Atlantis

[iSeeDumbPeople]

What are your thoughts on the lost city of Atlantis?
Do you think it actually existed?

[iSeeDumbPeople]

Yes, it's true that a lot of the Atlantis ideas are far-fetched, but it could be the same story as with Troy.
Remember it was just Homer's story, until Heinrich Schliemann went searching for it and it was discovered?
Personally, I don't think people from Atlantis lived underwater, but perhaps they were flooded due to the seimic activity you mention?
Here is an example of a possibility for this "mysterious" civilization. If it wasn't Atlantis, then what was it?
--------------------------------------------------------------
"NARRATOR: Hancock's theory is a challenge to orthodox archaeology. For over a century archaeologists have been investigating the origins of civilisation. Now they believe they've uncovered the true story of the past. According to this orthodox view, Stone Age peoples slowly evolved complex cultures at different times and in different parts of the world. 13,000 years ago groups of hunter/ gatherers began to settle and to farm. Over many thousands of years they developed writing, religions and astronomy. Eventually they built the great monuments of the Ancient World. But not everyone was satisfied with the archaeologists's explanation. For them there was a tantalising mystery. Ancient people in far-flung parts of the world who seemed to have had no contact with each other were doing very similar things - building pyramids and studying the stars. How could these puzzling resemblances be explained? One explanation for the puzzle was a fabulous and enduring myth about the past: Atlantis. The story goes that Atlantis was the home of an ancient civilisation of astonishing sophistication. When it was destroyed in a flood its survivors travelled the world bringing the gift of civilisation to less developed peoples. If Atlantis was the cradle of all other civilisations, as many believed, then there's no longer a mystery about all those strange resemblances. But the idea of Atlantis was scorned by historians.

DR KEN FEDER (Archaeologist): If Atlantis were true, if there was one source it would be very easy to test archaeologically and the evidence would be clear. The fact that it's not clear, the fact that that kind of evidence is not present is indicative of the fact that the cultures developed independently and were not derived from a single source.

NARRATOR: Graham Hancock believes that the idea of Atlantis deserves a second chance. He does not claim to be a scientist, but he has used science to revive an old idea. Ten years ago Hancock set out on a quest. He came back with a radical vision, one that he hoped would overturn established ideas about the past.

GRAHAM HANCOCK: What we're looking at here is, is an accumulation of discordant evidence and information which doesn't quite fit in with the orthodox picture. Bits and pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that seem to have been just scattered and thrown all around the world and yet the feeling that if we can put those pieces together slowly, methodically, painstakingly they will show us something that we've forgotten about ourselves, a great civilisation lost in prehistory.

NARRATOR: In his research Hancock became intrigued by the ideas of writers who have linked ancient monuments with the stars as they appeared long ago. Since ancient times people have seen shapes in the stars and they'd given these constellations names like Aries the Ram, or Orion the Hunter. Different ancient societies saw different animals and objects in the stars. The patterns of the constellations don't change, but the precise angle of groups of stars in relation to the horizon alters over time. It's the result of a process called precession. The earth spins on its axis every 24 hours, but the axis has a very slow wobble which lasts 26,000 years. This is precession and it slowly changes our view of the stars. It means that their position in the sky is unique to different moments in time. Astronomers have calculated the slowly changing position of the stars back in time. Using an astronomical software programme, Hancock made an intriguing discovery. Some of the wonders of the Ancient World appear to mirror the stars at a precise moment in the past: 10,500BC. It was a date that was to assume an extraordinary significance for his theory.

GRAHAM HANCOCK: Groups of monuments in Egypt and another large group of monuments far away in Cambodia are copying constellations in the sky as they looked, not at the time when those monuments were constructed, but in a much earlier epoch, the epoch of, of 10,500BC.

NARRATOR: In other words, if looked at from above, groups of monuments mirrored the unique position of the stars as they looked at that crucial moment in the past. For Hancock, the implications were stunning.

GRAHAM HANCOCK: We are looking at the vestiges of an ancient world-wide religious system, a sky ground religion. The essential thing that it had to do was to build architectural copies of groups of stars in the sky and we're looking at the vestiges of that system spread out around the world.

NARRATOR: Hancock argued that there had indeed been an ancient lost super-civilisation destroyed 12,000 years ago. Its survivors brought civilisation to a Stone Age world and a map of the sky as it looked in 10,500BC. It became a blueprint for future generations around the world who built monuments to mirror these ancient patterns of stars. Hancock could revive the old idea of Atlantis with a difference.

GRAHAM HANCOCK: I avoid using the word Atlantis in my books because most people when they hear the word Atlantis immediately think that they're dealing with the lunatic fringe. I don't feel that I belong to a lunatic fringe."

........................................................
GRAHAM HANCOCK: It is inevitable that, that this is a threat to orthodox views of the past. It, it can't simply be accepted by, by, by a historian that the whole burden of his work over many, many years is wrong.

NARRATOR: If Hancock and his fellow authors are right, we will have to rewrite history. The only way to find out if they are is to test the theory. It is Ancient Egypt that provides most of these writers with their key evidence. In particular the pyramids built 4,500 years ago on the Giza plateau near modern Cairo.

GRAHAM HANCOCK: According to Egyptologists those pyramids are tombs and tombs only. They have no other function whatsoever and they were built to serve as the tombs of 3 Pharaohs of the 4th dynasty - Khufu, Khefren and Menkaure - and that's the end of the story really as far as orthodox Egyptologists are concerned. I think there's room for a reconsideration of what the pyramids might be and in order to reconsider that information I think it's very important that we take astronomy into account.

NARRATOR: There's always been a mystery about the 3 Giza pyramids. Looked at from above they form a perfect diagonal, but with the third, smaller pyramid that is offset. Many have been baffled by this curious imperfection, but now there is a new explanation. Robert Bauval is a former engineer. He has developed a controversial theory about the Giza pyramids and it has a crucial role in the evolution of Hancock's theories about a lost civilisation. In 1982, on his way to Cairo airport, Bauval flew over these mysterious wonders of the Ancient World. There was something about the puzzling layout of the pyramids that began to obsess him.

ROBERT BAUVAL (Author): Now if you can see you have two large pyramids which are of almost equal size and a long diagonal line whereas the third pyramid, the smaller one, of Menkaure, is offset to the east of this diagonal.

NARRATOR: Bauval had an inspiration. The plan of the 3 pyramids reminded him of a constellation - Orion the Hunter. In the middle of the constellation are the 3 belt stars. They, too, form a diagonal line with one star offset. It seemed to be a perfect match for the pyramids.

ROBERT BAUVAL: I observed that the stars had exactly the same pattern as the pyramids on the ground. You have two bright stars, or two large stars if you like, and the third one on the top dimmer and offset to the east in exactly the same pattern.

NARRATOR: There are, of course, many other stars in Orion, but it was the 3 belt stars that led Bauval to make another discovery, one that linked the pyramids uncannily with that date long in the past. As a result of precession, the angle of the 3 stars changes over time and Bauval found the best fit on one particular date.

ROBERT BAUVAL: So we have a moving sky over a fixed land, the pyramids on the ground, and when you move that sky in time to fit the patterns of Orion you get that lock in 10,500BC.

NARRATOR: Hancock was impressed by Bauval's theory and the way it linked Ancient Egypt with an even more ancient date.

ROBERT BAUVAL: The whole arrangement freezes the time of 10,500BC.

Source:
http://www.grahamhancock.com/horizon/horizon_script_2.htm

[iSeeDumbPeople]

I found some interesting information during my reading and I thought I'd share it with you:
Consider this: there is a longitudinal relationship between the Pyramids of Giza, the great temple of Arunachela in Tiruvanamalai (South-east India), and the Temples of Angkor in Cambodia.
Arunachela is 48 degrees of longitude east of Giza.
Angkor is 24 degrees of longitude east of Arunachela and 72 degrees east of Giza.
Wuhe Plateau at Sao Pa, Taiwan - located almost exactly on the Tropic of Cancer.

48 / 2 = 24; 48 + 24 = 72; 5 x 72 = 360 (the 360 degrees of a circle).
These numbers and others turn up repeatedly in ancient myths from all parts of the world.
If you notice, all of these numbers are divisible by 3.
What about the number 90 = 30 x 3 ?
In terms of a circle, (of which it is exactly one quarter), of geomerty (the right angle) and of navigation, there is no doubt that 90 degrees is a significant figure.

And let's say instead of the Prime Meridian at Greenwhich, the 0 degree line was at Giza, then Tiruvannamalai would be on 48 degrees, Angkor would be on 72 degrees, and Sao Pa would be on 90 degrees longitude.

So explain how the world was mapped repeatedly over a long period of time (perhaps during the Ice Age), which was only achieved again once again in the 18th century.