have a relation to death and being reborn after death,  that the 'belt' of Orion is probably a euphemism for his phallus and thus connected with magic phallus created by Isis to conceive Horus - then the idea that the pyramids were placed so as to represent the cosmic order perceived in the stars on earth - it doesn't seem at all far fetched.

 

The article linked to also quotes from the Pyramid texts - and while we should remember that these date from the end of the Fifth dyn. and thus maybe 150 years after the Great Pyr. (standard dating) - what is clear from the work of Allen et. al. is that the pyramid is a structure which is intended to map the underworld and as a means for transforming the king into a star.  Internally it is a set of chambers in which the various stages of this transformation process took place.  If you read Jeremy Naydler he presents a convincing argument that this process was not just for the dead but also a kind a shamanic journey for the living (to practice dying if you like - see the Heb Sed festival ).

[Nungali]

I knew if I detailed some AE you would show up

 

Yeah I quite like Bauval though he is a complete showman and a bit of an egotist.  But it's interesting how the more mainstream people, having first thought that the 'orion Correlation Theory' quite interesting quickly scuttled away when they found it was a raging controversy.

 

Well, not just that,  its not just the controversy , one of the original people in on it realized it was wrong and withdrew his support .  Also, that is enough to create a controversy ... people avoid the controversy as the controversy started by one of the people who helped develop the theory state it was mistaken.

 

If that happens , is it fair to suggest people backed off only due to the controversy ... or what casued the controversy ? 

 

There is nothing at all outlandish to suggest that the Egyptians (like the Vedic and Chinese cultures) put a lot of focus on an 'as above so below' /microcosm - macrocosm correlation.  I think this is practically universal and we must assume as an idea it originated somewhere.  Where we don't know.

 

Whats with this, 'cant respond unless it is in the quote box thingo now ??? 

 

Anyway ,   yes, 'as above so below' , it is very common , even down here with traditional systems. 

 

 

The Egyptians interest in stars seems to be two fold.  In terms of star mapping they were mainly interested in time - that is charting the hours of night -  because the successful progress of the sun god was dependent on navigating certain obstacles - so knowing when these events were occurring was essential - so the right ceremonies could be conducted.  In terms of certain stars - they were representative of deities.  And has been mentioned the dead king aspired to become like one of them.

 

yes, many seem not to realize that was a main preoccupation with Egyptian 'astrology' .

 

They divided the sky north from south because the northern (in the northern hemisphere) is dominated by the Ursa Major which has the distinct feature of not rising or setting below the horizon.  They just rotate round the astral north.  As such they are imperishable that is they are not born and they don't die.  The southern constellations - most notably Orion and Sirius do set and rise an thus are related to the ideas around birth and death.

 

Were not the 'imperishable stars' the destination of the Kings ?  

 

Sahu - which Legon points out is called the Toe Star - probably refers to one of the stars of Orion - but as a specific star probably a decan star - that is a time marker - and not the constellation as a whole - but given it is called 'Toe' it has to somebodies foot (yes/no) and so that does not discount the whole constellation also being thought of as Osiris/Orion. 

 

Maybe ... but is a 'whole constellation'   the asterism that is being talked about here , I thought it was the asterism of the 3 stars in the belt .  

 

​I cant tell if 'toe' need be connected to 'foot'  ,  not necessarily I would say ... Hieroglyphic signs dont seem to support that  - an ox's leg can signify strength, it need not imply an ox is present ? 

 

If you make a number of reasonable assumptions - that the Giza Pyramids were probably erected on sites already sacred (as has been shown to happen all over the world),

 

reasonable  assumption

 

that the stars of Sirius and Orion have a relation to death and being reborn after death,  

 

reasonable assumption

 

that the 'belt' of Orion is probably a euphemism for his phallus and thus connected with magic phallus created by Isis to conceive Horus

 

ummmmm  ....          Did the Egyptians place a large Orion / Osiris  over the star map and consider the 3  in a near line was his belt ? 

 

Or does that come from another Duval type author ? 

 

- then the idea that the pyramids were placed so as to represent the cosmic order perceived in the stars on earth - it doesn't seem at all far fetched.

 

No it doesnt.  Also some rock placements here in Oz may show the same function.

 

But here is the thing ; just because someone looked at star arrangements and patterns and decided to repeat them down on earth in the placements of buildings , that would seem to be a natural human correlation, as you point out.  It dont need no Atlanteans travelling around the world to teach people to do that .  That is the part that I think is far fetched ... especially when there is such a simple alternative explanation 

 

The article linked to also quotes from the Pyramid texts - and while we should remember that these date from the end of the Fifth dyn. and thus maybe 150 years after the Great Pyr. (standard dating) - what is clear from the work of Allen et. al. is that the pyramid is a structure which is intended to map the underworld and as a means for transforming the king into a star.

 

And here, I thought it was an 'imperishable star ' ?   

 

 

 Internally it is a set of chambers in which the various stages of this transformation process took place.  If you read Jeremy Naydler he presents a convincing argument that this process was not just for the dead but also a kind a shamanic journey for the living (to practice dying if you like - see the Heb Sed festival ).

 

But the journey is through the Duat , that isnt  the starry realm where Orion's belt is , is it ? 

 

 

Anyway, here was my theory on this when I believed it all : 

 

Lets say the pyramids do align to (actually not align at all  , 'seem to be in  a similar relationship to'  the stars in the belt of Orion. They point at Sirius, Sirius is very important. Somewhere, if the theory is right, on the same scale, there is a Sirius pyramid, center or city ... maybe the original home or center of the Egyptians ! 

 

I spent a lot of time on scale, maps , figuring ......   I was like a 'Kid Indiana Jones' .... I was onto something !  

 

I even thought I found it in the ruins of central Africa where the great lost  civilization once existed  (you know, that one outlined by Sitchen  where the Annuniki bred the human slaves to mine their gold       )   ... but I had to turn the map upside down . 

 

because if I didnt ... that put  'Sirius Town '   out in the ocean somewhere   .....       ....     wait a minute !

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2016 by Nungali

[Nungali]

I asked someone more knowledgeable than me about the validity of Plato's story on Atlantis  , and the insistence of some it is true ( in the story or nowadays ) and I got this response : 

 

 

For starters let us look at those involved in the supposed conversation in Plato's works.

Hermocrates - 5th century BCE - 407 BCE

Socrates - 470-399 BCE

Timaeus - 420 - 380 BCE

Critias - 460 - 403 BCE

Now Hermocrates went to war in 412 and did not return until the year he died in 407 so the conversations could not have taken place later than 413-412 BCE. Timaeus would only have been 7 or 8 and wouldn't have been involved in such a conversation. This refutes the conversations as actually happening. Since Plato's works are what guides the believers to accepting Atlantis and since the conversations, the basis for Atlantis would not have happened then Atlantis is just a story and not historical accounting.

[Marblehead]

I asked someone more knowledgeable than me ...

 

 

 

I'm sure it wasn't hard finding such a person.  Hehehe.

[Apech]

I asked someone more knowledgeable than me about the validity of Plato's story on Atlantis  , and the insistence of some it is true ( in the story or nowadays ) and I got this response : 

 

 

For starters let us look at those involved in the supposed conversation in Plato's works.

Hermocrates - 5th century BCE - 407 BCE

Socrates - 470-399 BCE

Timaeus - 420 - 380 BCE

Critias - 460 - 403 BCE

Now Hermocrates went to war in 412 and did not return until the year he died in 407 so the conversations could not have taken place later than 413-412 BCE. Timaeus would only have been 7 or 8 and wouldn't have been involved in such a conversation. This refutes the conversations as actually happening. Since Plato's works are what guides the believers to accepting Atlantis and since the conversations, the basis for Atlantis would not have happened then Atlantis is just a story and not historical accounting.

 

 

I think perhaps we need to differentiate between two different views.  One would be the authenticity of Plato's Atlantis and the other would be the idea that prior to recorded history was there something which we would call civilisation i.e. some kind of social organisation, widespread trade, sophisticated thinking, some technology and so on.  And that this later was at some point before recorded history destroyed - but that remnants persisted which explain the similarities in things like myth and architecture across the world.

 

Given that modern humans - with the same brain capacity as us and so on - are said to have existed from maybe 180,000 years ago and recorded history accounts for maybe the last 6,000 years (choose your own figure from 12,000 - 4,000) it does beg the question what exactly were we up to all that time and why did similar river based civilisations spring up in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus Valley and China at roughly the same period.

 

And then there's the old favourite Gobekli Tepe and the proposed sudden invention of both megalith construction and agriculture - which makes no intuitive sense (to me).

 

I think we can more or less dismiss Plato's story about Atlantis as a political allegory - but that does not mean he was not drawing on extant myth and oral traditions in the first place.  So even here there may be something useful to consider.  But I don't see any reason to dismiss, at least as an idea the existence of more ancient history which is more or less lost to us.  The trouble is that this 'theory' is not in the hands of historians and archeologists but in the hands of Hancock and Bauval et. al. - and one reason for this is the rather closed minded nature of the academic community - but mostly it is because those writers are not researchers and fail to do the right thing - which is to find the evidence and eliminate alternate explanations.  Which is quite annoying.  Much as I enjoy listening to them - as I do like listening to David Icke and so on - just for entertainment - I would prefer for some people to do some serious work on this area.

[Apech]

I'm sure it wasn't hard finding such a person.  Hehehe.

 

Ho ho.

[Apech]

I knew if I detailed some AE you would show up

 

 

But the journey is through the Duat , that isnt  the starry realm where Orion's belt is , is it ? 

 

 

Anyway, here was my theory on this when I believed it all : 

 

Lets say the pyramids do align to (actually not align at all  , 'seem to be in  a similar relationship to'  the stars in the belt of Orion. They point at Sirius, Sirius is very important. Somewhere, if the theory is right, on the same scale, there is a Sirius pyramid, center or city ... maybe the original home or center of the Egyptians ! 

 

I spent a lot of time on scale, maps , figuring ......   I was like a 'Kid Indiana Jones' .... I was onto something !  

 

I even thought I found it in the ruins of central Africa where the great lost  civilization once existed  (you know, that one outlined by Sitchen  where the Annuniki bred the human slaves to mine their gold       )   ... but I had to turn the map upside down . 

 

because if I didnt ... that put  'Sirius Town '   out in the ocean somewhere   .....       ....     wait a minute !

 

 

 

 

Duat literally means 'star realm'.

 

 

the glyphs in the middle right - a star in a circle and the letter 't' as an ending = Dw3t  i.e. Duat.

[Nungali]

I'm sure it wasn't hard finding such a person.  Hehehe.

 

Thank you for your contribution here Mr Marblehead . 

[Nungali]

Ahhh ... here is another 'contribution', although somewhat different from Marbleheads   and  one more intellectually appreciated   ...       

 

 

 

I think perhaps we need to differentiate between two different views.  One would be the authenticity of Plato's Atlantis and the other would be the idea that prior to recorded history was there something which we would call civilisation i.e. some kind of social organisation, widespread trade, sophisticated thinking, some technology and so on.  And that this later was at some point before recorded history destroyed - but that remnants persisted which explain the similarities in things like myth and architecture across the world.

 

Sure , we have apples and oranges here .    As I outlined above  the idea that prior to recorded history was there something which we would call civilisation , I certainly agree with that.  Especially your qualifier of some kind of social organisation, widespread trade, sophisticated thinking, some technology and so on. 

 

Like I said, there is this giant 'gap' in recorded  Aryan history ....  why ?  ... but then, when we move on through Persian history we find that after Alexander and the Arab conquest, they lost about 90% of their texts ! 

 

Myth and architecture across the world, I contend, are die to human similar needs , psychology and the qualities and available of materials and technology.  In studying the ancient Indo Aryan civilizations  there is no contact between them and the peoples of the Tigres / Euphrates basin until after the 'collapse' of the Aryans and the Assyrians record the first contact with a new tribe coming out of the mountains called the Medes . How come such people in near proximity (compared to this world wide teaching culture / civilization idea) never had contact ?   It helps to check the geography of the area and other factors. 

 

 

Given that modern humans - with the same brain capacity as us and so on - are said to have existed from maybe 180,000 years ago and recorded history accounts for maybe the last 6,000 years (choose your own figure from 12,000 - 4,000) it does beg the question what exactly were we up to all that time and why did similar river based civilisations spring up in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus Valley and China at roughly the same period.

 

What we did all that time is develop , or remain comfortable and unchanging  (think of the Aussie Aboriginals, they were developing culture and advancing but as soon as the sea rose and shut off circulation and entry of people with new ideas, they stayed pretty much at pre 10.000 bc level.  

 

Yet people claim the Chinese, The Egyptians came here ... nah . 

 

Have you seen the evolution graph ?   Millions of years to go from a single cell to  more complex organisms, a few million years to go from that to vertebrates, less to get to hominids , less to develop HSS much less to develop agriculture, mush less to develop metal, glass and ceramic works, much less to develop transport technology, then  flight ... in the relative flash of a micro second we are walking on the Moon! 

 

besides, where is the evidence ... and I mean real and examined evidence, not someone that doesnt understand the field looking at something and saying 'Well they both have pyramids' .  Its a bit like saying "well, they both had spears and spear throwers " .

 

And then there's the old favourite Gobekli Tepe and the proposed sudden invention of both megalith construction and agriculture - which makes no intuitive sense (to me).

 

Why is GT 'intuitively sensible ' ?   I think it's brill !   And contemporary to the amazing stuff at Orkney  (remember my thread on that ). It seems early people went through a stage of hunter gatherer a lot more organised than we realised before. Orkney shows evidence of massive feasting ( which means large numbers gathered at one time ) on HG food, not agricultural / farming food. HG societies may have ived near, alongside or supplementary to  the first agricultural ones for a long time.  Even without  agriculture, it seems now, they may have been ale to do many things we thought only agriculturists could do  (have large settlements, obtain vast amounts of food to feed large populations , build pretty amazing things linked across vast distances. 

 

GT may not even need any 'civilization'  (as we know it  ) associated to it.    

 

I think we can more or less dismiss Plato's story about Atlantis as a political allegory -

 

yes, I think we can. It was a minor point anyway. I was expecting Michael to come back with some more and entirely different ammo, as he said he was researching the Atlantis thing, location, the Kircher Map, etc .  It was actually him that reflamed up the Plato thing as some way to erode my overall Atlantis protests ... which were, by the way, never about any previous advanced pre history civilizations being impossible ... although for some, they might get distracted from the argument by bringing that up time and time again  

 

 

but that does not mean he was not drawing on extant myth and oral traditions in the first place.  So even here there may be something useful to consider.  But I don't see any reason to dismiss, at least as an idea the existence of more ancient history which is more or less lost to us.

 

Plenty of ancient history is lost to us .... who knows what was written about Atlantis in the Library at Alexander ?  I am not seeing a reason to dismiss that at all . 

 

My hand is firmly on the tiller .  I was never  navigating towards these waters in the first place .  ... although some seem to be trying to blow me off course       ... that may not be evident unless the whole thread  (and other Atlantis threads here ) are not followed in context.  I mean, there was this Plato-puffy-wind  for a bit ... but it looks like (old uneducated me ) was right about that anyway   . 

 

We might find more ... then we will have more 'history'  , at present a lot is pre-history ... we may have had it in historical form before, but like I said, a lot was destroyed. The victors write the history. 

 

 

 The trouble is that this 'theory' is not in the hands of historians and archeologists but in the hands of Hancock and Bauval et. al. - and one reason for this is the rather closed minded nature of the academic community - but mostly it is because those writers are not researchers and fail to do the right thing - which is to find the evidence and eliminate alternate explanations.  Which is quite annoying.  Much as I enjoy listening to them - as I do like listening to David Icke and so on - just for entertainment - I would prefer for some people to do some serious work on this area.

 

But it isnt their area ... they have not been trained or educated to do it. They are sensational entertainment money makers.  heck, even I enjoy their work occasionally, but lets not confuse the planes here.  I say, leave them to do what they do  (I say someone like Christian Jacq does it better, he is trained and is a professional, he uses that to base his historical fiction on ... its far removed from reality, is romantic and imaginative ... but great entertainment reading for any Egyptophile !  But in no way an accurate record of the finds we have so far. 

 

​And on that note, the other side of the story is, all the empirical evidence and collated info we do have so far is just that ... all we have so far. As more comes in, things may change. But often  new stuff does come in and it needs to be rigorously examined to stop the woo infiltrating .... remember ' Piltdown Man '  (and others ) ? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man