Atlantis Online
June 20, 2019, 04:06:17 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ruins of 7,000-year-old city found in Egypt oasis
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080129/wl_mideast_afp/egyptarchaeology
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Atlantis Tiahuanaco

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Atlantis Tiahuanaco  (Read 1740 times)
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #15 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.
Report Spam   Logged

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean. 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.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy