Post by MCDemuth on Oct 29, 2022 7:44:10 GMT
Have we been searching for the wrong Atlantis?
Archaeologists have been searching for Atlantis for over 2000 years, and it hasn't been found...
A city, an Island, and even a continent... (A Sunken Continent? Seriously?)
Even though there are many candidates for where Atlantis may be, nothing has been positively identified so far...
Nothing that matches, Plato's description exactly...
Plato's description... And what is that?
Well, first of all, we have to take into account that Plato described Atlantis... 9,000 Years after the fact. That's right. 9,000 years... And since there seems to be no known written record of it, currently existing that is older than Plato's story... One has to ask, where did the story come from?...
Well, one could also argue that it never existed in the first place, and Plato made it up... However...
Plato writes:
So, Plato is saying that he learned about Atlantis from Solon?
So, I guess he didn't make it up... But, Solon is still referencing Atlantis, nearly 9,000 years after the fact...
So... 9,000 years, Language translations, and Hearsay...
Well, that doesn't bode well for authentic history... but, at best, there's a good chance, that it may be possible that some of the details may have been jumbled up.
But, let's assume for a moment that Atlantis did exist, and for the most part, that many of the details concerning Atlantis were true...
I recently watched a Documentary on the subject, and it mentioned, or at least stressed a key description of it that I was Unfamiliar with...
Apparently, Plato described Atlantis as an... EMPIRE!
I wonder how many people are familiar with that?
Because an Empire, is not ONE city or ONE island... That's right, an Empire involves Multiple locations.
And if Atlantis was an EMPIRE, and not ONE Location... then no wonder Archaeologists haven't been able to find it, because they are looking for the wrong thing...
Interestingly, this recent episode of "In Search Of"... Seems to show, that Atlantis was indeed an Empire, and some of those locations may have been under our noses the whole time...
It's worth a watch.
Part 1:
Part 2:
So, if Plato was describing an Empire and not One Location...
Then Morocco, may in fact be the location he refers to "Beyond The Pillars Of Hercules"...
But I don't think that is the location of the ringed city that he describes, or historians have depicted... The geography of Morocco, looks nothing like the flat plains seen in these images...
BUT, the "Eye of the Sahara" (the Richat Structure) matches it precisely...
Jimmy Corsetti has done several videos on this structure...
His Latest:
More: www.youtube.com/c/BrightInsight/videos
...And the evidence seems overwhelming that this is the location as to what has been depicted by historians as the ringed city.
We also know that that area of Africa, in earlier times, wasn't the desert that it is now, and rivers flowed through the area, and may have had flowing water ways that connected to the Atlantic Ocean, and some that connected to Egypt.
I think the main reason why it hasn't been accepted as Atlantis, is because it isn't "Beyond The Pillars Of Hercules"... But, as part of the Atlantean EMPIRE, it becomes a perfectly possible location that was a part of it.
It could easily have been destroyed by some disaster, such as a massive tidal wave that came inland.
I'm not saying for a fact, that this was the ringed city, but, I think we need to start thinking about Atlantis in a whole new way, as suggested... An Empire... and this location may have been a part of it...
If we do so, We might have a lot more success in finding Plato's Atlantis.
Archaeologists have been searching for Atlantis for over 2000 years, and it hasn't been found...
A city, an Island, and even a continent... (A Sunken Continent? Seriously?)
Even though there are many candidates for where Atlantis may be, nothing has been positively identified so far...
Nothing that matches, Plato's description exactly...
Plato's description... And what is that?
Well, first of all, we have to take into account that Plato described Atlantis... 9,000 Years after the fact. That's right. 9,000 years... And since there seems to be no known written record of it, currently existing that is older than Plato's story... One has to ask, where did the story come from?...
Well, one could also argue that it never existed in the first place, and Plato made it up... However...
Plato writes:
The only primary sources for Atlantis are Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias; all other mentions of the island are based on them. The dialogues claim to quote Solon, who visited Egypt between 590 and 580 BC; they state that he translated Egyptian records of Atlantis. Plato introduced Atlantis in Timaeus, written in 360 BC:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis
So, Plato is saying that he learned about Atlantis from Solon?
So, I guess he didn't make it up... But, Solon is still referencing Atlantis, nearly 9,000 years after the fact...
So... 9,000 years, Language translations, and Hearsay...
Well, that doesn't bode well for authentic history... but, at best, there's a good chance, that it may be possible that some of the details may have been jumbled up.
But, let's assume for a moment that Atlantis did exist, and for the most part, that many of the details concerning Atlantis were true...
I recently watched a Documentary on the subject, and it mentioned, or at least stressed a key description of it that I was Unfamiliar with...
Apparently, Plato described Atlantis as an... EMPIRE!
I wonder how many people are familiar with that?
Because an Empire, is not ONE city or ONE island... That's right, an Empire involves Multiple locations.
And if Atlantis was an EMPIRE, and not ONE Location... then no wonder Archaeologists haven't been able to find it, because they are looking for the wrong thing...
Interestingly, this recent episode of "In Search Of"... Seems to show, that Atlantis was indeed an Empire, and some of those locations may have been under our noses the whole time...
It's worth a watch.
Part 1:
Part 2:
So, if Plato was describing an Empire and not One Location...
Then Morocco, may in fact be the location he refers to "Beyond The Pillars Of Hercules"...
But I don't think that is the location of the ringed city that he describes, or historians have depicted... The geography of Morocco, looks nothing like the flat plains seen in these images...
BUT, the "Eye of the Sahara" (the Richat Structure) matches it precisely...
Jimmy Corsetti has done several videos on this structure...
His Latest:
More: www.youtube.com/c/BrightInsight/videos
...And the evidence seems overwhelming that this is the location as to what has been depicted by historians as the ringed city.
We also know that that area of Africa, in earlier times, wasn't the desert that it is now, and rivers flowed through the area, and may have had flowing water ways that connected to the Atlantic Ocean, and some that connected to Egypt.
I think the main reason why it hasn't been accepted as Atlantis, is because it isn't "Beyond The Pillars Of Hercules"... But, as part of the Atlantean EMPIRE, it becomes a perfectly possible location that was a part of it.
It could easily have been destroyed by some disaster, such as a massive tidal wave that came inland.
I'm not saying for a fact, that this was the ringed city, but, I think we need to start thinking about Atlantis in a whole new way, as suggested... An Empire... and this location may have been a part of it...
If we do so, We might have a lot more success in finding Plato's Atlantis.