Atlantis

[Michael Sternbach]

Did somebody mention a map of Atlantis?

 

Here is one published in 1669 by Athanasius Kircher in his Mundus Subterrameus (yeah, Nungali, the same Kircher who gave us the Tree of Life as we know it). The story goes that he found this map in the Vatican; it was created in Egypt and brought to Italy by the Romans sometime around 30 BCE. The Egyptians considered southern Egypt to be Upper Egypt, and drew their maps accordingly, with South being up. Kircher redrew the map just the way it was and placed America on one side as reference.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

The capital of Atlantis, more or less the way Plato described it.

 

[Marblehead]

Did somebody mention a map of Atlantis?

 

That map would put Atlantis in the Pacific Ocean.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Marblehead

[Michael Sternbach]

That map would put Atlantis in the Pacific Ocean.

 

MH, please reread what I wrote: Kircher's map has South on top. Thus we have Africa on the left and the Americas on the right. And Atlantis in the Atlantic - where it belongs.

[thelerner]

What signs ...   plants and genetics relating to Atlantis  ????   ...   be specific .... examples ? 

Cocaine, a south american plant in Egyptian mummies. (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/did-ancient-egyptians-trade-nicotine-and-cocaine-new-world-001025)  A little controversial but gaining some momentum I believe.  Pointing to, with some pictoral evidence that Egyptians found the South America pretty early on and used it for coke runs. 

 

Genetic markers used to be a good way to follow humanities flow from Africa on out.  In some places anomalies in tribes point to contacts made long ago.

Edited December 2, 2015 by thelerner

[Nungali]

The same was said about Homer's story of Troy until Calvert and Schliemann excavated the city in the 1860s.

 

Granted!  When someone finds Atlantis , with similar evidence as Troy, I will gladly eat me hat ... and yours ... and Marbleheads wig. 

 

 

 

 

And you think orthodox scientists never mess with the facts? Did you even care to watch the video I posted in post #8 before you started your rant? If this is too much to ask, just watch 24:00 to 33:00 for a refutation of several unfounded claims by sceptics.

 

Sometimes they did , I am more worried about 'scientism' though.  Nah, slacked off on the video  (low credit , but now recharged)  .... actually, now my charged up rant power is running low ... stay tune for after I charge up my rant battery    .

 

No I didnt bother to watch it ... It was a ufo/tv site and about Edgar Cayce , come on man ! I have better things to spend my time and money on and I have already thrashed these subjects to death, for years and studied both sides and come to my conclusion

 

... BUT , since you  made 'a point' ... I will go back now and watch  10 mins of it  ( but it is expensive for me ... text sites are better, and they often have references and stuff that are easier to follow )   and then .....   

 

 

 

 

 

 

... I'm back 

 

 

... Ah man , those points are adreesed in the wiki article on Bimini , and that has follow up refrences . There goes my time and money !

 

anyway ;

1, no teirs , multiple levels of blocks - there say there are ( see * below )

2, blocks sit on beds of sand or base rock - no, more blocks or foundations of rubble

(they make a point about shifting sand changing things ,,, and then a comment about a feature being parallell to the shore line , but this is the present shore line, considering shifting sands and immense time of the postulated building ... the shore line would have been where it is today??? . Ya cant have it both ways ! ) *

 

3. no props or support stones - they believe they found some 'all clearly cut and placed by human hands ' (evidence of that ? I dodnt see any evidence of things being placed by human hands ) and some 'appeared' to be similar to other rocks elsewhere .. well, that happens . *

 

4. no tool marks on any stone or human artifacts , - they showed some ( but they dont look like tool marks to me at all, what was shown in that vid ) ... then stone anchors , one was similar to Pheonician anchor and dated to 30 bc .... ??? *

 

5. all the blocks dip toward deep water -(they claim all natural stones deep towards deep water ? do they ? ) - they found evidence that a large proportion did not . *

 

... then I watched a tiny bit more ... about how Atlantis will rise again ... from some 'chaneller ' in .... well, in a year that has long passed us by.  No, Edgar , Atlantis did not rise then ....  I wont be eating no hats on that one !

 

* Wiki ;

 

" As noted below, these observations are disputed by other investigators. For example, some investigators state that where sand had washed away between the seams, another course of blocks can be seen along with small blocks underlying these blocks. However, detailed evidence that clearly documents the alleged presence of a continuous second layer (course) of stones beneath the stones forming the currently exposed "pavement" has not yet been published in a reputable, scientific venue with the detail that is needed for critical evaluation. Pictures posted on various Web pages of stones alleged to be artificial "wedge stones" and "prop stones" fail as convincing evidence for a second course of stones because they are typically smaller in size, do not form a continuous course, and too infrequently lie directly beneath the blocks that form the surface of the Bimini Road. This is not what would be expected of an actual underlying course of man-made masonry.

 

David Zink[7] states:

Most of the blocks were now clearly resting on either the underlying bedrock or on smaller stones on the sea floor.

— David Zink

This led him to conclude:

...this fact had an important archaeological consequence: it meant that the idea (held by some Atlantologists) that the blocks now visible were only the top of a more complex structure was likely incorrect.

 

In addition, early studies of the Bimini Road, i.e. Gifford and Ball[5] and David Zink,[7] report taking numerous samples and cores for examination. It is also safe to presume that a certain number of the innumerable visitors to the Bimini Road have chipped off pieces of it. Scientific sampling and souvenir hunting would have left behind modern "tool marks" on the various blocks composing the Bimini Road for later investigators to find. "

 

I would suggest, with all due respect to people's 'beliefs' ,  that reading the rest of that Wiki site and following up the refs may be a better source of info than an Edgar Cayce / ufo/tv internet video clip ? THey seem to be fudging like all the other 'Atlantean type Youtubes' do . 

 

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

 

also

 

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_10_3.htm

 

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/geologists_adventures_with_bimini_beachrock/

 

I dont go for this chanlled, new age , rehash of old dodgey post victorian 'seership.

 

I thought that was obvious.

 

I know a great site with many academics and professionals on it if you want to investigate this further , they are great for finding the latest up to date info on things (and supplying a bit of 'reason' as well ) . I am sure questions about Bimini there will bring forth a lot of info . They also have a lot of conversations running about Atlantis as well . And some of them really know their stuff ! 

 

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/

 

Now ... on with more Atlantis fun !

[Nungali]

A channelled source on Flower Remedies (Gurudas: Flower Remedies and Vibrational Healing) says that corn was used for genetic experimentation in Atlantis, which it is suitable for due to its genetic variability. Of course, there is no hard evidence for that. However, that book's descriptions of the effects of particular flower remedies frequently hold true in my practice.

 

 

 

A 'channeled source '  ?  Okay then .   But for me that constitutes no proof whatsoever . 

[Nungali]

Did somebody mention a map of Atlantis?

 

Here is one published in 1669 by Athanasius Kircher in his Mundus Subterrameus (yeah, Nungali, the same Kircher who gave us the Tree of Life as we know it).

 

Ummm ... the Tree of Life is a schemata  ...  and what is below is typical of maps of the time . Surely you dont think, using one of those old maps , you would be able to sail through where Australia is now ?  

 

here are some more maps of Atlantis  ....    I dont think they prove much at all 

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=maps+of+atlantis&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimoPbqnLzJAhUBP5QKHTUwBSAQ_AUIBigB

 

 

 

The story goes that he found this map in the Vatican; it was created in Egypt and brought to Italy by the Romans sometime around 30 BCE. The Egyptians considered southern Egypt to be Upper Egypt, and drew their maps accordingly, with South being up.

 

Ummmm ... Upper Egypt is the part of the river that is  up steam , and the other division was Lower Egypt and they were not names used by the Egyptians at all  anyway .    Even I live at a place called ' Upper ..... "  on the map, as it is upstream from ' ....'

 

Kircher redrew the map just the way it was and placed America on one side as reference.

 

 

Look, people back then read Plato and heard about Atlantis ... its  not abnormal to include it on some old maps .  

Edited December 2, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

The capital of Atlantis, more or less the way Plato described it.

 

 

 

[Nungali]

Cocaine, a south american plant in Egyptian mummies. (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/did-ancient-egyptians-trade-nicotine-and-cocaine-new-world-001025)  A little controversial but gaining some momentum I believe.  Pointing to, with some pictoral evidence that Egyptians found the South America pretty early on and used it for coke runs. 

 

Genetic markers used to be a good way to follow humanities flow from Africa on out.  In some places anomalies in tribes point to contacts made long ago.

 

 

So ....   in early ancient Egypt  lapis went from Afghanistan , through to Egypt and the west coast of Africa.   It didnt need the same people from Afghanistan to contact the west African coast, nor was there a need to postulate some great empire or civilisation between  Afghanistan and Egypt for it to get there. 

 

besides , Michael , above, pointed out how sometimes scientists can be dodgy too .... maybe some Egyptologist had an accident when doing up a line    

 

 

But, the research  NOW does seem to indicate that original protests were incorrect .    So we may have to extend this map to the left

 

 

. 

 

 

 

Thanks for answering my question, but I  dont see how this backs up the reality of Atlantis . 

[Marblehead]

MH, please reread what I wrote: Kircher's map has South on top. Thus we have Africa on the left and the Americas on the right. And Atlantis in the Atlantic - where it belongs.

Sorry.  I don't normally look at maps while standing on my head.

[Michael Sternbach]

Sorry.  I don't normally look at maps while standing on my head.

Unlike Nungali down under.

[Michael Sternbach]

 Granted!  When someone finds Atlantis , with similar evidence as Troy, I will gladly eat me hat ...

 

That seems like a safe thing for you to say... It is doubtful that you have any hat considering how much you abhor them.

 

and yours ...

 

I don’t have any either but I might well acquire one in order to watch you eat it.

 

and Marbleheads wig.    Sometimes they did , I am more worried about 'scientism' though.  Nah, slacked off on the video  (low credit , but now recharged)  .... actually, now my charged up rant power is running low ... stay tune for after I charge up my rant battery    . No I didnt bother to watch it ... It was a ufo/tv site and about Edgar Cayce , come on man ! I have better things to spend my time and money on and I have already thrashed these subjects to death, for years and studied both sides and come to my conclusion ... BUT , since you  made 'a point' ... I will go back now and watch  10 mins of it  ( but it is expensive for me ... text sites are better, and they often have references and stuff that are easier to follow )   and then .....         ... I'm back ... Ah man , those points are adreesed in the wiki article on Bimini , and that has follow up refrences . There goes my time and money !

 

Are you done lamenting?

 

anyway ;1, no teirs , multiple levels of blocks - there say there are ( see * below )2, blocks sit on beds of sand or base rock - no, more blocks or foundations of rubble(they make a point about shifting sand changing things ,,, and then a comment about a feature being parallell to the shore line , but this is the present shore line, considering shifting sands and immense time of the postulated building ... the shore line would have been where it is today??? . Ya cant have it both ways ! ) *3. no props or support stones - they believe they found some 'all clearly cut and placed by human hands ' (evidence of that ? I dodnt see any evidence of things being placed by human hands ) and some 'appeared' to be similar to other rocks elsewhere .. well, that happens . *4. no tool marks on any stone or human artifacts , - they showed some ( but they dont look like tool marks to me at all, what was shown in that vid ) ... then stone anchors , one was similar to Pheonician anchor and dated to 30 bc .... ??? *5. all the blocks dip toward deep water -(they claim all natural stones deep towards deep water ? do they ? ) - they found evidence that a large proportion did not .

 

I grant you that you have done your homework. But (and I say this also in reference to the remainder of your post), it seems like different researchers made different observations and drew different conclusions. Since neither you nor I have had the opportunity to personally research the site (bringing a team of experienced archeologists with adequate equipment along with us), for the time being, I think we must leave it undecided if there is or isn't any real evidence to be found there.

 

*... then I watched a tiny bit more ... about how Atlantis will rise again ... from some 'chaneller ' in .... well, in a year that has long passed us by.  No, Edgar , Atlantis did not rise then ....

 

However, it is curious that those structures were discovered exactly by the time Edgar had prophesied. Actually, he may have seen the discovery of Atlantis in his trance and misinterpreted it as the island rising.

 

I wont be eating no hats on that one !* Wiki ;" As noted below, these observations are disputed by other investigators. For example, some investigators state that where sand had washed away between the seams, another course of blocks can be seen along with small blocks underlying these blocks. However, detailed evidence that clearly documents the alleged presence of a continuous second layer (course) of stones beneath the stones forming the currently exposed "pavement" has not yet been published in a reputable, scientific venue with the detail that is needed for critical evaluation.

 

The thing is, reputable scientific venues rarely publish any research which would be too unorthodox or too controversial. Thus it becomes the domain of esoteric magazines etc. Actually, well respected scientists usually don't even touch topics with occult implications, because any positive conclusions would be sure to set an end to their careers.

 

Pictures posted on various Web pages of stones alleged to be artificial "wedge stones" and "prop stones" fail as convincing evidence for a second course of stones because they are typically smaller in size, do not form a continuous course, and too infrequently lie directly beneath the blocks that form the surface of the Bimini Road. This is not what would be expected of an actual underlying course of man-made masonry.David Zink[7] states:Most of the blocks were now clearly resting on either the underlying bedrock or on smaller stones on the sea floor.— David ZinkThis led him to conclude:...this fact had an important archaeological consequence: it meant that the idea (held by some Atlantologists) that the blocks now visible were only the top of a more complex structure was likely incorrect.In addition, early studies of the Bimini Road, i.e. Gifford and Ball[5] and David Zink,[7] report taking numerous samples and cores for examination. It is also safe to presume that a certain number of the innumerable visitors to the Bimini Road have chipped off pieces of it. Scientific sampling and souvenir hunting would have left behind modern "tool marks" on the various blocks composing the Bimini Road for later investigators to find. "I would suggest, with all due respect to people's 'beliefs' ,  that reading the rest of that Wiki site and following up the refs may be a better source of info than an Edgar Cayce / ufo/tv internet video clip ? THey seem to be fudging like all the other 'Atlantean type Youtubes' do . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimini_Roadalsohttp://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_10_3.htmhttp://www.csicop.org/si/show/geologists_adventures_with_bimini_beachrock/I dont go for this chanlled, new age , rehash of old dodgey post victorian 'seership.I thought that was obvious.I know a great site with many academics and professionals on it if you want to investigate this further , they are great for finding the latest up to date info on things (and supplying a bit of 'reason' as well ) . I am sure questions about Bimini there will bring forth a lot of info . They also have a lot of conversations running about Atlantis as well . And some of them really know their stuff !  http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/Now ... on with more Atlantis fun !

 

I will look at all that.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

Ummm ... the Tree of Life is a schemata  ...  and what is below is typical of maps of the time . Surely you dont think, using one of those old maps , you would be able to sail through where Australia is now ?  

 

No, for travelling in that region I would use this map.

 

 

 

here are some more maps of Atlantis  ....    I dont think they prove much at all 

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=maps+of+atlantis&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimoPbqnLzJAhUBP5QKHTUwBSAQ_AUIBigB

 

I didn't say they prove anything.

 

Ummmm ... Upper Egypt is the part of the river that is  up steam , and the other division was Lower Egypt and they were not names used by the Egyptians at all  anyway .    Even I live at a place called ' Upper ..... "  on the map, as it is upstream from ' ....'

 

 

Look, people back then read Plato and heard about Atlantis ... its  not abnormal to include it on some old maps .  

[Nungali]

 

That seems like a safe thing for you to say... It is doubtful that you have any hat considering how much you abhor them.

 

 

I don’t have any either but I might well acquire one in order to watch you eat it.

 

It is a very safe thing to say  as  I wont be eating it      ...  not because of  any 'reality' of Atlantis .... unless it is  backed up with some reasonable  reseach.  And that isnt a hollow caw ....  its from years of research on both sides of the issue.

 

 

Are you done lamenting?

 

Not quite ..... 

 

 

An Edgar Cayce,  Atlantis, 'YouTube' video as 'evidence'   ..... oh dear .... oh my .....  

 

 

 

 

 

I grant you that you have done your homework. But (and I say this also in reference to the remainder of your post), it seems like different researchers made different observations and drew different conclusions.

 

Then one needs to look at the 'researchers', their work, their qualifications and the latest findings.   Thats called investigating something.

 

Like when Thelearner mentioned the cocaine mummies ... I had read up on this when it cane out. and I was very interested. Then I read more recent papers on its debunking ... that seemed okay at first, but I still had doubts both ways.

 

The when I read Thelearners post, I wondered what the latest was on it ... so I looked up some stuff very briefly ... and got this :

 

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/ethnic/mummy.htm

 

"  It is determined that the original findings are supported by substantial evidence despite the initial criticisms " 

 

Note in this link, its source site, references and literature cited and  ' considerations'    ( which  point out a  a cultural bias ... one could say that any postulated 'Atlantis' also supports this  same cultural  bias ) . 

 

So I accepted Thelearners comment on it  ... not just accepted or denied it due to some personal whim or preference. 

 

 

 

Since neither you nor I have had the opportunity to personally research the site (bringing a team of experienced archeologists with adequate equipment along with us), for the time being, I think we must leave it undecided if there is or isn't any real evidence to be found there.

 

Are you being serious ...  I have to leave it undecided because we cant personally go there with a team of experienced archeologists with adequate equipment , dive gear, boats etc.   

 

yet, you had already decided yourself without going there from the evidence in an Edgar cayce ufo/tv youtube .... but when other evidence is presented ... we both need to go there with a team ourselves ? ! 

 

Usually  we tend to leave that thing up to others trained in those fields , then we can read their papers, follow along with their postulations and evidence  and use our brain power ! 

 

I mean ... one has to be on the ball a bit !   At first it sounds convincing when someone says ... "It bears evidence of human tooling "  until someone else says " Dude ! People have been diving there for yonks and carving bits off ! "     And . at first, some may be impressed with the sneakily slipped in extra "and placed  there by human hands " ....   come on ... where is the evidence for that. After a while , on can detect the BS  by the way an article is written. 

 

 

However, it is curious that those structures were discovered exactly by the time Edgar had prophesied. Actually, he may have seen the discovery of Atlantis in his trance and misinterpreted it as the island rising.

 

Seriously ? !     Come on now  !  

 

Maybe he saw an Atlantis youtube in his trance and thought that was reality ?  

 

You know, when predictions are obviously seen to not come true and people try to fudge on them ... it just makes it look worse. 

 

 

 

The thing is, reputable scientific venues rarely publish any research which would be too unorthodox or too controversial. Thus it becomes the domain of esoteric magazines etc. Actually, well respected scientists usually don't even touch topics with occult implications, because any positive conclusions would be sure to set an end to their careers.

 

 

Not always ... just one example off the top of my head '  they decided to believe the Easter Island stories about how those statues got there ... they old stories said that they 'walked there'. 

 

Yes .... inanimate stone statues walked across the island from the quarry to the place they are in now.  And  some scientists went 'Okay then ... lets believe that and see if we can figure out what happened from the evidence available 

 

and ....  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will look at all that.

 

 

and the refs ....   also the site I mentioned above  has wealth of information ( with links and refs ) on  this and similar subjects. 

 

I have spent over 30 years studying such things, including Egyptology ..... I had to let go of a lot of what I used to believe in and what I wanted to believe in .  It isnt that I started out as some type of debunker or materialist ... I used to believe all that alternative stuff about the Great Pyramid, for example,  the more I researched it, from proper sources , the more I found out I had been swindled ! 

 

But I am certainly not saying we know everything  ....   look at Gobekli Tepe , that was a surprise .  

 

Atlantis was a story told by Plato to make a point about what he observed occurring in his time  and he used the story as an analogy .... and like all stories, it may have bounced off some remembered events   (like Santorini )  ... or maybe the similarity was seen afterwards .

 

Another possibility I have seen discussed, re 'the Pillars of Hercules' , where they actually were ... and what the Greek word that is translated as 'beyond'   ( these pillars )  means in other contexts ... inside or outside of the Mediterranean Sea  .   Such conversations can be quiet long  ..... which is why I am not rehashing all that stuff here . 

Edited December 2, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

No, for travelling in that region I would use this map.

 

 

 

I see .... and you live in Germany   ...   actually, I happen to live in an Oasis that is little affected by climate change, its quiet pleasant here (often has a lower temperature mid summer than Tasmania ) ... and being a big island, all the way down here, we dont have vast populations walking in ....   and the ones that do get here ... we only have a few neo-nazis to harass them , oh yeah, and no  NATO / Russia conflict on the doorstep 

 

'Pretty much fucked' eh ? 

 

 

 

I didn't say they prove anything.

 

 

So the point of posting an old Atlantis map was  ..........      ?  

[thelerner]

No, for travelling in that region I would use this map.

 

 

 

 

I didn't say they prove anything.

If that map had a bit more massive Forest Fires, long term drought and rioting it could be California. 

Edited December 3, 2015 by thelerner

[thelerner]

 

 

 

 

**Oh my god, now that they can walk there will be no stopping them.

 

 

 

**note* video not watched

[Marblehead]

**Oh my god, now that they can walk there will be no stopping them.

 

 

 

**note* video not watched

Luckily they are on that island without any trees to build boats with.

[Nungali]

**Oh my god, now that they can walk there will be no stopping them.

 

 

 

**note* video not watched

 

Its an island ... they wont be walking across Europe ... 

 

unless  ...

 

 

@ 0.30

 

[Michael Sternbach]

 

You keep repeating yourself.

[Nungali]

Just trying to get the point across ....   Plato used the Atlantis story as a model.   

 

And posting a pic of a model of the model  is interesting to look at , but ....

 

... doesnt make it any more real. 

 

But I think the story has real relevance  .... especially to us today  (meaning 'western civilisation'  )  , parts of it are, supposedly, even going to sink beneath the waves.... literally  !  

 

 

 

 

 

Now ... how did the  'Atlanteans'  get into that mess in the first place .... didnt they abuse their power and  technology ? 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Nungali

[Marblehead]

 

Now ... how did the  'Atlanteans'  get into that mess in the first place .... didnt they abuse their power and  technology ? 

No.  They just didn't know that their island was sourced by a volcanic hot-spot.

[centertime]

No.  They just didn't know that their island was sourced by a volcanic hot-spot.

I read about a difference story.

[thelerner]

But I think the story has real relevance  .... especially to us today  (meaning 'western civilisation'  )  , parts of it are, supposedly, even going to sink beneath the waves.... literally  !  

 

 

 

 

 

Now ... how did the  'Atlanteans'  get into that mess in the first place .... didnt they abuse their power and  technology ? 

Whoa dude.  You're saying

We've Found Atlantis

and  it  is  US.