Atlantis Online
August 15, 2022, 01:17:26 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: USA showered by a watery comet ~11,000 years ago, ending the Golden Age of man in America
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050926/mammoth_02.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Jim Allen's Debate with Georgeos Diax-Montexano

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Jim Allen's Debate with Georgeos Diax-Montexano  (Read 1071 times)
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2008, 03:16:24 pm »

The rest:

 
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano

Member
Member # 3100


Rate Member   posted 06-08-2008 12:29 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Hello Georgeos,

I thank you for your detailed explanations, I see that as usual you have a lot of words, but little evidence.

I don’t think anyone needs to prove that Plato said or did not say “continent”. In any case of translation, modern or ancient, the translator very rarely translates word for word the original text, because it becomes unreadable in the language into which it is being translated, instead the translator usually attempts to give in the new language, the sense of what was originally intended.

If NHSOS means island or peninsula, then that’s fine regarding South America because I suppose that with it’s little attachment of land joining it to North America, that makes it more of a peninsula than an island, which is what peninsula means – “almost an island”.

In fact, I did look forward to some of your alternative translations, because anything that sheds new light on this old subject, or even provokes new thoughts on this old subject, is welcome.

Since the story came from Egypt and thence to Athens, we would have to hope that the Egyptians also got their translations from the original Atlantean language correct, before it was also translated into Greek…..

In the end, if you wish to use alternative translations to the already published ones, then the logical and fair thing to do would be to get the experts at the Athens conference to provide a translation acceptable to them, a new translation, perhaps in consultation with yourself or other experts they consider appropriate. Nothing could be fairer than that, could it?

Once their independent translation is published, we can all use that one….

Orichalcum, well all the metals you quote are abundant in the area I mentioned of Bolivia, and it occurs as a natural metal in the ground, Plato said it was the second most valuable metal then known after gold. Many of the Spanish conquistados were disappointed to find that when they melted down their ”golden” objects, they turned out to be the Andean metal called “tumbaga” – the alloy of gold and copper and much more likely to be orichalcum than copper and lead, or brass….. So yes, it is speculation but a better speculation than the alternatives….

Anyway, not to bore the readers further, if Atlantis were Spain, then show the level rectangular shaped plain enclosed by mountains and the remains of the concentric ring channels which Plato mentioned, I note you quote two sites in Spain as having concentric ringed water features, in Marinaleda and Jaen, but as usual, nothing can be seen on the satellite images which I have checked http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/jaenmarinaleda.htm

Plato himself may have believed that Atlantis was sunk immediately in front of the Pillars of Hecules since he says the barrier of mud prevented ships from sailing westwards, but he had no first hand knowledge of Atlantis and passed on the story the way he believed or wanted it to be, a huge power capable of providing an appropriate enemy for ancient Athens. That was his stated purpose in the Atlantis tale. So after the geographic detail, we have all the description of the army etc and the navy, which is the same size as the Greek navy sent against Troy, suggesting this part of the story was borrowed from somewhere else.

In the end we have to find a solution, and a location, that makes sense and corresponds to the things he actually said, particularly a geographic location and Spain certainly is not that……

All the best ,

Jim Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Mr Allen:

If Iberia can not be identified, with at least the most important surviving remnants of ATLANTIS NHSOS, when Iberia has always been to the region of Gadeira, which is just mentioned as one of the ten parties, or provinces, which was divided into the ATLANTIS same NHSOS, and while Iberia NHSOS precisely PRO of the Pillars of Hercules, and still justly Iberia at the mouth of ATLANTIKOU PELAGOUS then anywhere else in the world could be ATLANTIS, and certainly nowhere as far and away from Gibraltar like Bolivia, or the Andes.

2. If Plato never said that Atlantis was a continent, because it was not a continent, and certainly those who continue repeating the deceit that ATLANTIS was a continent, have an obligation to demonstrate that paragraph Timaeus or Critias, Plato said Atlantis was a continent, and exactly with the Greek word that was used to continent, ie, ÊPEIROS. Continue by saying that ATLANTIS, was a continent, or ÊPEIROS, when only Plato said it was a ISLAND/PENINSULA, ie, a NHSOS, is to continue contributing to deception and forgery of the words attributed to Plato, and continue to contribute to counterfeiting of history, and the falsification of the truth.

3. Use as arguments, that those parts of the story that do not interest our theories, such as elephants, armies armed with horse carts, and bronze weapons, the trireme, horse for horse racing, and other elements that only have existed in the ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coast of Europe and northwest Africa, is simply amere invention of Plato, or form other stories like the Trojans or "Sea Peoples", is simply to use a handling historical, or fallacy, as arguments. In short, is to make pseudo-sciencie.


4. Although Solon has translated into Greek a Egyptian texts, if Solon always used the word NHSOS, referring to ATLANTIS, is because in the Egyptian text was only used the word equivalent to the Greek NHSOS, and that is, jw, 'Island'. If in the Egyptian text ATLANTIS was mentioned as a continent, and never as an island, then Solon had written in his translation that ATLANTIS was a ÊPEIROS, but nevertheless he always used NHSOS, ie, Island/Peninsula, for referring to ATLANTIS. Your arguments, Mr Allen, in this sense, are completely incoherent and absurd.

5. Regarding OREIKHALKÓS, as I have demonstrated, was never a metal gold, nor an alloy of gold, its name means simply, "Copper of Mountain" and not "Gold of Mountain", nor "gold-copper alloy". Therefore, your hypothesis is also in this sense, very unlikely, and in any case impossible to prove, for the simple reason that Plato did not say that this metal or natural mineral from Atlantis was called OREI-KHRÜSOS, "Gold of Mountain", nor said that it was called, KHRÜSO-KHALKÓS, ie, "Gold-Copper", he only said it was called OREI-KHALKÓS, ie, "Copper of Mountain".

6. Plato said clearly that the plain was rectangular and was surrounded by mountains, especially in the northern part, and exposed to the sea, to south, and that the maximum length of this plain was about 3000 stadia, just like the vast Baetica or Tartessian plain, or the Guadalquivir River plain, taht also is surrounded by mountains, across the northern, western and eastern, until you reach the same sea, the high mountains, especially those in the north and east, while also being open to the sea, to the south, 3000 stadiums is the length of the plain of the Guadalquivir basin. In fact, several authors of the Antiquity, Greeks and Romans, describes the same measures in length, for distances from the sea to the depths of the Tartessian plain, also known as Baetica plain.

7. Only Iberia have appeared in cities that date back to the Neolithical and Chalcolithical times, with the same architectural design described for Atlantis, ie, concentric circular cities, with concentric circular canals, alternating with earth-rings, all surrounding a small central island, where was the acropolis, or residence of the main buildings civilians and ceremonial. The largest known example is that of "Concentric Circular City of Jaen", Marroquíes Bajos, whose original name, before the arrival of the Romans, it was precisely ORINGIS, ie, "The Rings (City)", which can not be a mere coincidence. While in the same city, have been found pottery with the same design scheme of the metropolis of Atlantis, ie, several concentric rings, or circles, surrounding a central point or circle, which is connected with the outside of the ring by A channel that runs through central to all the inner rings. Exactly the same design we see in all the books and encyclopedias when it is rebuilt outline of the metropolis of Atlantis. This same symbol, has only been found by thousands in Iberia potteries, as well as in thousands of petroglyphs Iberia, and others found exclusively in the British Isles, Ireland and Scotland, but the highest concentration (many thousands of thousands) is only in Iberia, especially in regions of the Atlantic coast of Iberia.

8. You say that I do not have proofs, but any person who has followed my theories well, and my discoveries, can compare the volume of proofs or evidences, I have made so far, with the evidences which brings you, and the answer is simple: I have contributed much proofs, and higher quality and scientific credibility, and of many kinds, from Palaeographical, Lexicographical, Epigraphical and Philolgical proofs until Sismological, Geological, and Archaeological Proofs, that all proofs that you has shown so far.

9. I have also the more convincing proofs, and that are offered by the same ancient texts, and not only in the Plato's texts. Because nobody can deny that the only Gadeira that has existed alongside some Pillars of Hercules, and along a Atlantic Pelagus, is the Gadeira from Iberia, there has been no other Gadeira along with other Pillars of Hercules, and along with another Atlantic Pelagus, elsewhere in the world, therefore, if Gadeira was one of the ten provinces or parts (MHROS) in which was divided into the ATLANTIS NHSOS, then it is clear that the current IBERIA NHSOS, is a rest was very important that the original and genuine ATLANTIS NHSOS. The same priests who claim to Solon that Gadeira still existed in his time (in Greek NÜN, 'still now'), that is, when they are talking, which is true, as indeed, still exists today Gadeira or Cádiz. It is unquestionable that Iberia is a big surviving part from the ATLANTIS NHSOS, because Gadeira that was very near the Pillars of Hercules, and along the Atlantic Pelagus, has always been at Iberia, has never been in Bolivia or another Instead of the World.

10. In addition to this undeniable proof, which is sufficient to prove that my theory is the one that comes closest to the truth, while yours is one of the most far from the truth, I also have references to other ancient authors which corroborate ATLANTIS that was a civilization of the Atlantic coasts of Iberia and Morocco, and also covering the coast of North Atlanta, and I also that the same people from the former Iberia, long before being known as Iberians and Hispanians were called, with the indigenous name Tlêtas and Atlêtas, ie, "those belonging to the country, or divinity, called Tlas or Atlas", which is precisely the same root consonants, and Indo-European Euroasiatic, TLS and TLT, which gave rise to the same ATLAS Greek word, so it is not necessary to go up americas to look up words with this result because we have exactly the oldest name that had the most primitive inhabitants of Iberia, according to testimony from Asclepiades, Theopompus, and Strabo, and others ... Even still in Iberia, in the Balearic Islands, there Atlots and Atlotas names for to call those who are always strong and young 'sailors', or 'riders of horses', and also for those who are 'abusers', and 'arrogants', and they 'impose their will through force', just as Plato described to the Atlanteans, when fell into decay, and decided to subdue the other peoples from Atlantic, and the interior of the Mediterranean. Experts have not found so far no explanation for the etymology of these names, ATLOTAS, TLÊTAS, o ATLÊTAS, and the conclusion is that they are of indigenous origin, or native, ie prior to the arrival of the Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans.

11. The Arabian authors also argue that Iberia was called the "Isle of Andlos or Atdalos" (Jazeera al Andlos or Atdlos), and that Atdlas or Andalos was the same or Atlante Atlas, son of Iapetus, from the Greeks, and that in Iberia, in the same or Atdlas, Atdalas, o Andalus, there had been a powerful city, all covered with 'golden brass', or most likely the same Plato's oreichalkós, the ancient Greeks and Romans rightly described as a sort of 'golden brass'. More simple coincidences? ...

12. One of the ten kings of Atlantis was called Azaês, which in Greek means "dry", "arid", and the same Plato, through Critias, informs us that the Greek names of the personages, ie, the Atlanteans names, who will listen in Greek, are translations that Solon made from the Atlanteans original names, according to the meanings, ie, namely that in this case, Azaês, is the Greek translation of a Atlantean name that meant "dry", "arid", and rightly, the oldest colonization of the islands of the Mediterranean, towards the Thyrrenia, and towards some parts of Asia, which is mentioned in ancient texts, is a colonization from Iberia, precisely by a large armed army and powerful, which was even able to defeat the giants who lived in some regions, especially to the Cyclops of Sicily, and this army from the IBERIA NHSOS was led by a king, whose Iberian name was precisely SICA or SICO, and in many languages and dialects of Indo-European and Euroasiatic languages, the root SICO/SICA translates precisely as "dry, arid" like in Latin SICCA/SICCUS, "dry, arid", and the current Castilian SECO/SECA, "dry, arid". This invasion occurred in ancient times, and legendary, in any event before the Theseus's times, and before the Deucalione's times, which are the time-frame that offers Plato to the end of the war between Atlanteans and Greeks. References also say that these Iberian-Sican, having colonized most of Europe, from Iberia to Thyrrenia and Asia, and most important islands in the central Mediterranean, were defeated by Greek people, or everything exactly the same to what we read in Timaeus and Critias ... Do other mere coincidences?

--------------------
Kind Regards,
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano
Scientific Atlantology International Society (SAIS)
http://www.GeorgeosDiazMontexano.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1270 | From: Madrid | Registered: May 2
 
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2008, 03:17:20 pm »

Georgeos Díaz-Montexano

Member
Member # 3100


Rate Member   posted 06-08-2008 02:42 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Dear Georgeos,

Your statements are so absurd; anyone can pick up a relief atlas and see for themselves that the region you describe around the Guadalquivir river is just a small TRIANGULAR river delta measuring some 90kms by 70kms.

3000 stades on the other hand would be roughly the distance between cabo st Vincent in Portugal to the west, and the sierra Nevada east of Granada in the east and from Gibraltar in the south to Caceres in Extremadura, in other words about one third to one quarter of the size of the entire Iberian Peninsula and given the numerous mountains that exist throughout the entire region could not in any way be described as a rectangular plain, smooth and level.

And although R.G. Bury thought of Orichalcum as perhaps “mountain copper – a hard metal to identify” copper itself is hardly going to be the second most valuable metal then known and as to the famous gold, silver and lead mines you claim for the mountains of Andalusia, I never previously heard that the deposits of silver or gold in Andalucia were so vast that they used them to plate the city walls, nor that the ancient Iberians made statues of gold of all their ancestors, in fact, if they had so much gold and silver in Andalucia, why was it necessary for the Spaniards to sail over to the Andes (a country where they did plate the walls in gold and silver and did have statues in gold of all their ancestors) and steal all their gold and silver?

All the best, Jim Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Allen:

That, in the Ancient Iberia abounded on copper, silver, lead, and gold is not an invention of mine, so say all the most important author of Antiquity, and archaeological studies show that in Iberia has been exploited mines more than 6000 years hence, when the Romans arrived, although there was still enough, they almost extinct gold and silver, even though Rio Tinto mines continue to offer large quantities of gold, copper and other precious metals. Evidence of Spaniards looking for gold and other metals in americas, does not mean that Iberia did not have, but simply wanted more quantity yet, were terribly ambitious, and wanted to continue with the ancient tradition of being the oldest and largest empire, that is, the same Atlantis, in fact, has not existed throughout human history an empire larger than the Spanish, Hispanic or of the Medieval Age. This is not accidental, people tend to repeat their historic destinations, each a space of time, because it is in the genetic memory.

With regard to the plains of Iberia, you are completely wrong if you use a simple drawing of a map, appears triangular, but when using a map correct, updated conducted in three dimensions, with reliefs and Hight correct and accurate, and matched with Satellite photos, you can see exactly who is a plain rectangular, nearly perfect, as cut with precise angles. But in addition, there is also a huge plain broader still, and that is forming around the southwest of Iberia, Spain and Portugal, and is surrounded by all large and high mountains and high plateaus of central and West, North and East of Iberia, and almost reaches the same center of Iberia.

See the following maps in:
http://www.antiquos.com/La-Atlantida-de-Platon/galleries/atlantis-nhsos-iberia-maps/

Moreover, there are testimonies of ancient Greek and Roman authors, who say that from Gibraltar to Anas (Guadiana) had more than 2500 stadiums, when you extrapolates measures, see how you can barely reach half the Tartessian plain, upwards from the sea, while Strabo says that since Ispalis, (Seville), up Kordüba (Cordova) had more than 1200 stadiums, which once again shows that 3000 stadia is sufficient to measure the length of the Tartessian plain, from the coast of the Sea at the mouth of Baetis or Tartessian River (Gudalquivir) until the birth of the plain upstream. Look at this map that is already several years, where you can see the actions of some of the most famous classical authors, offered for Iberia, and especially to the southwest of Iberia.

See again the following maps in:
http://www.antiquos.com/La-Atlantida-de-Platon/galleries/atlantis-nhsos-iberia-maps/

In addition, you ignore a fact that has been demonstrated, and that action is more uncertain is what we found in ancient texts, first because in Solon's times, the stadia was much lower than in Plato's times, and secondly, because the measures of the Egyptians, were also lower, as demonstrated brilliantly the scientific atlantologist unfortunately died recently, Ulf Richter. Even in the same codices and manuscripts known Critias, there are variations where the figures are much lower. That is, if we are scientists, if they feel respect for scientific method, and for the seriousness and rigor, and common sense, we can not consider or take action with the same accuracy that we consider other details, facts, and words that are very clear, and have no contradictions between the various codices, such as the name of Gadeira, and its location as one of the ten provinces of ATLANTIS NHSOS, and that was very near the Pillars of Hercules, and together ATLANTIKOU to PELAGOUS because all codices, absolutely all codices and manuscripts known Critias, always read the same, ie, there is not a single option that says something different, but with numbers and measures, there are variants that are contradictory, so we can not know which of these alternatives is correct, we can not know whether it was correct option we have always accepted, to calculate the stadium's Critias like a stadium of Plato's times, when in reality it would be a stadium of Solon's times, which is almost half of small. A very clear evidence that the measures are not correct, and that there were serious errors, inconsistencies and large, when we find one hand we read that the metropolis was precisely in the center of the great plain (KATA MÊSON), and that this lllanura had about 3000 stadia in length, and at least some 2000 stadia, from the Sea coast, up until just over half or centre, then if the metropolis of Atlantis was located justamenteen the center, moreover, the Critias is repeated: "always at the centre", "or always in the middle" (KATA MÊSON), then the mainland was at least some 1500 stadia away from the coast of the sea, but in several paragraphs, is repeats that was only separated from the Sea coast, for a channel only about 50 stadia (about 9 or 10 km). This is a very big difference, over 1450 stadia, then how can we explain this huge contradiction, how can we know what extent is it? Could be correct, as most believe translators, far greater, ie, far more than 1500 stadia (as half or centre, 3000 stadia), but could also be the correct measure, the lower figure, ie, 50 stadia as half, center or just a plain with a length just over 100 stadia. Nobody can know, which of the two measures is correct, at least until they find new codices of Critias, which are closest or next to Plato's times. For this major contradiction, and many others that I have already shown in the last 15 years of research, is that he has long ruled out of action figures and numbers as a reliable, safe or, for the study and correct interpretation of the Plato's Atlantis.


All the proofs palaeographical, more common sense, suggest that measures and the numbers are very exaggerated, someone has committed a serious error in the calculations, most likely medieval Christian monks who made the first copies of Plato's ancient texts, and which are the copies that we retain today, we have no papyrus in the times of Plato or near direct his disciples. Atlantis could not have an army so exaggeratedly large, nor could file a war against the Athenians and Egyptians, in the same 9000 before Solon, ie, in the same year that Athens was also founded, it is impossible for a city in the same year, or moment in history that emerges, that would be just a village of peasants, could already have an army strong enough, and well armed, to be able to cope with another army of over one million soldiers, powerfully armed . The figures do not fit, the numbers are absolutely absurd and contradictory, most of the examples, and yet remain throughout the rest of the story, much more coherent and precise, common sense requires deduce that the calculations on numbers and actions are wrong, and most likely, the culprits were the medieval Christian monks, who committed many serious errors in the copies of other ancient authors, as is demonstrated most ever.

Conclusion: sustaining a theory based on the measures, figures and numbers in the Critias, as you (and many others), is the largest of all sorts of absurd subjective speculation and unfounded. The mere fact that there are codices and manuscripts with other variants in the measures, figures, numbers and dates, is a more than sufficient evidence to rebut any study or theory that the measures used, figures and numbers of Critias, according to translations common, simply because there is no proof or evidence, allowing consider that the measures, figures and numbers in Plato are plausible, or correct, since there are several versions, with great differences of hundreds and thousands of meters, or of years...

[ 06-08-2008, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Georgeos Díaz-Montexano ]

--------------------
Kind Regards,
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano
Scientific Atlantology International Society (SAIS)
http://www.GeorgeosDiazMontexano.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1270 | From: Madrid | Registered: May 2006
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2008, 03:17:53 pm »

 
docyabut
Member
Member # 117


Rate Member   posted 06-09-2008 04:47 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Allen ,I would not believe the story of Atlantis was ever true, if not for given a excact location. I believe all the translations say next to or facing the region or country called Gaderia.

South America is to far to be facing or next to this small region of the world.

To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles,( Straits of Gibraltar) even the Pillars are a small area or region in the world.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gades

[ 06-09-2008, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: docyabut ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8477 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
 
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2008, 03:18:26 pm »

Jim Allen
New Member
Member # 30588


Rate Member   posted 06-09-2008 08:43 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Georgeos,

At last we agree on something, that the Atlantean stade in antiquity was smaller than the present Greek stade, since I found in Bolivia by measuring the Altiplano that the stade there was half a Greek stade i.e. a 1/20th part of a minute of latitude.

However I have checked your maps on your webpage and also have at hand a very good modern Atlas with the relief clearly shown, as you say, in three dimensions.

Now I can see where you have marked from Seville to Cordoba as 1200 stades. And I can see where you have marked from Seville further up the Guadalquivir valley as 3,000 stades.
But you have not marked the rectangular aspects of the plain in the other direction of 2,000 stades, and indeed, it would not be possible to do so because the plain was supposed to be SMOOTH and LEVEL, whereas the relief contours in the area you have nominated show your area to be sloping upwards either side of the Guadalquivir river towards the Sierra Morena in the north and the Sierra de Yeguas in the south.

To give you some relief statistics taken from Google satellite, the river Guadalquivir at Seville is 6 metres in altitude, but the land either side is 70 metres in altitude: at Cordoba, the river is 90 metres in altitude whereas the land is 480 metres high on the north and 340 metres high to the south and at Linares, the river is 268 metres in altitude with the adjacent land 500 metres high on the northern side and 690 metres high on the southern side. That can not be defined as smooth and LEVEL in anybody’s book so your maps are completely false and worthless as can be verified by any cartographer, besides, you do not show the plain in the proportion of 3,000 x 2,000 stades whichever unit you choose to use for the stade.

Maybe you would like to redefine your smaller, rectangular plain using the Egyptian Khet of 52.4 metres as the stade proposed by Ulf Richter. That would reduce the plain from 552 by 368km to about 157 by 105km– even at this smaller size no smooth and level rectangular plain can be defined along or adjacent to the Guadalquivir river using any three dimensional map with relief and contours, as the southern side would extend through the sierra Margarita as far as Ronda, so again your theory is baseless.

You can check a relief map of the Guadalquivir river area compared to a map of the Altiplano on this page http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/plaincomparison.htm where it can be seen using a standard three-dimensional relief map which shows that all that exists in the Guadalquivir river area is a normal river valley and delta.

Plato said the island metropolis with the concentric rings of land was “near the plain, over against its centre, at a distance of about fifty stades, there stood a mountain that was low on all sides” and also that it was “50 stades from the sea” and that is where we find the ruined island of Pampa Aullagas on the level Altiplano, fifty stades from the sea.The fact that you cannot make it fit your theory of Guadalquivir river area is unfortunate (for you) but then you have to resort to dismissing this part of Plato’s story.


All the best,

Jim Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 11 | From: England | Registered: May 2008   
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2008, 03:18:57 pm »

Jim Allen
New Member
Member # 30588


Rate Member   posted 06-09-2008 09:30 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Docyabut

None of the translations say the site of the capital of Atlantis was “next to or facing the region or country called Gaderia.”

They say, “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” (Benjamin Jowett translation)


“ A mighty host, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic Ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot. For the ocean there was at that time navigable: for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, "the pillars of Heracles", there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together (R.G.Bury translation)


“A great power which arrogantly advanced from its base in the Atlantic ocean to attack the cities of Europe and Asia. For in those days the Atlantic was navigable. There was an island opposite the strait which you call (so you say) the Pillars of Heracles, an island larger than Libya and Asia combined (Desmond Lee).


“He also begat and brought up five pairs of twin male children; and dividing the island of Atlantis into ten portions, he gave to the first-born of the eldest pair his mother's dwelling and the surrounding allotment, which was the largest and best, ….And he named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic. To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus.”. translation Benjamin Jowett.

I read this as meaning that the allotment or portion containing the ringed site of Atlantis was the largest and best, but the portion belonging to the younger twin brother was in a part of the continent of Atlantis which was opposite i.e across the Atlantic Ocean from Gades (or Gadeira, today’s Cadiz) which today would make it in Brasil. It was the younger brother’s portion that faced Gades, not the elder brothers portion which was called Atlantis and we are looking for Atlantis and not Gades or Gadeira, besides, you would hardly call the area around Seville an “extremity of the island”.

All the best,

Jim Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 11 | From: England | Registered: May 200
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2008, 03:19:38 pm »

Jim Allen
New Member
Member # 30588


Rate Member   posted 06-09-2008 12:41 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. The site in Bolivia HAS been under water, the wall of stones surrounding the ringed mountain is covered in a white material that looks like coral, but is actually fossilised lake sediments from the time it was under the sea, similarly the greatest percentage of the level rectangular plain itself is covered in salt deposits from the times it was under the sea..

Jim Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 11 | From: England | Registered: May 2008   
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2008, 03:20:21 pm »

docyabut
Member
Member # 117


Rate Member   posted 06-09-2008 04:14 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


Alluvium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvium

PERIODICITY OF NATURAL CATASTROPHES

A) Discontinuous Subsidence

Around 2500 years ago, in ~ 500 b.C., some ancient European towns founded on river deltas underwent a sudden subsidence which brought them below the sea level. The most evident example is that of the city of Sybaris,(Calabria), which underwent a subsidence of about 6 m. The same thing happened at the same time (~ 500 b.C) to the city of Velia (Campania), which was buried under 4 m af alluvium. Still in 500 B.C. the city of Tartesso, Southern Spain, is said to have disappeared in a short time.

http://tetide.geo.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/mortari/Current%20Research.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8477 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2008, 03:21:03 pm »

Georgeos Díaz-Montexano

Member
Member # 3100


Rate Member   posted 06-09-2008 04:46 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Hello Georgeos,

At last we agree on something, that the Atlantean stade in antiquity was smaller than the present Greek stade, since I found in Bolivia by measuring the Altiplano that the stade there was half a Greek stade i.e. a 1/20th part of a minute of latitude.

However I have checked your maps on your webpage and also have at hand a very good modern Atlas with the relief clearly shown, as you say, in three dimensions.

Now I can see where you have marked from Seville to Cordoba as 1200 stades. And I can see where you have marked from Seville further up the Guadalquivir valley as 3,000 stades.
But you have not marked the rectangular aspects of the plain in the other direction of 2,000 stades, and indeed, it would not be possible to do so because the plain was supposed to be SMOOTH and LEVEL, whereas the relief contours in the area you have nominated show your area to be sloping upwards either side of the Guadalquivir river towards the Sierra Morena in the north and the Sierra de Yeguas in the south.

To give you some relief statistics taken from Google satellite, the river Guadalquivir at Seville is 6 metres in altitude, but the land either side is 70 metres in altitude: at Cordoba, the river is 90 metres in altitude whereas the land is 480 metres high on the north and 340 metres high to the south and at Linares, the river is 268 metres in altitude with the adjacent land 500 metres high on the northern side and 690 metres high on the southern side. That can not be defined as smooth and LEVEL in anybody’s book so your maps are completely false and worthless as can be verified by any cartographer, besides, you do not show the plain in the proportion of 3,000 x 2,000 stades whichever unit you choose to use for the stade.

Maybe you would like to redefine your smaller, rectangular plain using the Egyptian Khet of 52.4 metres as the stade proposed by Ulf Richter. That would reduce the plain from 552 by 368km to about 157 by 105km– even at this smaller size no smooth and level rectangular plain can be defined along or adjacent to the Guadalquivir river using any three dimensional map with relief and contours, as the southern side would extend through the sierra Margarita as far as Ronda, so again your theory is baseless.

You can check a relief map of the Guadalquivir river area compared to a map of the Altiplano on this page http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/plaincomparison.htm where it can be seen using a standard three-dimensional relief map which shows that all that exists in the Guadalquivir river area is a normal river valley and delta.

Plato said the island metropolis with the concentric rings of land was “near the plain, over against its centre, at a distance of about fifty stades, there stood a mountain that was low on all sides” and also that it was “50 stades from the sea” and that is where we find the ruined island of Pampa Aullagas on the level Altiplano, fifty stades from the sea.The fact that you cannot make it fit your theory of Guadalquivir river area is unfortunate (for you) but then you have to resort to dismissing this part of Plato’s story.


All the best,

Jim Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Mr Allen:

Obviously you can not read the Old Classic Greek, otherwise we would have already noticed that at no time in the Critias is written that the plain was 3000 stadia in length x width of 2000 stadia. It only indicates the maximum length, which are about 3000 stadia, but at no time is specified width, the written word width does not appear in any of the known codices. The figure for 2000 stadia is indicated only to clarify the distance from the sea had, upwards (ANW), up just over half of the maximum length, which was 3000 stadia; other words, Plato (or Solon) uses the phrase: "upwards", ie, that the plain was on the rise as they are introduced into the interior, just like in the plains of southwest Iberia (besides Guadalquivir, are also the vast plains of Portugal). Moreover, not all plain was flat, or flat, or soft, only the portion surrounding the metropolis, or only the part closest to the mainland, so we have enough space, which could well, these low and flat plains (I suppose that will have seen the photo) near the Guadalquivir River Delta and other plains of Southwest Iberia, ie, from Spain to Portugal.

Mr Allen, with all due respect to you ... You can not make any theory about Atlantis, without the help of a palaeographical, lexicographical, and philological etymological depth study, and rigorous, ie, without making a thorough comparison between all codices and manuscripts preserved of the Timaeus and Critias, and up date, I have been the only atlantologist of history has shown that having done this study, since more than 15 years ago, and which already occupies more than 3000 pages written with critical apparatus, and this is my great advantage, and as atlantologist as a researcher who follows and respects the scientific method.

As I have said many times to other atlantologists, and also you yourself, how can you know that the measures, figures and numbers you believe, as the old English translation you use, are correct?, How can you know who is on track, when there are different variations in the codices and manuscripts that indicate many figures and numbers lower, even less than half in most of the figures?.

A true scientist should consider all alternatives, namely all codices and manuscripts preserved, but you only work with one version, the version of English translations (Jowett, Bury, Leè, etc..) Which are all made using editing Greek texts of Burnet, or Bekker, primarily on a single codex, which is classified as a codex Parisinus 1807, and that just as they have already demonstrated the greatest experts in the tradition of handwritten Timeo and the Critias, in modern times, as the great Mr. Jonkers, presents many different types of errors: errors of omission of words and phrases, errors by additions of words and phrases that do not exist in any of the remaining known codices, errors by frequent amended, adaptations, and reinterpretations, all these mistakes made by medieval Christian monks, and so on.

In short, you use for investigative purposes, the English translations, which also contain numerous errors of translation and interpretation, from the Greek into English (demonstrated by other specialists, not only by me), and that it is sufficient to call into question and doubt any attempt to identify Atlantis using these translations, besides this, all these translations English (or French or German, since all use the same codex Parisinus 1807), which you use, are based on a single codex, which is precisely what several more errors (mistakes as omissions, additions or inventions, or to amend errors, adaptations, or reinterpretations) have all known codices.

Only for those reasons, his entire theory lacks any scientific value, and should not even be considered as a mere hypothesis, beyond a mere subjective speculation without any scientific basis, and no documentary support, as it lacks the support of a real palaeographical, lexicographical, etymological and philological study deep and rigorous of all codices and manuscripts preserved of the Timaeus and Critias, and I repeat: so far, I have been the only atlantologist of history has shown that having done this study.

Unlike you, I confront the study of Scientific Atlantology, through a detailed analysis and deep tradition of the entire manuscript preserved, and known, the texts of Plato's Timaeus and Critias, ie, across all codices and MSS known. In short, I, unlike you (and all other hunters Atlantis), I think and I use all known variants, ie, I think I have ever present and all the various options that exist in all codices ...

Accordingly, and considering all these variants, the plain surrounding the mainland could have a maximum length of about 3000 stadia (according to the most widely used codex, the Parisinus 1807), or it could have only about 300 stadia in length, or even Only about 100 stadia (about 18.5 km.), and that is precisely the version that matches the distance from the mainland, from the coast of the Sea (50 stadia), which in turn was in the middle of the plain .

As unfortunately has not been found yet any copy of the papyrus texts of Critias, and therefore we have no copy of the Critias that is close to Plato's times, or times of the Academy, when there were still direct his disciples, then we can not know which of these alternatives (and I have mentioned only three) are correct, since the oldest retain copies of Critias is the centuries AD IX to XII, made by Christian monks, especially by Byzantines.

Studies show that before the invention of parchment, or codices made from the skins of sheep, goats or calves, only when the Greeks wrote on papyrus, the texts were copied at least once every 100 years (some authors have shown evidence that each was about 60 years), because it's easy to deduce how many copies were made in the original writings of Plato, which were edited for the first time, 30 years after his death, in times of Xenocrates (around 315 BC), only within about 1210 years, which is the estimated time between the first edition of Plato's papyrus texts, and copying Byzantine, parchment, oldest known, were conducting more than 18 or 20 copies, meaning that nearly twenty copyists of different eras, different religions, different ideologies, different philosophies, different expertise, and methodologies of various scientific rigour or seriousness, made a copy of the manuscript earlier, and soon copied, or other manuscripts (because they are different branches or families), and this explains why I've found numerous errors in copying, added words and phrases that do not exist, as amended, and censorship, "corrections", or adaptations, ie, what the copyist believed that I should say, not what actually was written, and so on. ...

Conclusion: that the texts that have survived until today are quite altered, modified, changed and adapted to different ideologies, and currents of thoughts, and therefore it is impossible to make any serious study, rigorous, and with scientific intentions, about the Plato's Atlantis, without first conducting a detailed study, and deep, across the manuscript tradition preserved, and known, the texts of Plato's Timaeus and Critias, ie, without first conducting a thorough comparative study and especially critical of all codices and MSS known, and this type of study, has never been done by any atlantologist, before me. I have been the only thing it has done, and are currently in the process of publishing and printing, scheduled to be published in September this year, in Spanish, and for next year in English.

If you are unable to understand the enormous importance of a palaeographical, lexicographical, etymological and philological study deep and rigorous of all codices and manuscripts preserved of the Timaeus and Critias, before pursue any study ( with serious intentions) on the Plato's Atlantis, then is that you do not know absolutely nothing about the scientific method. If you think you can go ahead with a theory that is manufactured solely on the basis of only a few translations that use a codex (in addition to contain serious errors of interpretation and translation from Greek into English), and translations that are not have included all the variants that exist in the rest of the codices and manuscripts known (and not only in Greek, but also in Latin, Arabic, Armenian and Syrian), then you do not feel that it is neither the slightest respect for science and the scientific method. And if so, I do not have any interest in further discussion with you.

To sum up: you can no longer insisting that his theory is correct, when you're not able to demonstrate that you use the translations that are correct... And not is enough on academic prestige of the authors of these translations, for the simple reason - that in this case - no matter the academic prestige, it is enough with to know that all of them used only for their translations to a single codex, the Parisinus 1807, of more than 72 codices known. Therefore, as you've never used a translation that is taken into account at all codices and MSS known of Timaeus and Critias (and who are in Greek, Latin, Arabic, Armenian and Syrian), then you do not can prove or convince anyone, that the criteria you use to locate Atlantis, and to identify the plain and other natural and geographical elements, are correct. Your work, simply is not scientific, because it is a mandatory rule, in Science, considers all the possible options and variables, in this case, all the codices and MSS known, with all its variants ...

You can not tell you whether the criteria used are correct, since these criteria you use, only respond to a single variant of all existing ones, which could be correct, of course, but also could be more wrong option, erroneous or more of all, could even be an option absolutely false. The only possible way that you can have greater security, or certainty about the criteria you use, and hence, expose those criteria as correct or true, or at least, as the most correct among all variants and variables exist, is conducting comparative research that I have already done, but unfortunately for you, and for all atlantologists, there is no palaeographical, lexicographical, and philological etymological deep and rigorous study (which has been published, nor even known) all codices and manuscripts preserved of the Timaeus and Critias, where we can see a thorough and critical analysis of all the texts, exposed all at once, and comparing all differences and contradictions, word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraphs, and also comparing all these variants with indirect references that exist for comments on the Timaeus and Critias made from antiquity to the Medieval Age, many authors who worked with copies papyrus closest to Plato's times. ..

In reality, the only precedent that exists in my work (this type of study) is that of Mr. Jonkers (and which already has nearly 20 years), but he only has been limited to a study by the Stemma, namely a study pedigree, a study to determine the origin of the different families of codices and MSS, and as few copies deriving other, but there is no study in its comparative analysis of all texts, comparing word by word, not even paragraphs or sections, and even less focused on identifying the many differences between the various options and variables all codices, especially with regard to the sections concerning the story of Atlantis. Only I have done such a study.

You can only say (and thus should always do), according to translations that you use (quoting each), and also should indicate only provided that such translations are done primarily on a single codex (ie, 1% of codices existing), then you, based on this 1% of the codices and MSS known of Timaeus and Critias, you believe that Atlantis was in Bolivia, and everything else that you exposed on the plains and other natural elements… But you can not say that my theory (nor the theory of another author) is absurd, or false, simply because you only use a single codex, that is, you only sustain your theory by 1% of all existing codices, while that I use 100% of the codices known.

In short, I think and analyze, and I have this, with all the codices and MSS konwn, ie, I, unlike you, I use 100% of the various options and variables known, and identified (to date, because every time appear more variable or variants), while you sustain all their arguments, and assumptions, criteria based on a single codex, called Parisinus 1807, or in only 1% of options and variables known. Therefore, I am in a better position to challenge scientific and calling into question your theory, I'm more trained that you to try your theory (and any other theory), and even to your judgement as absurd theory, or as false because I use and I think all codices, and all options and variables known, and detected so far. Ultimately, I work with 100% of the documentary information existing or known, and you only 1%, and since only by this fact, my work, my research and my whole theory is much more scientific and more reliable than yours, and therefore my theory is more likely to approach the final solution of the mystery of Atlantis.

I suppose you know the list of 24 points from Milos (2005), necessary or indispensable, in order to qualify as rigorous or serious, any hypothesis or theory on Plato's Atlantis, well, these 24 points (all earned on the same English translation you use, ie, about 1% of the codices and MSS known of Timaeus and Critias), I make you a question, and I hope that is as honest as possible, how many similarities you can find with your theory? We are all very clear what are the only matches that you can find and prove - beyond any reasonable doubt - but I hope that you yourself, be honest enough to recognise what those matches, then we shall see, because we are too few …

Before concluding I would like to make a final thought, you committed serious errors of analysis and scientific thought, you think to show the location and identification of Atlantis was enough to find a geographical coincidence, but this is absolutely a thought very little or nothing scientist. It is not enough to find a plain that matches the description of Plato, even though the criteria you use (and which are only based on a single codex of more than 70 codices and MSS known) might be correct (which does not has been demonstrated); still not be sufficient, first, because plains similar to the plain of Atlantis (using these criteria of the codex Parisinus 1807), can be found in many places on the planet, so that any researcher could defend another location Atlantis, and even you could not even say that the criteria for this absurd or another investigator are wrong. That does not work Scientific nor a scientific method, Mr. Allen, you try to prove what is the correct location and identification of Plato's Atlantis, you need to find further matches very clear among all the points described in Timaeus and Critias (or even if assuming that the only codex in the you sustain is correct).

You need to get a coincidence that is over at least 70% of all the points made in the story, and that they are certainly not 24 as in Schedule Milos, but there are many more. Assuming that the measures, and numerical figures you use, based on a single codex, are correct, or that more closely approximate the actual measures used by Solon, or by Plato, you could only do coincide, roughly, the plain Atlantis with the plain of the Altiplano of Bolivia that you are proposing, but it could do so many other researchers, even without departing too much from Gibraltar, since you always forget (a very convenient) than in the same codex who used all translators you use, the Parisinus 1807 (and in all known), Plato (or Solon) exclusively uses the word PRO, to locate Atlantis regard to Gibraltar, and no expert in Greek never would dare to say that PRO can be translated as something that is far beyond the reach of any possible vision. All experts and Old Greek Classic, know perfectly well that PRO has always been used to indicate something which is very close to the doors, to the sight, the benchmark used to locate. Therefore, if the ATLANTIS NHSOS was located in/before (PRO) the mouth of Gibraltar, then it was just a few meters, or very few miles in any case always in the sight, ie, within the field of vision at any sailor the centre or middle of the Strait of Gibraltar. If Atlantis was in the Madeiras, for example, was no longer PRO, was already far enough to be outside the scope of vision. Therefore, if nor even the Madeiras, nor the Azores, nor the Canary Islands, could be ATLANTIS NHSOS... how then could be ATLANTIS NHSOS the continent of South America? ... how could the metropolis of Atlantis in the extreme almost exposed, on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, when in Timaeus and Critias read (in all codices and MSS known) that the metropolis (or part of the NHSOS) sank in ATLANTKOU PELAGOS, ie, in the Atlantic Pelagus? ... And ATLANTIKOU PELAGOS which was the name the Greeks gave always (even before Solon) out to sea from the coasts of Iberia and Morocco, especially at the current Gulf of Cadiz, ie, the nearest part of the Atlantic to the Straits of Gibraltar.

You also need to match other very important points of the story with your theory. You need, for example, show that in the Andes, or Bolivia, or elsewhere in South America (assuming that all South Americas is the same Atlantis Nhsos) Atlanteans had chariots pulled by horses, bronze and iron weapons, many horses, and numerous ships or trireme, and also that there were abundant elephants, and of course we can not accept the prehistoric mastodon or other species that became extinct when the man was still in the Age of Caverns, no, you have to demonstrate that in South America existed many elephants, at least in the days when the Atlanteans fought against the Athenians, ie, at times close to Deucalion (1529 BC, according Marmor Parium), in the days when the kings of the prevailing Cecropidae Dinasty, as we read in the Critias 110th-b.

Even if you were one of those authors who still believe in the stupid idea that Atlantis sank 11,560 years ago, namely that the Athenians, in the same 9000 before Solon, where they founded their first city, were already the sufficiently armed to confront the Atlanteans, and also win, all within the same historical moment, even so, you need to demonstrate that existed in South America many elephants 11560 years ago, but all fossil Mammuts (mammut americanum and other species) that were found are North America and Mexico, and became extinct some 10000 years while in South America elephants did not exist whatsoever, nor mammuts, 11560 years ago, and the last animal more like an elephant that existed in South America, became extinct at least a million years earlier, but even though someday be found or mammuts elephants in South America, or in the Andes, at an early date to 9000 before Solon, yet you must demonstrate that there were also many horses in South America, these dates of 11560 years ago, but as you know, horses never existed in South America, there was only the forerunner of the horses, the Eohippus, which was slightly larger than a dog, and that became extinct more than 50 million years...

Then... How in what region of Bolivia, or South America, have been found irrefutable scientific evidences that the Pre-Columbian civilizations knew the use of carts pulled by horses, and the use of ivory, bronze, tin and iron?

In addition, the Atlanteans had wars against the Athenians, therefore, it is logical to assume that in the original country of the Atlanteans, ie, in Atlantis, at least in one province of ATLANTIS NHSOS, should be archaeological evidences of contact with the ancient Mycenaeans Greeks... Then... Do in what region of the Andes, or South America, have been found unquestionable archaeological evidences, well located and dated by scientific methods, as belonging to the Mycenanean civilization?

To dismiss this whole affair, with the simple argument that Plato (or Solon) used data from the history of Troy, or "Sea Peoples", and added to the story of Atlantis, without actually belonged to the original Atlantis, only for to embellish the story, while the original and genuine Atlantis, in reality simply be a Pre-Columbian civilization of the Andes, is simply a mockery against science, and against rational thinking, is even a serious attack against the most elementary sense common... With this method so absurd and so little scientific, anyone can put Atlantis where you please, in Australia in any of the Islands of Oceania in the Pacific, Japan, China, Indonesia, etc., etc. ... And you do not could say that his theory is absurd, since it could be as correct, or more than you theory.

In any case, the main proof that shows that your theory is absurd and totally unlikely, is not only that Atlantis was in the Atlantic, almost precisely in the mouth of the Gibraltar Strait, or so near that it was visible from Gibraltar, but who so far has never appeared nor a single archaeological evidence of any Pre-Columbian civilization (nor from Peru, nor from Mexico, nor from North America) across the Mediterranean, from the coasts of Iberia and Morocco, to the coasts of the Tyrrhenian (Italy), Greece, and Asia (Anatolian), and the coasts of Libya to Egypt, because it is impossible to admit that the Atlanteans having conquered or colonized almost all peoples and most important cities in the interior of the Mediterranean, from Columns Hercules, have not deposited, albeit by a simple loss, nor even a single archaeological evidence, such as for example, a fragment of pottery, bronze or a sword or a shield or a helmet. In reality, is not exist none archaeological evidence of none civilization of world outside or beyond from environment Mediterranean and the more closely regions, and the Atlantic coasts from Iberia and Morocco.

This is the real proof of fire facing all theories, anyone who has been the Atlanteans should be some archaeological evidences of these Atlanteans (most likely weapons), at various points inside the Mediterranean, at least in the places most important cited by Plato, as are the shores of Europe, from the Pillars of Hercules, until the Tyrrhenian, and Asia (Anatolia), and the coasts of Libya, also from Gibraltar, until the borderline with Egypt.

My theory has bypassed the proof of fire, or main proof in order to qualify as likely or logical theory, precisely because at the time in that the occurred the war between Atlanteans and the peoples of the interior of the Pillars of Hercules (ie The peoples of the Mediterranean) was in Cecropidae and Deucalion's times (between 1581 BC and 1529 BC), according Critias 110a-b and 111e-112a. Iberia there was a civilization of the Bronze Age, whose arms typical and cultural mores, funeral, and the manner to build some graves have been found for almost the entire Mediterranean, and archaeology has shown this dispersal from Iberia up in the eastern Mediterranean regions, such as the tombs known as tholos, which has already been demonstrated is invented in Iberia (since the earliest date are at Iberia), and that the Mycenaeans then copied Iberia, the same manner that the Iberians of the Bronze Age copied from the Mycenaeans custom to bury the corpses in large pithoi. Thus, while in the regions of Greece (of Mycenae times) have appeared archaeological evidences whose origin is Iberian, in Iberia have appeared equally archaeological evidences whose origin is Mycenae. And also in other Mediterranean island as Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica evidences have emerged from Iberia, besides references from Greek and Roman authors who claim that almost all the Mediterranean was colonized by some ancient armies from Iberia, in precisely the same legendary times that prevailed in Greece the Cecropidae Dynasty, and before the catastrophe of Deucalion, always before the Theseu's times, exactly as we read in the Critias 110a-b and 111e-112a.

However, to date, has not appeared not a single archaeological evidences typical or exclusive from any Pre-Columbian civilization in none part of the Mediterranean (ie, nor in Iberia, nor in Morocco, nor in Libya, nor in Greece, nor in Sicily, nor in the Tyrrhenian or Italian peninsula)... In short, anywhere where the Atlanteans had wars, and colonies, has never appeared not a single evidence of any civilization Pre-Columbian...

How can explain an event as significant as this?...

I suppose you really explains the same manner that has tried to dispatch all the points that are not suitable to your theory, or that for you the explanation is simple: the only real part of the whole and true story of Atlantis, would only Part geographical, namely the description of the plain, and everything else would be a mere invention of Solon and Plato, mixing data from other ancient stories of the Mediterranean. That is, for you, the real Atlanteans (Pre-Columbian Aboriginal Bolivia), never invaded the peoples of the north Atlantic to the Mediterranean peoples of the interior as we read in Timaeus and Critias, and of course, nor should we give importance the powerful army armed with horse carts, and large boats, simply because this would be inventions, or additions, by the Egyptian priests, or Solon, or Plato himself.

This is the question now requires: if the Atlanteans never invaded the Mediterranean peoples, and never fought against the Greeks and Egyptians, then, why it is important to the Egyptians of Sais, and for thta the Greeks to record and remember a war and a feat (the victory of the Athenians against the Atlanteans) that never happened in reality?.

Mr. Allen, everything that you are proposing violates the most basic common sense, and is a serious insult against scientific thinking. If the real Atlanteans, as you believe, are Pre-Columbian Aborigins from Bolivia, never invaded the peoples of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean peoples from Gibraltar, until Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean on both coasts, how is it possible then that the Egyptians (or Solon) have found it necessary to register as something very important, a war and an invasion that never existed?, and if in reality Pre-Columbian aboriginal peoples from Bolivia invaded the Mediterranean, how is it possible that there never appeared nor a single typical or exclusive archaeological evidence from a Pre-Columbian civilization anywhere in the Mediterranean, or in the Atlantic coasts of Iberia and Morocco?.

For you, the only thing that really belongs to Atlantis is the small part of Critias is described where the plain, oreikhalkós, and little more (just a small percentage of the story, because you like working with very small percentages), but everything else, or the rest of the story, which is the highest percentage of the story, means nothing to you, it is not important, it is not useful, because they are simply inventions or additions by Solon, or by Plato, or by the Egyptian priests, as you think... Honestly, how do you think this is serious, "Do you really think that this manner of thinking that you use is scientific?.

With regard to the translation that was Gadeira FACING of Gibraltar, is one of the most serious errors that exist in translating Jowett, and a few authors who simply copied from Jowett, punctuated (curiously the same you use). For many years now demonstrated with palaeographical and lexicographical proofs, which in the Greek text in the Critias, exactly in Critias 114, there is no word in that paragraph which can be translated as FACING, simply Jowett made the mistake of translate EPI as FACING, but EPI, in the Critias 114, is with Genitive (THS GADEIRIKHS), and therefore can only be read as "over/near/in the region of Gadeira", as indeed we read in most of the most recent translations, and in the majority of translations most important from Europe, and of course, in the most ancient translations made in the Medieval Age, to Latin. In fact, only as it is possible to translate EPI like FACING, or OPPOSITE, or IN FRONT OF, when you're EPI with accusative, but the name of the region of Gadeira is in Genitive in the Critias 114.

That knows what every single student of Greek Old Classic, and also can be found in the Old Classic Greek grammars, most authoritative and updated, and of course, can also be observed in the most authoritative and timely Lexicons of Old Classic Greek. Therefore, you should forget translating FACING, simply because it is a SERIOUS ERROR of translation, which violates the known and well-established rules of grammar of the Greek Classic...

In short, that Gadeira is mentioned just very near of the Pillars of Hercules, as one of the ten regions of the NHSOS ATLANTIS, and as Gadeira has always been near of the Pillars of Hercules, and within the vast IBERIA NHSOS, therefore the theory that is more logic and more coherent is this that I advocate of Iberia, and most probably also part of western Morocco (Mauretanea), are remnants that remain after the earthquake disaster and the great tsunami that destroyed a significant portion of the ATLANTIS NHSOS.

In any case, ATLANTIS NHSOS, according Plato, was located "in/before" (PRO) "of the mouth" (TOU STOMATÓS), of the Pillars of Hercules, exactly to the sight, at the gates of the mouth Gibraltar, which is very near to the Atlantic mouth of Gibraltar, while the ATLANTIS NHSOS had a region, or province, called Gadeira, which was part of the NHSOS, which ranged from the Pillars of Hercules to the region called Gadeira, therefore the only logical conclusion possible is that ATLANTIS NHSOS must have been very near to Gibraltar, to the sight, always within the field of vision from Gibraltar, and if Gadeira was one of the ten provinces of ATLANTIS NHSOS, then, is unquestionable that IBERIA NHSOS is much that has survived the ATLANTIS NHSOS.

I'm sorry Mr. Allen, but the theory that I advocate, about the Plato's Atlantis as an Iberian-Mauretanean emporium of the Bronze Age, is - beyond any reasonable doubt - which comes closest to the words written in Greek (in all codices and MSS known of Timaeus and Critias), and therefore is more likely is that to achieve success in solving the mystery of Atlantis in the very near future, although obviously you all this will cause much discomfort and displeasure, especially around the time spent in your life, to believe in a theory so preposterous, also based in only 1% of all known manuscripts of Timaeus and Critias. This is the reality harsh and sad.

[ 06-09-2008, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Georgeos Díaz-Montexano ]

--------------------
Kind Regards,
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano
Scientific Atlantology International Society (SAIS)
http://www.GeorgeosDiazMontexano.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1270 | From: Madrid | Registered: May 2006   
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2008, 03:21:34 pm »

Georgeos Díaz-Montexano

Member
Member # 3100


Rate Member   posted 06-09-2008 04:47 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jim Allen:
P.S. The site in Bolivia HAS been under water, the wall of stones surrounding the ringed mountain is covered in a white material that looks like coral, but is actually fossilised lake sediments from the time it was under the sea, similarly the greatest percentage of the level rectangular plain itself is covered in salt deposits from the times it was under the sea..

Jim Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, is correct, but many millions years ago...

--------------------
Kind Regards,
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano
Scientific Atlantology International Society (SAIS)
http://www.GeorgeosDiazMontexano.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1270 | From: Madrid | Registered: May 2006   
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2008, 03:22:06 pm »

Georgeos Díaz-Montexano

Member
Member # 3100


Rate Member   posted 06-09-2008 05:00 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by docyabut:
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.


Alluvium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvium

PERIODICITY OF NATURAL CATASTROPHES

A) Discontinuous Subsidence

Around 2500 years ago, in ~ 500 b.C., some ancient European towns founded on river deltas underwent a sudden subsidence which brought them below the sea level. The most evident example is that of the city of Sybaris,(Calabria), which underwent a subsidence of about 6 m. The same thing happened at the same time (~ 500 b.C) to the city of Velia (Campania), which was buried under 4 m af alluvium. Still in 500 B.C. the city of Tartesso, Southern Spain, is said to have disappeared in a short time.

http://tetide.geo.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/mortari/Current%20Research.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Docyabut:

I found millions of cubic metres of Alluviums from marine origin along hundreds of km by the Andalusian o Tartessian coasts, some with more of 20 metres of high... In my next Book, in Volumen II, for the next year, will be whole this evidences.

[ 06-09-2008, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Georgeos Díaz-Montexano ]

--------------------
Kind Regards,
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano
Scientific Atlantology International Society (SAIS)
http://www.GeorgeosDiazMontexano.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1270 | From: Madrid | Registered: May 2006   
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2008, 03:22:47 pm »

 
Jim Allen
New Member
Member # 30588


Rate Member   posted 06-10-2008 03:48 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Georgeos,

Thank you so much. Quote Georgeos Díaz-Montexano –“Your work, simply is not scientific,”

Yes, in my unscientific attempt to discover a geographical location for Atlantis, I use the three publicly available translations into English made by three of the best classical Greek scholars, namely Benjamin Jowett, R.G. Bury and Sir Desmond Lee.

You in your scientific work support your identification of Atlantis with an “Iberian-Mauretanean emporium” using only the translations made by YOURSELF, rejecting anything from the published classical translations which you don’t like or does not fit your purpose. I don’t think that is what is called “the scientific method”.

When I ask you to show the smooth and level rectangular plain of 3,000 stades by 2,000 stades you are not able to and reply quote “Obviously you can not read the Old Classic Greek, otherwise we would have already noticed that at no time in the Critias is written that the plain was 3000 stadia in length x width of 2000 stadia. It only indicates the maximum length, which are about 3000 stadia, but at no time is specified width, the written word width does not appear in any of the known codices. The figure for 2000 stadia is indicated only to clarify the distance from the sea had, upwards (ANW), up just over half of the maximum length, which was 3000 stadia;”

Yes it was 2,000 stades “reckoning upwards from the sea”, whereas the drawing on your website shows it 3,000 stades in the direction upwards from the sea and does not show the width of 2,000 stades because you are not able to.

So you now resort to dismissing the idea that there was a rectangular plain in the dimension or ration described by Plato. If one side measure 3,000 units and the other side measures 2,000 units, or in it’s centre it measures 2,000 units, that equates to a ratio of 2 to 3, not one half of the maximum length.

If you wish to say, quote “Accordingly, and considering all these variants, the plain surrounding the mainland could have a maximum length of about 3000 stadia (according to the most widely used codex, the Parisinus 1807), or it could have only about 300 stadia in length, or even Only about 100 stadia (about 18.5 km.), and that is precisely the version that matches the distance from the mainland, from the coast of the Sea (50 stadia), which in turn was in the middle of the plain “ then you reduce the great plain of Atlantis to the size of a mere postage stamp 18.5km, that could be fitted in anywhere in the world, even around Seville, and if you are so keen on the description of the horses and chariots and allotments, then the huge number of combatants would find it very crowded n your tiny plain only 18.5 km.

By the way, the plain was SMOOTH and LEVEL and LEVEL means “horizontal”, not inclined and sloping like the plain adjacent the river Guadalquivir you show on your map.

You say quote “You can not make any theory about Atlantis, without the help of a palaeographical, lexicographical, and philological etymological depth study” but in the end, people want to see where is the rectangular level plain and where is the low mountain enclosed with circles of land, well I can show you a site in Bolivia but you can not show me a site in the region you propose.

Quote GDM “you need to demonstrate that existed in South America many elephants 11560 years ago, but all fossil Mammuts (mammut americanum and other species) that were found are North America and Mexico, and became extinct some 10000 years while in South America elephants did not exist whatsoever, nor mammuts, 11560 years ago, and the last animal more like an elephant that existed in South America, became extinct at least a million years earlier, but even though someday be found or mammuts elephants in South America, or in the Andes, at an early date to 9000 before Solon, yet you must demonstrate that there were also many horses in South America, these dates of 11560 years ago,”

Both elephants (a mastodon IS an elephant) and horses existed in South America at the date Plato gave and both are thought to have become extinct at around the date Plato gave. You can find photos of elephants from South America on my webpage and reports of the find five years ago of a fossilised horse in Peru dating to around 8,000 BC on this link http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s791004.htm

Although you say, quote “anyone can put Atlantis where you please, in Australia in any of the Islands of Oceania in the Pacific, Japan, China, Indonesia, etc., etc” yes they can attempt to put Atlantis in any of these place, but none of these places corresponds to Plato’s description, that is the published English translations of Plato, published by scientific and academic authorities.

You claim your “ theory has bypassed the proof of fire,” It hasn’t, it has only passed the proof of Georgeos Díaz-Montexano.

You ask if “I suppose you know the list of 24 points from Milos (2005), necessary or indispensable, in order to qualify as rigorous or serious, any hypothesis or theory on Plato's Atlantis, well, these 24 points (all earned on the same English translation you use, ie, about 1% of the codices and MSS known of Timaeus and Critias), I make you a question, and I hope that is as honest as possible, how many similarities you can find with your theory? You think to show the location and identification of Atlantis was enough to find a geographical coincidence You need to get a coincidence that is over at least 70% of all the points made in the story, and that they are certainly not 24 as in Schedule Milos,”

How many “co-incidences” can I find with the published list of the Milos conference? I paste them in below and it comes to 18 from their list which is 75%, i.e. more than the criterion you specified and more than any other location in the world. How many can you find from the same list? For your site it comes to maybe 4 or 17%, a poor showing indeed for a theory that “passed the test of fire”.


Athens conference 2008 quote “During the course of the 1st International Conference “The Atlantis Hypothesis – Searching for a Lost Land” it became obvious that criteria were needed to help identify the resting place of Atlantis and that all seekers of the lost land should use the same criteria. Otherwise the search of Atlantis could well turn into a search for any lost civilization anywhere in the world. Thus, in a special round table discussion at the very end of the conference, the following 24 criteria, derived directly from Plato’s account, were established by consensus.”

Link to Athens conference Atlantis definition
http://milos.conferences.gr/index.php?id=4354&L=0

Atlantis was located on an island.
Island exists on the Altiplano, YES Island exists in Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO

The Metropolis of Atlantis had a most distinct geomorphology composed of alternating concentric rings of land and water.
Island on the Altiplano YES Island in Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO

On a low hill about 50 stades inland within the capital city itself, an inner citadel was erected to protect the original home of Cleito and Poseidon.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO
The island on the Altiplano is 50 stades inland from the sea and has an inner citadel.

Atlantis had hot and cold-water springs, with mineral deposits.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta hot and cold springs NO, mineral deposits YES

Atlantis had red, white and black rocks.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO

Atlantis was larger than Libya and Asia combined.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO

Atlantis sheltered a wealthy population with literate, building, mining, metallurgical and navigational skills.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta YES

The main region of Atlantis lay on a coastal plain, measuring 2.000 x 3.000 stades, surrounded by mountains which rose precipitously high above sea level.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO

The coastal plain of Atlantis faced south and was sheltered from the northern winds.
Island on the Altiplano Not known Guadalquivir river valley or Delta Not known, say YES
The practice in ancient times was to draw maps with east at the top, and a map like this still exists showing the Andes at the “south” of the map. It’s by the Inca historian Guaman Poma. The Atlantic was also known as “the way of the north” and the Pacific was known as “the way of the south”, later, “the South Sea”.
I have no idea which direction the prevailing wind comes from on the Altiplano, and how do you know where the wind came from thousands of years ago 9,500 years before Solon…..….

The Atlantes had created a checker-board pattern of canals for irrigation.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO
Some of the chequer-board canals can be seen on satellite images to be sunk under the inland sea.

Atlantis had mineral resources and a rich spectrum of wild and domesticated flora and fauna, including elephants.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta resources Yes, elephants No

Atlantis had a high population density, enough to support a large army composed of 1.200.000 men, 10.000 chariots and 1.200 ships.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO

Within the Straits of Gibraltar, Atlantis controlled Libya up to the borders of Egypt and Europe as far as Tyrrhenia (i.e. Italy).
Island on the Altiplano Not known Guadalquivir river valley or Delta Not known

The religion of Atlantis involved the sacrifice of bulls.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta Not known
All names were translated into Greek and there was no Greek word for “llama” at the time Plato was writing. The method of sacrificing the animal by cutting it’s throat and throwing parts into the fire and drinking a libation, as described by Plato, are identical to animal sacrifices which continue to the day on the Altiplano, therefore closer to animal sacrifices on the Altiplano than to the slaughter of bulls in Spain.

The kings of Atlantis assembled alternatively every 5th and 6th year to consult on matters of mutual interest and it is during those assemblies that they sacrificed bulls. Island on the Altiplano Not known Guadalquivir river valley or Delta Not known

The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed by a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO
The island has been shattered by earthquakes and the rectangular Altiplano was submerged by the sea.

Earthquakes and floods of extraordinary violence were the precursors of Atlantis’ destruction.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta Not provable

The Metropolis of Atlantis was swallowed by the sea and vanished under the water, following the occurrence of earthquakes and floods.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta Not provable

At the time of its destruction, Atlantis was at war with Athens.
Island on the Altiplano Not provable Guadalquivir river valley or Delta Not provable

Atlantis should have been reachable from Athens by sea.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta YES
A pre-Columbian Greek style amphora exists in the museum in Oruro on the Altiplano by the sea. Pre-Columbian Egyptian style storage jars exist in the museum in Tarija to the east of the Altiplano and a dish with Sumerian writing was found on the shores of Lake Titicaca.

After the destruction of Atlantis, the passage of ships was blocked by shallows due to mud just below the surface, the remains of the sunken island.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO

The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed 9000 years before the 6th century BC.
Island on the Altiplano no data Guadalquivir river valley or Delta no data

No physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the formation and destruction of the Metropolis of Atlantis, but could not have been responsible for the destruction of a landmass the size of a continent. Also, no physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the formation of hot water springs and in the formation of red, white and black rocks.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO
The Altiplano has been sunk by earthquakes at or some time after the original date given by Plato whereas the remaining landmass the size of a continent is still there. Natural springs and red, black and white rocks still exist on the volcanic island at Pampa Aullagas

Totals
Island on the Altiplano 18 Guadalquivir river valley or Delta 4
Island on the Altiplano 75% Guadalquivir river valley or delta 17%

All the best,

Jim Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 11 | From: England | Registered: May 2008   
 
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2008, 03:23:20 pm »

docyabut
Member
Member # 117


Rate Member   posted 06-10-2008 05:06 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Allen

Atlantis had a high population density, enough to support a large army composed of 1.200.000 men, 10.000 chariots and 1.200 ships.
Island on the Altiplano YES Guadalquivir river valley or Delta NO


Is there any evidence of just one of those 10,000 chariots in Altiplano?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8477 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2008, 03:23:48 pm »

docyabut
Member
Member # 117


Rate Member   posted 06-10-2008 05:38 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qoute -I found millions of cubic metres of Alluviums from marine origin along hundreds of km by the Andalusian o Tartessian coasts, some with more of 20 metres of high... In my next Book, in Volumen II, for the next year, will be whole this evidences.

Cool Georgous:)

[ 06-10-2008, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: docyabut ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8477 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2008, 03:24:28 pm »

Georgeos Díaz-Montexano

Member
Member # 3100


Rate Member   posted 06-10-2008 07:57 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Allen:

You insult the intelligence of human beings, you think we are all about perfect idiots, because if you think that we are rational and intelligent persons, would not have published the latest post.

You have manipulated and distorted the responses of a scandalous manner. You have falsified the facts for their interest. Fortunately for me, the majority of persons of this Forum, persons are educated, intelligent, and you've read enough about Ancient History of the Mediterranean and Iberia, and they know perfectly well that all the points that you refused to Iberia, are simple denials without baseless.

Then I will explain the facts, according to the truth, and not according to the falsification of history that you seek to impose.

Link to Athens conference Atlantis definition
http://milos.conferences.gr/index.php?id=4354&L=0

1. Atlantis was located on an island.

Island exists on the Altiplano, NO

Island exists in Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES

[and in adition, several islands, and also IBERIA was an Island or NHSOS, for the Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians and Arabian authors]

2. The Metropolis of Atlantis had a most distinct geomorphology composed of alternating concentric rings of land and water.

Island on the Altiplano, YES

Island in Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES

[In Marinaleda, Sevilla, and Jaén, two concentric circular cities with concentric circular canals and earth-rings]

3. On a low hill about 50 stades inland within the capital city itself, an inner citadel was erected to protect the original home of Cleito and Poseidon.

Island on the Altiplano, NO (It is still NOT demonstrated)

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES (IS VERY PROBABLE)

But quote Mr Allen: The island on the Altiplano is 50 stades inland from the sea and has an inner citadel.


4. Atlantis was located outside the Pillars of Hercules.

Island on the Altiplano, NO

[is in Pacific coast, no in Atlantic, very far away from Pillars of Hercules]

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES!!!

[Great part of Iberia is PRO (in/before) of the Pillars of Hercules]

5. Atlantis had hot and cold-water springs, with mineral deposits.

Island on the Altiplano, NO (It is still NOT demonstrated)

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire hot and cold springs, YES!, mineral deposits, YES!!!

6. Atlantis had red, white and black rocks.

Island on the Altiplano, YES (but It is still NOT demonstrated.)

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES (and several sites)

7. Atlantis was larger than Libya and Asia combined.

Island on the Altiplano, NO

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, NO

8. Atlantis sheltered a wealthy population with literate, building, mining, metallurgical and navigational skills.

Island on the Altiplano, NO

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES

9. The main region of Atlantis lay on a coastal plain, measuring 2.000 x 3.000 stades, surrounded by mountains which rose precipitously high above sea level.

Island on the Altiplano, NO (Altiplano is NOT a coastal plain)

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES (is a coastal plain, and in adition, is surrounded by mountains which rose precipitously high above sea level)

10. The coastal plain of Atlantis faced south and was sheltered from the northern winds.

Island on the Altiplano, NOT (not known)

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES

11. The Atlantes had created a checker-board pattern of canals for irrigation.

Island on the Altiplano, NOT

[It is still not demonstrated that are channels constructed for peoples of 11560 years ago, very probably are constructions of the pre-Columbian indigenous to a few centuries before Columbus.]

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES (In adition, many canals, even mentioned by Strabo)

12. Atlantis had mineral resources and a rich spectrum of wild and domesticated flora and fauna, including elephants.

Island on the Altiplano, elephants, NO

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire resources Yes!, elephants, YES

[Even a own species, several evidences of ivory and bones of elephants even from Neolithical and Bronze Age; the numerous armies of the Turdetaneans (progeny from the Tartessians) and that they are counted by the Greeks and Romans authors, by thousands of thousands, was using shields of bronze covered by leather or skin of elephant, which demonstrates that they were provided with an enormous quantity of elephants. Elephants appear in Tratessians coins of Iberia, of the times previous to the arrival of the Carthaginians, and also they appear in pottery and petroglyhs of Bronze Age, but also, my theory is that Plato's Atlantis, was an Iberian-Mauretanean center that floreción principally in Bronze Age, and in the part of Morocco, there were always elephants, even up to the Medieval Age.]

13. Atlantis had a high population density, enough to support a large army composed of 1.200.000 men, 10.000 chariots and 1.200 ships.

Island on the Altiplano, NO

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES

[A clarification, the army of Atlantis was not only of the region of Atlas, that it would be the Vale of the Guadalquivir, but it was formed by warriors of all the provinces of the ATLANTIS NHSOS.]

14. Within the Straits of Gibraltar, Atlantis controlled Libya up to the borders of Egypt and Europe as far as Tyrrhenia (i.e. Italy).

Island on the Altiplano NOT (NEVER!!!)

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES!

[There exist references of important Greek and Roman authors that confirm an invasion and colonization of the interior of the Mediterranean for armies provenientes of Iberia, and the archaeology demonstrates the presence and the influence of Iberian civilizations of the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age inside the Mediterranean, even in the same found Mycenaean Grecia.do you demonstrate of pre-columbian civilization of Sout America in no part of the Mediterranean.]

15. The religion of Atlantis involved the sacrifice of bulls.

Island on the Altiplano, NO!!!

(Bulls have NEVER existed in the PAltiplano!!!, nor even approximately 11560 years ago.)

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES!!!

[and many bulls!!!, and up to proper species of bulls, from red, to blacks, and other colors... Iberia has always been the country of the bulls, par excellence...]

Quote Mr Allen: "All names were translated into Greek and there was no Greek word for “llama” at the time Plato was writing. The method of sacrificing the animal by cutting it’s throat and throwing parts into the fire and drinking a libation, as described by Plato, are identical to animal sacrifices which continue to the day on the Altiplano, therefore closer to animal sacrifices on the Altiplano than to the slaughter of bulls in Spain.

To say that the bulls of Atlantis in reality are 'llamas', it is the most ridiculous!!! of all the absurdities that he had never read...

16. The kings of Atlantis assembled alternatively every 5th and 6th year to consult on matters of mutual interest and it is during those assemblies that they sacrificed bulls.

Island on the Altiplano, NOT

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES!!!

[Exactly it was a very ancient custom of Iberia that even kept on existing in the Medieval Age, in the times of the kings visigodos, and it is registered in several codices and medieval documents.]

17. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed by a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions.

Island on the Altiplano, NO (It is still NOT demonstrated)

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES (IS VERY PROBABLE)

[The Spanish and French scientists, scientists have found proofs of the existence of at least approximately 8 megatsunamis cocktails with enormous earthquakes, which happened with intervals of a few 1500 or 2000 years, for 12 years, until the year 1755 AD, and these enormous catastrophes there affected all the coasts of the south-west of Iberia, especially, the coasts of Gibraltar up to Cadiz and the mouth of the Guadalquivir, provocandos numerous thousands of deaths of human beings, and the destruction of many cities, and any of these cities might have been the metropolis of Atlantis.]

Quote Mr Allen: The island has been shattered by earthquakes and the rectangular Altiplano was submerged by the sea...

But this is still not demonstrated of scientist manner, it is only a simple speculation of Mr Allen

18. Earthquakes and floods of extraordinary violence were the precursors of Atlantis’ destruction.

Island on the Altiplano, NO

[this is still not demonstrated of scientist manner]

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES (IS VERY PROBABLE!)

19. The Metropolis of Atlantis was swallowed by the sea and vanished under the water, following the occurrence of earthquakes and floods.

Island on the Altiplano, NO!!!

[The last time that the sea was over the Plateau, it was long ago, but many, million years. This is one of the most absurd ideas that Mr Allen tries to impose on the persons, that he thinks that they are idiotic or uncultivated, because nobody who has studied little geography and geology, might accept that approximately 11560 years ago, the sea was coming up to the height of the Plateau of Bolivia.]

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES (IS VERY, VERY PROBABLE!!!)

20. At the time of its destruction, Atlantis was at war with Athens.

Island on the Altiplano, Definitively NOT!

Guadalquivir river valley, YES!!!

[Greek and Roman texts confirm an invasion and colonization of the interior of the Mediterranean up to the Asia, by peoples provenientes of Iberia, and exactly these armies of Iberia were defeated by the Greeks, exactly since he narrates Platón. And the archaeology has demonstrated the existence of a considerable influence (in two directions) between the peoples of the South of Iberia and the Greek Mycenaean.]

21. Atlantis should have been reachable from Athens by sea.

Island on the Altiplano, Definitively NOT!

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES!!!

Quote Mr Allen: A pre-Columbian Greek style amphora exists in the museum in Oruro on the Altiplano by the sea. Pre-Columbian Egyptian style storage jars exist in the museum in Tarija to the east of the Altiplano and a dish with Sumerian writing was found on the shores of Lake Titicaca.

These supposed Greek evidences, sumerias, and Egyptians, are not nor Greek, nor they are Egyptian, nor they are sumerias. Scarcely they are similar, and few similarities that they present, they are the same that find in the majority of the ancient civilizations of the planet, since they are simple and common similarities. Nor does not exist the only serious and scientific work written by a titled archaeologist and with academic prestige, which has offered any credit to these supposed evidences, that also lack scientific context. No recognized expert, internationally, in the speciality of Greek pottery, or in the speciality of Egyptian gadgetry, or Sumerian, it has realized any assertion of which these supposed objects of Mediterranean origin are really Greek, Egyptians and Sumerian ever. The arguments of Mr Allen are all the equal ones, are very little scientific.

22. After the destruction of Atlantis, the passage of ships was blocked by shallows due to mud just below the surface, the remains of the sunken island.

Island on the Altiplano, this is still NOT demonstrated of scientist manner

Guadalquivir river valley, YES!!!

[Shallows due to mud just below the surface, existed on the coasts of ATLANTIKOU PELAGOS, on the part of Iberia, and also on the part of Morocco, since we can see in several references of ancient Greeks authors as the same Aristotles, and even before Platón, Skylax, and also romans authors as Avienus.]

23. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed 9000 years before the 6th century BC.

Island on the Altiplano, NO data

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, there is still no data

24. No physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the formation and destruction of the Metropolis of Atlantis, but could not have been responsible for the destruction of a landmass the size of a continent. Also, no physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the formation of hot water springs and in the formation of red, white and black rocks.

Island on the Altiplano, YES

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire, YES


Totals:

Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire: 23

Island on the Altiplano 3


Guadalquivir river valley or Delta, or Iberian-Mauretanean empire: 95.8%

Island on the Altiplano 12.5%

[ 06-10-2008, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Georgeos Díaz-Montexano ]

--------------------
Kind Regards,
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano
Scientific Atlantology International Society (SAIS)
http://www.GeorgeosDiazMontexano.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1270 | From: Madrid | Registered: May 2006   
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.
Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2008, 03:25:21 pm »

Smiley4554

Administrator
Member # 332


  posted 06-10-2008 10:27 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just an FYI if you don't know what alluvium means.

Alluvium is...

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Alluvial


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Alluvium
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

Alluvium (from the Latin, alluvius, from alluere, "to wash against") is soil or sediments deposited by a river or other running water. Alluvium is typically made up of a variety of materials, including fine particles of silt and clay and larger particles of sand and gravel.
Flowing water associated with glaciers may also deposit alluvium, but deposits directly from ice are not alluvium (see glacial till).

A river is continually picking up and dropping solid particles of rock and soil from its bed throughout its length. Where the river flow is fast, more particles are picked up than dropped. Where the river flow is slow, more particles are dropped than picked up. Areas where more particles are dropped are called alluvial or flood plains, and the dropped particles are called alluvium.

Even small streams make alluvial deposits, but it is in the flood plains and deltas of large rivers that large, geologically-significant alluvial deposits are found.

The amount of solid matter carried by a large river is enormous. The names of many rivers derive from the color that the transported matter gives the water. For example, the Huang He in China is literally translated "Yellow River", and the Missouri River in the United States is also called Big Muddy. It has been estimated that the Mississippi River annually carries 406 million tons of sediment to the sea, the Huang He 796 million tons, and the Po River in Italy 67 million tons.

Alluvium often contains valuable ores such as gold and platinum and a wide variety of gemstones. Such concentrations of valuable ores is termed a placer deposit.

Throughout history, many shallow lakes have been filled in with alluvium to leave fertile plains (alluvial soils are often very fertile). The alluvial mud annually deposited by the Nile has enabled the Egyptians to grow crops since at least the 4th millennium BC without artificial fertilization.

Since the construction of the Aswan Dam on The Nile in Egypt, 95% of the alluvium deposits at the mouth of the Nubia-Nasser Lake are gone, thus depriving the Nile delta of its fertility. Since 1964, 3.8 billion cubic meters of sediments have deposited in this man-made lake. Proposals have been made to dredge this alluvium and pump it in slurry pipelines to shore where it can be used to fertilize the desert.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alluvium can be found everywhere in the world. There is no one specific place. In otherwords, it is highly common everywhere.


http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1986.tb00700.x

http://www.yourdictionary.com/gley

Most of us are not geology-wise, but that's what the internet is good for anyway.

As I said, this is basically just for definition and nothing else. Make of it what you will

--------------------
"It is not what happens to you in life that matters. It's how you handle what happens to you that counts." Kim

http://www.panoramio.com/user/120220

Please contact me by using the PM on the site. I will respond much faster. Thanks! Kim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6009 | From: Arkansas...USA | Registered: Jan 2001   
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
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy