Reports came from all over and were so much the same...the implication is that where there is smoke there must be fire. The problem is that naive observers mistake dust for smoke.
All references to "Atlantis" originate with Plato. NONE PREDATE his writings.
To say that some-one, some-where, told a story about an island that sank, is NOT corroboration of reality, nor is it the same as the Atlantis myth. To picture a lost island off the coast of Cuba is fine, if you want to indulge yourself, but it violates the defining descriptors of Atlantis as FIRST described by Plato.
It is only a demonstration that much of human imagination is not so unique.
I am intending to be good natured about this, but I also am trying to be clear: if you enjoy mythology fine, but DO NOT try to pass ancient BS off as some kind of truth. You will be ripped to shreds by scientists far more rigorous and knowledgable than I am.
I know about the discoveries regarding the Black Sea and the Flood myth. They are fascinating ONLY because there is physical evidence. Such evidence is totally lacking for the Atlantis myth, unless you want to say that any destruction story anywhere in the world, no matter how many ways it differs from Plato's first account, refers to Atlantis.
And if so, you can believe what you wish, but I just won't buy that sh*t.
Huh?
Reports came from all over and were so much the same...the implication is that where there is smoke there must be fire. The problem is that naive observers mistake dust for smoke.
?
All references to "Atlantis" originate with Plato. NONE PREDATE his writings.
The Mayan Codex Troano was recorded in 1500 BC tells exactly of an equatorial continent/island sinking beneath the waves in a cataclysm. Did Plato copy from the Maya? :^)
To say that some-one, some-where, told a story about an island that sank, is NOT corroboration of reality, nor is it the same as the Atlantis myth. To picture a lost island off the coast of Cuba is fine, if you want to indulge yourself, but it violates the defining descriptors of Atlantis as FIRST described by Plato.
I don't think it's near Cuba, I think it's just east of the Philippines. Seafloor mapping reveals a continent diamond shape anomoly unlike any other part of the seafloor. It looks like a relief map of a continent. Look here. Zoom in just east of the Philippines. Notice how the diamond is more detailed than the area around it. That tells me that there isn't as much silt build-up. If there isn't as much silt build-up, then maybe it hasn't been on the seafloor as long. Notice how it's completely surrounded by the trenches. If those trenches were very old, they should've filled in with silt too. Those trenches look recent. Notice how it matches Plato's description with respect to size, mountains to the north, plains in the middle, including a 300 mile by 100 mile rectangle that's very smooth (the plain).
It is only a demonstration that much of human imagination is not so unique.
Coincidence is impossible.
I am intending to be good natured about this, but I also am trying to be clear: if you enjoy mythology fine, but DO NOT try to pass ancient BS off as some kind of truth. You will be ripped to shreds by scientists far more rigorous and knowledgable than I am.
The same scientists that said the outer planets would be without winds? They were completely wrong about that when Voyager 2 arrived. The strongest windstorms in the solar system occur on the outer planets.
I know about the discoveries regarding the Black Sea and the Flood myth. They are fascinating ONLY because there is physical evidence. Such evidence is totally lacking for the Atlantis myth, unless you want to say that any destruction story anywhere in the world, no matter how many ways it differs from Plato's first account, refers to Atlantis.
They all mention the same equatorial area though and they're all alike. How do they differ?
And if so, you can believe what you wish, but I just won't buy that sh*t
You don't have to get snippy. If this upsets you, go to an Ashcroft thread. LOL