Atlantis, At Long Lastis?

This belongs in paranormal, however not as Plato described it in his set of three text.

Five hundred miles out of the Gates of Gibraltar, you will encounter a land.

Follow the coastline of this land, due southwest, till you come to a split in the land and then said due North.

This will take you to the metropolis of Atlantis, which is seven circles each level higher than the other.

The building density was similar to, but greater than New York and flying vehicles filled the sky, of every description.
 
No' this is incorrect data, possibly a sub-colony.
In-fact, there are passages in the Timeasus, which say, you must said west through the gates of Gibraltar, in order to encounter Atlantis.

I'm sure that that's in this book?
 
In-fact, there are passages in the Timeasus, which say, you must said west through the gates of Gibraltar, in order to encounter Atlantis.
Click to expand...

I think this isn't quite right, it said west through the "Pillars of Hercules", unfortunately there is some debate whether or not that is the gates of Gibraltar or a second location to the east (I forget the name of it).
 
Note this thread contradicts the say in Randolph Winter's book, on Atlantis being placed in the mid Atlantic.
Click to expand...

Given this (ab)use of logic, then all I would need to do is write a book of my own, saying Atlantis was located in the Mediterranean, and then you would have to believe me, Creedo!


What happens if they actually survey this site, and it matches Plato's figures exactly? Is it just POSSIBLE that all those people who wrote about Atlantis HAVING to be in the Atlantic could have been (gulp, dare I say it?)....WRONG?

Stranger things have happened!
RMT
 
I think in the Circaticus, Timeaus and Atlaticus, that Plato does refer to Atlantis as that land beyond the sea.

I'm sure I also read that you must leave the med, in order to find Atlantis?
 
Just seen the interview with the two guys involved in this find. One of them did say an interesting thing about this proving mankind is older than we first thought.
It got me thinking about the posibility that maybe we aren't orginally from this planet after all. Maybe we are the desendants of travellers from another planet/system, who maybe colonised this planet, or crash landed? Got me thinking seriousely now though...
 
Maybe we are the desendants of travellers from another planet/system, who maybe colonised this planet, or crash landed? Got me thinking seriousely now though...
Click to expand...

Sure. Another potential option is that we may have been literally "planted" here, in terms of engineered DNA, by another species. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence (often ignored with no explanation) that this is so.

If you "buy into" evolution, and the way the "experts" say it works, then there should be MANY different variants of the human species on our planet. (Note that even though we have different skin tones, these are not considered variants on the human species). However, when you look at ALL other animals, there are such variations. For example, look at the variants of apes, canines, felines, etc.

If the human species were a part of the "natural evolutionary process" why are we the only variant left?

RMT
 
I understand your view. I would say that I believe in evolution, but that many evolutionary dead ends are present in our time. I imagine that they should say that we evolved from an 'ape type' creature, not apes as we know them today, but something similar. It still does not explain how mankind could evolve into the homo sapien-sapien we know today in such a short period of time. If memory serves, they say it took 100,000 years or so to become what we are from the previous form. It does not explain why such a short period of time is accepted.
I think that if the two scientists get their chance to dive to the ruins of what may well be atlantis, then we may well see a huge chunk of our past revealed.
I am excited about this possible revelation. If the truth is revealed, I will also be humbled...
 
Back
Top