Atlantis? Really? Nah, but...


Verified Member
Aug 15, 2013
The likelihood that there might be elements of truth in the story of Atlantis has gained in recent years as ice cores and study of other geological features have increased knowledge of the centuries before and during the period known as the Younger Dryas, roughly 11,000 to 9,000 BC.

Around 11,000, something dramatic caused rapid and aggressive warming of Earth's climate that led to the end of the last Ice Age. Whatever that was, most geologists have come to believe it had to have been quite catastrophic to cause the melting of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheet as rapidly as that occurred. The glacier ("Laurentide Ice Sheet") that reached from the North Pole to central Minnesota and therefore across most of the Northern Hemisphere at similar latitude was up to 2 miles thick.

Back to Atlantis -- We get the story from two of Plato's dialogues. He tells it as though it were a monologue from an individual, "Critias," who claimed to be a descendant of the famous and revered early Greek statesman, Solon, who, Critias said, got the story from Egyptian priests when he visited the African continent. Admittedly strange, but entirely true, according to Critias and, by that vehicle, Plato.

What is causing some re-consideration of the possibility that some parts of the Atlantis story might be true is the fact that the Egyptian priests had allegedly dated Atlantis' destruction to the very time that the catastrophic event(s) occurred that brought about the rapid melting of the ice sheet and the massive consequent flooding that resulted in a 400-foot rise in global sea levels.

One thing asserted as certain is that a catastrophe of the degree that would have caused the evidence now said to be apparent would have had a devastating effect on most humans on the planet at the time.

The Atlantis story as told by Plato? Probably not, but some human group(s) earlier and more advanced than we've previously thought? I suspect so. If you wonder why, Look into Gobekli Tepe, Baalbek, Angkhor Wat, Puma Punku, Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo, even Giza.

Somebody was building some things that are hard to accept as done by people with only primitive tools and equipment; some without the wheel, some without a written language, some with many later structures so primitive by comparison that they suggest earlier techniques or knowledge was lost.

Conventional archaeology/anthropology has dated human advancement only to hunter-gatherer level prior to about 5000 or 6000 BC. But now sophisticated structures at Gobekli Tepe have been dated to 10,500 BC. Not only is the technology they indicate advanced, the total of these megalitic structures is far too large for anything remotely as primitive as hunter-gathering as food source. Then, what the hell? they were buried in sand... 100s of thousands of cubic yards of sand.

For the most unbelievable feat that was accomplished at least 2000 years ago, look at the Baalbek "Trilathon" comprised of three solid granite stones weighing approximately 2 million pounds each that had to be quarried, finished, moved, then lifted about 20 feet in the air to be placed where they have sat for at least those 2000 years. (And there's a fourth one nearby only partially removed from bedrock that is even bigger.)