1
New Theories / ATLANTIS DISCOVERED
« on: 10/02/2009 07:50:03 »Hello Vern!
I discovered the Atlantis City! Sorry Vern only the graveyard! 3/4 of the Golden City is covered by thickest magma layers.
Through the Google; Latitude: 37:19 N, Longitude: 24:58 W.
If serious, there is covered treasure of the mankind!
I'm looking for that all my life!
Mr. Margiani, the map you use is originally from Kircher (1665).
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Please note that Kircher's map has North at the bottom.
Notice the arrow on Kircher's map. You include this on your original diagram and you'll notice that the orientation does not match that of Kircher. The arrow is a compass indicating "North." Also notice that the size of "Atlantis" on Kircher's original is larger than that in your drawing. Why the change in scale and orientation? Why use Kircher's at all?
What is the provenance of Kircher's map? Apparently he got it from Egypt, but from where did the Egyptian artist get their data? How faithfully did Kircher copy the map from Egypt? How faithfully did the Egyptian copy from their sources? If the 1665 map is any indication, I wouldn't trust the accuracy of the drawing of Atlantis. Notice the poorly drawn Iberian Peninsula and Northwest Africa. Notice the blob that is supposed to be America. And what are the two other, smaller islands? Also, Great Britain and Ireland are completely missing from Kircher's map.
Another observation: Plato supposedly has the fertile plain and capital city (your Atlantis City?) facing toward the South. You have this city facing Gibraltar (to the East).
At least with the Azores, the arc of islands (mountains?) embracing lower (now submerged?) land is facing South as Plato indicated. However, the scale is off by a factor of two for the fertile plain he indicated to exist there, but that could be the result of one of those handy-dandy mistranslations I abhor so much. Such a deus ex machina is distasteful, but try this one on for size. The Roman mile is based on 1000 paces, each of which is two steps. Perhaps the Egyptians had some similar measurement that used one step, but Solon (or someone else in the chain of custody of the data) assumed two steps. With that, the size of the plain in Plato's dialogues could fit the space held by the arc of the Azores islands.
What about the location you have chosen for the city makes you think the city was really there? If you base your theory on Plato and Kircher, why are you ignoring so much of each?
If we discuss the subject of Atlantis with any credibility at all (and already we're walking on thin ice as it is), we need to use some restraint in the sources we pick, but also in the interpretations we give the data we use. Wishful thinking or creative imagination are poor substitutes for observation and logical analysis.
Mr. Margiani, if you have some rationale for all of your leaps in logic, you need to fill them in with solid reasoning for anyone to take your theories seriously. You need to explain your choice of Kircher's map with something more than blind faith that Kircher was telling the truth, and that all Egyptians always had it right. You need to explain your deviation from Kircher's original (both scale and orientation). Without some semblance of this, your theory has no solid ground, or even thin ice underneath it. Right now, your theory is not even treading water -- sunk like the mythological island empire about which it purports to explain.