can't believe what my bleary eyes are reading, wading through tis thread. like patrick duffy when the credits roll
Holy crap!! finally you said something I understand!!!! Apart from the patirck duffy bit
Yeah, well that's just like, your lack of intuition, man
Which link in particular?
I gave some quick links that touched upon some real known facts.
Some of the links THEN above also added other stuff that is indeed out there with the faeries to say the least - however the underlying known stuff is real - and again - is only a precursor to how any of the website writers THEN takes some recognised well known data and spins it further to their various means.
* Look up the scientific data on the underlying soils and ultra clean, sub-soil fresh water found recently by the Russians alone in the last two months that has been widely reported in the worlds press.
* Look up matters related to the Antarctic and the Piri Reis' map.
* Study the actual real facts based on the genuine timeline of Thira - modern-day Santorin - that inspired the ancient Greek philosopher Plato to pen the original story of Atlantis nine hundred years later- ...keeping in mind that Platos in his writing (fourth century B.C). account claimed that Atlantis sunk nine thousand years earlier - way before Thira exploded.
Again, taken literally with the world acknowledged timeline of real events as they happened - and combined with recent events by research station in the south pole, ancient clues suggest that Antarctica may, in fact, prove to be the site of the legendary Atlantis.
Recognise though that the name "Atlantis" was a name that came about by Plato as he came up with his story of a land that supposedly vanished beneath water. Using the then later Thira as a guiding indication of how such things might occur, he used the said later events as a foundation guideline for a supposed previous land which pre-existed, might have then sunk for his later story.
...And by coincidence, a previous land did exist at one stage beneath what we know now as the South Pole. These underlying facts are not in depute by serious academics the world over.
I would also suggest that you look up the National Geographic Magazine of October 1947 (a copy of which I have) which describes from page 429 to 522, goes into GREAT detail (including many photos) of the 4,000 troops used in operation "Highjump", decided in tandem with additional British troops whom set out with 13 warships alone along with additional tools and planes, to geographically map what they had discovered. The entire mission led by Rear Admiral Richard E Byrd USN. It was the fifth survey team led by the man to this very location and ordered from the highest levels of USA government at the time - and ALL this is on record.
If your going to call all the above tripe too - at least back your reason up with evidence for you to be able to do so and not just come across as some one who has not studied this very topic for decades - as I have.
There is a lot of wacko stuff being spun about this fabled "Atlantis" - when in fact if anyone REALLY bothers to check, "Atlantis" as such NEVER existed.
It was a story made up by Plato. It was a story he drew up based about a supposed land that had previously sunk.
The wacko stuff out there now beyond serious academic circles is generally rubbish and indeed should be laughed at.
Now taking into account that a large piece of fertile land might have existed prior to sinking and crust displacement, it's assumed again by serious people that such a people on those lands might have decided to leave from a place they eventually saw as in trouble.
If they did leave (by boats its assessed) they would to further increase they chances of survival as a race, education and social practise, hedge their bets and go in a number of directions rather than one.
This might later explain why certain SEPARATE world cultures share strange common language base words, precise same knowledge of the stars, similar gods, matching exact methods of precise construction, same shaped carved idols, same fundamental language vascular bases offshooted later and twisted later by ancestral interpretation, and much, much more - from places as far reaching from Easter Island, across to central America, down to South America, up into Europe, over to a number of African cultures including Egypt and beyond into Asia.
Keep searching man from Atlantis you'll eventually get home, have you checked off the coast of Crete?
Dont you mean geata na reailt?
Atlantis position was just off the coast of Cork. When the great island sunk to the bottom of the ocean the survivors made their way to Cork which lead to the birth of the chosen people of Ireland.
Geologists have rocks in their head.
Now that was an entertaining read! There is some funky stuff going on down at the South Pole alright, and has been for a while, but I doubt it has anything to do with Atlantis. Antarctica has been icebound for millions of years.
The Piri Reis map has been traced as the coast of South America, which would have been accessable to explorers of the time.
The truth is probably more interesting than the fiction I guess, when you look back over history, every great era has seen a rise in complex and sophisticated societies and their subsequent collapse. Towards the end of the stone age and bronze age, there was the emergence of powerful civilisations with beautiful artwork, which newer "barbarian" cultures destroyed with new technology.
Combine this with the coastal shrinkage brought on by the ice sheets melting, and you reach the conclusion that Plato was probably combining a lot of folk tales and turning them into an allegory. On the plus side I wager there are some pretty astonishing ruins buried under the silt off our coastline and many others, which would explain the prevalence of a glorious past/flood myths throughout all cultures - sea level rises were global.
As I said, "Atlantis" as such did not exist. It was a tale created by Plato that came about many suspect due to something he knew or heard about himself from ancient stories.
He created thus a tale of "Atlantis" in his own writings and used Thira - modern-day Santorin - as a basis method of how such a place might have sunk.
There is no doubt that there was a civilisation that existed on Santorin at one stage - its accepted though by many qualified heads though that the timing of that civilisation existence is too late to qualify as the land that Plato might have in fact been basing his own THEN heard ancient tale - and thus respun and re-worded later yarn, upon.
NOT JUST of South america.
The above is only one example source, of which there is many saying the same thing, in teaching, in net location, in research papers and in many books (some of which I possess from studying this subject for decades).
This is worth a further read - keeping in mind that "Atlantis" as such did NOT exist in very name: http://www.s8int.com/water10.html
NOTE: for some there seems to be a problem with the above link - so here is the text upon its page.
Okay well to save any talking at cross purposes here, are you saying that you believe there was an Atlantean-type civilisation in Antarctica (which has been covered in ice for 34 million years), and if so what is your impression of what it might have been?
Look. There is absolutely no consensus that the Piri Reis map represents anything to do with an ice-free Antarctica.
I and others have suggested given a good number of evidence that exists, to say that a civilisation might have existed on the northern tip of whats NOW known as the South Pole.
The then climatic conditions was very much indeed possible.
Taking into account that humans being what they are sometimes by nature, great yarn tellers and oft times enhance parts to make a story interesting and keeping that in mind, if a civilisation did exist, its indeed possible that they were to of even modicum intelligence - not the fanciful one of mythical status as espoused Plato for example - but as a civilisation that knew many things regarding natural science and its place amid the stars and understanding of great technical construction (later passed onto other communities when they left due to the incoming disaster which forced them to eventually migrate).
Sorry but wrong.
The map you linked to did indeed indicate parts of South America BUT what you missed is another part of the map which by MANY, there is no debate about.
See this further Piri Reis map for example and look to the EAST on the right.
It is THIS part of the map that shows the northern tip of the NOW land under the Southern Pole.
It is not under debate as to its accuracy - it is as modern technology has been able to show, VERY accurate as to what exists under the present day ice.
The part on the RIGHT, even shows VERY ACCURATELY the rivers that even today, has been acknowledged, to actually exist as streams under the present day large ice.
A simple google search using the text "Piri Reis map south pole" will point you to many research papers and very educated explorers and cartographers whom all say the same thing - as well as modern day scientists - that the EAST part of the map is an exact representation of the northern tip of the land now under the South Pole ice. The map is being accurate even down to the underlying water steams which they have found today using our available technology.
Have a further read: https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/70
It might make you feel British.
It won't make you British.
Okay so what you're saying here is that you believe there were great civilisations which predate the accepted mainstream. In this I'm inclined to agree with you.
Anatomically modern humans have been around for the last quarter of a million years. Take a baby from 200,000 years ago, raise him or her in the modern world, and you would notice nothing unusual about them.
And yet, we only have solid records for the last 1% of that period. The other 99% of the time we weren't sitting around banging rocks together; some might imagine the stone age as a period of unshaven hunter gatherers moving from disaster to disaster, but this is a stone age culture. So was this, and only three cities on earth were larger than it at the time. This dates from long before the last ice age.
So where's all the evidence? Probably dunked under about thirty meters of water, mud and silt at this point. Cultures build along coasts, so when the ice age ended, anything too near would have been drowned, hence the flood myths. I haven't anything more solid that that, but I do believe we'll turn up this evidence in future.
There is no debate about it because there is no connection. Take a good read through this painstaking, methodical and scientifically accurate debunking of the Piri Reis myth. If that doesn't convince you there's not much left to be said on the matter.