Atlantis

Uh, where the fuck did it go?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Hercules
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy#Isostatic_effects_of_ice_sheets
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It never existed, brother, let it go

It's under the Azores. You can see the sunken landmass on any map that shows the topography of the Earth under the ocean. It's exactly where Plato said it was.

It's over there, mortal.

*points map*

Brainlet
This, the Azores are the closest thing Atlantis today.

It is beneath the sea.
>so we need to go underwater
We need to literally go under all the water on earth.
It sunk, under the ocean, as in we'd need to remove the tectonic plates to resurface it.
The earth isn't hot under the crust. I worked in that Russian mine, it only got colder the farther down you went.
The very bottom was -62 degrees. The machines didn't work. But that doesn't fit the scientific theory, so instead of revising, they decided to just declare it in line with the theory and seal the pit.
If everything under the crust is magma, then why aren't we shifting entire continents with every earthquake?

They're the former mountains of the landmass.

It's here, i'll mark it in your map.

Where does the lava come from then?

*clears throat*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption

kill yourselves. it's in antarctica

Yeah and what the fuck happened to Narnia ?

You just can't get to it because you're such a faggot.

moar posts from this user about russian mine pls

>muh Azores
Indiana Jones is not a good source of knowledge

I was going by Plato and the account handed down to him from Egyptian priests.

Plato or Egyptians never even knew Azores existed.

The description of Atlantis given is explicitly outside of the Mediterranean and in the Atlantic. The Atlantic ocean is literally named after Atlantis.

Alright it looks like I have to spell it out for you.

>Plato says Atlantis is directly outside the mediterranean, beyond the pillars of heracles
>there is a raised landmass under the Azores in that location
>that area was dry land before 9,500 B.C., the date he gives for the sinking.

Shut the fuck up you Anglo cunt. Pillars of Heracles weren't identified as Gibraltar during Plato's time.

I'll also add that he talked about the existence of a large continent encompassing the whole western side of the Atlantic on the other side of Atlantis, with other smaller islands in between.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Hercules

>Before the sixth century BC, the "Pillars of Hercules" may have applied to mountains on either side of theGulf of Laconia, and also may have been part of the pillar cult of the Aegean.[35][36]The mountains stood at either side of the southernmost gulf in Greece, the largest in the Peloponnese, and it opens onto the Mediterranean Sea. This would have placed Atlantis in the Mediterranean, lending credence to many details in Plato's discussion.

He explicitly describes how the body of water that Atlantis is in the middle of is outside the Mediterranean, and makes the Mediterranean look small. That speculative different geographical location makes zero sense in that context.

Maybe read the source material before you discuss it.

He also gives the date of 9000 years before the time of Solon, 9,500 - 9,600 B.C.

Your narrative only works if you cherrypick whatever details you want and leave out the ones you don't. The full story is about an island in the Atlantic that sank in a great cataclysm and flood, 9,500 years ago.

Sorry, 9000 years ago for him, 11,500 years ago for us.

He doesn't use the word Mediterranean at all you Anglo whore.

Cont.

He in great detail describes the city, it's measurements, it's governance, the extent of an empire which extends from the west of the mediterranean INTO the mediterranean and even the structure of the society. Going as far as to describe the entire capitol city to the point where you could model it to scale.

He uses Tyrrhenia, Egypt and Libya as references to the eastern extent of the Empire, using the pillars of heracles as a reference to the entry point of the mediterranean.

It's not my fault that you can't read a few pages.

He also clearly frames the story as a fictional dialogue between two fictional characters as an metaphor for a political discussion.

It's kind of hard to argue for Plato's authority on Atlantis when it's pretty obvious he made the story up and never intended it to be taken seriously.

Which is a funny way to frame it when he is literally just re-telling a story Solon got from Egyptian priests.

At least for that part of the story. Look man, I'm just telling you that the Minoan explanation makes no sense when he repeatedly specifies the geographical locations of the island and it's colonies as being in the Atlantic, and the eastern extent of the empire being Egypt and what is now western Italy.

Find a single source mentioning the story of Atlantis before Plato. Pro-tip: you can't. The story didn't exist before Plato made it up.

And for as condescending as you're being about "Plato's" supposed version of events, you seem to be forgetting that it's part of a frame story and Critias tells the story (again, as a political metaphor). Plato isn't re-telling a story, he made one up and filtered it through several different characters to make a rhetorical point. If you can't see that, you obvious don't know much about Plato's writings; he's framing his metaphors through the Socratic method. There's a reason no one in the ancient world took the story seriously.

>It..It..IT DOESNT MATTER ANYWAY HE MADE IT UP

Nice goalpost moving fuckstick.

I'm right, you're wrong, kill yourself tonight.

Keep it in a single post you autistic faggot holy shit.

>I'm just telling you that the Minoan explanation makes no sense
Of course it doesn't. No explanation is going to make sense, because Atlantis never existed.

Goalpost moving? I've only made two prior prior posts in this thread, both stating that it's a made up story. I've been consistent about that and always will.

Because it is made up, and that's ridiculously obvious if you apply any amount of sense to the story.

But what does happen to exist is a landmass exactly where he says it was that went underwater exactly when he said it did. Adding to it is the fact that he magically just guessed that there was a giant landmass encompassing the west of the Atlantic, and several islands in between.

And interestingly enough there are no ruins there. And Azores used to be smaller in the past, not bigger.

It comes from magma. Which forms pockets under the crust of the earth when the friction of the tectonic plates generates heat.

Except that's completely wrong. Stop getting your information from fringe sites.

>Charles Schuchert, in a paper called "Atlantis and the Permanency of the North Atlantic Ocean Bottom" (1917), discussed a lecture by Pierre-Marie Termier in which Termier suggested "that the entire region north of the Azores and perhaps the very region of the Azores, of which they may be only the visible ruins, was very recently submerged." reported evidence in an article entitled Atlantis and the Permanency of the North Atlantic Ocean Bottom that an area of 40,000 sq. mi and possibly as large as 200,000 sq. mi. had sunk 10,000 feet below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. Schuchert's conclusion was: "(1) that the Azores are volcanic islands and are not the remnants of a more or less large continental mass, for they are not composed of rocks seen on the continents; (2) that the tachylytes dredged up from the Atlantic to the north of the Azores were in all probability formed where they are now, at the bottom of the ocean; and (3) that there are no known geologic data that prove or even help to prove the existence of Plato's Atlantis in historic times."[63]

>The Azores are steep-sided volcanic seamounts that drop rapidly 1000 meters (about 3300 feet) to a plateau.[64] Cores taken from the plateau and other evidence shows that this area has been an undersea plateau for millions of years.[65][66] Ancient indicators, i.e. relict beaches, marine deposits, and wave cut-terraces, of Pleistocene shorelines and sea level show that the Azores Islands have not subsided to any significant degree. Instead, they demonstrate that some of these islands have actually risen during the Late and Middle Pleistocene. This is evidenced by relict, Pleistocene wave-cut platforms and beach sediments that now lie well above current sea level. For example, they have been found on Flores Island at elevations of 15-20, 35-45, ~100, and ~250 meters above current sea level.[67]

You can look at any ocean topography yourself, the land around the Azores is only a few hundred feet deep and sea levels were over 400 feet lower before 9,500 B.C.

I'm talking about underneath and between the Azores, not the actual mounts themselves.

It is, however your fault that you can *only* read a few pages. What about the part where he says the island was even larger than Asia Minor? Or that they had colonial holdings on the Eastern continent that should have left behind artifacts? Or that once Atlantis sank it left behind a massive, impassable shoal that effectively bottles up the Mediterranean? You are autistically fixating on the one statement that Atlantis was beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which does not prove anything.

Can you read?

>Ancient indicators, i.e. relict beaches, marine deposits, and wave cut-terraces, of Pleistocene shorelines and sea level show that the Azores Islands have not subsided to any significant degree. Instead, they demonstrate that some of these islands have actually risen during the Late and Middle Pleistocene. This is evidenced by relict, Pleistocene wave-cut platforms and beach sediments that now lie well above current sea level. For example, they have been found on Flores Island at elevations of 15-20, 35-45, ~100, and ~250 meters above current sea level.

Can you read?

>I'm talking about underneath and between the Azores, not the actual mounts themselves.

>What about the part where he says the island was even larger than Asia Minor?

So that completely destroys your weak hypothesis that it was in the mediterranean, along with the other things you've just quoted.

Adding to this, Plato's account also requires that you believe Athens existed and was a successful naval power in 9000 BC, but hey the Azores are near where the fictional Atlantis might have been so obviously we should take Plato at literal face value, right?

So your position is that, even though the sea level was actual higher at the time, somehow the land between the present-day islands was exposed and formed a landmass larger than Asia Minor and Libya put together?

I'm not the other user. My point was more that even if we believe your postulation that the Azores were above sea level in recent history they do not at all match up with the comically exaggerated scale we get from Plato's dialogues.

It wasn't in the Mediterranean, it did not exist.

The sea level was over 400 feet lower than it is now before 9,500 B.C. and much of the land was higher because it was before effects of isostatic depression from the weight of the ice caps being removed.

You believing that the sea level was higher during the Younger Dryas proves you should just sit this one the fuck out.

Asia Minor and part of the coastline of North Africa is not that massive compared to what we're talking about. all of Doggerland was above water less than 10,000 years ago for the same reasons.

The guy I was responding to was putting forth the Minoan hypothesis which is complete nonsense for about 10 different reasons which I've stated.

Plato is specific with locations and dates, specifying outside the Mediterranean no fewer than three times.

So where are the Atlantean artifacts from that time period? Or the Athenian ones from the same period?

>The guy I was responding to
You're an idiot for thinking you're talking to a single person then. If anything I see the entire thread just ganging up on you Mr. Redditor.

Yes, and? The Azores are not Doggerland. If you look at a bathymetric map you can clearly see what used to be Doggerland only shallowly submerged. There's no indication that there is such a former landmass hiding just beneath the Azores. You're also still ignoring all of the other aspects of Dialogues that literally cannot have been true.

Under the ocean clearly. He says the Greek city got swallowed by the ocean as well, so it's not exactly where current Athens is. The Aegean was dry land in that time.

Hence me specifying it was the guy I responded to.

>If you look at a bathymetric map you can clearly see what used to be Doggerland only shallowly submerged.

Same with the area I'm talking about, it's only a few hundred feet.

This. It's the equivalent of taking capeshit literally.

>not knowing that the ancient norse got their customs and religion from visiting aliens with superpowers

It's like you don't even take the wise literature about Asgard seriously. Why else would Snorri and Stan Lee have been talking about the same beings?

>reddit spacing
Had you pinned for a wewuzer from the start. American too I presume.

That's a different guy you mong.

Even if we accept that the Athenian city state was actually a completely different city state also called Athens, the idea of a Hellenic naval superpower in 9000 BC is archeologically untenable.

Also, if you lowered the sea level by only a few hundred feet the Azores would still be an archipelago and not a cohesive landmass the size of Anatolia+Libya. Again, the Doggerland comparison doesn't work.

>the idea of a Hellenic naval superpower in 9000 BC

No one says that. He just says that they fought off conquest by Atlantis and started pushing back their empire. There is in fact zero mention of them being a naval force.

lol'd

And how is the idea of a Hellenic empire pushing back a naval hegemon and liberating its colonies using only land forces somehow more realistic?

And how do plate tectonics work without a mantle?

How Spartans win against Athens?

it's in antarctica

He never calls the Hellenic city state an empire. The most he gives it is freeing some of the people within the mediterranean. That's much less than a naval empire that you were at first talking about.

>The oldest known mentions of an "Atlantic" sea come from Stesichorus around mid-sixth century BC (Sch. A. R. 1. 211):[6] Atlantikoi pelágei (Greek: Ἀτλαντιkῷ πελάγει; English: 'the Atlantic sea'; etym. 'Sea of Atlantis') and in The Histories of Herodotus around 450 BC (Hdt. 1.202.4): Atlantis thalassa (Greek: Ἀτλαντὶς θάλασσα; English: 'Sea of Atlantis' or 'the Atlantis sea'[7]) where the name refers to "the sea beyond the pillars of Heracles" which is said to be part of the ocean that surrounds all land.[8]

Hmmm

that's not strictly "pre-flood", that's just a topographical map. But yeah, that east coast, muh labrador.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

pic related

Adding map.

Where is it?

...

You're zoomed in too close.

Here.
Do not ask me I just post maps that I collect.

oh shit i get it now. neat

The weight of the glaciers is pushing the land in the middle of Greenland below sea level....

Holy fucking shit

OVER 9000 YEARS BEFORE THE TIME OF SOLON

>the ocean there was at that time navigable
>in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent

The continent at the end of that sentence is earlier mentioned to be to the west of Atlantis and is said to encircle that side of the Atlantic.

What a crazy coincidence that he described the Americas.

*clears throat*

LGM effect on the asthenosphere?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy#Isostatic_effects_of_ice_sheets

>isostasy can be observed where Earth's strong crust or lithosphere exerts stress on the weaker mantle or asthenosphere, which, over geological time, flows laterally such that the load is accommodated by height adjustments
>the ice retreats, the load on the lithosphere and asthenosphere is reduced and they rebound back towards their equilibrium levels. In this way, it is possible to find former sea cliffs and associated wave-cut platforms hundreds of metres above present-day sea level

>Athenian city state was actually a completely different city state also called Athens, the idea of a Hellenic naval superpower in 9000 BC
I wonder if it was an equivalent to a "we wuz kangz" story that mothers told their children at night when to explain why persia was so much more powerful than them and plato adapted it to his dialogue for his own purposes

No one is saying it was a completely different city state. It was in the same place, but partially flooded. Athens today is right on a coast where most of that surrounding sea was dry land 9000 years before the time of Solon.

He said their city was flooded.

That is hilariously fucking vague. Neck yourself you mong

Yeah right? I mean there are so many other landmasses encircling the west of the Atlantic.

By this logic the Greeks discovered fucking Antarctica by postulating Terra Australis. And again I'd like to reiterate that you and your samefag posts are ignoring all of the shit Plato said that's literally impossible and focusing instead on the few things he said that *could* point to the Azores if we're super lenient.

The Azores were not a cohesive landmass even if we lower the sea to prehistoric levels. Plato's Atlantis allegedly had colonies in Europe and Africa despite leaving zero artifacts pointing to their existence. Their submerged landmass did not become an impassible shoal that bordered off the Pillars of Hercules, despite this being an integral part of Plato's story. Centralized Hellenic cultures, let alone Athens, did not exist in 9000 BC. And there are no historical accounts of Atlantis before it shows up in Dialogues, which is an allegorical work and not a historical one.

At this point I'm going to assume you're either baiting anons or are just literally too retarded to consider that your cool-sounding alt-his fantasy never happened in real life, so consider this my last post in this thread. You aren't worth the waste in calories.

Washington DC in 30 years. There’s your underwater city.

>By this logic the Greeks discovered fucking Antarctica by postulating Terra Australis.
He will probably tell you the Greeks learned this from ancient Lemurians or something. He's a retard.

Friendly reminder that Hyperborean Civilisation > Atlantean Civilisation

>The Atlantic ocean is literally named after Atlantis
it comes from "atlas" you dense fuck

in fucking andalusia, southern spain. There was the tartesian civilisation, advanced as the carthaginians or the eraly days of the roman republic, even traded with the greeks. Got destroyed in the war against the cartaginians over commerce, the ruins of it are located under the swamp of doñana's natural park

>There was the tartesian civilisation, advanced as the carthaginians or the eraly days of the roman republic

Lol I love this meme, so advanced that it left no ruins whatsoever and only a bunch of scribbles on stones, shorter than viking runes

why does the hyperborean civilisation use the cross symbol

By the way Andalusia was colonized by the Phoenicians and they're the ones who introduced writing in the region, and cities, there is no evidence of a sea faring Iberian culture