Message #51813

[Morrison]

Morrison

Member
Member # 2156

Member Rated:
   posted 02-18-2006 12:02 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, Plato's acount has some errors, but its the only thing we have to go on. We can't make radical revisions to it unless they are rooted in fact. Ulf Richter showed that Plato could very well, like Herodotus, have confused Egyptian "khet" for "stades" -or that he just recorded the numbers, and Plato assumed they were stades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Herr Saltzman, you seem to want to shelve Plato's account in favor of Diodorus, and have mentioned many times how it contradicts itself. Don't you feel it's a bit disingenuous to call it up whenever you need it?

I'll admit that the measurements could have been confused, as I said, there is no flat level plain in the world that exactly matches the descriptions.

And, as far as I know, Ulf Richter has not supported the Morocco theory.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not say that South America was not in the Atlantic, but that Bolivia was not. It is inconceivable as to how the only way to access the Atlantic from Bolivia is through a series of rivers that span the South American continent. Contrary to Plato, who says Atlantis was close to the sea. The closest sea to the Altiplano is the Pacific.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two rivers, Madeiras to Amazon, which empties into the Atlantic. The ships didn't have to be large ones.

Incidentally, we keep talking about Bolivia as if it was the only place that Atlantis was situated. I'm aware that that's what Jim Allen says, but it's certainly not what I'm saying. I like Bolivia for the Altiplano as the plain that Plato describes.

To clarify, I like the whole of South America as the place known as Atlantis.

Which means that this civlization could have had port cities on the east coast of the continent as well. As I keep saying, the area is virtually littered with ancient ruins, thousands upon thousands of them. Easily over ten regions for the ten kingdoms of Atlantis. Each tribe a different kingdom, is that so hard to understand?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you not understand about Atlantis being in the Atlantic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most people would say that South America was in the Atlantic, except for the west coast, which is in the Pacific.

By the way, we have to remember that, unlike the Atlantic, the Pacific wasnt even named the Pacific until the 1500's, when it was discovered.

Before that, all the oceans of the world were known as "Atlantic." Check it out, it's the truth.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Moreover, it was close to Gibraltar, as Plato says repeadetly. PRO can only mean "before" -and you cannot change Plato's account -sure it has problems, but you can't just select problems to suit your theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, that's only your criteria, Herr Saltzman. I've given you the history of how the dialogues were translated and rediscovered.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And we are discussing Bolivia here, not Morocco.

You say that the mud of Atlantis is the Sargasso Sea, but then you say Atlantis was in Bolivia. How could its remains be in the Sargasso Sea if it was in Bolivia? Your theory contradicts itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, the point is that South America was Atlantis, not just Bolivia.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It did not sink, and did not make the Atlantic unnavigable. The Sargasso Sea was around before "Atlantis" sank. And why would the Bolivians go to the Mediterranean? Moreover, the plain of Atlantis is a level plain at sea level ringed by mountains -not a plain on top of mountains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, they went there to trade with them, the war may or may not have taken place. I don't see them controlling vast chunks of lands, but rather having ports over the world. Tartessos, Sardinia and the Canary Islands may have been some, perhaps even some cities in Africa. That's far more feasible to me than a land empire like the Romans, such as Plato descibes. It would also explain why there is only sparse evidence, and yet, why similar stories of this culture exist sporadically all over the world.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, some people will adhere to their theories in the face of all evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet, as George Erikson and anyone else will tell you, there is far more evidence for ancient civilizations in South America than there is in any other place in the world. Certainly, more evidence than in Morocco or all the other places of the Mediterranean, combined.

[ 02-18-2006, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Morrison ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 391 | From: New England | Registered: Oct 2004  |