Atlantis Online

Atlantis => Atlantis: Theories & Speculation => Topic started by: senator Bam on January 06, 2015, 01:22:57 pm



Title: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 06, 2015, 01:22:57 pm
(I saw that there is already 2 South America Atlantis topics/threads by Morrision, but they are dozens of pages so started a new thread/topic. Sorry i didn't search first to see if is already Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku topic/thread here.)

Hello, my theory/thesis is that Atlantis city is Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku, and the continent is South America (or Americas), and that the "sinking" was continental shift (or else crust displacement), and was ca 1400s bc (900 years before, ca 12th dynasty, ca Moses/Joshua). Atlantipedia have just posted an entry on us ( http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/bambrough-sean-n/ ) which contains some challenges/criticisms which we wish to answer here (though they are actually already answered in the 37 pages paper). (They said that they do not want to debate it.) [I'm not at all bitter, their post on me/my thesis was mild and not unfair. I just want to answer the points.] I won't answer them all in their order though because some are much easier to answer than others.
(But please note i can't totally adequitely answer here and now, people need to refer to the answers given in my paper.)

1. They say Plato never called Atlantis a continent.
We show in our paper that the "large island" of Atlantis must be a large continental land-mass not just a small island. The Account says larger than Asia and Libya. (Some say "between" not "lrager than" but the majority of last 2500 years say former. We gave quotes from Herodotus and Theopompus to illustrate/support this.) Many species of animals. 10 kings regions. Large plain. Self-sufficient. Mountains. Etc etc. Other accounts also say/imply large island/continent. Plus spurious Kirchir's map?

(2.) Like some others have also said, they say that Atlantis "sinking" can't match Andes uplifted, and (3) they also say how can this cause muddy shoal sea.
Firstly Atlantis is not just the Andes or Tiahuanaco but the whole continent.
The continent "sank" not part of it.
Atlantis [(South) America] must have appeared to have "sunk"/"submerged" or been "swallowed-up by the sea/ocean" [and "vanished/disappered without trace (except mud)"] in "terrible quake/s and flood/s".
There are only 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 possibilities for this. Either:
- continental shift, or
- earth crust displacement, or
- near pass-by of celestial body, or
- rising sealevels increasing trans-Atlantis distance.
The last is ruled out for various reasons (no quakes, no raise Andes, etc etc).
Shift would have caused Atlantis/America to appear to have sunk/been swallowed/disappeared, and caused quake/s, and "flood/s", sea slosh/tidal waves/"tsunamis", and would have pushed up the Andes, and would have caused muddy sea.
Displacement would maybe cause quakes?, sea slosh, and change of directions/bearings, and possibly push up Andes?
Near pass-by might cause pulling up of Andes (according to some theorists), and cause tidal bulge/sea slosh, and quakes?
In our paper we gave plenty of evidences that the Andes & Tiahuanaco have been pushed up within lifetime of "modern" ancient humans and civilisation. Other scholars also give many/more such evidences.
If Atlantologists disconsider locations because of reason like that then no wonder they not found the site.
Peruvian "Indian" traditions also seem to support such a catastrophe in circa 1400s bc.
There is also evidence of flooding at Tiahuanaco, and flood in Tiahuanaco "myths"/traditions.
(* See David Fasold, HS Bellamy, Jim Allen, Ivar Lissner, I Velikovsky, Darwin, C Berlitz, E Sykes, etc.)



(4.) Kirchir's map:
Kirchir's map shows Atlantis roughly "between" only-one of the Americas (prob North) and Spain/Africa. To our view, if the map is not just spurious, his map seems to show one of the Americas (probably South) closer to the Old World than the other one of the Americas (probably North). His Atlantis is very similar to South America in its few rivers/etc details, and even in the placement of the city (compared with our Tiahuanaco in South America).

5. opposite continent & Herodotus:
It has been a common mistake of Atlantologists to assumer that the opposite continent is America(s). There is nothing in the Atlantic between America and Old World, so Opposite Continent can't be both Americas only maybe one.
I thought that Herodotus (or another classical writer) actually said that they were wrong to say the world was only those 3 continents? Herodotus said it was possible there are Hypernotians. Others like Eratosthenes had balancing opposite/southern continent.
(3 Pyramids of Giza may be 3 land masses (& 3 world ages)?)
Atlantis was outside/beyond/opposite/facing the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar/Gades/Huelva ones). In the real ocean.
Atlantis and opposite continent of the account are seemingly separate land-masses to Asia/Europe/"Libya". It was a large island / continent and "sunk"/"swallowed-up".
Even if the late Greeks only knew 3 continents, what about the earlier Egyptians etc? (+ Atlantis had "sunk" so was unknown.)

6. the biggest challenge is "the idea of an invasion of the eastern Mediterranean by an army from the west side of South America is untenable".
We gave some possible answers in our paper, and we will give some here:
- if our shift theory is right then S America was once closer to Old World ((Sth) Atlantic upto half the current distance), plus the north/west coast would have been closer/shorter distance. Or there are other theories/scenarios that might have seas less formidible then than now.
- evidences that the Amazon was used as cross-continent.
- "the seas were highways not barriers". "Sea power came before land power".
- modern Atlantic crossing records.
- the invasion was over time and space from the 10 regions of Atlantis to Italy & Libya.
- the criticism is not dis/proof just a challenge/disbelief/negative.
- Noah's Ark similar to reed-boats did pretty well. Swan & dragon ships. Celts had a fleet of high-prowed/high sea-faring ships in Roman times. Vikings. Polynesians. Heyerdahl.
 - See Bacon's quote about sefaring being greater in ancient times than contemporary times. Popul Vuh says the 1st race explored the world & knew the 4 corners of the earth. Ancient maps of the sea-kings (Piri Reis, Hapgood).
- and just to be a bit "fringe" some suggest evidence that they may even have had ancient air/space ships???

7. the only one i can't give much of a good answer to at present yet is the small Athens versus Atlantis/S America. But there are possible answers to that.


8. "repetitious".
I am often accused of this. It is true i am a little bit repetitious. But it is not entirely true. It is also not fair because not easy to write so many complicated interconnections. We are forced to repeat things because archsceptics/academics are so demanding in having to excessively prove every jot and tiddle. Besides, it is clear they didn't read my whole paper anyway.

9. i did not "develop the Tiahuanaco theory since 1999". The finding of the actual city site was the last discovery only made in the last 2 or so years. I developed the theory that Atlantis was one or both of the Americas and "sinking" was shift in/during & from/since 1999, but wasn't able to narrow-down or locate the plain and city (from east N America &/or west S America) until recent years.

I would like to add that there were only criticisms but none of our evidences given. So we will just also give this not very good quick list of some matches between Atlantis and our site, and this Inca picture from the Coricancha which proves Tiahuanaco is the city.

12 major Atlantis detail ~ Peru match highlights:
* concentric circles city ~ yes (2x in Coricancha picture, in Posnansky diagrams of Tiahauanco, in Silustani inscription, in other inscriptions given by Allan (from Pumapunku?), in lots of other Peru inscriptions/drawings, Chalco glyph, plus maybe shown in head of in Crespi figure)
* great plain with ditch & channels ~ yes (atliplano & geoglyphs, shown in Coricancha picture, Peruvian agriculture system)
* Atlas motif, Atlas mountains ~ yes (the prominent spade symbol above Peruvian masks/heads/faces, the high Andes which parallel Atlas mountains, mountains shown in Coricancha picture?)
* in Western/Atlantic/real ocean (not in Mediterranean) ~ yes (Atlantic/Pacific/Antarctic)
* date 900(0) yrs ~ yes (we showed the date is 900 not 9000, Tiahuanaco date is disputed and ranges from 10000s bc (Posnansky/etc) to 1400s (Inca) to ad (orthodox), Inca king lists date ca 1400bc match)
* "sunk/submerged" / swallowed-up / vanished/disappeared in quake(s) & flood(s) ~ yes there is evidence/matches if not obvious/"geologically possible" to antis/archsceptics (Inca king list says catastrophe about time of Joshua, flood evidence & "myth" at Tiahuanaco, continental shift & evidence Andes/Tiahuanaco pushed up suddenly within human/civilisation lifetime)
* small hill dwelling of (Poseidon and) Clito in centre of city ~ yes (Akapana in diagrams of Tiahuanaco, also looks like is shown in Coricancha picture).
* 2 crops a year ~ yes (Peruvian summer & winter agriculture systems, also shown in the Coricancha picture).
* a large island/continent (10 regions etc) ~ yes (South America or Americas)
* near sea ~ yes (exact same distance from Tiahuanaco to Titicaca (which has evidences of connection with salt sea/ocean), shown in Coricancha picture, &/or other possible matches).
* Atlantis/Tiahuanaco city & Titicaca is (inverse) analogy of Eridu/etc city & Persian Gulf.
* Atlantis can only be in Americas (incl/excl Antarctica) or Armorica plate, and (Titicaca &) Tiahuanaco is only place in the whole Americas & in Peru & around Titicaca that it can be and that fits/matches.

Things in the Atlantis account that are depicted in this Inca picture from the Coricancha:
2 crops a year ("sun/star & moon/clouds = summer & winter"); great plain and surrounding ditch and criss-cross-cutting channels (altiplano); Poseidon & Clito (or parents of Clito, or  twins?); concentric rings city (2x, 1 on left and 1 on right in lake/sea); cliffs?; mountains?; woods/forest (or crop)?; the sea (lake Titicaca)?; canal/river; the small hill / dwelling of (Poseidon &) Clito (= Akapana)?; [7 cities/islands?]; beyond the north wind (the 4 directions  cross?).




Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 06, 2015, 11:11:47 pm
Wow, well, there is a lot to chew on, thanks for sharing. I like Tiahuanaco, too, but I am not sure it was Atlantis. Jim Allen used to come here and added quite a bit to Morrison's threads and, of course, makes a pretty good case for Bolivia as Atlantis.

Well, Tiahuanaco is way on the west in South America, and, even though they had reed boats, you have to wonder why they would even be interested in the Mediterranean when they had all that expansive territory to explore. Also, what route did they take? They sure didn't sail around the southern tip of South America (all that ice and snow) and, from what I heard, the tributaries that lead from the northern tip of Bolivia to the Amazon and the Atlantic are mighty treacherous..! Hard enough for one boat, let alone a fleet like Atlantis was supposed to have.

So, I'm thinking that, though South America was a part of Atlantis, the capital was actually elsewhere, someplace in the Caribbean, and it was the part that "sunk."

The Altiplano makes a great flat plain, though, and the orichalcum process that Jim Allen shows on his website vividly resembles what Plato describes. I'm also not so sure that it was so recent as you suggest, new discoveries are pushing back the date that the Americas were inhabited all the time.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 07, 2015, 11:49:05 am

Thanks. What about all the strong evidences? The Coricancha picture i posted says viewed zero times!? Not very objective/openminded!

What about the Inca picture from the Coricancha with half a dozen to a dozen matches of details from the Atlantis account?

What about the concentric circles in Posnansky's and others diagrams of Tiahuanaco?
And shown in Coricancha picture 2 times? and in lots of other Peruvian pictures?

What about the Atlas motif above Inca/Peruvian masks/head/faces?
What about that Andes parallel/mirror/analogous to Atlas?

What about that the altiplano matches the great plain, and is also certainly seen/confirmed in that Coricancha picture with the surrounding ditch and criss-crossing channels?

What about the 2 crops a year matching Peruvian agriculture picture (as well as seen in the Coricancha picture?

What about the distance from Tiwanaku to Titicaca is the same distance as in the Account?

What about the small hill dwelling of (Poseidon &) Clito seemingly matching the Akapana?

What about that the Atlantis/Tiahuanaco sizes and temple/palace seem to match?

And many other evidences including the oreichalc, the 'red, white and black', *bull sacrifice*, etc given in my paper and/or in Allen's publishings?

How come one or a few mere challenging disbelief (not disproof) criticisms like about distance from west coast to Mediterranean outrules all the strong evidences? Besides which we have already given some possible answers to that disbelief criticism in first post here and in our blog paper.
Re the ice. Antarctica was partly ice free in Piri Reis. FlemAth said the orthodox date for ice had been drastically reduced.
They had a few possible routes: up around west and north coast, across Amazon, around southern tip, etc. (The upper Amazon would have been different before Andes pushed further up.) The statue in Azores? says/points "this way"? (Also, they may not even have invaded from the capital city?)

There are many possible reasons why would be interest between Mediterranean and Atlantis/America. There are tons of evidences of contacts between the 2 ancient worlds.

It can't (just) be "part of Atlantis". It either was Atlantis the continent/city or it wasn't. Sure they would have had colonies, survivors etc. But the matches between Peru and Atlantis are too strong to just be "from Atlantis but not Atlantis".
Atlantis the continent can only be one or both Americas (including/excluding lesser Antartica) or Armorica plate. And there is only one city & plain etc there that matches.
I searched as many places around Americas (and elsewhere) as i could including the Caribbean and there is no match for the plain and city etc anywhere except Peru/Titicaca/Altiplano/Tiahuanaco.

Plato's account seems to impy the whole large island/continent/landmass was swallowed up not just small island/city/plain "sunk".

Jim Allen was right except not Pampa Aullagus. He deserves most of the credit. Though he maybe got the idea from David Fasold.

Orthodox "dates" are all/alot wrong. I would rather trust traditional historical sources than modern theories based on unreliable dating methods which rely on uniformitarianism.

Look i didn't like it or want it to be Tiahuanaco myself (and before seeing all the evidences i didn't see much match there). I prefered off Florida coast, or in the Uros/Urus area, etc. But the concentric circles and akapana and other things, and the not being able to find match anywhere else (and from narrowing it down) forced me to accept it.

Look at the Coricancha picture i posted.
Also look up Posnansky's (& Alford's & Sitchin's (& Daniken's)) diagrams of Tiahuanaco and see the concentric circles and prominent Akapana.
Read Sitchins 'Lost Realms' chapters on Tiahuanaco.
Look at Jim Allen's Atlantis in Bolivia site.
Read my blog Atlantis paper.
Look at Peruvian masks and see the spade symbol above their heads that may be the Atlas motif.
Look at pictures/animations of the continental "shift".
Look at Kirchir's map (and compare with S America).
Read the Atlantis account.
See lots of sources with evidences of greater ancient seafaring/sea power (Bacon, Hapgood, Hancock, Plato's account, Heyerdahl, etc).


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Robert0326 on January 07, 2015, 01:30:50 pm
There's a few things I find wrong with Tiawanacu being Atlantis.  First, South America is not an "island continent" as Plato describes. Second, the city of Tiawanacu did not sink, but actually rose above sea level. And if you have read the mythology of the region, you would find that Tiawanacu was built by Viracocha after he and his followers arrived after a great cataclysm. Perhaps after the end of the last ice age. And I believe they came from the south, if I'm not mistaken.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 07, 2015, 05:49:26 pm
Thanks Robert. I may as well just reply/answer.

I have already answered the "sinking Atlantis versus raised Andes" above and in the paper.
The whole continent appeared to have "sunk" or rather been swallowed up, not the city or part of the large island. (Tiahuanaco has flood evidences and traditions too anyway.)

"Atlantis" the large island was (South) America not just Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku. Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku was only the royal city "Atlantis"

I have already answered giving evience that Plato's Atlantis was a large island/continent. (South) America / Americas is a large island/continent/landmass/"world". Some versions speak of 3 large islands in the western ocean which might be N & S America and Antarctica. (Also, if there was a continental shift then South America may have been more of an island before shift. Kirhir's map shows Sth America/Atlantis as an island.) The Old World is called the world island.

Viracocha is not the only person in the Tiwanaku origins mythology and kinglists, and even so he could be the Poseidon.
The mythology says the city was built before a cataclysm not just after one. It was built after the Great Flood (and Babel?). The Atlantis cataclysm was later.

The route of Viracocha route starts from Tiahauanco. Where/what direction they came from to S America before that is another issue, doesn't prove/disprove anything re the Atlantis account, as it stands at present.

The orthodox dates for ice age/s is wrong. Job in bible may mention ice. Thor drinks sea. Shifts may cause ice ages. Sphinx rain marks. Antartica date drastically revised. Siberia mammoths. Hopis mention the ice age. Lots other evidences.

How people can judge without even looking at the picture i posted (still zeros views).

Well i have given my evidence here and in the paper and on forums. If people don't accept it or if people prefer their own theories fine by me. I have other things i need/want to do now (like tracing the 70 nations of Genesis).

ps to Desiree: one could say it is hard to believe many things like say how they built the pyramids or stonehenge, does that mean they don't exist? (Though yes they do have reckoned routes for the stonehenge stones.)


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 08, 2015, 01:49:25 am
I am not saying your theory is without merit, Sean, I always thought South America had some connection to Atlantis. There are lots of problems with it, though:

1. Reed Boats, not a good ship for invasion, I don't even know if they can cross the Atlantic.

2. Tiahuanaco is very far away from the Med. It would be like the city of Portland, OR trying to invade Europe, and these were in ancient times!

3. It didn't sink, as has already been mentioned, it has been rising:

http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/bambrough-sean-n/

So, as I said earlier, some of the features were in South America, the capital was probably elsewhere.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 09, 2015, 04:58:39 pm
Thank-you Desiree,

"Sinking":
I have tried to explain a number of times here and elsewhere about the "sinking" versus rising.
1 the Atlantis account doesn't say sank/sunk or submerged but swallowed up.
2a the whole large island "sunk" not just a part of it.
2b the whole continent of Atlantis must have genuinely appeared to have sunk/submerged or been swallowed-up (and/or vanished).
2c (S) America must have appeared to have sunk/submerged or swallowed up (&/or vanished)
2d all of S America "sank"/swallowed not just part (though it is even possible that only part appeared to have suffered?)
3. (The land or/and water must have moved either up/down or sideways, either part or all.) The possible scenarios for the "sinking" are either
- continental shift
- pole shift (crust displacment or axis tilt)
(- near pass by of celestial body?)
(- rising sealevels. But this last one is ruled out.)
My paper gave plenty of possible evidence/s for shift. Others have also given plenty of evidences for crust displacment/pole shift.
4. it hasn't "has been rising". We and others have given evidences of sudden uplifting (either pushed from below/beside, or pulled from above).
5. The shift and one or two other of the scenarios would have caused Andes to be pushed up further, and 6. they would have caused either the island to appear to have "sunk/sank" or caused it to appear to be swallowed up. (It didn't literally sink only genuinely/relatively appeared to have "sunk" (or been swallowed up). The sinking/swallowing was either the land or/& sea moving sideways not up/down.)

Boats:
For reed boats. The reed boats seem similar to Noah's ark so they are not so flimsy. There have also been other types of boats in ancient history (including Peruivian), like the Vikings ones, the Celts fleet of high sea ships mentioned in Roman times in classical source.
Maybe the boats on Medinet Habu and/or other inscriptions (Bohuslan?) around those "prehistorical" & ancient times? They had boats/ships then, i just didn't think of that that i should have recorded and published all the ones i have seen over the years. Some of them look like the Ark.


I can't totally adequitely answer one or a few things like the distance other than what i have tried to here and in my paper. But i only see it as one or few challenge/disbelief that doesn't out weigh all the evidence i have seen and tried to show/say in paper and (some) here. I am in not any much doubt myself (though always try to stay objective) but i can sort of see/understand why other are doubtful. I can accept there are some things that need better proof/answer to be accepted as found/proven, but with all the strong evidences it should be accepted as an equal candidate at least.


Distance/invasion: Apart from what i already replied and already wrote in paper: They had colonies or contacts in Atlantic Europe & Atlantic Africa, and upto Tyrrhenia and Libya.
If there was a shift then Atlantic was once upto half the current distance then. Or in other scenarios there are possible explanations (different size/contours/depth, currents/temperature/emf, etc then?). And the evidence that ancients were better seafarers then has been thought.
Ancients are not inferior to modern. Linear progressive evolution is wrong. Ancients were even superior in some things.


S America/Tiwanaku doesn't just have some features they have lots and strong features. Can't just be a part or survivors etc.
What evidence would convince you/people?
They are finding things we didn't know about all the time. That recent "Atlantis metal" find in Mediterranean someone just emailed me about.
Anyway, thanks, i don't mind if you don't see enough evidence on some points yet.


Our find synthesises alot of sources: Jim Allen, Posnansky, Sithcin, ours, Fasold, Morrison, Mattievich, the inca coricancha picture, etc.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 09, 2015, 08:33:24 pm
Hi Sean,

About the Pole shift/Displacement, anyone who has researched Atlantis ends up doing a lot of reading about that, and everything I have heard on the subject, it doesn't happen overnight. It happens over hundreds and even thousands of years. It would be an immense cataclysm! I don't see the geology pointing to that in 9600 BC, let alone in the more recent time frame you set it in. How do you explain that?

Reed boats, well, Jim Allen devotes a whole webpage to them:

http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/areedboathistory.htm

But this is the only one I can see that Bolivia ever had:

(http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/areedboathistory_files/image018.jpg)
(http://www.visioninconsciousness.org/AC_41/Reed%20Boats%20&%20Huts%2040-05-01.jpg)


(http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/totora-reed-boats-in-bolivia-trude-janssen.jpg)


Once again, probably good for negotiating treacherous rivers, but I don't they could deal with the Atlantic, let alone mount an invasion. Do you have any evidence that they ever had anything else?  They had to have something more advanced than the Egyptians, right? Especially, if they were said to have conquered the Egyptians.

There is evidence of contacts between the Egyptians and the Americas having contact with one another, in the form of coca leaves found in the Egyptian mummies, and the date that the Americas was first settled is being pushed back all the time, well before Plato sets Atlantis. There are also many evidences of large populations in South America, for thousands of years, something that most of the other theories don't even take into account.

Where did you get this, by the way?

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=33831.0;attach=278;image

The orichalcum find is exciting, isn't it..? I'm just wondering if it bears much resemblance to Allen's website page on orichalcum where he says how it was made.

http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/orichalcum.htm

Plato does not actually ever say that Atlantis was a continent, he says:

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

So even though he says it was large (bigger than Libya and Asia combined), no one in the story had ever been there and are each relaying the story third hand. They also refer to it many times as an "island."  We also know that continents can't sink, only fragments from them, while geology tells us that many times islands have sunk beneath the sea. So common sense does tell us it is an island. For what it is worth, I put the capital in the Caribbean area, which admittedly, has even less to offer it so far than South America. I have corresponded with Greg Little quite a bit over the last few years and believe the two areas are related.

You asked what it would it take to convince everyone, well, everyone is looking for the capital city, which should resemble Plato's description. I don't think it will be found above sea level, as Plato said it "sunk."


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 10, 2015, 05:31:01 pm
Thanks Desiree.

(sorry i don't have any pictures at hand to post, but see some of my old Atlantis search pictures at http://picasaweb.google.com/seanbam2/Antipodean (though the link may have changed since i joint google plus?))

The picture in first post here: the photo on left is Inca picture from the Coricancha temple at [Cuzco?]; the drawing of it on right is from Sitchin's 'Lost Realms'. For matches with Atlantis account in the photo/picture see the list i gave in first post just above the attachment.

My main theory until recently was continental shift not pole shift, but i have had to admit possibility that it wasn't continental shift but pole shift.
I think Pole Shift could have happened suddenly not over ages, though it could perhaps happen slowly with some sudden cumulative effects?
There is plenty of evidences for catastrophism/shifts in ancient history & "myths", i listed quite a few in my blog paper. Velikovsky has a whole book full. Many ancient high cultures spoke of 4 or so world ages each ending in catastrophe. The Atlantis account does too. The bible has a few possible catastrophes (Babel, rain of fire, exodus, sun standing still). Atlantis "sinking" seems to have been about the time of the exodus or Joshua's sun standing still which latter is also in Peruvian about same date.
Ancient "myths" do speak of moving poles/axis/world tree/world pillar and ice shifts/ages. Alignments of monuments like Stonehenge and ziggurats etc may reflect changes. Herodotus and some papyri mention sun changing where set/rose 2 x 2 times.

On the reed boats see David Fasold's 'Discovery of Noah's Ark' and see that at least one/some of your pictures are similar (the shape/type/design not exact same in all the way built/made). I have already answered that there were also other boats known in "prehistory" and ancient history inscriptions etc (Bohuslan? Medinet Habu?). Maybe an example is the boat/s on predynastic Egyptian drawings. Hatshepsut Punt voyage? Great pyramid boat (pit)? I think Spanuth gives some pictures of stone age/bronze age boats.
Vikings. Polynesians. Phoenicians. Noah's Ark. "First seafarers". "Maps of the ancient sea kings". Heyerdahl.
There are quite a few boats in stone age Atlantic Europe inscriptions if i remember correctly. (I lost 15 years notes/resources in a crisis 5 or so years ago and have never been able to recover much dues to situation/condition. Might have been Berlitz or Zehren that mentions some?)
Yes i have seen some other Peruvian boats, have to see if i can find or remember where pictures/details are. I listed some brief boats info in my blog paper: "Peruvians had "sea-worthy rafts".  Dragon-boat racing Puno? raft of Taycanamo myth? (10 ships Paraiba inscription?)".
Chimu (Chan chan) pottery figure of "reed boat" titled "life on the ocean wave"?
"the seas were highways not barriers". "Sea power came before land power".

I already answered in first post/s and in blog paper about Atlantis being a continent or large island. To repeat/repost some: it was larger than Asia & Libya; had large plain; many species of animals; was self-suffiecient; large population/army; had (high) mountains; 10 kings regions; etc.
Island in ancient and modern can mean island, continent, world island/old world, peninsula, etc.
Ancients said 3 large islands in western ocean/sea and seven smaller ones. Another source says Atlantis was a much larger island that ruled over the other small islands of Atlantic. Kirchir's map if not spurious seems similar to S America.
It doesn't matter if they hadn't been there, there are many details in the account from someone.
There are no large sunken/sumbermed islands in the right area/direction/distance/ocean. Continents/plates can/do shift sideways if not sink downwards.

I also had thought it was in Caribbean/Florida shelf area but there is not anything much there. There is possible match for plain and ditch either off Florida or in Caribbean south of Cuba/Hisapniola. But just can't match/fit all the details. I had favoured an anomaly just out from Orinoco mouth but doesn't fit either. Raleigh's Eldorado in Parima was also interestingly similar to the plain, but could find no match. I had thought the great Plains might match the great plain. But ended up no match. There is only one place in Americas that matches the plain and city etc.
See some of my old Atlantis search pictures at that picasa page i gave link to.   
The matches with Peru are too many and too strong to only/just be "related/part".

I have already said the continent didn't "sink" down, the land (&/or water) "sank"/shifted/sloshed sideways. (The land &/or water shifted sideways, either continental shift or pole shift).

On the capital city we have found/shown it. I can't go dig up Tiwanaku/Tiahuanaco but the evidences i have are pretty certain enough.
The Inca picture from the Coricancha that i posted in the first post shows the concentric circles city 2 times (on left and on right). Posnanskies (and/or Alfords and Sitchin's) diagrams of Tiwanaku show some concentric circles. There are lots of incsriptions from Peru/Bolivia with concentric circles including at Pumapunku (on Jim Allen's site) and Silustani (wiki?). The distance from city to sea is exact same distance as Tiahuanaco to Titicaca. The temple/palace also seems to match. The akapana seems to be the small hill dwelling of (Poseidon and) Clito (and it is prominent in the Tiahuanaco diagrams/drawings & descriptions, and also seems to be shown in the city shown on left in the Coricancha picture).  The plain is there, and is shown in the Inca picture i posted (with surrounding ditch and crossing channels) (confirming it).
People can't rule out just because above sea level. He said the whole large island was swallowed up not just a part of it. Tiahuanaco also has physical evidences of "flood", and the Peru "myth"/traditions also say Tiahuanaco had flood.
So is it just the (supposedly) "isn't sunken" and "too far" (and boats) (and the "island" dispute) not "resemble Plato's description" that is reason it isn't accepted?

The "Atlantis metal" find is not Atlantis orichalcum. The date is too late, long after Atlantis. Orichalc may be either brass(-like) or gold-copper. Their Mediterranean find is like brass but not like gold-copper. (There are a few similar metals: ormulu, corinthian, etc.) The interesting part of the article was actually  the Mattievich/American part/bits not the Mediterranean parts. Orichalc as either/both brass &/or gold-copper has match/es with Peru eg Allen's tumbaga (gold-copper), gilded-copper (Sipan), the Peruvian gold of Conquistadores/Eldorado/etc, and Crespi collection,  Mattievich's Chavin AuAgCu , etc. Sitchin give evidence in 'Lost Realms' for Tiwanaku/Titicaca/Andes/Peru being a copper/tin/zinc centre. Andes is one of world's major deposits in my atlas. There are [sheet metal] nail holes in blocks at Tiahuanaco. [Celtic findrine is similar (or/tho maybe not as Atlantipedia says), as is a Chinese one, and a Hittite one i lost, and Jesus feet in Revelation are "brass".]
How can that be exicting and our Tiwanaku/Tiahuanaco find is not?

Orthodox dates/dating methods are not right as i already said, but either way they can match Atlantis date (9000 yrs/bc, or 900 yrs/c 1400s bc). Atlantis was 900 years not 9000 years. Hyperboreans lived a 1000 years = 100 years.
Peruvian is the oldest in Americas in lots of books.

Yes there are lots of evidences for contacts between Americas and Old World. Not just **** but also murex (SC Compton), and maybe South America fan palm in Assyrian depictions of Toakkari seapeoples (Fitzgerald-Lee), etc. The pictures of the 3 Sipan pyramids seem similar to 3 Giza pyramids to my eyes.

They didn't conquer the Egyptians they were beaten by Athens/"Hercules". They (also) invaded by land not (necessarily/just) by sea?

The large populations you mentioned is interesting thanks. I think i may have seen/heard some bits about large populations.

(perhaps i should have posted the link to my blog rough "paper" (though it is given in the Atlantipedia page) : http://2rbetterthan1.wordpress.com/atlantis-city-tiahuanaco . I know it is not written well but i give/list alot of evidences in there.)

(ps I won't be able to post much soon because i have other things i need/want to do once this hollow/clicking throat (sinus trouble?) goes away. I just wanted to try show there are answers to Atlantipedia's (and others') criticisms.)


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 12, 2015, 12:59:23 am
Quote
I already answered in first post/s and in blog paper about Atlantis being a continent or large island. To repeat/repost some: it was larger than Asia & Libya; had large plain; many species of animals; was self-suffiecient; large population/army; had (high) mountains; 10 kings regions; etc.
Island in ancient and modern can mean island, continent, world island/old world, peninsula, etc.

Well, gee, Sean, if you are fudging the date (Plato says it happened in 9650 BC, not 1400 BC), you shouldn't have any problem appreciating that some of the other details may have been off.

We know that continents can't sink, therefore, the reference of Atlantean territory probably was referring to the empire, not the total amount of the land. Atlantis probably was an island empire, which controlled areas of the Bahamas and both Central and South America.

Quote
They didn't conquer the Egyptians they were beaten by Athens/"Hercules". They (also) invaded by land not (necessarily/just) by sea?

That's not exactly true, as Plato says:

Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.

Later, he says:

And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars.

That leads me to believe that, since the Egyptians were enslaved and had to be freed, the Atlanteans controlled them, too. Makes sense then why cocoa would be found in Egyptian mummies.

Quote
I also had thought it was in Caribbean/Florida shelf area but there is not anything much there. There is possible match for plain and ditch either off Florida or in Caribbean south of Cuba/Hisapniola. But just can't match/fit all the details. I had favoured an anomaly just out from Orinoco mouth but doesn't fit either. Raleigh's Eldorado in Parima was also interestingly similar to the plain, but could find no match. I had thought the great Plains might match the great plain. But ended up no match. There is only one place in Americas that matches the plain and city etc.

You don't have to find the whole area of Atlantis in any specific place, right? The capital city could be underwater someplace, probably in the Bahamas while other features like the plain, the mountains could have been in South America. We are talking about the empire of Atlantis, not imagining it all as a continental landmass that sunk at once. As I said earlier, common sense tells us that it had to be just the capital city that sank and not the whole place.


Quote
How can that be exicting and our Tiwanaku/Tiahuanaco find is not?

Well, the Tiahuanaco is still speculative for the fact that it is very far away from the Mediterranean with no direct route to get there. Especially in reed boats, I don't see any evidence that the people of Bolivia ever had triremes.Today, we have the Panama Canal, but, of course it wasn't around then. The orichalcum is exciting because, gee, it is the first tangible proof that the Atlantis story was truth. Now if we could just find some written corroboration of the Atlantis story in Sais, Egypt, where it is supposed to be, we would finally have a second source.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 12, 2015, 01:02:00 am
I have to admit, all things considered, though, I have always liked the South American theory much better than any of the myriad number of researchers that come in here and want to set Atlantis in the Mediterranean.  :)


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 13, 2015, 08:56:15 pm
The South America comment is cool/nice. I'll just post the reply i wrote anyway. Sorry it is not very good.

I am not fudging the date. It is not off, it is just that it is 900 not 9000 years. Plato's 900(0) years Atlantis = Herodotus' 900 years Moeris. Each detail is in/of itself each has to be dis/proven, not just assuming things "may" similarly not be literal. Do you say Hyperborea's other details could be fudged because Hyperboreans living a 1000 years is really only 100 years? Egyptians are well known for exagerating dates 900(0) years, 100(0) years, (1)1340/1130 years. We assume all details as they are, we only "fudge" ones if there is good evidence/proof.

The orichalc find is not the first tangible proof of the account. We have mentioned/shown others. Their find is only 600s bc.

Continents can't sink downwards but they can "sink"/shift sideways. (& he didn't necessarily say sink but swallowed-up.) "Probably" doesn't cut it (though i also use similar words (though have reasons)).
People have to consider all possiblilities for "sinking" not just literal sinking. These i listed in my paper and in posts above. Sinking, displacement, *shifting continents*, rising sealevels, eruption/explosion, etc.
The way i read the Atlantis account he is implying a large island/continent/landmass (for the reasons i already listed above and in paper: large plain, larger than Asia & Libya, 10 kings regions, (high) mountains, selfsufficient, etc) and that the whole landmass "sank/sunk" not just part of it.
Tony said how can tiny Athens defeat a continent, while you say a small island can control an empire?

South America can't just be a part of the empire / etc. The matches are too quality/quanity. There is no match for the city & plain etc anywhere else in Americas or Atlantic (though there are lesser connections). Atlantis can only be in Americas (incl/excld Antarctica) or Armorica plate, and only one place there matches.
There is nothing much in Bahamas from the satellite pics etc. There is just a few things like that Bimini wall, and Cuba city find.

I just can not understand how just those 3 distance and route and boats disbeliefs can be seen as equally or more important than all the many evidences/matches (concentric city, plain, (bull) sacrifice, orichalc, red/white/balck, many animals, large population, etc etc etc). There must be something that is unique that can only be Atlantis that people would accept as proof, since they reject all the evidence because of just a few disbelief reasons?

Ok the Egypt may or may not have been conquered/enslaved according to the account. Hard to say either way for certain. (The versions i had read said as far as Libya and Tyrrhenia. A pain having so many different inaccurate translations, have to refer to original Greek.) Exodus mentions enemies of Egypt. Traditions have things like Antaeus (Atlantis?) versus Hercules (Athens?).

The cocoa found in mummies is later after Atlantis sinking. Though i could be wrong. Orthodox Egyptian chronology is wrong, Herodotus said Moeris (12th dyn) was only 900 years before [Amasis 2] ie ca 1400s (not "1800s"). Josephus said 1300 years Menes to Shishak (900s); Herodotus said (1)1340 years Menes to Seti (19th dyn). Plato's 900(0) years Atlantis = Herodotus' 900 years for Moeris (12th dynasty) [and for Hercules (12th dynasty)]. The **** was from memory about 19th dynasty. The whole period between 12th and 19th/20th dynasty is abit uncertain though re Atlantis date. Spanuth/etc link the Sea Peoples (19th/20th dyn) with Atlanteans, and there may be a link but they seem to be later.  Sea Peoples may match the "Pelasgians" of Thalassocracies shortly after Trojan war (1100s). See my blog paper Atlantis page in the date section &/or my Egyptian chronology page there (search/find "900").

I don't agree that we can find the city and the plain and mountains etc in different places. Besides if we have found them in one place then that has preceedence over "don't have to find in one place" theory. I am often mis-accused of "oh that can fit any number of places", well how much more can splitting them up easily fit any number of places?
Why would he say the "whole island" if it was only 20 something km size?

People can't just assume/assert not one place/landmass or not one time/sinking etc. My approach has always been to objectively see if there is a real match for the Atlantis Account, Bible, Nennius/HB, etc matching the seeming meaning of the text, not just assume/assert suspect/etc.

The Andes were pushed up in ancient times. If Atlantis is not S America, if S America is opposite continent then how do we explain the Andes pushed up? Peru has many/stark Atlantis account matches that can't be explained by just part of empire / etc.

Common sense tells me that the Coricancha picture, and Posnansky's diagrams of Tiahuanaco, and the altiplano, and the Andes mirroring Atlas, and Peru being one of the world's biggest copper/tin/zinc areas, and the Atlas motif in Peruvian, and many other things in Peru/Bolivia match the Atlantis account. It is not speculative. The matches i gave here and in paper are pretty certain. Sure there are a few slightly difficult disbelief things to (better) answer but nothing that makes it seriously doubtful.

I have already tried to give some possible answers about boats/distance/route. Lots of sources agree that ancients had greater seafaring than we give them credit for. The reed boats Ark-like/high-sea-faring-ship-like shape shows they must have had seafaring boats what ever the actual material was.

They didn't the Panama canal, but Steven Compton in 'Exodus Lost' shows they had [Tehuapanec?] canal. Some also suggest a canal in the area of that river northwest Andes/Colombia? And there is the Amazon across the continent. But if there was a shift then the 2 Americas may not have been connected before shift, and would have been closer to Africa. "Seas were highways not barriers".

We have corroboration of Atlantis account. See the Coricancha picture i posted with half a dozen to a dozen details from the Account. See diagrams & pictures & descriptions of Tiahauanco. See the spade symbol in Peruvian art similar to world pillar (Atlas motif). Etc.  What if they find some other written/pictoral source that says Atlantis is South America/Tiahuanaco, people will still say it can't be it is too far and no direct route and no boats.

Sorry if i am repeating some (as i was accused on Historum of), it is because some things (and all the other evidences) seem to be not noticed/noted. I can't answer the distance/route/boats better at present than i already have here and in paper. Even if i find better answers I think that other evidences are more important & interesting. I'm not sure how else to prove it (i can't go there and only limited situation/condition & time/resources/etc), i am pretty positive myself from all i have seen and tried to show, but i accept it isn't enough for others. It would be nice to see Jim Allen credited (and a tiny bit for my extra Tiahuanaco/Coricancha proofs).

On the Mediterranean I asked Tony in an email if anyone could send me a copy of the Odyssey routes pdf which link is in Atlantipedia 'Mediterranean' page but haven't had a reply (tho I know he is busy). I can't get through to it on dialup, it is taking forever to load. Really would like to study that paper.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 15, 2015, 06:31:14 pm

I have just realised that there was a partial answer to your route question/issue in my last reply to Tony of Atlantipedia a week or so ago.
It is said that the statue of man on horse that was once in Azores used to point (?sout-)westwards and was named or connected with the word/name Cates/cati which means "this way" in Quechuan (Incan/Peruvian).
The only possible problem is one source says westwards not as i thought that &/or other source/s had said south-westwards. (West from Azores is roughly Washington DC just below New York.)

Also it is possible that the stages of Urani/Amenti/Aaru are a map across South America to Tiahuanaco.

There are a number of possible routes. Through ancient canal/strait of Tehuantepec. Around north(west) corner and down west coast. (Through Magdalene river in Colombia?) Across Amazon/Madeira river/s. Through Entre Rios region.
All these routes would have been different geography then before the catastrophe/shift. (See maps / animations of stages of continental shift.)


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 17, 2015, 03:24:50 am
Quote
I am not fudging the date. It is not off, it is just that it is 900 not 9000 years. Plato's 900(0) years Atlantis = Herodotus' 900 years Moeris. Each detail is in/of itself each has to be dis/proven, not just assuming things "may" similarly not be literal. Do you say Hyperborea's other details could be fudged because Hyperboreans living a 1000 years is really only 100 years? Egyptians are well known for exagerating dates 900(0) years, 100(0) years, (1)1340/1130 years. We assume all details as they are, we only "fudge" ones if there is good evidence/proof.


I have my own reasons for maybe fudging the date. First off, there had to be an established system of measuring time at the time this all occurred and I don't  see any evidence of that. Having said that, you are fudging the date because all the translations measure the date as 9600 BC. That is the truth, no matter what the rationale.

The translations also say Atlantis lay before or in front of the Pillars of Hercules. Taken literally, that would put it in the East Atlantic. I don't take Plato perfectly literally on that (though people like Georgeos Diax Montexano and Jacques Collina Gerard do), for the simple reason that nobody involved with the story had ever been there.

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles;

Quote
The orichalc find is not the first tangible proof of the account. We have mentioned/shown others. Their find is only 600s bc.

But you don't have the capital city surrounded by alternating rings of water and land and that is what will identify Atlantis!

Quote
Continents can't sink downwards but they can "sink"/shift sideways. (& he didn't necessarily say sink but swallowed-up.) "Probably" doesn't cut it (though i also use similar words (though have reasons)).

He actually does say it sunk into the sea and is very specific about that:

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.



Quote
Tony said how can tiny Athens defeat a continent, while you say a small island can control an empire?

That's an easy one..! Look at Great Britain. That small island managed to have  an empire that controlled the world at one point. I imagine something similar occurred with Atlantis. Remember, the Spartans beat the Persians just because they had bronze weapons and the Persians had wicker.  :)

Quote
There is no match for the city & plain etc anywhere else in Americas or Atlantic (though there are lesser connections). Atlantis can only be in Americas (incl/excld Antarctica) or Armorica plate, and only one place there matches.

For me, the geographic positions of the plain and the mountain have to be treated with a grain of salt because, again, no one had ever been there. If the story is to be believed at all, well, it happened nine thousand years ago! It would be like somebody alive today trying to describe the Colossus of Rhodes.

Quote
There is nothing much in Bahamas from the satellite pics etc. There is just a few things like that Bimini wall, and Cuba city find.

I can't tell you how many researchers have come here saying that the Caribbean has some sort of sunken city in it, and there is a circular anomaly off the shores of Cuba, per Greg Little and Andrew Collins. Of course, we'll know more if the Communists ever get out of power there! That is one of the places I think the sunken capital city might be.

Quote
They didn't the Panama canal, but Steven Compton in 'Exodus Lost' shows they had [Tehuapanec?] canal. Some also suggest a canal in the area of that river northwest Andes/Colombia? And there is the Amazon across the continent. But if there was a shift then the 2 Americas may not have been connected before shift, and would have been closer to Africa. "Seas were highways not barriers".

I'll have to look into more of the idea of the canal, but I don't remember Jim Allen having much of an answer for that either when he was here, and I also don't remember that much in his writings either. That is a big stumbling block why I think the city has to be someplace else, the distance.

Quote
It is said that the statue of man on horse that was once in Azores used to point (?sout-)westwards and was named or connected with the word/name Cates/cati which means "this way" in Quechuan (Incan/Peruvian).

But the statue no longer exists, so we don't even know what it looked like. You know when the Azores were first discovered, there were also said to be the remains of several stone buildings on Corso. The people of the Azores even believe they were once a part of Atlantis. And, if you take into account that the area has a history of pretty brutal earthquakes like Plato talks about, they have just as good of a case as some others and are much closer to the Med than either the Bahamas or South America.

Anyway, the statue was said to have been lost en route back to Portugal. Some even say it was made by Chinese explorers.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 17, 2015, 11:13:53 pm

This topic has only been read 50 times so i am wasting my time anyway.

Looks like i will just have to post alot of the date chapter from my paper here. He doesn't say 9600 bc. He says "9000 years".

--------

Date:

Can't be 9000 years because no Athens/Sais/etc then.
Evidence is that it was Bronze age & Minoan-Mycenaean.
The 3rd deluge (Deucalion).

Platos' 900(0) years Atlantis = Herodotus' 900 years Moeris (and Herodotus' 900 years Hercules). (Hercules and Moeris were 12th dynasty.)
Mavor's 9000 years = 900 years, and Spanuth's 9000 years = months both reconcile with a 10 month calendar year. (Compare 10/12 months, 10/12 plagues, 10/12 commandments, *10* kings Atlantis/12 kings Scheria, etc.) Eudoxus & others confirm Egyptians often called months "years". [Also compare Herodotus' (1)1340 years Menes to Seti matches Josephus' 1300 yrs Menes to Shishak.]
Hyperboreans lived a 1000 years = 100/110/120 years.
[The 9000 years may also connect with Ptah 9000 years. Our evidence is that 12th dynasty would fit 900 years before & 900 years after.]
800(0) years Sais fits Saites/Salitis/Hyksos after 900 years Moeris/12th dynasty.

Table (sorry would be better with 6 columns not just rows)
Egyptology: 1. 12th dyn, 2. Hyksos/Saites, 4. 19th/20th dyn, 5. Persians.
Plato: 1. 900(0) yrs Atlantis, 2. 800(0) yrs Sais [Saites/Salitis/Sethroite], 5. Persian
Herodotus: 1. 900 yrs Moeris, 2. 700 yrs Anysis
Herodotus 3 gods/grps: 0. 1600 yrs Pan, 1. 900 yrs Hercules, 2. 800 yrs Dionysos.
Herodotus: 1. [red sea], 2. Europa/Io/Argos/Phoenicians, Medea/Colchis, 3. Trojan, 5.Persian.
Bible: 1. Moses/Joshua 480+<490yrs, 2. Judges.
Tartessos: 2./3./4. 700(0) yrs.
rare source/s (J Allen): 1. Atlantis, 1 gen, 2. Argonauts, 1 gen, 3. Trojan.
Spanish (Hoeh): 1. Antaeus, 2. Apher, 3. Trojan, 4. thalassocracies/pelasgians
Greek (Aspin): 1. Atlantis/Deucalion betw Cecrops & Erechtheus, 2. Minoan/Theseus, 3. Trojan/Menestheus, 4. Heraclids/Dorians.
3 Hermes: 0. Set, 1. Shu/Num, 3./4. Thoth.
Egyptology 3 kdms: 0. Old Kdm, 1. Mid Kdm, 3./4. New Kdm.
Rohl: 1. Moses 12th-13th, 2. Inachus/Hyksos, 3. Trojan, 4. sea peoples.
Jerome: 1. Cecrops/Moses, 3. Trojan/Samson, 5. Persia.

Atlas = Shu = air = Amon = Zeus?
Shu is Middle Kingdom as in 3 Hermes and in el-Arish inscription (which matches exodus).

The shoal of Sesostris (12th or 19th dyn) might connect?

Moeris ca 1400s bc, Atlantis ca 1400s bc, exodus/Joshua ca 1400s bc, Peruvian long night ca 1400/1394 bc.
Philistines from Caphtor same time as Hebrews exodus from Egypt.

Atlantis was  between Cecrops (1556-1506) to Erechtheus (1397-1347).

-------

Yes we do have the city surrounded by concentric circles of land and water.
The Corincancha picture in first post shows it two times (1x on left and 1x on right).
Posnanskies (and Alford's/Sitchin's) diagrams of Tiwanaku/Tiahuanaco show concentric circles (of water).
Others descriptions of Tiahuanaco say is evidences that Tiahauanaco was connected with Titicaca.
Other inscriptions from Peru also show concentric circles. Jim Allen posted one on his site from Pumapunku (part of Tiahuanaco). Posnansky has ones from Tiahuanaco/gateway. I & wiki show one from Sillustani. Sitchin's 'Lost Realms' has quite a few others in his Peru/Tiahuanaco part/chapters.
I wish i could post the pictures but i only have dialup which is slower than used to be before the fibre optics broadband campaign/changes. I already posted the Coricancha picture. Sillustani one is in wiki i think.

The in front of/facing/opposite/etc the Pillar of Hercules can apply to either/both North and/or South America now/then on various maps projections. Some projections like the Piri Reis with Giza at centre have south America opposite/west while north America is north/not-opposite. Kirchir's map also fits/matches South America better-than / and-not north America. There is also dispute exactly were the pillars were.
There is nothing in the Atlantic except Americas (or Armorica plate). There is only one place in Americas that fits the city and plain and mountains etc.

He says in your translation "disappered into the depths of the sea" not "sank/sunk". As i have alrady said there are a number of possibilities all of which people have to consider. Literal sinking/sank; submergence/rising sea levels; continental shift; crust displacment; vlocanic eruption/explosion; tidal bulge; figurative; etc. We have shown that the "sinking" can/"must" fit either shift or displacement.
There is no large sunken landmasses in the Atlantic (or other oceans). (The only ones there are are too small or nothing there or etc.)
Violent quake(s) and flood(s) fits our shift very well as i said in the paper.

Atlantis was not just a small island or just an empire: "larger than Asia & Libya", large plain, (high) mountains; many species of animals (incl elephants); 10 kings regions; "large island"; "whole island"; large population/army; large river; etc etc.
Thanks for partly answering Tonys question.

Well i do not treat anything with a grain of salt without veyr good reasons. We have found the plain and city etc.
Someone described the city etc very well so someone had been there or had good memory/records/sources.
It was no 9000 years ago. Many scholars say it is not possible because Athens etc wasn't there. See my date above.

Yes Caribbean has a few possible things like the Bimin wall, and Cuba city, and Bermuda "pyramid/s", etc. But in my own scouring of the area in satellite and other sources there just doesn't seem to be much of a match there with all the details (plain, city, mountains, civilisation/culture, etc). Plus Perus matches are too stark/many to be just a part or just related. People need to objectively/openly consider all possible sites not just one/some. Whereas i have consdiered that area best as i can and no one has shown/told me any more there to make me change back to it. Meanwhile people seem to dismiss/ignore the Coricancha and  other stark evidences we have shown/said.

We have given some partial possible answers to the only few distance/route/boat and i can't see how those only one/two/few disbelief things can be more/equally important than all the evidences we said here and in the paper.

Nevertheless we do have the historical records of the Azores statue that was man on horse pointing [?south-]west with name/word cates "this way" [in Quechua].
There are other possible route sources too as i mentioned: 12 stages of Urani/Tuat/Amenti; Scheria/Phaeacia? Stonehenge damaged on southwest. Etc.
Azores can not be Atlantis or remaining part of Atlantis. Too small. The statue pointed west and said "this way". Atlantic is moving up and out not in/down. Etc. (Though there was some sand/continental rocks found near there i think?) It may possibly be Ogygia.

How can you say the distance (now/post-shift not necessarily then/pre-shift) is too hard to believe yet you don't think a small island ruling an empire is hard to believe?


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 18, 2015, 07:05:17 pm
Alright i guess we have to post pictures instead of text.  "A picture speaks a thousand words".
In 1st picture is Mochica/Chimu mask which shows the Atlas motif/world pillar and concentric circles.
In 2nd picture is Chanchan/Chimu inscription showing the concentric circles.
In 3rd picture is Alford's diagram from Posnansky's diagram of Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku; and in 4th picture is Posnansky's diagram from Sitchin's 'Lost Realms'. In both we see some of the concentric circles and we see the prominent/central Akapana which seems to match "small hill" "dwelling of (Poseidon and) Clito" of Atlantis account.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 18, 2015, 07:29:56 pm
1st picture concentric circles from Sillustani (nw end/area of Titicaca). (Source wikipedia.)

2nd picture Allen's picture of concentric circles from Pumapunku (Tiahuanaco [Atlantis city]).

3rd picture Chalco glyph.
[After edit: sorry the chalco glyph was a mistake. I couldn't remember whether it was Mexico or Peru. It makes no difference to our evidences/thesis. We knew which it was at the time when we considered all such evidences in all considered locations. (There are many concentric circles in lots of places. But none match all the Account's details except for Tiahuanaco.) Also the glyph is similar to the Sillustani picture anyway. Interesting that it is the only picture of the 7 apart from the Sillustani one that was viewed (2x). Seems people are only open to theories/locations they like/favour/prefer?]

see also pictures of concentric circles in Sitchin's 'Lost Realms'. One is the Colango stone. Another is from Posnansky's collected symbols from gateway at Tiahuanaco.
[Some are square or radiating cross rather than round circles but they are clearly the same motif/theme/idea.]
The snuff tablet in wiki Tiwanaku article also possibly shows water/circles?

I should have said in previous post "Atlas motif / world pillar / world tree".

Vira-cocha "sea" implies Poseidon &/or ships?

Chimu/Mochica "myth" says Naymlap arrived with a "fleet" of "balsas". (May confirm boats, though Poseidon came to/built Atlantis city &/or large island "before boats invented" [Atlantic land bridge?].)

Another thing about why the city can only be in Peru is because lake Titicaca is the only match for the sea (as well as the city, mountains, plain, civilisation, Atlas motif, etc) in the account in all Americas.

i guess the only way to settle this is to pit our site against any other rival site (like the favoured Caribbean one) to show which better matches. Our site is the only best site in all the Americas & World that matches all details (even the few disputed ones ("sinking", distance, route, boats). We have matches for the plain, city, concentric circles, mountains, Atlas motif, 10 (2x5) kings, oriechalc, bulls/sacrifice, elephants, distance from city to sea, the sea, the small hill, etc etc. Where are the mountains/Atlas, etc in Caribbean?
Anyway will try do checklists of our and and any other site (like Caribbean) to show which is better if necessary.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 21, 2015, 08:35:37 pm


I've just read Atlantipedia's/Tony's new Mediterranean article and see he raises the same issue/s he raised in the page about my thesis. So it is on topic to answer here (see first post was answer to the entry criticisms).

Atlantis was outside not inside the pillars & Mediterranean. Was outside Pillars. Was in outer/real ocean not in inner/Mediterranean sea; & they conquered with upto Tyrrheania & Libya/Egypt (from west). Atlantis was large island that not fit in Mediterranean ("larger than Asia & Libya", large plain, large population, 10 regions, mountains, etc). The Atlas mountains are in very western end of Mediterranean. (Africa/Atlas & Gades/Spain clearly mirror South America/Andes and North America?) Some say the Mediterranean had number of pelagoses and the Atlantic was the one external pelagos. The "Atlantic/Ethiopian/Erythrean" sea was clearly the (south) Atlantic ocean.

It is not good enough to say his figures are suspect (and that may be multiplied by ten). You have to dis/prove each thing (like we did the date). [Saying/asserting/assuming suspect is even more Suspect.] Moreover we have shown clear proof of the large plain matching with Peru/Bolivia (the Altiplano, plus it is also shown in the Coricancha picture (see first post), plus seen in Crespi collection pictures, etc).

Yes there were 12 pillars of Hercules, but the ones of the Account (and of Herodotus) are clearly the Gibraltar/Tartessos/Gades/Huelva ones.

Herodotus said his contemporaries were wrong to say world was only the 3 continents of Asia, Libya, Europe. Moreover that was long after Atlantis had "sunk".

The catastrophe was global/continental/regional not just local. Atlantis and Athens are on touching tectonic plates.

They say Plato doesn't explicitly say the 2 armies were lost at same time anyway?

Odyssey is no proof of Mediterranean, as the Odyssey locations are still highly disputible. I suspect that it may even relate to whole world or whole hemisphere/"world". [12 stops/stages Odyssey, 12 kings Scheria, 12 Scylla, 12 books Homer, etc all recall 12 stages Amenti/Tuat, 12 pillars Hercules, 10 kings Atlantis, 12 months, 12 signs Zodiac, 12 tablets Gilgamesh epic, 12 battles Arthur, 120 poles Gilgamesh, 12 volumes Virgil, etc.)

Wolf's Odyssey doesn't necessarily match (i managed to get through to it eventually and studied it very closely). At first i was pretty convinced, but oin further thinking and studying (incl Spanuth's notes) see it may not match. There are some seeming possible matches (Aeolia, Scyllas, Circe, Thrinakia, shield shape, basilicata, cape collone, etc), but other things seemingly certainly do not match (Cimmerians/Hades, in ocean, great/*tidal* river, at end/remotest, Phaeacians were sailors, arena/s, hot baths?, 9 days?, desc of/from Poseidon? etc). His Scheria name match is actually closer to Scylla name.
Moreover Odyssey was after the Trojan war which was century/centuries after Atlantis. See my chronology table & notes a couple of posts/replies ago in this thread.
(The drug nepenthe/moly may connect with concaine of New Kingdom??)
Trojan war & Odyssey even have links with Mahabharata. Tacitus said Hercules & Odysseus visited Germans/Norse?

Uliliyassis (Hittite) ~ Uthuze/Ulysses/Odysseus ~ Yudhishthira (Indian)? ~ Utnapishtim (Akkad)?

Maybe Odysseus is Quetzal-co-atl????

plutarch said: ogygia/venus/calypso island in midst of western sea 5 days sail west of britain, further still to west is/are island or 3 islands of cronos, great mainland lies beyond, continent saturnia forms atlantic shore at least 50 stades (500 miles) from ogygia, 13 greeks descended from hercules, cronos held prisoner by zeus in 1 of islands beyond ogygia [or] in great mainland that lies beyond the islands & sea....


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 23, 2015, 12:03:05 am
Quote
This topic has only been read 50 times so i am wasting my time anyway.

Only 50 times..?  I have 64 times. Anyway, who cares how many times its been read, the truth is the truth. right?

Quote
Looks like i will just have to post alot of the date chapter from my paper here. He doesn't say 9600 bc. He says "9000 years".

No, he doesn't: the 9600 is arrive at Plato writing the tale at about 360 BC. Well, Solon visited Egypt at about 600 BC, they reference the Atlantis tale at about 9000 years before then (the biggest number known to the Greeks at that time), and that is how we get the 9600 BC date arrived at. They could have just as easily said it happened a long time ago, but it it is what it is, and, if you want to take Plato literally, that is the date you have to set it in.
Quote
There is also dispute exactly were the pillars were.


I have heard that argument before. I am pretty sure that the Pillars of Hercules were pretty well established as the Straits of Gibraltar by that time, and even if they were still up for debate, well, we have that whole geographic description of the Med and its relationship to the ocean:
Quote
and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.

That sure sounds like the Atlantic to me.


Quote
There is nothing in the Atlantic except Americas (or Armorica plate). There is only one place in Americas that fits the city and plain and mountains etc.

There is nothing in the Atlantic that we have confirmed. I've seen reports of sunken ruins in the Atlantic for years. It is expensive to do underwater archaeology in the ocean, though, so no one ever investigates. Maybe Atlantis is out there, just waiting to be found.

Quote
He says in your translation "disappered into the depths of the sea" not "sank/sunk". As i have alrady said there are a number of possibilities all of which people have to consider. Literal sinking/sank; submergence/rising sea levels; continental shift; crust displacment; vlocanic eruption/explosion; tidal bulge; figurative; etc. We have shown that the "sinking" can/"must" fit either shift or displacement.
There is no large sunken landmasses in the Atlantic (or other oceans). (The only ones there are are too small or nothing there or etc.)

He does say:

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.

Your Atlantis is still above the sea and not vanished from the earth, right..? That is why you may have found the flat plain, other features, but the capital city has to be elsewhere, if you take Plato literally.

Quote
How can you say the distance (now/post-shift not necessarily then/pre-shift) is too hard to believe yet you don't think a small island ruling an empire is hard to believe?


If you had better boats than the reed boats, I might be more apt to believe you. Reed boats cannot control an empire that spans the ocean. The reason Great Britain had such an extensive empire is because they had such a powerful navy. I don't buy into the high tech Atlantis empire like Edgar Cayce talks of, there is no evidence of that. But they must have had something better than everyone else or they wouldn't have been an empire at all.

Like I said, yours/Jim Allen's/Morrison's theory has some definite possibilities. You have the ancient civilization, the high population centers and maybe the flat plain. I would like to know more about the picture found at Cuzco, was it..? On the other hand, your capital city did not vanish in the same manner that Plato writes about, the time period is off, and I don't see any evidence of the great calamity happening in the time you set your Atlantis in.

By the way, I always figured that Atlantis and the two armies were destroyed in the same calamity, that seems to be the way Plato describes it.



Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 23, 2015, 12:21:22 am
Blowing this up a little bigger so I can see it:


(http://f.tqn.com/y/archaeology/1/S/7/_/1/coricancha-altar.jpg)

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bjmO_QlWUWg/T7Hgo3qHuOI/AAAAAAAAADw/QAxP_NQvw3Q/s320/Altar+de+Coricancha.jpg)



Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 23, 2015, 07:44:56 am

0. it is 64 views now, but was 50 then. Subtract our views from the reading/posting 18 replies.

1. The Coricancha pictiure you blew-up (&) from a different source has distorted the concentric circles in the (lower left side of the) lake in the right side of the picture.

2. I can not read the tiny bleared text in the drawing below.

3. Whether people accept that picture or not, we have also posted others some of which surely can't be disputed. Orthodox are well known for corrupt versions/copies of pictures. The Mochica/Chimu mask i posted above clealry shows the Atlas pillar motif symbol rising from the concentric city.

4. Look, the darn Atlantis account does so say "9000" years before Amasis 2. It does not say 9500 bc. I have already given my (strong) evidence that it is 900 years not 9000 years, and ca 1400s bc not 9600 bc. So we will just have to agree to disagree. Other scholars have also given evidence that it can not be 9000s bc but must be bronze age. It is not as simple as taking or not taking literaly. I have shown his date is literally true but it is not "literal". No one have proven 9600 bc/9000 yrs.

5. The pillars as Gibraltar fits our thesis (and doesn't fit Mediterranean Atlantis theories). If you don't accept that South America is opposite/facing/fronting/etc the Pillars in various maps/projections then don't. But as for me I see that the pillars as/at Gibraltar fits Atlantis as South America (eg map version with Giza/Cairo as centre), &/or the pillars might not have been exactly at Gilbraltar/Tartessos/Gades/Huelva but abit further out/down. Spain/Atlas (and Europe/Spain/Gades) matches South America/Andes/Atlantis (and North America?). The Atlantic/Erythrean/Ethiopian sea/ocean was south Atlantic. South America is ccentred further east than north America; north America is centred further west than South America (after & before the shift/"sinking").

6. (S) America is in the Atlantic (and outside the Mediterranean) as the account says. Moreover Atlantis was clearly in the South Atlantic/Erythrean/Ethiopian. Atlantic = is both sides of Atlantis (Atlantic/Pacific/Antarctic)?

7. Well of course orthodox academics always argue the negative (or say we can't argue negative), that oh it just hasn't been found yet because they haven't been able to look. But as for me it is clear that there are no large enough sunken landmasses in the Atlantic (&/or any other ocean that fits the account). But there are "sunken" as in shifted/displaced ones. We have found the capital city and the plain and many other matches all in one place that fits (despite people trying to dispute a few things). Our site is that only best match, no other place only/best matches.

8. For the last time. Our Atlantis the continent (S America) did "sink" / is "sunken". It just didn't literally sink but rather it genuinely appeared to have "sunk" becausse there was a Shift or Displacment or other catastrophe. The account doesn't even say "sunk/sank" but overwhelmed or swallowed or various other translations (like the one you posted earlier).
Tiahuanaco/Titicaca is "sunk" because the whole continent "sunk/sank".
Tiahaunaco/Andes is only a part of the whole island, so how can everyone keeping saying oh it is raised not sunk. The whole island "sunk/sank" (shifted/displaced) but in so "sinking"/shifting a small part of it was crested up higher. Only a part of whole island was raised, but the whole island did "sink".
South America/Atlantis the contient did "sink" and is still "sunken"/shifted/displaced. Tiahuanaco is on one hand sunken because the whole island/continent "sank"/shifted/displaced/swallowed/overwhelmed, and on other hand "is not "sunken"" because a smart part of the whole island was raised higher in the "sinking"/shift/catastrophe.
I am not sure of the exact correct scenario for the "sinking" whether continental shift or pole shift/crust displacement or one or two other scenarios, but let us just say it shifted so i can get you to see what i mean. Atlantis "sunk" = America shifted. Imagine the Atlantic was once upto say half the current width/distance and then there was a shift to double the previous width/distance (= the current width/distance). So Atlantis/America was once there at so many miles/kms/stadia, then it was not there at so many miles/kms/stadia but gone to double the distance away. So it shifted = it "sank/sunk"/"vanished". See? And i am exasperated because everyone just sees/says oh Andes was raised not sunk, but the whole island did "sink"/is "sunken". Just a small part was raised up in the catastrophe/shift/"sinking".
So people saying S America is above sea not "sunken" is not actually/necessarily correct, and people saying Tiahuanaco is raised not sunken is not actually correct, because people can't/won't see that there are a number of possibilities for the "sinking" (sinking, submergence, shifting, displacement, etc).
That the Andes were clearly raised suddenly in lifetime of ancient humans/civilisation clearly shows there was either a shift or a displacement or pass by of heavenly body. Also Tiahuanaco has a flood in archaeology and "mythology"/tradition.
And because I am now positive I found the capital city, we can be sure that the "sinking" scenario must fit with Andes raising in the catastrophe/"sinking".

9. The plain and city and mountains "must be"* &/or have been found in one place not in different places, and they are in Peru/bolivia not elsewhere (Caribbean etc) (and the Peru matches are too stark/many to just be "a part of Atlantis/empire").
* Whether the Account is true and they are in one place, or is not true and "could be in different places", I and you/they/anyone/everyone has to prove or give evidence not just assume/assert "may/not" be. I have given plenty of good evidence (if it is not massive enough for some people then fine, but people can't say i haven't got/given any/much good evidence at all).

10. It is sad that just one or a few minor disbelief/disputed issues like the boats/route/distance/"sank" outweigh all the text and pictures evidences from Peru/etc here and in my rough paper. Both sides fault/problem. My fault/because i am not able to more excessively prove a few things like that (though i have given some good provisional possible answers through-out this thread and in paper).

11. Yes we have (more than just) some definite possibilities (and we are only doubted/disputed by people to "not" have a few things).
Can we perhaps come up with a list of Atlantis account details in order of most important first that we can check off?
- we have the concentric land/water circles (&) city (in fact and in pictures).
- we have large island/continent. (Though people dispute that Atlantis not large &/or dispute that S America not island.)
- we have in Atlantic (and not in inner sea); and outside pillars (not inside pillars).
- we have (high) ["Atlas"] mountains.
- we have oreichalc match/es.
- we have bulls or "bulls" & *sacrifice* match/es.
- we have large/great Plain match (in fact and in pictures), plus the ditch and criss-crossing channels.
- we have the Atlas (pillar) motif.
- we have two crops a year.
- we have date match (though you dispute).
- we have "sunk/sank" / overwhelmed/swallowed / vanished [shift/displacement/catastrophe] match, and in "terrirble quake/s & flood/s" match. (Though you/people dispute.)
- we have the temple/palace matching buildings there.
- we have the "small hill" / "dwelling of (Poseidon &) Clito" match [the Akapana] (in fact and in pictures).
- we have civilisation match.
- we have match for "(near) the sea" (lake Titicaca, in fact and Coricancha/etc picture/s), and we have the exact distance from the city to sea matching!
- we have large population match as you say.
- we have "facing"/beyond/opposite Pillars (but you dispute that).
- we have red white and black match (though i not sure of the exact actual rwb cliff match).
Etc.
So the issue is: we have many matches but (1) some are ignored, and (2) alot are disputed/denied as/or not excessively proven enough.


12. I'm okay either way with the 2 armies being destroyed in same or not in same.

13. "I don't see any evidence of the calamity happening in he time you set Atlantis in"?
- Inca/Peruvian king lists say long night and Tiahuanaco catastrophe happened in ca 1400 bc.
- Evidence that Andes raised suddenly in lifetime of ancient humans/civilisation. (Dates for Tiahuanaco includes 1500s bc.)
- Bible has Exodus & Joshua's sun stand still about same time.
- Stonehenge (contemp Mycenanean) damaged on southwest side.
Many other evidences. Velikovsky wrote a whole book full of them. (I am not able or willing to have to write a whole book to prove it (esp as they will just reject me like they reject his).)

14. I already answered the date in recent post above/earlier and in my blog paper.

15. I can't answer the "reed" boats any better now/yet. But to be fair to me, I have already given some possible answers in posts from the first to the previous.

16. I already listed the matches between the Coricancha picture and Atlantis account:
- the great plain (Altiplano) and surrounding ditch and crossing channels.
- the sea (lake Titicaca)
- the canal/river?
- the cliff.
- the small hill / dwelling of (Poseidon &) Clito [the Akapana] (in the left side concentric city).
- the concentric circles city shown 2x (1 on left and 1 on right in the lake).
- a couple (Poseidon & Clito, or Clito's parents?) or twins?
- 2 crops a year ("sun/stars & moon/clouds = summer and winter") (sukukolus).
[- 7 islands/hills/cities?]
- maybe beyond the north wind? or shift? (the 2 star crosses).
- mountains?
- woodlands? or crop?
- gold/metal matches oreichalc "gold-copper"??
- "Vira-cocha" matches Poseidon?
The concentric circles and plain are also seen in Crespi collection. The concentric circles is also inthe Mochica/Chimu picture i posted and the Sillustani one, and Jim Allen's Pumapunku one, and Posnansky's collected Tiahuanaco gateway symbols. The Atlas (pillar) motif is common in Peruvian.
For one description of the Coricancha picture from Cuzco see Sitchin's 'Lost Realms'.


ps. I was maybe wrong about Wolf's Scheria/Phaeacia. In some ways it seems he may be right afterall, though there are still some frustrating uncertainties/difficulties that i can't yet see for sure if he is or not. But if he is right it has no disproof bearing on Atlantis because they are certainly not same site (if his is Scheria right).


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 24, 2015, 04:01:48 am
Some of these people dispute, but some of these are stark in my opinion. (Left out a few more of the 10 kings and the red white and black which are in my blog Atlantis paper/page.)

contents of matches below between Atlantis account and South America/Peru/Tiahuanaco:
outer ocean, outside pillars, wester, atlantic, route, sank, large island, kirchir map, mountains, Atlas motif, popn, civilisation, plain, midpoint, sea, distance city to sea, concentric/city, hill, temple/palace, central island, rw&b, volcanic/quakes, distance, date, oreichalc, 2 crops, elephants, bulls/"bulls", script, sacrifice, boats, name Atlantis, blue robes, poseidon, opposite continent, 10 ks/twins, other sources, gadeira?, came to before boats?, below sun?.


* in outer/real/true ocean not in Mediterranean/inner sea
- (South) Atlantic/Pacific/Antarctic.

* outside/beyond/front/facing/opposite not in Pillars
- North and South Americas both qualify as opposite Pillars (now/then, on various maps projections).
- South America is opposite in map projection with Giza/Cairo as/at centre/center (which Piri Reis map is supposed to match).
- pole shift.
- also compare Zanne's map.
- 45 degree tilt (Schulten/Sitchin)?
- Kirchir's map  fits/matches South America.
- possibly disputible where the Gibraltar/Tartessos/Gades/Huelva Pillars were (the pillars might not have been exactly at Gilbraltar/Tartessos/Gades/Huelva but abit further out/down)?
- sources seem to imply Atlas/Africa (& Europe/Gades/Spain) mirror Atlantis/S America/Andes (& N America)?


* western:
- Western Hemispere.

* in Atlantic:
- is in Atlantic. (Atlantic could be both sides of Atlantis.)
- "Atlantic/Ethiopian/Erythrean" sea/ocean was South Atlantic (Herodotus etc)?

* route
- the statue of man on horse that was once in Azores used to point (?south-)westwards and was named or connected with the word/name Cates/cati which means "this way" in Quechuan (Incan/Peruvian).
- ancient canal/strait of Tehuantepec (Compton)?
- Around north(west) corner and down west coast?
- there would have been different geography then before the shift/catastrophe. If there was a shift then America would have been closer to Africa.
- the candelabra on Peru coast seems to be a route marker?
- across Amazon/Madeira river/s.
- Through Magdalene river in Colombia?
- Through Entre Rios region?
-  around southern tip?
- it is possible that the 12 stages of Urani/Amenti/Aaru are a map across South America to Tiahuanaco?
- "extensive trade routes".
- "Seas were highways not barriers".
- links between Andes and Egypt/etc include reed boats Titicaca & Tana & Gulf; 3 pyramids Sipan & Giza; links between Tierra Dentro & Malta (Frank Joseph)?
- Seculus said they kept trade route secret?
- sites like Stede Citades, Paraiba, etc?
- 3 circles of Atlantis cross & 3 pyramids may match 3 landmasses?
- South American fan palm in Assyrian pictures of Toakkari Sea People?
- wind/tide currents?
- compare Naymlap etc?
- Africa sticks out further than Europe, and South America centred further east than North America.
- route of Viracocha extands from Potosi or Tiwanaku to Cajamarca or Macchu Picchu or Quito.


* "sank/sunk"/"submerged" / "swallowed"/"overwhelmed"/"disappered into the depths of the sea" (& "vanished/disappeared") in terrible quake/s & flood/s:
- the Account doesn't say "sank/sunk", it says swallowed-up.
- people have to consider that there are a number of possible scenarios/matches for "sunk/sank" (sunk/sank, sumbmerged,  tidal bulge, shifted, displacment, etc). It looks like the sinking is most likely continental shift or pole shift/crust displacement  (the land &/or water shifted sideways)?
- Tiahuanaco had flood in archaeology and in tradition/myth.
- long night catasrophe ca 1400 bc (Inca kinglists).
- unu Pachacuti "water overturns land"?
- evidences Andes pushed up suddenly & violently in lifetime of humans/civilisation (Velikovsky, Darwin, Lissner, Berlitz). (Dates for Tiahuanaco includes 1500s bc.)
- Stonehenge (contemp Mycenanean) damaged on southwest side.
- The catastrophe was global/continental/regional not just local? &/or Atlantis and Athens are on touching tectonic plates? (2 armies may or may not have been destroyed in same or not in same catastrophe/time, but fits either way.)

* large Island/continent/landmass
[larger than Asia & Libya (some dispute it is "between" not "larger than", but the majority of last 2500 years say larger than), "whole island", 10 regions, great/large plain, many species incl elephants,  (high) mountains, large population/army, Kirchir's map, Atlantis a "large/r island" that ruled over the other islands of Atlnatic, self-sufficient, etc. Compare that Herodotus said Europe was larger than Asia & Libya.] :
- Island in ancient and modern can mean island, continent, world island/old world, peninsula, etc.
The Old World is called the world island.
- Atlantis could only be either/both of the Americas or Armorica plate.
- (South) America (or Americas) is a large world/landmass/continent/island.
- Atlantis island in Kirchir's map is large and seems to match S America in details.
- if there was a continental shift then South America may have been more of an island before shift.
- Kusa?

* Kirchir map match:
- his Atlantis (betw America and Europe/Africa) seems similar to S America (between N America and Africa/Europe). S America is centred further east than N America.

* (high(est))mountains/Atlas
- Andes (which parallel Atlas) (though they have been pushed up higher in the catastrophe).
- mountains shown in Coricancha picture?

* Atlas [Shu] (world pillar/tree) motif
- spade symbol above head in Peruvian masks including the Chimu/Mochica one i posted earlier (from Pears).
- Ru "Atlas" (Polynesian)?
- hats of Easter island moai?
- Rairu's father Karu "sky maker"?
- Chamacoco tried to climb into sky up a huge tree?
-  the 2nd intermediate/air part of 3 parts of Coricancha picture?
- arco del cielo (Coricancha)?

* large population:
- South America is a continent.
- "There are also many evidences of large populations in South America, for thousands of years".
- finds a couple of years ago about Amazon then (geograpic/scientific magazine tweet on twitter?).
- evidence/s that Altiplano had high population (Allen).

* civilisation/high culture
- many Peruvian/Andean remains.
- the Heliolithic culture?

* large/great plain with surrounding ditch and criss-crossing channels:
-  Altiplano & geoglyphs,
- all 3 shown in Coricancha picture,
- seen/shown in Crespi collection.
- sukukolos "raised fields" Peruvian agriculture system.


* midpoint of the longest/sea side of island
- Peru/Titicaca/Altiplano is in middle area of Pacific side of Sth America.

* (near) sea
- lake Titicaca ("vast inland sea");
- shown in Coricancha picture.
- Andes then had Pacific geo-climate (Lissner).
-  evidences of Tiahuanaco connection with lake/sea/ocean then.
- "sea ports in the Andes" (Velikovsky, Sykes, Daniken).

* 9.2 km distance from city to sea:
- roughly the exact same distance from Tiahuanaco to Titicaca. (The figures of sources vary. One says Tiahuanaco 10 miles from Titicaca, another says "Tiahuanaco [now] 12 m sth of Titicaca"? Another says a few / 13 miles from Titicaca.)
- "vast area" / "several square miles in area".

* circular/concentric land/water circles (&) city
- concentric canals/circles in Tiahuanaco/tiwanaku diagrams (Posnansky/Sitchin/Alford),
- shown 2x in Coricancha altar picture,
- Pumapunku inscription (Allen),
- shown in Sillustani inscription (wiki) [compare with Chalco glyph Mexico?],
- concentric circles shown in Chanchan/Chimu inscription (picture posted in earlier post).
- concentric circles seen in the Chimu/Mochica mask i posted in earlier post.
 - concentric circles seen in Calango stone (Sitchin 'Lost Realms'),
- concentric circles shown in Crespi collection (Daniken). Also maybe shown in head of figure in Crespi collection?
-  Posnansky has concentric circles symbols from Tiahuanaco/gateway (Sitchin).
-  "radiating cross" (Sitchin).
- The snuff tablet in wiki Tiwanaku article also possibly shows water/circles (Wiki)??
-  3 carved channels between Ilyapa temple & rainbow temple?
- 4 parts Cuzco recall Atlantis cross?
- concentric circles also in the 3 windows drawing of Salcamayhua?
-  evidence that Tiahuanaco/Akapana was connected with Titicaca (water).
- Eldorado/Manoa?
- Huinaymarka means "eternal city".
- Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku called "Baalbek of New World".
- Atlantis/Tiahuanaco city & Titicaca is (inverse) analogy of Eridu/etc city & Persian Gulf.
- "lost city of giants Ecuador"?
- Atlantis can only be in Americas (incl/excl Antarctica) or Armorica plate, and (Titicaca &) Tiahuanaco is only place in the whole Americas & in Peru & around Titicaca that it can be and that fits/matches.


* small hill / dwelling of (Poseidon &) Clito:
- Akapana (Posnansky/Alford/Sitchin/Daniken drawings/descriptions),
- shown in Coricancha picture?

* temple/palace (& sizes [185mx92m])
- kalasasya 400x450ft /
- kantatayita /
(- puma pinku) /
- throne room160x130ft / [100x85ft /
- hall 45x22ft]?
- "the monolithic gateway of the temple is the largest example of its kind in the world".
- coricancha "golden palace"?

* central island 5 stades:
- central island Tiahuanaco 2x1 miles.


* red white & black (&) cliff/s:
- r w & blue steps church Paucarcolla,
- gold silver copper,
- the first people were divided into tribes according to their colour [3 castes/races?] (Kadevo, Brazil)?
-  3 parts Coricancha picture [heaven, air, world/underworld]?
- cliff(s) shown in Coricancha picture?
 

* volcanic/tectonic/quakes line:
Some sources reckon Atlantis "must" be in a volcanic/quakes region because of discovery/thesis a couple of years ago that ancient sites seemingly often were/are.
- Tiahuanaco is near Khapia.
- the candelabra?


* distance (remotest, at ends of world, at distant point in Atlantic, unmixed with other mortals).
- Peru is western-most and southern-most (tropic capricorn) of major world civilisations.
- compare people object because of the distance.
- if there was a continental shift then Atlantis/America was once closer to Old World.

* date ("9000 yrs before" / "9600 bc", or 900 yrs before / ca 1400s bc) ("3rd deluge") ["bronze age"; same time as Moses].
- Many scholars say it is not possible because Athens/Sais/etc wasn't there so early.
- Plato's 900(0) years Atlantis = Herodotus' 900 years Moeris & 900 yrs Hercules.
- Hyperboreans lived a 1000 years = 100 years.
-  Exodus mentions enemies of Egypt?
- shoal of Sesostris?
- long night c 1400/1394 bc (Inca king lists, Sitchin, cp Hoeh),
- archaeologists date for Tiahuanaco [1580 bc] bc.
- "Bronze Age America"?
-  Exodus & Joshua's sun stand still about same time.
- Posnansky date for Tiahuanaco.
-  "12000th yr" Tiahuanaco.
- 10481bc Akakor (though supposed to be a fake)?
- Peruvian is the oldest civilisation/agriculture in Americas (and one of the few oldest of world).
- in Americas "oldest is south and east not north and west" (Compton).
- Stonehenge (contemp Mycenanean) damaged on southwest side.


  * oreichalc ("gold + copper/gold")
- gold byproduct of copper/zinc production.
- tumbaga "gilded/gold - copper (Allen)?
- gilded-copper (Sipan).
- Crespi collection includes brass/tin/zinc?
- AuAgCu of Chavin (Mattievich)?
- Akapana/Tiahuanco/Titicaca/Andes/Peru a copper/tin/zinc smelting/mining centre (Sitchin  'Lost Realms'),
-  Andes/Peru is [one of the] major/richest source(s)/deposits of copper/tin/zinc in world (Collins atlas).
- Tiwanaku ~ Anaku "tin"?
- Andes ~ antis "copper"?
- titicaca may (be from titikala and) mean "tin/lead crag/rock"?
-  "Bronze Age America" (Fell)?
-  uru names in Andes (Sitchin),
- gold of Eldorado/Conquistadores/Peru/Coricancha?
- "unusual alloys" in America [similar to "unusual alloys" in Africa] (Jantsang & lost source)?
- stone blocks with grooves/ [nail] holes [for metal sheets] at [Pumapunku]?
[- compare "tears of the lady" with tears of the sun?]

* 2 crops a year
- sukakollus summer & winter agriculture system.
- shown in Coricancha picture ("sun/stars & moon/clouds = summer & winter", Sicthin);
- before Andes raised.

* elephants
- seen in Crespi collection,
- mastodons/toxodon (Allen, Hanc0ck, Childress).
- Americas had "Indian" elephants (MacKenzie).

* bulls (sacrifice)
-  Sitchin 'Lost Realms',
- "bulls"/llama (Allen 'Atlantis in Bolivia')?
- horned animal sacrificing a human (Sipan pottery, Reader's Digest 'Vanished civs').
-  ceramic stone bulls on housetops,
- pottery cow / cow shaped vase / cow sacrificed & entrails put in vase (Larouse world mythology),
- seated "deer" figure carrying a club (Larouse world mythology).

* script
- Crespi collection (Daniken),
- Colango stone (Sitchin),
- before quipus.

* (bull) sacrifice
- horned animal sacrificing a human (Sipan pottery, Reader's Digest 'Vanished civs').
- llama sacrifice (Allen).
- cow sacrificed & entrails put in vase (Larouse world mythology).

* some matches for boats/seafaring:
- 10 ships Paraiba inscription (Kolosimo)?
- compare totora/reed boats (shape/design if not material) [similar to Noah's Ark (Fasold)],
- Heyerdahl.
- Chimu/Mochica "myth" says Naymlap arrived with a "fleet" of "balsas" (Pears),
- Chimu (Chan chan) pottery figure of "reed boat" titled "life on the ocean wave"?
- Peruvians had "sea-worthy rafts" (Readers Digest 'Vanished Civs").
- "sea ports in the Andes" (Velikovsky/etc).
-  Dragon-boat racing Puno?
-  raft of Taycanamo myth?
- evidences that Phoenicians visited (South) America.
-  Polynesians.
-  "Maps of the ancient sea kings" (Hapgood).
- "the seas were highways not barriers".
- the "archaic maritime" culture of North America,
- "extensive trade routes".
- coc(h)a "sea" names?

* name Atlantis/Atlantic/Atlas
- the Account says the names were Greek translations of Egyptian translations of Atlantean originals.
- there are possible matches for the name in S America/Tiahuanaco area eg Tahuantinsuyo / Antisuyo/Antisuco / antis/Andes; isla Allan; Atau?; ["Alpha"?]; [Atlatona?].

* some matches for blue robes:
- Araucanian blue robe (Huxley).
- gold & blue (robe) Sipan?
- gold & blue Chanchan?


* Posei-don (sea/water / quakes / horses / trident etc god):
- Vira-coc(h)a "sea" god?
- Pachacamac god of earthquakes?
- shown in Coricancha picture?
- Rimac?
- Eldorado?
- candelabra like trident?

* (parts of) opposite continent:
- matches either  N America (cp Kirchir map)? Asia (cp 2/3 steps, Indus/Hrozny)? Australia? Antarctica?
- Kusa & Pushkara?

* 10 (5x2/twins) kings  [12 ks Scheria?]:
- 5 deities of the Urus?
-  5 flanking either side on 'Gate of the Sun',
- 5 fountains?
-  9th inca rebuilt temple sun?
- 9/10 [icons/sephiroth] Coricancha altar picture?
- 10 kings Taycanamo dynasty,
- 10 ships Paraiba inscription (Kolosimo)?
- 10th king after Naymlap?
- 10 citadels/enclosures Chanchan.
- 11 pillars Tiahuanaco?
- 13/26 cities Akakor map (though supposed to be a fake)?
- some cities/tribes were founded by or descended from two persons (i can't find the details/references at moment). King and nobles of Chanchan "descended from 2 stars".
- 2 creatures in the concentric circles in the El Dragon picture (Chanchan)? (That's the picture i posted earlier.)
- Tupi & Guarani? Witoto & Zaparo? Quechua & Aymara? Yahgan & Ona? Quat & Iae?
- Bachue always bore quadruplets or sextuplets?

* other versions other than Plato's showing/saying where it was:
- the Inca picture from the Coricancha with half a dozen to a dozen matches of details from the Atlantis account?
- chimu/mochica mask has atlas pillar motif & concentric circles.
- Alfords & sitchins/posnansky's Tiahuanaco diagrams have the circles & small hill.
- the matches between Peru and Atlantis are too strong to just be "from Atlantis (or part of Atlantis) but not Atlantis".
- the 12 stages of Tuat/Amenti may match South America?


* Gadeira:
- Cadira Venezuela?
- Gades/Spain/Europe & Atlas/Africa maybe analogous to North America & South America/Andes/Atlantis?

* Poseidon came to Atlantis large island &/or Atlantis royal island before boats/ships:
- continental shift &/or Atlantic land bridges??

* under/below the sun?:
- tropic capricorn?
- equator cuts through Peru in pole shift maps?


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 26, 2015, 05:00:24 pm
Quote
0. it is 64 views now, but was 50 then. Subtract our views from the reading/posting 18 replies.

Sean, why do you care how many views you get? We're a pretty small forum here, I guess if you posted on Hancock's website, you'd get more feedback. Then, you'd also run into a few more blanket skeptics and New Agers, too, who believe all sorts of other stuff.

Some of us have been searching for Atlantis for years and we have our own views on it, we also read the dialogues a lot more literally. Maybe that is a mistake, but I have yet to come across an Atlantis theory that does not do its share of fudging many of the details to fit a particular point of view and yours is no exception.
Quote
1. The Coricancha pictiure you blew-up (&) from a different source has distorted the concentric circles in the (lower left side of the) lake in the right side of the picture.

I'm not seeing any concentric circles there, where are they..?  The grid-like structure looks like it might be the flat plain, and I take it the two figures are supposed to be Poseidon and Cleito. You do know that orthodox archaeology has a whole different take on the relief, right?

Quote
2. I can not read the tiny bleared text in the drawing below.

I hate to say it, but your pics are so small, I can't make out any of the details on them, which is why I am looking for better images of them.

Quote
3. Whether people accept that picture or not, we have also posted others some of which surely can't be disputed. Orthodox are well known for corrupt versions/copies of pictures. The Mochica/Chimu mask i posted above clealry shows the Atlas pillar motif symbol rising from the concentric city.

And I am not seeing anything in South America that resembled the capital city. Remember, Plato said it was close to the sea, a five and a half mile canal cutting through the concentric circles to the Citadel. It should look like a bullseye on any map and should only be about five miles from the sea.

Quote
4. Look, the darn Atlantis account does so say "9000" years before Amasis 2. It does not say 9500 bc. I have already given my (strong) evidence that it is 900 years not 9000 years, and ca 1400s bc not 9600 bc. So we will just have to agree to disagree. Other scholars have also given evidence that it can not be 9000s bc but must be bronze age. It is not as simple as taking or not taking literaly. I have shown his date is literally true but it is not "literal". No one have proven 9600 bc/9000 yrs.

Like I said, 9000 years before Solon places it at 9650 BC. But let's forget about that for now and not take Plato quite so literally: let's just say it was in the distant past. We have evidence of calamities like Plato writes about in the distant past, we do not have them at 1400 BC, certainly nothing that could make a whole island vanish beneath the sea.
Quote
he account doesn't even say "sunk/sank" but overwhelmed or swallowed or various other translations (like the one you posted earlier).
Tiahuanaco/Titicaca is "sunk" because the whole continent "sunk/sank".


He says:

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

So not only did Atlantis vanish into the sea (like an island would), but the sea was supposed to be impassible in those parts because of the mud. Many ancient scholars make mention of an impassible sea because of mud, I think even Aristotle did it. Plato is the lone one that gives a reason for it. Some Atlantis theorists cite that as a reason for the Sargasso Sea to have been so impassible, but it had to have been someplace near the Med, because the Greek colonies only extended as far as Spain and Gibraltar, so they weren't in the habit of venturing out that far. They sure as heck didn't get as far as South America.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 26, 2015, 05:18:06 pm
Sillustani Stone
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Sillustani_Stone.jpg/459px-Sillustani_Stone.jpg)

Interesting that you should bring this up, but the spiral in itself proves nothing. It is in rock art all over the world:

Scotland:

(http://www.spirasolaris.ca/newgrsw.gif)

Gabon:

(http://www.paim.net/circles/gabon2.gif)

AUSTRALIA
(http://www.paim.net/circles/australia.jpg)


THE ALPS

(http://www.paim.net/circles/alps.jpg)

(http://www.paim.net/circles/alps2.jpg)
(http://www.paim.net/circles/alps3.gif)

(http://www.paim.net/circles/alps4.gif)

(http://www.paim.net/circles/alps5.jpg)

SPAIN

(http://www.paim.net/circles/spain.jpg)

   B O L I V I A

(http://www.paim.net/circles/bolivia.jpg)

Cuba:

(http://www.paim.net/circles/cuba.jpg)

Korea:

(http://www.paim.net/circles/korea.jpg)

California:

(http://www.paim.net/circles/usa.jpg)

AT FUENTE DE LA ZARZA
LA PALMA, CANARY ISLANDS

(http://www.paim.net/circles/canary.jpg)

Ireland:

(http://www.paim.net/circles/ireland.jpg)

This is one of the reasons I think that Atlantis was an island empire. No way could it have been in all of these places so I see them as a sea  faring empire that touched pretty much every place in the world. Like I said, the capital is underwater (like Plato states) and it was the part that sunk.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 27, 2015, 01:07:05 am
Can we just deal with one detail (like say concentric circles (&) city) &/or one picture at a time? Is too much. Though i will just reply to your more than one points.

Some of us have been searching for Atlantis for years and we have our own views on it, we also read the dialogues a lot more literally. Maybe that is a mistake, but I have yet to come across an Atlantis theory that does not do its share of fudging many of the details to fit a particular point of view and yours is no exception.

If you want to assert every single detail has to be Totally Litteral Modern English Interpretation then you will never agree with our find and will never find a site that matches. World history proves that authors/sources do not always have exact modern interpretation meaning.

Authors/sources sometimes have not entirely "literal" words/phrases/etc. I can't think of any example except:
Do you say Joshua literally halted the sun? Why is Plato/Sonchis any more True than bible?


I am offend that you say i am not taking literally and/or "fudging". I do not fudge the Atlantis account. I do take the account very seriously/literally. There are just a few things that are not completely "literal" in the way you like. You can not assert that every single detail is absolutely literal modern interpretation. We have proved each detail is literal or "almost-literal". Each detail has to be proven/disproven not/"literal". The account fits our findings, our findings fit the account in each detail and in general/interconnections. I am not making it fit a point of view. In and since 1999 we read and studied and thought and searched/investigated/analysed and deducted, and finally about 1-2 years ago for the city we were forced to accept it was that site.


Look as you say everyone has their own pet theories and wants to find Atlantis themselves. I am sorry. Perhaps it is better for everyone to find it (there) themselves by coming to it in their own way & time. I myself didn't like that David Fasold was right about Tiahuanaco (and Jim Allen was almost spot on), but i was forced to accept the stark evidences (listed in previous post).
I have provided tons of evidences but seems is not enough or not written good enough (and not good enough pictures).
Why should i care anyway? Let everyone believe what they want about Atlantis and/or about me/my thesis. It is not worth it (I have other things i need/want to do, can't recover forever lost hours (for ages) replying/proving to people).


I'm not seeing any concentric circles there, where are they..?  The grid-like structure looks like it might be the flat plain, and I take it the two figures are supposed to be Poseidon and Cleito. You do know that orthodox archaeology has a whole different take on the relief, right?

The circles in Coricancha picture are shown two times. See the very first post of this topic. Click on the attached picture thumbnail for larger. First time is on the left (the "rainbow/arch"). Second time is in the lower left side of the lake on right, though i am abit unsure about this 2nd one now because some versions don't show it while my version/s does.

We can discuss the "whole different take" of orthodox on the Coricancha picture if you wish. I am confident we are right about half/dozen matches with Atlantis Account details.


I hate to say it, but your pics are so small, I can't make out any of the details on them, which is why I am looking for better images of them.

All the pictures i posted are thumbnails that can be clicked on (i couldn't find how to attach pictures that way you do, may require posting links not uploading.) Some are small but some aren't. (Can also try using magnify.) Some of the pictures say/said Zero views.



And I am not seeing anything in South America that resembled the capital city. Remember, Plato said it was close to the sea, a five and a half mile canal cutting through the concentric circles to the Citadel. It should look like a bullseye on any map and should only be about five miles from the sea.

My sources say 9.2km. Both the Account distance and the Tiahauanaco (now/then) distance vary between sources. But some i saw seem to be almost exactly the same km/miles.
This is what i mean about things being ignored.
 I'll just repost from my previous post:

* 9.2 km distance from city to sea:
- roughly the exact same distance from Tiahuanaco to Titicaca. (The figures of sources vary. One says Tiahuanaco 10 miles from Titicaca, another says "Tiahuanaco [now] 12 m sth of Titicaca"? Another says a few / 13 miles from Titicaca.)
- "vast area" / "several square miles in area".

* circular/concentric land/water circles (&) city
- concentric canals/circles in Tiahuanaco/tiwanaku diagrams (Posnansky/Sitchin/Alford),
- shown 2x in Coricancha altar picture,
- Pumapunku inscription (Allen),
- shown in Sillustani inscription (wiki) [compare with Chalco glyph Mexico?],
- concentric circles shown in Chanchan/Chimu inscription (picture posted in earlier post).
- concentric circles seen in the Chimu/Mochica mask i posted in earlier post.
 - concentric circles seen in Calango stone (Sitchin 'Lost Realms'),
- concentric circles shown in Crespi collection (Daniken). Also maybe shown in head of figure in Crespi collection?
-  Posnansky has concentric circles symbols from Tiahuanaco/gateway (Sitchin).
-  "radiating cross" (Sitchin).
- The snuff tablet in wiki Tiwanaku article also possibly shows water/circles (Wiki)??
-  3 carved channels between Ilyapa temple & rainbow temple?
- 4 parts Cuzco recall Atlantis cross?
- concentric circles also in the 3 windows drawing of Salcamayhua?
-  evidence that Tiahuanaco/Akapana was connected with Titicaca (water).
- Eldorado/Manoa?
- Huinaymarka means "eternal city".
- Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku called "Baalbek of New World".
- Atlantis/Tiahuanaco city & Titicaca is (inverse) analogy of Eridu/etc city & Persian Gulf.
- "lost city of giants Ecuador"?
- Atlantis can only be in Americas (incl/excl Antarctica) or Armorica plate, and (Titicaca &) Tiahuanaco is only place in the whole Americas & in Peru & around Titicaca that it can be and that fits/matches.


* small hill / dwelling of (Poseidon &) Clito:
- Akapana (Posnansky/Alford/Sitchin/Daniken drawings/descriptions),
- shown in Coricancha picture?

* temple/palace (& sizes [185mx92m])
- kalasasya 400x450ft /
- kantatayita /
(- puma pinku) /
- throne room160x130ft / [100x85ft /
- hall 45x22ft]?
- "the monolithic gateway of the temple is the largest example of its kind in the world".
- coricancha "golden palace"?

* central island 5 stades:
- central island Tiahuanaco 2x1 miles.


Like I said, 9000 years before Solon places it at 9650 BC. But let's forget about that for now and not take Plato quite so literally: let's just say it was in the distant past. We have evidence of calamities like Plato writes about in the distant past, we do not have them at 1400 BC, certainly nothing that could make a whole island vanish beneath the sea.

it seems to me that you are admant that 9000 years must only be literal 9000 years. I have already given my answer to 9000 years. We do have a match for ca 1400s bc and 900 (and 800) years. (E.g. Moses/Joshua; Hercules; Moeris; long night in Inca king lists; at least one archaeological date for Tiahuanaco; etc.)

I have already explained how the whole island vanished.
How come i can't (supposedly) "fudge"/"take not literally" but others can? Atlantis was a large island and "sank". You say can't be literal large island (& sank) / (large island &) sank. I say is large island, and did  genuinely/"literaly" "sink", just not literally "sink" in  the way you expect/insist/assume/assert/interpret/traasnlate. (The account doesn't say sank in many versions though one does say sank.) There are a number of possible scenarios for the "sinking" of the Account (literal sink, submerge, shift, displacment, etc). Perhaps a more detailed study of the whole Account on the "sinking" would provide evidence for what the "sinking" was?

He says:
But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.
So not only did Atlantis vanish into the sea (like an island would), but the sea was supposed to be impassible in those parts because of the mud. Many ancient scholars make mention of an impassible sea because of mud, I think even Aristotle did it. Plato is the lone one that gives a reason for it. Some Atlantis theorists cite that as a reason for the Sargasso Sea to have been so impassible, but it had to have been someplace near the Med, because the Greek colonies only extended as far as Spain and Gibraltar, so they weren't in the habit of venturing out that far. They sure as heck didn't get as far as South America.

See my Atlantis page/paper/notes at 2rbetterthan1.wordpress.com , Atlantis page (link top right). See in contents and then in main text the part on "muddy sea" which mentions sediments, etc. Shift or displacment would have caused it. (Also see other ancient sources quotes mentioning Atlantic mud/etc like you say. Sesostris shoal?)

 -----

Re the 2nd reply/post (no quote)

Yes i know that there are concentric circles/spirals all around the world, but we have nevertheless shown  in previous post that Atlantis large islnad and city and plain and mountains and so on only (&) best matches Tiahuanaco/Peru/South America.
Yes Atlantis & Atlanteans was known aorund the world and had empire and many other travels, but no Atlantis can't "not be one site/land". Atlantis like Hyperborea was built to mirror the spheres of heaven (&/or earth). Yes it had an empire but it was also a large island/landmass/continent, as i showed/listed many times in this topic (see previous reply/post).
Atlantis can't be in all those places. And none of those places matches all the details of the Account except for Peru/Bolivia. That is taking the Account as literally as humanly possible in almost all the details, far more than any others.

The Silustani one is certainly Atlantis/Tiahuanaco. The wedge seems to be the cliff/s?
Look at the Mochica/Chimu mask i posted it has the Atlas pillar rising from the centre of concentric circles Atlantis city/Tiahuanaco. Atlas pillar motif (spade symbol) is common in Peruvian.
The other Chanchan one clearly has 3 rings, and it is similar to "rainbow" in Coricancha picture.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on January 27, 2015, 03:34:45 am
This picture seems to maybe have the circles in the lake
www.labyrinthina.com/inca.altar01
but this one doesn't and it instead looks like is just a few marks there
http://galacticdoor2011.blog.com/files/2011/12/gold-map-in-coricancha.jpg
So maybe in the one that does seem to have them it is just an illusion of concentric circles from few marks. But the circles are still in the left hand side ("rainbow/arch") and the dot in the right hand side joint to lake by canal may be the city rather than lake Poopo as i had thought. (Thus the canal & city are shown on left and right?  (as Atlantis account says)).

I only have slower-than-used-to-be-before-the-evil-fibre-optics-broadband-campaign/changes Dialup so i am not able to do any more net/web pictures research unfortunately (I have already been on tody for 4/+ hours!)
I guess the only way to do this is to offer to pay a reward to someone who can get me aerial and satellite photos (2km x 2km, ..., 9 km x 9 km, ..., upto 22 x 22 km, centred on Akapana), plus Posnanskies plans/diagrams/maps.

circle(s), & the "small hill":
www.condoramericano.com.ar/historia/Tiahuanaco.htm

Posnansky's symbols from Tiahuanaco gateway incl concnetric circles city
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/reinosperdidos/reinosperdidos10.htm

cliff?
blog.world-mysteries.com/science/ancient-ruins-of-tiwanacu-and-pumapunku/

opposite pillars of hercules (esp if has shifted)
community.adlandpro.com/forums/post/2393680/ALL-ABOUT-COSMIC-CYCLES-AND-AGES/4.aspx

Even if we more heavily prove than we have already the concentric circles i am sure people will still deny it.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Desiree on January 31, 2015, 02:01:59 am
Quote
If you want to assert every single detail has to be Totally Litteral Modern English Interpretation then you will never agree with our find and will never find a site that matches.

I don't assert that every detail has to match. Logically, the Greeks had no idea where exactly Atlantis was, namely because:

1. None of them had ever been there.
2. There was no method of telling the passage of time existing in the era that Atlantis existed. The Greeks themselves weren't even a culture then.

What bugs me, Sean, is that some researchers, and I have to add you to the list, take some details more seriously than others or try to ignore some details in order to fit a theory.

We know it happened a long time ago, we know that it was beyond the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar) and we know that it vanished into the sea. To my mind, all other details, the when and the where of it, are open to interpretation.
Quote
I am offend that you say i am not taking literally and/or "fudging". I do not fudge the Atlantis account. I do take the account very seriously/literally. There are just a few things that are not completely "literal" in the way you like.

I'm offended that you are offended! Look at all the various interpretations: Bury, Jowett, all the others, they all say 9000 years in the past.

From Critias:

Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe.

As for the physical description of the city (excuse the length of this):

And beginning from the sea they bored a canal of three hundred feet in width and one hundred feet in depth and fifty stadia in length, which they carried through to the outermost zone, making a passage from the sea up to this, which became a harbour, and leaving an opening sufficient to enable the largest vessels to find ingress. Moreover, they divided at the bridges the zones of land which parted the zones of sea, leaving room for a single trireme to pass out of one zone into another, and they covered over the channels so as to leave a way underneath for the ships; for the banks were raised considerably above the water. Now the largest of the zones into which a passage was cut from the sea was three stadia in breadth, and the zone of land which came next of equal breadth; but the next two zones, the one of water, the other of land, were two stadia, and the one which surrounded the central island was a stadium only in width. The island in which the palace was situated had a diameter of five stadia. All this including the zones and the bridge, which was the sixth part of a stadium in width, they surrounded by a stone wall on every side, placing towers and gates on the bridges where the sea passed in. The stone which was used in the work they quarried from underneath the centre island, and from underneath the zones, on the outer as well as the inner side.

That is a very specific, very detailed description of the concentric circles and it doesn't actually match Tiahuanaco. I am NOT adamant about the 9000 years, just the idea that some of the other details don't match: no real calamity to match the kind that Plato wrote about, no evidence of the war (or any contacts at all between the Med and South America at all at that time), and the fact that, with the technology of their boats at that time and their geographic location, Tiahuanaco was not actually in position to have a sea empire, let alone one in the Med.

The concentric circles around the world are important!  I always believed they were evidence of the sea empire that actually was the basis for Atlantis. You're probably aware of this, but it wasn't actually called Atlantis!  Plato also wrote:

Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners. I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language.

So, that, like other details makes the account even more open to interpretation.



Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on February 01, 2015, 06:05:18 pm
Ok i am wrong then. Stupid dumb Sean. It just takes far too much time and effort and i just don't have the ability/health, time, resources, situation.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on February 01, 2015, 06:35:19 pm
Lets just take one thing at a time. Since the concentric circles seems to be the biggest issue? maybe take that.

And beginning from the sea they bored a canal of three hundred feet in width and one hundred feet in depth and fifty stadia in length, which they carried through to the outermost zone, making a passage from the sea up to this, which became a harbour, and leaving an opening sufficient to enable the largest vessels to find ingress.

Several sources say Tiahuanaco and the Akapana were connected with Titicaca.
There is canal/s there eg the desaguadero (spelling?), and in Posnansky's/Sitchin's/Alford's diagrams. Maybe also in satellite pics but i couldn't tell if canal or modern road.
The canal is seen in a few inscirptions/pictures from Tiahuanaco, eg the Calango stone. The Coricancha picture also shows canal.

Moreover, they divided at the bridges the zones of land which parted the zones of sea, leaving room for a single trireme to pass out of one zone into another, and they covered over the channels so as to leave a way underneath for the ships; for the banks were raised considerably above the water. Now the largest of the zones into which a passage was cut from the sea was three stadia in breadth, and the zone of land which came next of equal breadth; but the next two zones, the one of water, the other of land, were two stadia,

I can't prove the outer 1 or 2 circles on the ground at Tiahaunaco (only in pictures), i can only prove the inner 1 or 2 circle/s and central island on the ground. But Tiahuanaco does have other parts that seem to fit with other land circles (Pumapunku, etc). I need satellite and aerial and infra red photos, and archaeological reports, which i don't have access to on only dialup etc.
The inner circle/s & island we can prove and does imply the other 1/2 circles; and the concentric circles inscriptions/depictions from Tiahuanaco, Pumapnunku, Peru confirm we are right.

and the one which surrounded the central island was a stadium only in width. The island in which the palace was situated had a diameter of five stadia.

This matches Tiahuanaco positively. We already posted the pictures from Posnansky/Sitchin/Alford showing the inner ring and inner central island. Eg:
www.condoramericano.com.ar/historia/Tiahuanaco.htm
We posted the text showning the inner island matches the inner island of Tiahuanaco in size and in palace/temple (and small hill). Quote:
"* central island 5 stades:
- central island Tiahuanaco 2x1 miles."

 -------------

I posted pictures and text proving but is all ignored. I am not wasting anymore time. I hate people making me look falsely wrong by ignoring (or other things i have had elsewhere).

in very first post, in Corciancha picture we see:
- concentric circles city 1 or 2 or 3 times.
- the small hill (akapana)
- the canal.
- the sea (lake)
- the large plain & dicth and channels
- the 2 crops a year
- the cliff/s.
- a couple (Poseidon & Clito?) or twins
etc

in reply 15 pictures we see in picture 1 (Mochica/Chimu mask)
the 3 concentric cirlces, the Atlas pillar.
in pic 2  (Chanchan/Chimu inscirption)
the 3 concentric cirles
in picture 3 (Posnanskys/Alfords diagram of Tiahuanaco)
2 concentric circles and canal, and small hill
in picture 4 (Posnansky's/Sitchin's diagram of Tiahuanaco)
the inner circle and island, and the small hill, and temple/palace.


in reply 16 we see in pic 1
the 3 concentric circles (note from Pumapunku part of Tiahuanaco)
in pict 2 (Sillustani)
we see the circles and the cliff?

in reply 25 i posted links to pictures including
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/reinosperdidos/reinosperdidos10.htm
which shows circles etc from Tiahuanaco gateway.

in the Calango stone we see the 3 circles and the canal cutting through the city (and 5, and script)

So we have at least 1 or 2 of the circles in the ground at Tiahauanco, and we have all the circles confirmed in pictures from Tiahuanaco/Pumapunku and Peru.



Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on March 30, 2015, 06:24:13 pm
Just an update on the dispute about boats (and distance and invading/projecting)
We have found a seeming match of Atlantis with (Tarshish-)Kittim in the bible. And there is mentions of navy/fleet/ships. [Though some of the references are later and may be Tartessos, Moses also mentioned Tarshish-Kittim earlier.]
There is also a strange possible connection of Tarshish-Kittim with both Atlantis/America and Thera-Crete, which might possibly suggest connection between the two (so Atlantis had a Mediterranean "base"?)

(daughter/navy/ships/kings/stone of) Tarshish /  Tarshish(-Kittim) (from rasasu/rss "mine, (to) smelt, smelting plant, metal refinery, refinery, furnace", "a type of (semi) precious gemstone/yellow jasper/beryl/chrysolite / topaz,  amber"; "a destruction that breaks into pieces of white, ie white volcanic ash rock or pumice", "solid/rocky, the region/place of the stone", "hard; hardness; severity; breaking; broken; subdued; subjected", "gravitational energy; precipitant force", "sea, name of a sea 2000 parasangs wide, the sea coast") (no "and" between Tarshish & Kittim; "a wealthy and flourishing seaport town towards the west"; heartofseas?;  merchants/ships, merchant/riches/metals/ silver/gold, stone of, ivory)
~ Thera(-Crete)? Central America(-South America/Atlantis)? (Central America-)South America/Atlantis/oreichalc? Megalithic/heliolithic? copper/bronze/iron?

(isles/islands/land/ships/coast of) Kittim /  (Tarshish-)Kittim (meaning "violent peltings" "bruisers/break" / "invaders" / "bitter & hasty nation") (ivory, fleet, "used for all islands and greater part of sea coasts/coastlands", no "and" between Tarshish & Kittim)
~ (Central America-)South America/**Atlantis**. (Thera-)Crete/Keftiou? (Iron?) [in Ezekiel prophecy Usa &/or Uk?]


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Hermocrates on September 05, 2015, 03:37:50 pm
Hi Sean,

About the Pole shift/Displacement, anyone who has researched Atlantis ends up doing a lot of reading about that, and everything I have heard on the subject, it doesn't happen overnight. It happens over hundreds and even thousands of years. It would be an immense cataclysm! I don't see the geology pointing to that in 9600 BC, let alone in the more recent time frame you set it in. How do you explain that?


Desiree,

I like the way you, logically, reflect on certain things that Plato has stated, and then, holding to that as your standard, you measure and weigh the claims made by anyone as to the identity and location of Atlantis. You, then, pose your thoughts and logical assessment of those claims, by carefully pointing out the pro and cons, and finally, if it does not meet, or closely approximates your measurements (Plato's words) you, boldly, point out the apparent follies of their thesis, which certainly had not, readily, entered their minds before they invested all that time and efforts to fully developed their thesis and ideas. That makes a lot of sense, this reflective method of yours, I mean. We all should apply it, as you do. Apparently, some people do not understand, or do not want to understand, for a reason, that if they build on a bad and very shaky foundation, their buildings will never stand straight, and will, sooner or later, topple over and crumble to pieces. Still, even after the many, "I told you so," they try to sell these partial things that went to edify their glorious and magnificent structures, these crumbled pieces, which never fitted well in the details and plans given to us by Plato. All that glitters is not gold? 

But, in a return in kind, I have to pose the same argument, and use this same tool of measurement you do. I can understand if you do not want to respond. I'm not trying to be confrontational, as I just want to understand how the standards are generated for assessing and critiquing claims around here. And I hope that I'm not being out of place in posing you a question.

Why do you, Desiree, who seems to believe in Atlantis and Plato's words about it, cannot believe that these type of catastrophic events can occur quickly? Was not Atlantis destroyed and sank in a day and a night?


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on September 06, 2015, 02:50:55 am

I have already answered the pole shift / crust displacment etc at http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,34543.0/msg,261684.html


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on September 13, 2015, 11:51:55 pm

I have now answered the "ocean or sea" and the "in or out of the pillars" linguistics objections. http://lifetradition.webs.com/atlantis.htm
just leaves the invaded upto Tyrrhenia & Libya/Egypt objection to answer.

I see someone has hacked my account here as it showed me online when i was not online (but just as visitor/guest). I will try change my account security settings but not sure they won't be able to get around it because they already logged in. Shows someone here is not so good as they make out.
I don't know what posts of mine they have changed/altered/deleted or what posts they have posted under my name.

I still have not viewed any replies since i said i was leaving.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Hermocrates on September 14, 2015, 12:24:56 pm

I have now answered the "ocean or sea" and the "in or out of the pillars" linguistics objections. http://lifetradition.webs.com/atlantis.htm
just leaves the invaded upto Tyrrhenia & Libya/Egypt objection to answer.

I see someone has hacked my account here as it showed me online when i was not online (but just as visitor/guest). I will try change my account security settings but not sure they won't be able to get around it because they already logged in. Shows someone here is not so good as they make out.
I don't know what posts of mine they have changed/altered/deleted or what posts they have posted under my name.

I still have not viewed any replies since i said i was leaving.


Sean,

Why do you suppose me to have pointed out to Desiree Plato's words, other than a clarification on how to, logically, and uniformly apply any critique to any speculations brought forth, such as yours, to all the particulars mentioned in Plato's dialogues? But if you want to see some “real fudging” and what some accept on this site, then you need to converse with “Paulo Riven” and his posts here on this very site. Now, if some think it strange that religion is present, and accepted on this site, just ask Paulo, as you will not only get traditional religion, but you will also get Science Fiction, New Age nonsense, “Star Wars” like legends,  Mysticism, Gnosticism, "Objectionism," Catechism, "Egyptologism," "Confusism," Paganism, Materialism, "Imaginism," "Contradictionisim," "BSism," and just about every kind of “ism.”

Your argument, that the land mass of South America before the pole shift, or whatever else you may propose as cause, could have been originally located around the equator is suited to your thesis, so as to make it more plausible to have Atlantis closer to the Med for sailing purposes, in response to Desiree's critique, is a perfect example of your bias, and a detriment to your speculations. Therefore you, if you use that as defense, you must now account, as to the positions of the other land masses also before the calamity occurred. In particular, as pertaining to the rest of the detailed descriptions given by Plato. For surely, if such an event occurred, causing the shift and movement of the South American portion of the American continent over a distance of many hundreds of miles, and not to mention your claim of the additional vertical rising of several thousands of feet of this immense land mass, then judging and using this large scale, it must have been a world wide catastrophe, and it must have also done the same for the other world land masses.  Do you see how everything will not align, as given in the details by Plato?

Now, you have an admixture in your thesis. You give us the location of Atlantis as it now stands in our present time, but you relate it to us as having been around the equator and at sea level before the calamity that befell it, while you still hold to Plato's other particulars (locations) e.g.; the position of the Med, the continents of Europe and Africa, the locations of the cities of Athens, Gadeira, the Strait of Gibraltar, Libya, etc., as identified and positioned by Plato before the calamity of a pole shift, or whatever caused the land masses to considerably, shift position. They all shifted and moved and rose or sank, as the case may be, or none of them did. 

Additionally, your Equator pre-cataclysm location for Atlantis still does nothing for the North cold winds, because by the time those Northerly winds get that far south to the equator, assuming that they would ever reach that far south, they would only be warm tropical breezes, at most. Also, your two yearly crops would also be gone. The reason for the allowing a two yearly crops is, as Plato states, the water issue. In winter from the sky, and in the summer by irrigation from the winter mountain waters (melting snow) collected in the rivers and canals. Around and at the Equator, as now, and most assuredly then, there is no winter and summer, as temps are nearly constant all year round at sea level in the Americas. Near the Equator there is little distinction between summer, winter, autumn, or spring. The temperatures are usually high year-round—with the exception of high mountains in South America. Although in many tropical regions people identify two seasons: the wet season and the dry season, but as far as your location having been at sea level, this does not apply because the places close to the Equator that are on the oceans are rainy throughout the year. Besides, an equator position eliminates much of the other variety of crops, especially the dry sort, mentioned by Plato.  Besides all this and what has already been related to you by others, your Tiahuanaco temple and buildings do not comply with the descriptions, as they are large monolithic stones, and not something that one would make an ivory roof for it, or silver plate it, nor cover the inside surfaces; walls, ceiling, and floors with a coating of precious metals. And as far as the red, white and black stones, it is referring to buildings made of them, something like the English and American single homes which on the outside many are made with small bricks of mixed colors, and therefore not what you point out.
 
In short, we say that, “you cannot have your cake and eat it too.” Or more easily understood, “you cannot have it both ways.”   

And by the way, this should have been your argument against Nikas and his challenge to you on Atlantis being inside the Med. Our friend Nikas has been arguing with you about names, as he says that there is truth and a correctness about them known only to him, which is the same for Greek as for foreign languages, especially Etruscan. Although the whole world calls Atlas as Atlas, he says that it's Malta. But you should have requested from him further explanation of this mysterious claim, which seems to imply that he has a notion of his own about the matter, if he would only tell, and entirely convince the rest of us, besides you, but if only he had chose to be consistent and intelligible. Nikas cannot have it, like you, both ways either. He insinuates that the names given by Plato of Poseidon's sons are to be regarded as Etruscan names, and read backwards (right to left). Apart that it's only possible supernaturally, to insinuate that Plato hid a special clue in assisting posterity in locating Atlantis to a more specific location than that already given by him. It is just mere imagination, and not Plato's instructions that one should read the names as being Etruscan. And it is imagination run amok to insinuate that Plato meant to indicate the specific name of “Malta,” which this notion can easily be refuted by the fact that the name, “Malta,” was not even given and used for those tiny 3 specs of land, until well after Plato was long dead. Is Nikas saying that Plato was some kind of prophet and an oracle projecting future events; the future use of the name Malta? But, just using logic, why does Nikas confines his reading to only Atlas in “Etruscan” to make it read  MALTA, and using Greek for his twin, Eumelus, even if we accept his justification for the “S” being an “M” in the name Atlas? Why not read all the other Atlantian names backwards too? And more importantly, what are the meaning of all those names given by Plato, such as Cleito, Evenor, Leucippe, Ampheres, Evaemon, Mneseus, etc., in Etruscan, or Greek, or better yet, in Egyptian, as they were initially translated, and how do they relate to the further assisting in fixing a location of Atlantis, if that was Plato's intention? And where in Plato's original writings does he point out these specific directions to the reader, for locating Atlantis more precisely? But if anyone wants to know about Plato's/Socrates' knowledge and skill in etymology, then they should read the Cratylus, which would go a long way in understanding these things better.  Logically, why would anyone, just like Nikas and you, Sean, "raise" the trophy when the "battle" has not even begun? When Atlantis is also, physically, raised from the abyss, as it was, verbally, raised from oblivion, then and only then let any boast at will, and, proudly, and happily claim the victory and the trophy.     

Wow, just like those despicable televangelists that are making money off God, I now see that Atlantis is also another avenue for that type of business. Congratulations are in order for fellow bloggers, present and past, those few with enough ingenuity and entrepreneurship skills in attracting, yet, another set of gullible audience, if they are successful at this. I would say that they have captured the very essence of what Plato/Socrates despised most, sophism, and their rhetoric. And anyone that tries to sell this stuff for profit is none other than a sophist, who neither knows nor allows others to know the truth about Atlantis, by passing on to them completely imaginative, and most speculative, base and unholy junk! If they had been honest and sincere persons on this business of Atlantis, and used logic, as intended by Plato, they would go elsewhere for moneymaking; preferably pursuing an honest business. And I do not mean you Sean, unless you too are planning to market Atlantis for profit.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: senator Bam on September 15, 2015, 01:33:33 am

Desiree: we have rewritten and added a section/chapter on the ships & seafaring objection. http://lifetradition.webs.com/atlantis.htm

Hermocrates: you don't happen to be my [friend?] T---- do you? I wondered at the very first meeting here, forgot and just remembered.


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Hermocrates on September 16, 2015, 06:41:22 am

Desiree: we have rewritten and added a section/chapter on the ships & seafaring objection. http://lifetradition.webs.com/atlantis.htm

Hermocrates: you don't happen to be my [friend?] T---- do you? I wondered at the very first meeting here, forgot and just remembered.


Sean, I'm surprised at you, and also feel sad that you don't consider me a friend anymore, if you ever did. However, you are a friend to me, nonetheless. But, you should reconsider our relationship, just as much as reconsidering your hypothesis on Atlantis. As far as your Atlantis and my opinion and suggestions to you, you should look at it in a positive way, as I have already told you previously. Because only a friend would go on the limb, risking scorn for making you aware of a possible inconsistency of your work, which could only help you, if you correct it. Look at this way, would you be mad at me, if I pointed out to you that your pant's zipper was not closed, as you walk around in public?


Title: Re: Atlantis Tiahuanaco
Post by: Hermocrates on September 30, 2015, 03:25:14 pm

Hermocrates: you don't happen to be my [friend?] T---- do you? I wondered at the very first meeting here, forgot and just remembered.


Senator Bam, is your own speculation of Atlantis the same as the link I've listed below, and are you associated with Mr. Allen and his proposition in any way, shape, or form?

http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/beyond24points.htm