Atlantis

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hola mi compade Joe el cactus: Nah, that certainly is not the location of the giant Aztlan / Atlantis caldera.

As for dating the artifacts, why as recent as Santorini?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Don Jose,

Because the technology for Plato's Atlantis did not exist in 10,000 BC?

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI cactus, you posted -->

Because the technology for Plato's Atlantis did not exist in 10,000 BC?
***************

What 'was' the technological level at Aztlan / Atlantis at that date ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Don Jose,

"What 'was' the technological level at Aztlan / Atlantis at that date ?"

Keeping it simple and only dealing only with the question of Atlantis, I would start with the technology required to build/construct the society/island infrastructure that was described by Plato. I'm sure you don't need me to detail each and every part of that society and island which would require more than was available in 10,000 BC.

I would repeat what I wrote earlier:

I would say it took them around 2,000 years, just to develop pottery, which many consider the beginning of a "civilization". Their first ships (boats?) were made around 1,500 BC, and they had to import gold, tin and copper, among other goods using those ships.

From the period where they are first grouped as Minoans, around 7,000 BC, it took them around 5,000 years to build their first palaces.

While the above relates to the Minoans, I would say it also applies to the accomplishments of the Atlantians up to the time of their destruction......Around 10,000 BC

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hi Joe, mi coffee drinking buddy you posted -->I'm sure you don't need me to detail each and every part of that society and island which would require more than was available in 10,000 BC.
*******************
Frankly, I wish that you could, I certainly don't believe these pulp magazines versions of a super science eclipsing today's Science? The Vedics alone give enough for me to think on

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Don Jose,

I added to my last post.

To reach anything like what Plato wrote that they had when destroyed, I think they would have to have started around 12000 BC......from ideas they had while still living in caves. Are you saying that Plato's story was "Pulp" fiction? I would agree 100% with that......maybe 90%.

Once you start "adjusting" Plato's account, Atlantis is all but pure fiction. As a side note, that is what I consider Donnelly's book to be.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Greetings,
Cactusjumper wrote

I would repeat what I wrote earlier:

I would say it took them around 2,000 years, just to develop pottery, which many consider the beginning of a "civilization". Their first ships (boats?) were made around 1,500 BC, and they had to import gold, tin and copper, among other goods using those ships.

From the period where they are first grouped as Minoans, around 7,000 BC, it took them around 5,000 years to build their first palaces.

Not to get picky here as you did state you were working from memory, but you might wish to revise those dates somewhat. I will explain;

"The Minoan Civilization was a Bronze Age civilization that arose in Crete and flourished almost 5000 years ago, until it was destroyed in 1450BC."
<from http://www.explorecrete.com/archaeology/minoan-civilization-destruction.html>

The Minoans are not a purely indigenous culture, and did not invent their technology in isolation.

"For the beginning of the palace-building period on Crete, which is designated MM IB, some use an early date of 2000 BC while others use a late date of 1900 BC. Most use the compromise date of 1950 BC. Similarly for the end of the Minoan palace society, and the beginning of the Mycenaean period on Crete, which is designated LM IB. The end of this period traditionally has an early date of 1550 BC and a late date of 1450 BC. Most often, a date between 1500 BC and 1450 BC is used for this event."
<from http://www.phoenician.org/minoans_phoenicians_paper.htm>

The evidence points to in immigration of foreign peoples who brought along foreign civilization influences with them, not that the native goat herders suddenly started building palaces, nor even started raising orchards of olives and grapes - these are foreign influences. As an aside, the fall of the Minoans and resulting exodus of the population is directly mentioned in the Old Testament, the "Philistines" coming to Canaan from "Kaphtor" (Crete) in the same manner as the Hebrews leaving Egypt which means the Philistines (Sea Peoples) were the slaves of the Minoans. The Minoans went nearby, which is explained in the Phoenicia.org paper linked above.

The Minoans had no elephants, had no island of 60,000 square miles (land area) and there is no evidence that they ever had large numbers of chariots. Neither is their main island group located past the straits of Gibraltar, which can not be explained away by choosing some Aegean location for the pillars since the text specifies that this power came out of the Atlantic, not out of the Aegean. "This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable"Timaeus, Plato There are parallels of course but as you pointed out, when you start making a string of alterations to shoe-fit the story, you are far from Plato.

If you compare the other ancient sources on Atlantis, you do not have the high technologies, chariots, elephants, triremes or even the advanced plumbing - so you are left with an Ice Age civilization even so, that could fit Plato AND those other sources. However I fear that we are very much wasting your time and ours since it is all fiction in your view. Absolute evidence to prove an Ice Age Atlantis existed has not yet been found.

Don Jose de la Mancha wrote

Oro, you posted--> I am quite certain that the place I think is Atlantis/Aztlan is not the same real estate you think.
*************
Obviously, since you are incorrect, right Beth?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obviously not, since you do not know what location I think Atlantis is, other than it cannot be 10,000 feet underwater today. I don't think Beth is following this discussion.

Don Jose also wrote

You also posted -->Any new evidence to support your proposed location, 10,000 feet under the water?
*************
Probably are, but can we recognize it as being uniquely Aztalan / Atlantis origin

I would think the experts could.

Don Jose also wrote

Go dive on the shallows off the coast of France and Spain and earn your place in history. proving that Aztlan, Atlantis, and Tayopa actually existed.

Ah, sounds like a great vacation indeed, unfortunately there are other demands on time and budget that restrain such activities from the current (and upcoming) schedule, but perhaps once things are wrapped up ala Tayopa you might be free? Besides, you have diving experience, while I have none and would need to attend training before even attempting it.

On the other hand, I am not at all certain that particular area is going to turn up much evidence in the line of Atlantis, since it is not the location where I believe the Ice Age civilization was so could be a fruitless endeavor.
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

OHIO ORO: If it exists, it can only be where seismographic activity will explain it's sudden disappearance. The junction of the three plates fulfills this requirement very elegantly, and by coincidence (?) a huge 3 ring caldera is also there. This tentatively fits the description of Aztlan / Atlantis originally and presently..

'so there' ! he hehe . We need the global Explorer for a while. Are you a good salesman?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

OHIO ORO: If it exists, it can only be where seismographic activity will explain it's sudden disappearance. The junction of the three plates fulfills this requirement very elegantly, and by coincidence (?) a huge 3 ring caldera is also there. This tentatively fits the description of Aztlan / Atlantis originally and presently..

'so there' ! he hehe . We need the global Explorer for a while. Are you a good salesman?

Don Jose de La Mancha

A good salesman? Why, I could sell money to a banker. However, do we detect the ugly shadow of DOUBT has started creeping into your Atlantis location? IF it exists, and TENTATIVELY fits the description? I thought you had said the location is found, mystery solved?

As the ocean levels would have had to be over 10,000 feet lower than they are today, I have some rather strong doubts about that particular caldera location. While it may be possible for over 60,000 square miles to subside over 10,000 feet, or at least 9,850 coupled with a sudden ocean rise due to the meltwater pulses (that is stretching it a bit at that) it seems unlikely in the extreme. How would you explain such a massive subsidence? Thank you in advance;

So there!
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

The first people on Crete have been dated to around 7000 BC. Minoan chronology starts on the island around 3500 BC, which is known as the Prepalatial Period. I'm not aware that its been established, beyond doubt, that the two peoples are of different origins. You have 3500 years for those early inhabitants to advance. That's a pretty good stretch.

What you seem to be trying to do, is equate Plato's people of Atlantis to the civilization that built Knossis. I was only making a comparison of the time it would take to reach the level of technology that existed at the time of it's destruction.

Confusion as to time, place and to a lesser extent events, seems to be the answer to Plato's story, at least in my mind. I am simply trying to establish a plausible time line for events. I can't buy Plato's date of (about) 10,000 BC for the kind of civilization he describes.

Even at that date, you have to give the Atlantians way more than a few hundred years to create what is claimed.

As with all legends, I believe the basis of the story could have some truth in it. In this case, if you advance the story to the time of the destruction of Thera, the civilizations that existed in that time and place fit the story.

Just my personal (uninformed) opinion.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

The first people on Crete have been dated to around 7000 BC. Minoan chronology starts on the island around 3500 BC, which is known as the Prepalatial Period. I'm not aware that its been established, beyond doubt, that the two peoples are of different origins. You have 3500 years for those early inhabitants to advance. That's a pretty good stretch.

What you seem to be trying to do, is equate Plato's people of Atlantis to the civilization that built Knossis. I was only making a comparison of the time it would take to reach the level of technology that existed at the time of it's destruction.

Confusion as to time, place and to a lesser extent events, seems to be the answer to Plato's story, at least in my mind. I am simply trying to establish a plausible time line for events. I can't buy Plato's date of (about) 10,000 BC for the kind of civilization he describes.

Even at that date, you have to give the Atlantians way more than a few hundred years to create what is claimed.

As with all legends, I believe the basis of the story could have some truth in it. In this case, if you advance the story to the time of the destruction of Thera, the civilizations that existed in that time and place fit the story.

Just my personal (uninformed) opinion.

Take care,

Joe

Well we have some misunderstanding, for I do not propose the Minoans as being the people of Plato's Atlantis, only raised the issues of the many differences and problems to say quite the opposite.

I do not know that much of anything relating to the prehistory of Crete is today an absolute, established fact; however while one theory has their civilization as a wholly indigenous one, the evidence does not support this. There are many evidences of foreign influences and even an influx (or several) of foreign settlers, coinciding with parallel technology appearing on Crete, rather than a home-grown, fully linear development.


The first settlers at Knossos brought with them a fully developed Neolithic farming economy as seen on the mainland (Greece and Anatolia).
<cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, wheat and barley farming as well as lentils, emphasis mine>
In the final phase of the Prepalatial(MM IA), we see growing evidence for maritime contacts with Egypt and the Near East. Competing elite groups used knowledge, contacts and ideology (and symbolism) from this region to help cement their power. <from
The BEGINNINGS of MINOAN CIVILIZATION—The PREPALATIAL and PROTOPALATIAL PERIODS; proteus.brown.edu/greekpast2011/admin/download.html?attachid.; emphasis mine>

<I am sure you know this, it is for the sake of any readers that may not be posting but are following out of interest>

As to your proposed problem for an Ice Age Atlantis, that of the time span required for it to develop to the (debatable) level of technology as described by Plato, the short span is my own proposal, not that there is not plenty of time available for it (Atlantis) to have developed very slowly, over thousands of years as you believe the Minoans did. As pointed out earlier, with the example of Dolce Vestonice - dating to at least 26,000 years ago, we have people living in a settled town with a protective wall, storing food (which means there was a surplus and allows for non-food producing members of the society to be employed full time in specialized tasks) and making fired ceramics. Is that not enough of a time span, from 26,000 years ago to 11,500 years ago, for a civilization to have fully developed all of the technologies mentioned by Plato, or even well past them? I would think that some 14,000 plus years ought to have been plenty of time, especially with a population boom, the beginnings of agriculture and even some evidence of trade across long distances.

Good luck and good hunting to you all, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

"As pointed out earlier, with the example of Dolce Vestonice - dating to at least 26,000 years ago, we have people living in a settled town with a protective wall, storing food (which means there was a surplus and allows for non-food producing members of the society to be employed full time in specialized tasks) and making fired ceramics. Is that not enough of a time span, from 26,000 years ago to 11,500 years ago, for a civilization to have fully developed all of the technologies mentioned by Plato, or even well past them? I would think that some 14,000 plus years ought to have been plenty of time, especially with a population boom, the beginnings of agriculture and even some evidence of trade across long distances."

Sure it's enough time. Where is the evidence to support Plato's vision of Atlantis. Is Dolni Vestonice your best evidence that the story of Atlantis could be true? The span of time is sufficient, but where is the evidence that the advance to reach the Atlantis level was ever reached......by anyone? Was any other culture using chariots or horses for racing in 10,000 BC?

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Our coffee drinkin buddy Joe: Join oro an dI --> <- for whoever wishes to join us.

As for artifacts, where are any from the presently ice locked continent of the south Pole? We know that in the late span of man, that it, and the Sahara, were lush paradises with abundant water etc. Yet today what do we actually know of the inhabitants of say 10,000 years ago??

So simply, the lack of artifacts does not rule out a civilization.
~`~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"Atlantis "

Atlantis sits at the junction of the three plates. The North American, Asian, and the North African, an area of extreme Seismic / Tectonic activity which easily explains why it disappeared in 3 days, according to the ancient legend.

It consisted of a gigantic Caldera of three rings, now about 12,000 ft. under the Atlantic. It sits almost where it supposedly was located according to the ancient stories.

Apparently the major Tectonic activity consisted in a western depressing / tipping / sinking of the zone with the 'possible' effective axis being in Europe. This left a stretch of shallows off of the coast of Spain which 'may' have been an out lying Atlantean settlement. This shallow segment eventually became the home of a roaming group of people from the Israel area.

These people later migrated to the Eastern US and slowly worked their way west to present Arizona. From there they then went south to eventually form Mexico city and the Aztec civilization.

They still call this former home 'Aztlan' strikingly similar to it's original name 'Atlantis'. They still refer to this former colony on the shallows off of the coast of Spain, as "the Place of the Reeds, Herons, white sands", etc. and obliquely refer to this migration to the Americas.

So Ladies & gentlemen, get the Global Explorer into action and help them redeem their name and help heal the division between Salvors, Adventurers, and Archaeologists. We 'can' work together to the benefit of all.

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

<I wrote earlier>

<snip>I would think that some 14,000 plus years ought to have been plenty of time, especially with a population boom, the beginnings of agriculture and even some evidence of trade across long distances."

Sure it's enough time. Where is the evidence to support Plato's vision of Atlantis.

Didn't I answer this earlier? I believe I pointed out that the evidence has not been found, and very probably with the excellent reason that it is under a lot of water. More on this in a moment.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Is Dolni Vestonice your best evidence that the story of Atlantis could be true?

Is that what I said? I said it is proof that man was making advances toward civilization FAR earlier than what is commonly supposed, and that to propose that mankind (in general) was at that level circa 26000 years ago, then went for 14000 plus years without making advances is a poor proposition. I did not say that Dolni Vestonici IS direct evidence of Atlantis at all, nor wish to give that impression.

Cactusjumper also wrote

The span of time is sufficient, but where is the evidence that the advance to reach the Atlantis level was ever reached......by anyone? Was any other culture using chariots or horses for racing in 10,000 BC?

I would point out here that it is YOU that insists we have Plato's Atlantis absolutely literally, or in the aborted Minoan version of many thousands of years later. I do not propose that Atlantis had chariots, advanced plumbing nor triremes, and believe that the real story of an Ice Age Atlantis would hardly be recognizable to such anachronistic ideas. Remember that Plutarch accused Plato of embellishing, but not inventing, the story of Atlantis? There are other ancient sources which tend to confirm the basics of Plato's story but you do not see any vast temple networks with giant canals, fleets of triremes, chariots or hot and cold running water in those other sources.

If you were to put together those other sources, leaving out what appears to be very anachronistic in Plato's Critias, you still have an Ice Age civilization; probably built of adobe bricks but certainly capable of being beautiful, navigating the waters and other points. There are clear evidences in the surrounding areas that some people were obviously not living in caves which I thought we covered earlier. Not that Jericho or Gobekli Tepe or the Qadan culture or the cattle herders of the grassy Sahara ARE Atlantis, but that they are the neighbors. To expect to find chariots and triremes, we might as well look for Cayce's magic power crystals and Atlantian flying machines while we are at it. A simile would be if we were to start hunting the relics of Victorian England for the time machine mentioned by HG Wells - we know that did not exist, but London certainly did. Let us not hobble ourselves with an impossible or extremely unlikely set of prerequisites. Then again, who knows? Maybe an actual Atlantian tomb will be unearthed, and be found to contain the very anachronisms mentioned, tomorrow? I will not say it is utterly impossible.

As to that issue about the Minoans first boats (or ships, depending on how you define that term) has it not occurred to you that if they had no large boats, how did the original colonists arriving circa 7000 BC manage to get there, and to bring along sheep, goats, pigs and cattle? They could not walk there.

Last point Joe but as I have said to you before, if we are to seek the literal, exact Atlantis described by Plato in both Timaeus and Critias with all the anachronisms in the second source, I would be the first to say that it almost certainly did not exist. I do think that some of the direct evidence has been coming to light in the last few years especially, off the coasts of Europe of a real Ice Age civilization that was the real Atlantis.

Don Jose de la Mancha, the misguided Atlantis/Aztlan seeker (finder?) wrote

As for artifacts, where are any from the presently ice locked continent of the south Pole? We know that in the late span of man, that it, and the Sahara, were lush paradises with abundant water etc. Yet today what do we actually know of the inhabitants of say 10,000 years ago??

So simple the lack of artifacts does not rule out a civilization.

No, but it is highly possible, even probable that some artifacts already are found and in museums today, unrecognized as Atlantian due to our anachronistic expectations of what Atlantis of an Ice Age civilization ought to look like. In fact I will go ahead and say that DEFINITELY there are at least several such relics, and one other which was at one time in a museum and has been photographed, but was lost during WW 2.

Don Jose, le Tropical Tramp also pecked out:

Atlantis "

Atlantis sits at the junction of the three plates. The North American, Asian, and the North African, an area of extreme Seismic / Tectonic activity which easily explains why it disappeared in 3 days, according to the ancient legend.

It consisted of a gigantic Caldera of three rings, now about 12,000 ft. under the Atlantic. It sits almost where it supposedly was located according to the ancient stories.

Apparently the major Tectonic activity consisted in a western depressing / tipping / sinking of the zone with the 'possible' effective axis being in Europe. <snip>.

So Ladies & gentlemen, get the Global Explorer into action and help them redeem their name and help heal the division between Salvors, Adventurers, and Archaeologists. We 'can' work together to the benefit of all.

While I find your enthusiasm highly commendable and even contagious, unfortunately your theory appears to be built largely on a lot of speculation and some geologic support? I had hoped you might have run across some new discovery of a clue, relic dredged up by a fisherman or caught on an anchor, some kind of chart of the sea floor in your spot that showed structures which were suggestive of ruins etc. Besides, the description of Atlantis in Plato does not sound quite like a volcanic caldera to me, but then I am no geographer either. From the Wiki, quote
"an island comprising mostly mountains in the northern portions and along the shore, and encompassing a great plain of an oblong shape in the south "extending in one direction three thousand stadia [about 555 km; 345 mi], but across the center inland it was two thousand stadia [about 370 km; 230 mi]." Fifty stadia [9 km; 6 mi] from the coast was a mountain that was low on all sides...broke it off all round about[6]... the central island itself was five stades in diameter [about 0.92 km; 0.57 mi] <citing Critias, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis>

While your proposed site certainly COULD be Atlantis, the fact that it is mostly over 10,000 feet underwater raises near impossible issues of how it sank so far. I would not be the least surprised if some of the peaks of the now submarine mountains making up the edges of that caldera (if it truly is a volcanic caldera for that matter) were at one time some part of the possessions of Atlantis, nor that the shallows off the coasts of Europe and Africa very well could have some evidence that they were either subject to, or in contact with Atlantis commercially.

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI ORO, ye of little faith. You, yourself, described a series of island rings, with the inner one being Atlantis itself and a description of it.

How else can you describe a situation where the group of Islands spanning a huge area be described as roughly circular other than giant caldera, a la in a far smaller scale, Santorini. incidentally, Santorini only has a single ring?

As far as submergence, simple, one or more of the three plates simply slid under the other. This would cause tremendous seismic activity which easily explains the why, how, and the rapidity of submergence.

The Asian plate was forced under the over riding North American or African one and the Western European areas were depressed, most notably with Spain creating the previously mentioned shallows, mud, impeding navigation and creating the Aztlan area..

A large rising sea level does not enter into the primary submergence of Atlantis.

Any socks left ??

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Cactus. Absolute proof on XXXXXXXX can now be seen in attachment #1 and 2. Additional proof may be found in the data in attachments #4, 5, & 6.

There can be no doubt anymore.

OOPS, sorry, but since I do not have legal permission for attachment #1, nor for #2, I cannot post them according to the new US rules on copyrights etc.

The same applies to 4, 5, & 6.

Sorry, snicker, but this is what our country has come to. Basically, if you do not have legal permission from the © ® @ owners, you cannot reproduce their work.

"©" is normally granted automatically when you put it down unto paper, or posts in here

This will have fascinating repercussions.

Don Jose de La Mancha <- yes, I do have his permission, but not your's or Oro's to reproduce your posts, so I cannot answer them.


Is this what we want? Remember this at election time

 

[Oroblanco]

Don Jose de la Mancha, tilting at windmills wrote

HI ORO, ye of little faith. You, yourself, described a series of island rings, with the inner one being Atlantis itself and a description of it.

How else can you describe a situation where the group of Islands spanning a huge area be described as roughly circular other than giant caldera, a la in a far smaller scale, Santorini. incidentally, Santorini only has a single ring?

As far as submergence, simple, one or more of the three plates simply slid under the other. This would cause tremendous seismic activity which easily explains the why, how, and the rapidity of submergence.

The Asian plate was forced under the over riding North American or African one and the Western European areas were depressed, most notably with Spain creating the previously mentioned shallows, mud, impeding navigation and creating the Aztlan area..

A large rising sea level does not enter into the primary submergence of Atlantis.

Any socks left ??

I, myself only quoted Plato's description of the rings of the city of Atlantis, not my words; further he claimed those canals were dug by man, improving on what nature had started or suggested. So there may well not have been a series of VOLCANIC rings that led to the canals. Rivers can make near circular cuts in the landscape (peer at the great canyonlands of the southwest to see examples) without any volcanic action involved. Another way in which circular, ring shaped land forms YOU ought to know very well, having served in the Pacific, Atolls, formed by coral reefs; such reefs can be several in number forming more than one ring around an island. No caldera needed.

Secondly, there appears to be some misunderstanding - reading something into Plato that is not there - for he does not say the island Atlantis is circular in form but oblong. Greater in dimension in one direction than the other by nearly 50%. How else would I describe such an island than as a caldera? We have an example that will do, not quite so large but of volcanic origins, and certainly NOT a giant caldera - look at Iceland.
<map of Iceland>

<from http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/iceland_topographic_map>

We could look at other volcanic islands for more examples on a smaller scale but it is not necessary to be a caldera and still be of volcanic origins.

I must respectfully disagree on the issue of rising sea levels - for at that period of time, sea levels around the world did in fact rise, rather dramatically in fact and according to the geologists, not all in a gradual, barely perceptible manner either. Giant pulses of melted ice water from the retreating glaciers in North America and Asia dumped huge quantities of cold water into the seas as the giant ice dams gave way. Donnelly (the author our amigo Joe classifies as 100% fiction) proposed this period of massive flooding, which was likely worldwide in a catastrophic end of the Ice Age that got recorded my mankind in the pervasive flood myths, is the end of Atlantis and the same with the flood of Noah, Deukalion, Gilgamesh and the rest. Also I would remind you of Plato's words about the end of Atlantis - "a single night of earthquakes AND FLOODS" - floods are most often rising waters but could be coupled with subsidence and/or tsunamis. A recent estimate holds that about 25% of the land area which was formerly above sea level during the Ice Age, went beneath the sea as those sea levels rose.

The subduction explanation which you propose, as far as I know, occurs at near glacial speed - not suddenly dropping over 60,000 square miles in a day, but an inch per year, and generally occurs only at certain points at the junctions of the continental plates. I can not envisage a subduction event to fit the destruction of the island of Atlantis, and for that matter it (the island) would then be beneath a contential plate now, not simply under water right?

Sorry no socks, will an old boot found in the manure pile do? :P

Don Jose' el Tropical Tramp also wrote <responding to our mutual amigo Cactusjumper>

Cactus. Absolute proof on XXXXXXXX can now be seen in attachment #1 and 2. Additional proof may be found in the data in attachments #4, 5, & 6.

There can be no doubt anymore. < >

OOPS, sorry, but since I do not have legal permission for attachment #1, nor for #2, I cannot post them according to the new US rules on copyrights etc.

The same applies to 4, 5, & 6.

Sorry, snicker, but this is what our country has come to. Basically, if you do not have legal permission from the © ® @ owners, you cannot reproduce their work.

I would suggest you read the Fair Use portion of the copyright law, for unless you are using the copyrighted material for profit, or taking an entire book etc the uses we make of them here on a public forum, for discussion and interpretive purposes are entirely covered within the Fair Use concept. It would be good to obtain permission but we are not using materials for profit here amigo, so your excuse for NOT posting that absolute proof are thin indeed. Don't forget to credit the sources though.

As for the ongoing push for a new, restrictive law that would almost certainly lead to online governmental censorship, <ala SOPA, PIPA> I think that people like us have raised our voice against the idea, and for that matter there is no need for such a law for it is already illegal to steal copyrighted materials and especially for profit which was the excuse for those Acts being proposed. A suggested site:
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/cpyright.html
Oroblanco

PS - while the Berne convention made copyright coverage automatic, unless you include the former required form of the notice in the work, ala "©, the letter C inside a circle), the abbreviation "Copr.", or the word "Copyright", followed by the year of the first publication of the work and the name of the copyright holder" as were the requirements prior to 1989 or run the risk of a reduced financial settlement in case of infringement as well as increasing the odds of innocent infringement.

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

[Quote from: cactusjumper on Yesterday at 03:33:36 PM
Roy,

<I wrote earlier>
Quote
<snip>I would think that some 14,000 plus years ought to have been plenty of time, especially with a population boom, the beginnings of agriculture and even some evidence of trade across long distances."

Sure it's enough time. Where is the evidence to support Plato's vision of Atlantis.

Didn't I answer this earlier? I believe I pointed out that the evidence has not been found, and very probably with the excellent reason that it is under a lot of water. More on this in a moment.

Cactusjumper also wrote
Quote
Is Dolni Vestonice your best evidence that the story of Atlantis could be true?

Is that what I said? I said it is proof that man was making advances toward civilization FAR earlier than what is commonly supposed, and that to propose that mankind (in general) was at that level circa 26000 years ago, then went for 14000 plus years without making advances is a poor proposition. I did not say that Dolni Vestonici IS direct evidence of Atlantis at all, nor wish to give that impression.

Cactusjumper also wrote
Quote
The span of time is sufficient, but where is the evidence that the advance to reach the Atlantis level was ever reached......by anyone? Was any other culture using chariots or horses for racing in 10,000 BC?

I would point out here that it is YOU that insists we have Plato's Atlantis absolutely literally, or in the aborted Minoan version of many thousands of years later. I do not propose that Atlantis had chariots, advanced plumbing nor triremes, and believe that the real story of an Ice Age Atlantis would hardly be recognizable to such anachronistic ideas. Remember that Plutarch accused Plato of embellishing, but not inventing, the story of Atlantis? There are other ancient sources which tend to confirm the basics of Plato's story but you do not see any vast temple networks with giant canals, fleets of triremes, chariots or hot and cold running water in those other sources.

If you were to put together those other sources, leaving out what appears to be very anachronistic in Plato's Critias, you still have an Ice Age civilization; probably built of adobe bricks but certainly capable of being beautiful, navigating the waters and other points. There are clear evidences in the surrounding areas that some people were obviously not living in caves which I thought we covered earlier. Not that Jericho or Gobekli Tepe or the Qadan culture or the cattle herders of the grassy Sahara ARE Atlantis, but that they are the neighbors. To expect to find chariots and triremes, we might as well look for Cayce's magic power crystals and Atlantian flying machines while we are at it. A simile would be if we were to start hunting the relics of Victorian England for the time machine mentioned by HG Wells - we know that did not exist, but London certainly did. Let us not hobble ourselves with an impossible or extremely unlikely set of prerequisites. Then again, who knows? Maybe an actual Atlantian tomb will be unearthed, and be found to contain the very anachronisms mentioned, tomorrow? I will not say it is utterly impossible.

As to that issue about the Minoans first boats (or ships, depending on how you define that term) has it not occurred to you that if they had no large boats, how did the original colonists arriving circa 7000 BC manage to get there, and to bring along sheep, goats, pigs and cattle? They could not walk there. dontknow

Last point Joe but as I have said to you before, if we are to seek the literal, exact Atlantis described by Plato in both Timaeus and Critias with all the anachronisms in the second source, I would be the first to say that it almost certainly did not exist. I do think that some of the direct evidence has been coming to light in the last few years especially, off the coasts of Europe of a real Ice Age civilization that was the real Atlantis.]

As I also said, kinda, once you veer off the path of Plato's account, there is not much left but maybe, what if and it could be.

Before it's destruction, Atlantis had a great war with Egypt and Athens.......among others. Can you tell me what kind of armies those two nations could field in 10,000 BC? The answer is the first point where we have to start doubting the truth of Plato's entire story, as it is the beginning.

If you have to discount the era of Atlantis, how far do you move it into the future? In order to bring all the other details into a time where all the stars align......so to speak, I believe those who place the story into the time of Thera and Crete and the events that overtook those two islands are closest to the truth.

In other words, no Atlantis......but something else. I believe that is what your own posts are saying.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Springfield]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jagA5jEF6G0&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP5893A99C6247F539

Eighty minute lecture by Manly P Hall. Rambling, but with interesting observations and speculations centering on the concept that Atlantis was an advanced pre-Deluge civilization centering in today's Atlantic Ocean and the progenitor of the great civilizations that we are aware of.

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

As I also said, kinda, once you veer off the path of Plato's account, there is not much left but maybe, what if and it could be.

It is "veering off the path of Plato's account" if we ignore the anachronisms but keep the bare bones, but NOT veering off when we move the time period by thousands of years, change location and many other point? I don't think we see this in the same light. More in a bit.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Before it's destruction, Atlantis had a great war with Egypt and Athens.......among others. Can you tell me what kind of armies those two nations could field in 10,000 BC? The answer is the first point where we have to start doubting the truth of Plato's entire story, as it is the beginning.

I could not tell you detailed descriptions of what those armies might look like, and the details we get from Plato are not much. Armed with spears and shields, no mention of body armor or complex organizations of Plato's own day, the "armies" might look more like tribes in reality. Would that make it impossible, or NOT be worthy of the story?

Cactusjumper also wrote

If you have to discount the era of Atlantis, how far do you move it into the future? In order to bring all the other details into a time where all the stars align......so to speak, I believe those who place the story into the time of Thera and Crete and the events that overtook those two islands are closest to the truth.

It certainly looks as if Plato borrowed some of his details from a much later period, and the Minoans could be the source of a part but even so they had no triremes for example. The Greeks called the Minoans "Eteokretans" which means simply "true Cretans" and phonologically is somewhat similar to the word Atlantis as some have argued so perhaps the Minoans are the real Atlantians after all?

Cactusjumper also wrote

In other words, no Atlantis......but something else. I believe that is what your own posts are saying.

Well it appears that my posts have not been understood for I am not saying NO Atlantis but something else entirely, rather that the story is based on a real factual place, which is being and has been re-interpreted through glasses stained with anachronisms. It is not at all uncommon for us humans to view things in a distorted fashion when looking at the past; in the medeival period, paintings of people and events of the Classical age were depicted in the knights armor and weapons of the Medeival period. Plato seems to have been doing just that - painting his Atlantis with attributes of his own and other more recent times perhaps quite innocently.

From your posts it appears that for you, Atlantis is an all or nothing proposition, which will be nothing since Plato's Atlantis is very unlikely if taken absolutely literally. The alternative of the Minoans has rather severe problems for you must change quite a few details to make it fit including;
Location, <not in the Atlantic, the pillars have to be re-interpreted etc>
Time, <not a simple multiple of ten which would throw the rest of the descriptions askew as well>
Size, <Crete does not fit the description in several ways>
Fauna of the island <no elephants>
The enemies involved and order of the war - for there is no evidence that Egypt was engaged in warfare with the Minoans and in fact may have rendered aid to the victims soon after the terrible volcanic eruption, the Minoans were not invading Greece but rather the other way around and that took place after the eruption and tsunamis, plus the fall of the empire took nearly a century not over night. The warfare between Egypt and the 'Sea Peoples' is almost certainly a case of defending against the former slaves of the Minoans who seem to have risen in revolt when the disaster struck and were seeking a homeland to claim by force. There is also a problem in the disaster ending Atlantis in that the Minoans had a volcanic eruption and tsunamis while Plato never mentions any volcano eruption only earthquakes and floods.

What I have been trying to say (apparently not too well) is that due to our false expectations of a Classical Greek style Atlantis, even were the real thing discovered tomorrow I have great doubt that it would be recognized. In fact I am fairly convinced that it would not be recognized for some time at least. A city can be a city without marble columns, a people can have boats with sails and not be a trireme and an army can be an army without the trappings of the Iron Age but that is what we (collective 'we') are led to expect.

Suppose we ignore ALL of Plato's descriptions for a moment and rely only on what the other ancient sources have, for the sake of argument? I have them collected here somewhere but think that most (or all) are online on some of the Atlantis web sites, it might be interesting to see what this non-Platonic Atlantis would be described.

Oroblanco

PS - haven't viewed that video yet but it sounds interesting, thank you for sharing it Springfield.