dear HORUS,
well spoken, but if you got a valuable theory that intelligent audience
doesn't recognize as correct woulldn't you become a cynic ? I do.
AMERICA as Atlantiswas a political HOAX of King Fernando-1 ( ALLREADY IN; 1500 AD.0
so, if you adher to a false tradition am I OUT OF BOUNDS BY
mentioning that to you ? that IS not naiiv ? or self-delusion ?
and that is a fact that was swept under the table
by both DonNElley and CAYCE ,THEY DID THIS FOR A LIVING !
every professional ancient historian knows this,
except the ones that should, the Atlantologists.!
MY EXPLANATIONS
are only for a third part linguistically ( one has to start somewhere no?)
the other part is that sunken harbours are everywhere at average 50 meters depth
that doesn't mean that they are atlantis city but only contemporary !
my time table is different
atlantis got two tsunamies
the one described by plato ocurred in 1.055 bc
and not around 10.000 bc
as ' American atlantologists maintain.
i know that this is hard to believe but
the europeans in france during the
neolythic magdalien-epoch( dd, 8.000 bc )
were the contempories of the egyptian 18-th dynasty
3500 bc for the Minoan invasion of Greece
1650 bc for the mycene invsion,
and 1200 bc for the Dorian/greeks invasion is much to old
but I am sure that you won't discuss that with me
because the americans think that atlantis was in america
all along and were repelled by valliant gallant athenians without allies.
No atlantologist in this forum atlest that I can remember
has ever analyses=d nor just raised a learned quiery,
to discover the motive or reason
for plato to write these dialogues.
the only quiery that came close was: why he didn't finish it
because of his death ? if so how could aristotle ever have read it
since in 347 bc he had left Plato's academy to found a lyseum for himself !
and after plato's death the manuscript lingered
in a dry cellar of an inheritor nephew in milete
unread for another 50 years.
so the oldest translation,must have occured after 297 bc.
plato wrote this piece as a satire on the failed effort
of athence to conquer a peacefull neighbour : SYRACUSE in 413 bc.
thid raid displayed athens HYBRIS or warmongery by ALKIBIADES and
poor NIKIAS ( the peace monger of 420 bc.)
2 KINGS of Atlantis that never existed under those names( linguistic !)
were introduced by plato in his ' new myth'
prometheus(= Alkibiades !) and Epimetheus(= poor NIKIAS.)
the avenger goddess sent by zeus to destroy
only the small world of the hybris atlanteans(=Athens mirrorred by herself !)
was named pandora9 plato's pan-doric city of SYRACUSE.
dear HORUS
if the mainstream of our\distinguised'atlantis in america ambassadors',
meaning 90 % of our AO-Forum members
find this hard to swallow or reject this hybris-writer's motive
than is it bad manners to call american -as-atlantis adherends 'gullible'?
certainly 'atlantis' existed
and is even too well known under a differend name
but the part about the original myth ( that Plato adapted)
is precisely the chapter that you didn't want to know from me.
yes it is about lonly inguistics:
letts for the sake of argument imagine that the phrase
" atlantis was an isle in mid-ocean" BEFORE the Tsunami / Cataclysm
is correct. but this is a latin/ roman translation
But the original greek text was different
I will explain you the difference:
no need for stupid back-up archaeology here:
IN FACTi elaborate on my
#3-Rules of THUMB here
atlantis was not in MID Ocean, it was in the " Middle-"Ocean
I hope that you are capable to fathom that the Phrase
In the Middle of an Ocean,is not the same as the Phrase:
in the Middle-Ocean "
actually the atlantic ocean was originally named
the ocean that expanded around the
'middle-world '
thus it was the middle-world ocean
later shortened to just the west-ocean.
or the homeric ocean but infact named the
MEDIA-TERRA-(nean-)SEA / Mare mediterra nean
but it was not the present one but an older one namely the RED-SEA
greek immigrants( from a Greek tribe in south Araby
named the Minneans.) took that SEA name to Europe
where it didn't belong.)
conclusion:the original atlantic ocean was the red-sea
the name atlantic ocean is not one but two seas
as a stand -alone name it doesn't exist
prior to 250 bc(Eratosthenes!)
in my opinon to think that America
and Azores / Canary Isles were a part of Atlantis
is the same as to think that the original
olympos mountain is: Olympus MONS on Mars !
the greek hero heracles went according
to the myth to atlantis in a gold coloured airship
but that is not all, he returned that airvessel, took it back to atlantis
to give back some golden apples to some hesperid nymps.
but that story of the 12-th labour did not tell how heracles
got back airship-less to greece on foot or by swimming the ocean?
Unpollitnes is not a valiable argument in research matters
if you stop a conversation, to hide your ignorance about my research
I wasn't addressing your theory but I will alittle bit below. I was addressing BlueHue the human being who has problems relating to other people. That's where things have to start.
I recall that I mentioned my Alzheimer's Disease,
would you like to refresh my poor memory about the essence of your Theory
I didn't know that, BlueHue...and (if this is true) it helps to explain a lot about your behavior. Do try to be nicer to other people and more will engage you on your ideas.
I have discussed my views here many times - and directly to you but you evidently dont remembwr because of your senility. It isn't "my" theory, BTW. I hold the same view that the A.R.E. does and a host of other people that Atlantis was an island empire that included areas submerged around the Carribbean, Azores, and Canaries.
Yes, I know that you think we are following "false leads" from "latin transcription errors", HOWEVER, we are scientifically
testing the ideas presented in the more conventional, popular version of the Timaeus and Critias against reality to determine if the information is true. Now if these conventional accounts are "false" as you say, then logically we shouldn't find any underwater ruins in the Atlantic Ocean nor any other correspondences to Plato there at all.... but we have! And because we have, it PROVES that the conventional account (which you think is false) is actually the CORRECT account, and this is why almost no one is taking your Aden theory seriously. We have lots more EVIDENCE to support our theory than you do for yours -period.
ABOUT
Archaeological proof how do you propose to find it
supposedly burried under 150 meters of Mudriver sediment?
Producing evidence is your problem, BlueHue, and shouldn't be used as an excuse. Seismic surveys on riverbanks and subbottom profiling in riverbeds might deteremine if there is something there. Your theory is almost entirely linguistically-based and collapses without significant archeologically evidence. And of course, you can't explain nor refute our evidence -12,000 year old ruins on the seafloor -how do you suppose those got there, BlueHue? Hmmmm?
People reject that notion without bothering to discuss why they reject that theory that.
or blame it opn Unpollitnes.
You are insisting on "discussing" this material in a bizarre, rude and insulting manner!
"some naiiv minded amateur historians" etc. etc. etc. LOL! How can you realistically expect that work?
You badger people incessantly. You make off-topic posts into the wrong threads. You call people names. You need to wake up and improve your behavior!
