• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Atlantis

Interesting that this report of Atlantis should come so few days after what occurred in Japan. If the report had been dated a week earlier, it would have been more believable.
 
Yes, very interesting, but it doesn't quite reconcile the description of Atlantis as "an island that is larger than Libya and Asia together" according to Plato's Timaeus.

"Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. 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, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia."

Still, no matter, it's a fascinating topic for day dreaming and for making money from speculative, pseudo-scientific literature.
 
Yup, watched the program the other day. I think this is the first Atlantis report that didn't leave me rolling my eyes.
 
I know this happens like every 10 years...
Only every ten years? I would have sworn we were discovering Atlantises at a much faster clip than that! Of course, it could just be that my perception is skewed from watching too much of the so-called "History" Channel. :D
 
They probably didn't have that much accurate maps. So saying larger than Asia doesn't say much. Japan wasn't even disocovered by europeans until the 1600's. If it was before than it was becuase the ship crashed their. Ships back then had a flat bottom only good for going from shore to shore in small gaps, not ocean ready. So bigger than asia and libya, I wouldn't count on those readings to much.
 
Going into a "Graham Hancock" mode of extreme and somewhat dodgy speculation -- perhaps Atlantis had colonies in the Americas. Some think that the name "Brasil" derives from the old Irish myth of a land named "Uí Breasail" or "Hy-Brazil" rather than from the colour ("brasa" = ember) of brazilwood. Those colonies might certainly have appeared vast in extent.
 
^but how do you tie the old irish word with the modern name of the country? I don't recall any irish colonies in that part of the world.
 
No. but the Americas are vast. Maybe not North America itself. But the spanish did send expiditions to south america early on. You never know there could have been Irish sailors on those boats, following the Catholic church.
 
^but how do you tie the old irish word with the modern name of the country? I don't recall any irish colonies in that part of the world.

There are "theories" that the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland were descended from Atlanteans (the people of Atlas), as are the Basques and possibly the Berbers. The name would have descended through folklore. The myth is purported to predate the "discovery" of the Americas by Columbus. With "evidence" based on mythology, you can probably make any hypothesis fit. I'm wondering if I can make any money from coming up with a new, wacky theory. I think the trick nowadays, though, is not to be too wacky.
 
Sounds reasonable. Though I am sure that the celts were probably more of the work force and defense. Early England easily conquered early Ireland because of how primitive it was.
 
Sounds reasonable. Though I am sure that the celts were probably more of the work force and defense. Early England easily conquered early Ireland because of how primitive it was.

I don't think the Celts turned up in Ireland until about 500 BCE. They almost certainly weren't around when the Newgrange Megalithic passage tomb was built in 3200 BCE.

http://www.knowth.com/newgrange.htm

It was the Normans, and specifically, Henry II, who didn't even speak English, that were to blame for getting the English embroiled in Ireland. At the time, England was really nothing but a province of Henry's Angevin empire that also stretched over western France, and parts of Wales and Scotland.

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/angevine.htm

Of course, Henry's sons screwed up and lost most of their French territory.
 
Last edited:
There are "theories" that the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland were descended from Atlanteans (the people of Atlas), as are the Basques and possibly the Berbers. The name would have descended through folklore. The myth is purported to predate the "discovery" of the Americas by Columbus. With "evidence" based on mythology, you can probably make any hypothesis fit. I'm wondering if I can make any money from coming up with a new, wacky theory. I think the trick nowadays, though, is not to be too wacky.

I still don't see how that relates to the modern country of Brazil getting it's name.
 
There are "theories" that the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland were descended from Atlanteans (the people of Atlas), as are the Basques and possibly the Berbers. The name would have descended through folklore. The myth is purported to predate the "discovery" of the Americas by Columbus. With "evidence" based on mythology, you can probably make any hypothesis fit. I'm wondering if I can make any money from coming up with a new, wacky theory. I think the trick nowadays, though, is not to be too wacky.

I still don't see how that relates to the modern country of Brazil getting it's name.

No one is totally certain how it got its name, which is a bit surprising.

http://www.enciclopedia.com.pt/articles.php?article_id=486

ETA: Here's more speculation.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Hy_Brasil.aspx

Of course, Ireland itself has been identified with Atlantis, but, then, where hasn't?

http://www.mythicalireland.com/ancientsites/tara/tara-atlantis.php
 
Last edited:
Are U.S. scientists still so stupid so as not to recognize the fact that Plato's depiction was a metaphor? I'm flabbergasted by these so-called "scientists" as well as the university boards financing their windmill-fighting.
 
Are U.S. scientists still so stupid so as not to recognize the fact that Plato's depiction was a metaphor? I'm flabbergasted by these so-called "scientists" as well as the university boards financing their windmill-fighting.

Stuff like this probably draws up interest and is something that the University of Hartford(which I believe is what I saw him listed as being from) can show to their donors as stuff they're doing at the university.

I don't know if Atlantis really existed or not, but I think all this guy 'discovered' was a coastal city which many other historians have already said was located there... So it's not like anything found was unexpected despite his claims. There's been a couple books/papers written about the area they were at. It wasn't anything new.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top