Ancient South America & It's Connection to Atlantis (Original)

[Morrison]

Herr_Saltzman

Member
Member # 2738

  posted 02-17-2006 10:50 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

This would change the plain to a much more feasible one -about the size of that in the Pelopenessus, which exists in many places in the world. Furthermore, it would make Atlantis even closer to the sea.

Atlantis had a harbour. Atlantis sent ships to the ocean, and they navigated the ocean and the Mediterranean. They were close to the sea -they traded with people.

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. Moreover, how could Atlantis in Bolivia be considered a harbour city, when Atlantis was a harbour city?

What do you not understand about Atlantis being in the Atlantic? 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.

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.

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, some people will adhere to their theories in the face of all evidence.

--------------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001530;p=10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1245 | From: Vienna, Austria | Registered: Sep 2005

[Morrison]

Herr_Saltzman

Member
Member # 2738

  posted 02-17-2006 11:00 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and I just noticed that the route you suggest is upwards of 2000 times larger than that mentioned by Plato! Congratulations! So, is the plain 2000 times larger than that mentioned by Plato as well?

And the route is not feasible, as it is very difficult to navigate in the high mountains for boats like those described by Plato. And it is doubtful that it can be done.

--------------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001530;p=10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1245 | From: Vienna, Austria | Registered: Sep 2005  |   

[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  | 

[Morrison]

Morrison

Member
Member # 2156

Member Rated:
   posted 02-18-2006 12:06 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm posting this about Morocco here because I intend to post similar descriptions of South America and see how they stack up towards one another:

Morocco:

-There is no capital city like Plato descibes (unless underwater near the coast).

-You complain about the length of the passage I described that leads from Boliva to the Atlantic, however, it is worth noting that there isn't even any such passage like Plato describes in Morocco.

-Morocco may well indeed be more balmy than we give it credit for, yet hardly enough of it to form the country that Plato describes.

-Strabo refers to a more abundant Morocco in the past. That may be true, but ancient historians have been prone to exaggeration, and I doubt he had ever been there. He also mentions five sunken cities near the coast, are we also to take his word that each of them once existed, too?

Then, there are these statistics about Morocco that don't lie:

A description of Morocco:

The Atlas Mountains run down the backbone of the country, from the south west to the north east. Most of the south east portion of the country is in the Sahara Desert and as such is generally sparsely populated and unproductive economically. Most of the population lives to the north of these mountains, while to the south is the desert.

Land use:
arable land: 21%
permanent crops: 1%
permanent pastures: 47%
forests and woodland: 20%
other: 11% (1993 est.)

Irrigated land: 12,580 km² (1993 est.)

Natural hazards: northern mountains geologically unstable and subject to earthquakes; periodic droughts

Environment - current issues: land degradation/desertification (soil erosion resulting from farming of marginal areas, overgrazing, destruction of vegetation); water supplies contaminated by raw sewage; siltation of reservoirs; oil pollution of coastal waters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Morocco

Compare this with Plato's descriptions of Atlantis:

There was an abundance of wood for carpenter's work, and sufficient maintenance for tame and wild animals. Moreover, there were a great number of elephants in the island; for as there was provision for all other sorts of animals, both for those which live in lakes and marshes and rivers, and also for those which live in mountains and on plains, so there was for the animal which is the largest and most voracious of all. Also whatever fragrant things there now are in the earth, whether roots, or herbage, or woods, or essences which distil from fruit and flower, grew and thrived in that land; also the fruit which admits of cultivation, both the dry sort, which is given us for nourishment and any other which we use for food-we call them all by the common name pulse, and the fruits having a hard rind, affording drinks and meats and ointments, and good store of chestnuts and the like, which furnish pleasure and amusement, and are fruits which spoil with keeping, and the pleasant kinds of dessert, with which we console ourselves after dinner, when we are tired of eating-all these that sacred island which then beheld the light of the sun, brought forth fair and wondrous and in infinite abundance.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html

Plato speaks of an abundant land (which I believe to be South America) while we have only the word of the ancients that Morocco was much more abundant in the past.

There are many other points I could bring up, I imagine you're most likely tired of repeating the whole peninsula vs. island business, the fact that Atlantis was submerged and Morocco clearly is not, the solid evidence lacking for any kind of empire existing there the like that Plato describes, so I will save them for another day.

I think we'd agree that for the Morocco theory to become more plausible, more archaeological evidence is needed, not just words from ancient texts. I'm not saying that evidence does not exist, merely that it has yet to be found. I'll admit that very little archaeological work that I have seen has been done there, and it's a pity that ruins like Lixus have been left to languish, while others are covered by the sands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 391 | From: New England | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000578;p=4