new documentary about atlantis from james cameron coming this christmas.

[Critias]

James Cameron is teaming with Emmy-winning filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici on Search for Atlantis, a two-hour documentary special set to premiere internationally this winter on National Geographic Channel. Principal photography is underway in Sicily, Malta, Crete, Santorini and Sardinia, with underwater portions being shot off the coast of Spain. The docu is a co-production of NatGeo Channel, Discovery Canada and Toronto-based Associated Producers.

RelatedRosa Salazar To Topline Robert Rodriguez's 'Battle Angel Alita'
Jacobovici is helming the docu and producing with Felix Golubev. Cameron is executive producing with Yaron Niski.

Search for Atlantis is a follow-up to 2011’s Finding Atlantis, also from NatGeo Channel, Discovery Canada and Associated Producers.

 http://deadline.com/2016/06/james-cameron-search-for-atlantis-documentary-special-national-geographic-channel-1201771677/

[Arcturus]

Malta is in it, does it include Nikas discovery? I have been waiting to hear more on that.

[Critias]

Malta is in it, does it include Nikas discovery? I have been waiting to hear more on that.

Nope, I wouldn’t be part of that charade. Unless they accept to dive at my spot .....

Arcturus, allow me to illustrate on what is going on with this documentary: They (Simcha Jacobovici) made a documentary few years ago in Spain (Donana Park). That program was criticized for not including other theories as well. So this time they are going with the old format. Chose few popular theories, interview the researchers and at the end, show the preferred theory (in my opinion that's bias) and do some, either digging or diving. At the end they're going to come up with the usual – all the other theories (except the Spain one) are wrong and more research needs to be done ... bla-bla-bla. The only difference is that James Cameron is included as the executive producer, (more funding and publicity) which has attracted the public attention.

There is one thing though; in order for this documentary to be successful, one has to find either Atlantis, or something very promising. The public viewers are tired of seeing the same old format since the 80’s. This documentary will be focusing on a huge “island” just in front of Gibraltar (Ocean side). And I promise you: they will not find Atlantis there! Because I have found it in Malta. They might find an underwater city; it is possible, as the seas are filled with such cities, but not Atlantis.

Arcturus, bc you are the first to show interest on my theory for a long time, I will give you the honour of "seeing" Atlantis for the first time. Trust me on this; you're the first to see the real Atlantis through my words. I will illustrate it for you: Imagine Malta five times as large as it is and somewhere in there is a city with concentric rings. Bare in mind that all my life till summer 2015 I hadn't found the city yet, just the DECAPOLIS. The city was on a slope of about 15-25 degrees. at about 50 unit of measurements (which I will explain to you later) from the coast. For some reasons (rain + earthquake) it landslide-it entirely (5km and 80 meters exactly) into the sea. There were two major layers that this city was built on top of. The top was all rocky and the earth (2nd layer) underneath. The top had 3 sublayers. White, black and red (from top to bottom, respectively,) It is very important to read the description in Ancient Greek bc it is described differently from the English version which gives you the impression of ... the colourful rocks being willy Nilly all over the place... Bare in mind that these rocks existed only on this city. It must have been a small, non-active volcano or something.
As the city slid into the sea, what was left, at the place that it once stood you can still see the concentric shapes, eroded of course.  Apparently the rings were formed naturally from some earthquake tremors so they were part of the top layer and the second layer. The top, which included the city as well, went down and it broke into the pieces. The biggest piece I found it is illustrated by the first image:
It is in very bad shape and eroded by time but you can clearly see the partial rings, the small channel in the middle as well as the bridge that connected the central island with the outermost rings. The central island has been dug like a triangle with the hypotenuses being round (like a pitca slice. If this isn’t Atlantis I would be damned.

check the atached image: and notice the piece that I cut away. that's the only piece in good condition.

As I previously told you, I will explain the unit of measurements: for years I knew that the stadio used in this story couldn’t have been more than 50 meters (Greek stadio=185 mtrs) for many reasons. Bare in mind that the island was formed naturally but for this people it was made by their god, Poseidon. So it was very important to them that this was God’s number. For years I was trying to find this magic unit of measurements and I only realize it when I found the city. It was the magic number that is included on all 3 major religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It is the number forty. 40
Google the importance of number 40 in religion. Moses 40 years old, Mohamed as well, Noah 40 days and forty nights in the sea e.t.c….
Most of the temples in Malta and Egypt have as a unit of measurements the number 40, which these Archaeologists have not realise, bc they haven’t taken into the account the Erosion factor.
Anyway, I was supposed to declare my finds at the end of Sumer, but now I have a better idea. I will wait till this documentary either airs or just before and then announce it. I believe is a brilliant idea. For me of course.
2016 is Atlantis year!!!!





 

[Critias]

Malta is in it, does it include Nikas discovery? I have been waiting to hear more on that.

from NIKAS:

Nope, I wouldn’t be part of that charade. Unless they accept to dive at my spot .....

Arcturus, allow me to illustrate on what is going on with this documentary: They (Simcha Jacobovici) made a documentary few years ago in Spain (Donana Park). That program was criticized for not including other theories as well. So this time they are going with the old format. Chose few popular theories, interview the researchers and at the end, show the preferred theory (in my opinion that's bias) and do some, either digging or diving. At the end they're going to come up with the usual – all the other theories (except the Spain one) are wrong and more research needs to be done ... bla-bla-bla. The only difference is that James Cameron is included as the executive producer, (more funding and publicity) which has attracted the public attention.

There is one thing though; in order for this documentary to be successful, one has to find either Atlantis, or something very promising. The public viewers are tired of seeing the same old format since the 80’s. This documentary will be focusing on a huge “island” just in front of Gibraltar (Ocean side). And I promise you: they will not find Atlantis there! Because I have found it in Malta. They might find an underwater city; it is possible, as the seas are filled with such cities, but not Atlantis.

Arcturus, bc you are the first to show interest on my theory for a long time, I will give you the honour of "seeing" Atlantis for the first time. Trust me on this; you're the first to see the real Atlantis through my words. I will illustrate it for you: Imagine Malta five times as large as it is and somewhere in there is a city with concentric rings. Bare in mind that all my life till summer 2015 I hadn't found the city yet, just the DECAPOLIS. The city was on a slope of about 15-25 degrees. at about 50 unit of measurements (which I will explain to you later) from the coast. For some reasons (rain + earthquake) it landslide-it entirely (5km and 80 meters exactly) into the sea. There were two major layers that this city was built on top of. The top was all rocky and the earth (2nd layer) underneath. The top had 3 sublayers. White, black and red (from top to bottom, respectively,) It is very important to read the description in Ancient Greek bc it is described differently from the English version which gives you the impression of ... the colourful rocks being willy Nilly all over the place... Bare in mind that these rocks existed only on this city. It must have been a small, non-active volcano or something.
As the city slid into the sea, what was left, at the place that it once stood you can still see the concentric shapes, eroded of course.  Apparently the rings were formed naturally from some earthquake tremors so they were part of the top layer and the second layer. The top, which included the city as well, went down and it broke into the pieces. The biggest piece I found it is illustrated by the first image:
It is in very bad shape and eroded by time but you can clearly see the partial rings, the small channel in the middle as well as the bridge that connected the central island with the outermost rings. The central island has been dug like a triangle with the hypotenuses being round (like a pitca slice. If this isn’t Atlantis I would be damned.

check the atached image: and notice the piece that I cut away. that's the only piece in good condition.

As I previously told you, I will explain the unit of measurements: for years I knew that the stadio used in this story couldn’t have been more than 50 meters (Greek stadio=185 mtrs) for many reasons. Bare in mind that the island was formed naturally but for this people it was made by their god, Poseidon. So it was very important to them that this was God’s number. For years I was trying to find this magic unit of measurements and I only realize it when I found the city. It was the magic number that is included on all 3 major religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It is the number forty. 40
Google the importance of number 40 in religion. Moses 40 years old, Mohamed as well, Noah 40 days and forty nights in the sea e.t.c….
Most of the temples in Malta and Egypt have as a unit of measurements the number 40, which these Archaeologists have not realise, bc they haven’t taken into the account the Erosion factor.
Anyway, I was supposed to declare my finds at the end of Sumer, but now I have a better idea. I will wait till this documentary either airs or just before and then announce it. I believe is a brilliant idea. For me of course.
2016 is Atlantis year!!!!





 

[Arcturus]

Nikas, what is Malta doing on there if you are not involved? Who is representing it?

I am sure you have documented, photographed everything. When will we be seeing some of that material? When last we talked, we discussed the geology of the region. Any evidence of sunken cities, especially the Citadel itself, the large rectangular plain and the Temple of Poseidon?

What time period did this all occur in?

[Critias]

Nikas, what is Malta doing on there if you are not involved? Who is representing it?
 

message from NIKAS (sorry, my account was suspended by someone so I have borrowed CRITIAS account for now)
Actually, Anton Mifsud is representing Malta theory. http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/mifsud-dr-anton/. As much as I respect his work he is detached from reality and talking about an island continent cover the entire Med-Sea. Also he is talking about superb technology, when these people where highly developed for their time, but still primitive compared to us. In other words – hammer and chisel people.

I am sure you have documented, photographed everything. When will we be seeing some of that material?

Of course, I have actual pictures of the citadel, as I previously stated on my above message, the heart of it still intact. Nevertheless, the best part of my work is high resolutions of side scan sonars. You can clearly see the concentric rings (pure earth) where the city once stood (a little eroded of course). This part, which still in shallow waters not far from the island of GOZO, is filled with vegetation so you cannot see it with the naked eye even from close proximity.  The city was swept way and is very deep, and scattered all over the place in small pieces. The biggest piece is like 500 mtrs by 600mtrs. You have to understand that if I publish any of the imagery, there is the risk of a geologist from Malta to recognise the topography. I wish I can publish them right now. This summer I will be there, I have hired a professional archaeologist who is  going to examine the place. Before this documentary is shown I will announce it. I might use a Maltese TV station or a news outlet like a magazine.

When last we talked, we discussed the geology of the region. Any evidence of sunken cities, especially the Citadel itself, the large rectangular plain and the Temple of Poseidon?

The city doesn’t look sunken rather as a landslide on an angle. Let me explain something here which no Atlantis researcher ever understood. It is very important to read the story in Ancient Greek.

When you read the English version of Plato one encounters only one name, ATLANTIS. All other versions (non-English) including the Modern Greek version, uses ONLY the name ATLANTIDA(the land/country of Atlas). The funny part is that Plato uses both! ATLANTIS (of Atlas) is used only once, when he says that the Island of ATLANTIS disappears into the depths of the sea. So all other times he uses ATLANTIDA NISON(big island/peninsula), but ATLANTIS is ATLANTIS NISOS(little island). So ATLANTIDA it was Malta plus about five times more which is now under water. So when Plato talks about the catastrophe he is talking about the small island inside the big one (the Capital). This is confirmed later when he tells us that the brother of Atlas, Gadira, got the extremity of the island … bla.bla.bla. if you read it carefully you will understand that gadira (ghadira in Malta!) is still above water at the time the Egyptian priest is telling the story to Solon. As for the temple – if someone tells you that they found Atlantis and they can see the Temple, they’re (no offense!) morons. How can a temple, made of big rocks, megalithic or whatever, connected by some primitive type of plaster survive and remain intact. The entire city (island) was swept way, imagine a lego constructed by a child, will become mostly pieces scattered all over the place. I can see the citadel, wiped out of course of anything above its ground level, but nevertheless, you can see the walls, surrounding the partial rings, also the uniform quarry they dug inside the citadel as well the bridge connecting the citadel and heading towards the outer part. Next to the bridge is a small channel, broken and eroded, yet clearly visible. Is exactly what Plato described, only the unit of measurement (STADIO) is 40 meters. Most Maltese temples are of 40 meters length. Something not a single Archaeologist in Malta has noticed! Use google earth and you will see for yourself. Take into the account erosion as well as some repair from ancient times to modern times. Also, go to Egypt and see how many Egyptian architecture uses the 40 meters unit of measurements.

What time period did this all occur in?

You got me here. This is the part when I can’t tell you for sure. I am a man of science; I only use facts not speculations. Nevertheless, I will only give you my opinion without having any evidence. There are 3 indications though, not proofs, that it must be over 10 k (not 12k). First, the story tells us. So far whatever Plato said was correct. If you want I can demonstrate, from being in front of the pillars not outside ….. big no no!!!!
Secondly, the distance from the centre of the island to the coast of the time of Atlantis is 2,540 meters, unlike what all researchers believe (stadio to be 185 meters) that Atlantis was more than 12 kilometres from the coast … which is ridiculous. Now, that point, the Maltese geology tells me that it was above water, only 10 k ago.
And thirdly, for the huge Plain/field (which never moved or anything, still at the same level) to be above water it has to be at least 10 K.

[Arcturus]

Nikas, thanks for the information. I would think you would want to publish something in fairly short order before someone beats you to it. As you know, you're not the first person to claim Malta as Atlantis.

The geology you described sounds sound, but you must also have evidence of a sunken city there, too, right? No one is expecting an intact sunken temple but vestiges: columns, building blocks, and, of course, pottery. Do you have any pictures or samples of things like that?

Also, Plato is very specific about a 5 1/2 canal and the large rectangular plain in addition to the city with concentric circles. Have you located all three physical features?

[Critias]

Nikas, thanks for the information. I would think you would want to publish something in fairly short order before someone beats you to it. As you know, you're not the first person to claim Malta as Atlantis.
 

Of course, but I don’t want to publish anything yet. It will reveal a lot of information which in return give my competitors a lot to work with. The only thing that concerns me is to make sure that no one finds the same spot that I found. I rather not publish anything at the moment than risk of my find being stolen from me. I will publish something right before I am ready to go with the announcement. Anyway, I have published a lot of work outside of the US. I have also copyrighted all my work with the library of congress in Washington. As for not being the first person to claim Malta is Atlantis: actually Malta is not Atlantis, Atlantis is in Malta, it was its capital.  It’s like saying Greece is Athens. If many look for Athens in Greece and I am the one to find it, who do you think gets the credit? I am safe as long as no one can prove, before me, that it was where I found it.

The geology you described sounds sound, but you must also have evidence of a sunken city there, too, right? No one is expecting an intact sunken temple but vestiges: columns, building blocks, and, of course, pottery. Do you have any pictures or samples of things like that?

Of course there is a city, blocks of megalithic rocks scattered all over the place. Don’t expect anything else, maybe statues which they need to be searched with a more detailed examination. I am not “zooming” that much. Remember what Plato said? – The temple of Poseidon was barbaric looking which implies that it was different than the Egypt/Greek architecture (which is square building with round columns). The Maltese temples are barbaric looking as they’re the opposite of the Greek architectures – Round buildings with square/parallelogram columns!!! Maltese people didn’t use, as yet, round columns; it was all blocks of megalithic rocks. In order for me to get pictures of small things like pottery and stuff I need permission from the Maltese government. You can’t just enter a sight and start digging. Anyway, I just want to fully document the rings of earth where the city once stood as well as the big piece of the citadel. With that, only, I can get recognised as the founder and get a permit for further work. Remember, I am not an archaeologist. Speaking of Archaeologists, I was talking to one of them in Malta (the most famous of them all) and he couldn’t have been nastier. Telling me Malta couldn’t be Atlantis bc Plato this and Plato that. As the conversation progressed he was starting to get agitated and kind of insulting. At the end I said, I will only work with people who help me before I announce it. Anyway, I realised that he had the right to be upset. If I prove that there is a city underwater in Malta it proves him wrong on many things. The guy has worked for over 50 years in Malta and has done most of the work we know about the temples, and here I come and implying that it wasn’t his way? No wonder archaeologists don’t want to work on this subject.

Also, Plato is very specific about a 5 1/2 canal and the large rectangular plain in addition to the city with concentric circles. Have you located all three physical features?

What do you mean by 5 ½? If you mean the ratio of central island and the width of the other channels. The central island is 200 meters (5*40), the first ring/channel 40 meters. The second 80 meters … e.t.c  The plain is right there, about 2 km next to where the city once stood. Is about 120 km by 80 km (3000 by 2000 40’s) (eroded of course). The Plain was found by some German researcher years ago who was looking for the city, unfortunately, he died few years ago. He claimed that the city was within the plain, which of course is wrong. Anyway, I will give him the credit for being the first to claim that, I am a righteous person and give credit where due.

[Arcturus]

I meant 5 1/2 miles. I may have been mistaken on that, though, as I have just reviewed Critias and it says nothing like 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.

Since we're talking about Malta, which is a pretty small place, is Ġgantija related to this find? The temples date from 4000 - 2500 BC depending on whom you ask. Perhaps they are much older.



I don't wonder that traditional archaeologists are resistant to the idea of Atlantis, as, if it is ever proven, it will upset all the cherished beliefs of the orthodoxy.

[Critias]

I meant 5 1/2 miles. I may have been mistaken on that, though, as I have just reviewed Critias and it says nothing like 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.

Since we're talking about Malta, which is a pretty small place, is Ġgantija related to this find? The temples date from 4000 - 2500 BC depending on whom you ask. Perhaps they are much older.

There are two possible scenarios here: the first one which I was a big fan of is fading way and is being replaced by the second one.

1) for years I believed that, if Atlantis is 12 k or older so are the temples and maybe the archaeologists have it all wrong with the carbon dating. My theory was that in order to date the temples one has to find something organic around the temples, as you can't carbon date the rocks themselves. I believed that, maybe, the carbon-dating was giving us the date of the last rebuild of these temples. Bare in mind that Malta has been destroyed countless times. It has been confirmed by various archaeologists as well as geologists. With time I realized, as I looked closely at the work done by many archaeologists, that the date could be right and not a single one of those temples were build at the time of Atlantis.

2) So we go to the second scenario which is like 90% plausible. The archaeologists have it right, there was nothing great in Malta prior to 6-7 thousands years ago and there was no real civilization prior to the given date, just few nomads, hunters and gatherers, The temples you see today in Malta do not have the same quality of work done on the city I found, they're less magnificient. At this point it becomes interesting. Archaeologists have it right for everything that is above water and missed a previous generation, which was more advanced than what we see at Ggantija temple. (advanced, but still stone age people!!) If you think about - the sea level must have been at least 50 meters below current level and taking into account that for practicality all the cities at the time of Atlantis were located at the lowest point, just by the coast, fishing, mobility as well as trading was way easier. so higher points were just wild mountains and hills, were if someone lived there must have been at most a Shepard. When Atlantis went down most of the civilizations went down and a lot of knowledge went down with it, including writing. That's why there are no writings in any of the temples. The lesser intelligent people that survived build all those temples but not as magnificent as the Atlantian ones. Anyway, time will show us which of the two scenarious is the right one. I don't see any possibility for a third one.

I don't wonder that traditional archaeologists are resistant to the idea of Atlantis, as, if it is ever proven, it will upset all the cherished beliefs of the orthodoxy.

Well, think of it this way, David Trump "wasted", sorry meant to say spent 60 years in Malta and is telling us that Malta cannot be Atlantis and it cant be older than 6-7 thousands old. If I prove him wrong what do you think it would happen to his reputation?

[Arcturus]

The temples you see today in Malta do not have the same quality of work done on the city I found, they're less magnificient.

Well, that's interesting, I thought we were just conversing about a sunken geological formation, but you found the remains of a city?  And it's more advanced than Ggantija? How can you tell if its in ruins and does it resemble Plato's Citadel?

[Arcturus]

I'm inclined to believe in the erred carbon dating. As we know, you cannot date stone, only the mortar. Speaking of stone, it's only conjecture, but since Malta is so close to Egypt, do you think it had anything to do with the Egyptian pyramid culture that flourished there? 

[Critias]

Well, that's interesting, I thought we were just conversing about a sunken geological formation, but you found the remains of a city?  And it's more advanced than Ggantija? How can you tell if its in ruins and does it resemble Plato's Citadel?

No, I said it before; I found the city of Atlantis. There is the place where once it stood (shallow waters – ) that’s the earthly under-layer. The entire city 5.08 km, where you can see the concentric rings. If anything manmade found here the possibility is that is not from Atlantis, as many other civilisations passed by. The city was on top of the upper level (rocky level with three distinguished colours B-W-R) which was the one which shifted way and broke into many pieces. Everything from the upper level is in deep waters. The biggest of the broken pieces it contains most part of the citadel. Walls, small bridges, the small canal as well as the cut out places where they quarried the rock out, as Plato described. Also one can see the foundations of the temples that once stood there, one at the centre of the citadel and another one, bigger at the beginning. All the building blocks are scattered all over the place. There is nothing intact. The distraction must have been horrendous. All the above finds are not visible by the naked eye from the top or the under sea level. High quality equipment’s were use (multi beam Side scan sonar was one of them). Everything is heavily eroded and cover in vegetation but yet visibly (by equipment of course).

I'm inclined to believe in the erred carbon dating. As we know, you cannot date stone, only the mortar. Speaking of stone, it's only conjecture, but since Malta is so close to Egypt, do you think it had anything to do with the Egyptian pyramid culture that flourished there? 

Definitely it had something  to do with the beginning of the Egyptian culture, not so much with the time of the pyramids which I believe its post Atlantean epoch. The pyramids were built by the Egyptians themselves. How much did the Atlanteans influenced? Well, let me put it this way, how much did the Ancient (classical) Greeks influenced the modern American Architecture? After all, there is no city in America that doesn’t contain at least the Greek columns. Did the Greeks come and build them? Of course not.

[Arcturus]

The city was on top of the upper level (rocky level with three distinguished colours B-W-R) which was the one which shifted way and broke into many pieces. Everything from the upper level is in deep waters. The biggest of the broken pieces it contains most part of the citadel. Walls, small bridges, the small canal as well as the cut out places where they quarried the rock out, as Plato described. Also one can see the foundations of the temples that once stood there, one at the centre of the citadel and another one, bigger at the beginning. All the building blocks are scattered all over the place. There is nothing intact.

That's interesting news and about what one would expect to find. I'm assuming you took lots of pictures and don't just have sonar readings?  Can you say what depth it's at? If not, I  can understand, the depth, though, might tell us what time period it happened in, and it also might help pinpoint the exact calamity that destroyed it.

Does your theory encompass the war between Atlantis and the Greeks then, and, if so, what time period do you place it in?  a closer Atlantis might explain how a single calamity wiped out both the Greeks and Atlantis itself.

[Critias]

That's interesting news and about what one would expect to find. I'm assuming you took lots of pictures and don't just have sonar readings? 

of course I do have pictures and sonar images, unfortunately, most of the sonar images belong to other people (companies), work which  it was done for totally different reasons (like looking for oil e.t.c who cares, as long as it wasn't underwater archaeology). So if I reveal the city now by using someone’s images what do you think what happen? They will claim that it was them who found it, although they had no idea. So, this summer I will conduct my own expedition and use only my own imagery when I publish my work. Everything is ready to go; I delayed it only bc of this documentary. I was thinking to make the claim just before the documentary is scheduled to go on air. I know it will be disastrous for them (lol), but at the end of the day it is for a good cause. They want Atlantis found .... and their documentary will do that, in a way...

Can you say what depth it's at? If not, I  can understand, the depth, though, might tell us what time period it happened in, and it also might help pinpoint the exact calamity that destroyed it.

OK again, there are 2 layers. (1) where it once stood it's shallow waters,  let’s say about 20 meters (65 feet) underwater, but bear in mind that the (2) upper level is gone entirely (like ~ 30 mtrs thickness), adding the erosion, into the equation, that has taken a toll on the city itself as well as the surroundings (above water) it is impossible to tell from those numbers when the city really existed. having said that, a speculation: if the city of Atlantis had never gone I believe right now we would have had the same problem that Venice has, now it would have started to sink. If you read Plato carefully in ancient Greek it explains that the city was above the sea level and that's why they raised the bridges for the ships to go underneath. There was no sea water into the rings as well as the channel where the harbour was located. There were streams of water, including the main 10 k stadia channel which it was going just by the city and dumping the extra fresh water into the sea.

Now, those are the vertical measurements. The horizontal measurements, on the other hand, can tell us about when did the city was above water.

Lets calculate the size of the city and the distance from the center of the island to the sea of that time. We have 1+2+2+3+3 =11 *2 (diameter)=22 +5 (citadel) we get 27 stadia the diameter of the entire city within the conetric rings if we add the 2*50 stadia until the outside wall (which met at the sea on both sides we get 127 stadia the total diameter of the entire city. 127 stadia with my stadio (40 meters) we get 5,080 meters. But we need the distance from the midle of the central island to the sea which it would be excactly the radious of this diameter = 2,540 meters. When I measured from the center of the city to the sea the point that I got for the ancient coast it was just perfect. It was a particular point where Maltese geology tells us that is at least the coast of 10 k and where the Sea just drops very rapidly.
Also, for the Plateau/huge field to be above water it has to be at least 10 k years (and above) ago.

Does your theory encompass the war between Atlantis and the Greeks then, and, if so, what time period do you place it in?  a closer Atlantis might explain how a single calamity wiped out both the Greeks and Atlantis itself.

This part is the only description that is kind of ambiguous. Plato’s writings tell us that first Greeks beat the Atlanteans, then freed all the other ones … implying that they must have gone on offensive … then some time passed (maybe few months.) and this catastrophe took place and it killed all Greeks and the city went down, which I take it as either Greeks being inside the city (must have conquered them) or just outside the city fighting or something. Unfortunately, there are no details. Very strange because the all point of the story from the Egyptian Sonchis to the Greek Solon was to tell him how “great” the Greek Army was. And this war was greater than everything else (including the Trojan War as everyone one knew about it, including the Egyptians).

I want to give you another detail: I strongly believe that the person that gave the first account of the catastrophe to the Egyptians was someone who was present. There is no way someone could have made this kind of description without being a witness. He/she said that it rained during the day and then all night. In the morning the city was gone. Also, how did he know that the earth sucked all the Greeks in? One more thing: why didn’t he say anything about the Atlanteans? Could have said that all the Atlantians inside the city disappeared? It was a big city after all … it’s killing me that most likely we’ll never find out the truth about this point in the story ….. 12 k has passed and there is no way that something like human remains or clothing will be present. Only big rock and hopefully golden statues will be presents. I don’t know about metallic tools.