h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Apparently some Frenchman has been doing some research near Gibraltar and has found evidence that there was an island there 19,000 years ago. Based on this (I don't know if he has other evidence) he reckons that the island could have been Atlantis. As far as I'm concerned, the theory will only hold up if he finds archaeological evidence of some kind of civilisation there. I'm not sure that civilisation goes back that far!

A number of postings ago, somebody asked me what I thought of the Piri Reis maps. These maps were reckoned to be amazingly accurate. I've recently read an article that says the accuracy has been exaggerated. There are islands that are wrongly named (Haiti is labelled as Zipango (Japan)), the tip of South America curls round to make it fit onto the hide the map was drawn on, and the map was compiled from lots of different maps from different sources, drawn to different scales. So I say to whoever raised the point, 'Sorry, but that's another idea knocked on the head'. The Piri Reis maps aren't wonderful things that could only have been drawn with 'outside help' or superior technology. They're just 16th century maps that have lasted a long time.

Have you read FingerPrints of the Gods? If not I suggest you read it, it is great and might possibly change your mind about Graham Hancock. I think the theory of Antarctica makes sense. The theory is that instead of the slow process of continental drift, the earth's crust builds up pressure and once it reaches a certain point releases and causes the crust to move rapidly. The crust of the earth is comparable to the peel of an orange. It slides around the core of the earth as the peel would slide around the orange. Thus the geographic poles could move, with out the core moving. This is what caused the flood at the end of the last Ice Age, the crust shifting, and the Glaciers being moved into temperate climates and melting. We are in an Ice Age now. Antarctica, Siberia, Greenland, Upper Canada, they are all experiencing the same thing North America and Europe once experienced. When the crust shifts again, it may reverse and Antarctica could once again be in the mid Atlantic, while North America is once again covered in ice.

Parts of the crust can move more rapidly than others as well. Thus Antarctica could theoretically have been on a part of the crust which does this. If the continent were on such a plate as this, then that would explain why other islands are not in the Arctic.

Atlantis sunk is how the story goes. Ponder this. There is a huge island out in the Atlantic, then within a relatively short period of time, that island is gone. What would you say it has done, flown away? Whatever happened to it.. the best explanation would be to say it sunk. Besides maybe it did sink, yet once the flood was over, it emerged again in it's present position covered by ice. They say right now parts of Antarctica is submerged because of the weight of the ice.

Atlantis never existed in the Antarctic, it existed where everyone in the beginning thought it existed, and that's in the mid Atlantic. The most compelling research I've seen has been done by Graham Hancock. All other theories I find very lacking. Especially the ones that want to say Plato goofed up the numbers, and start dividing them so that their theory fits. Antarctica would be large enough to fit the actual description Plato gave. It would also have been in the geographic position to support the link between the New World and the Old World, the similarities between their ancient cultures.

Btw, I thought someone said they didn't really like Plato. That's fine, just remember though, next to Jesus Christ, the Ancient Greeks, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, are the figures whose ideas shaped the culture of all Western Civilization. That is the culture you live in(assuming your not from the Middle or Far East), and he probably has influenced the way you think about things, without you even knowing it.

Graham has done massive amounts of research, been to the ancient monuments himself, spoken or corresponded with others who have done the same(including the authors of When the Sky Fell). He didn't post a 1 page webpage saying Atlantis Found!!! With some vague descriptions of Plato's story... he doesn't even use Plato's story, he uses the evidence given to him by archaeology and ancient myths and texts. He never really even mentions Atlantis in his book. He is just searching for the truth, and I think he has touched upon it. Read his book for yourself and see, it is far more compelling than anything I've said here.

Peace my friends.

Always seek the truth.

Fascinating!

Researcher 219768, could you please put something on your userpage? I can't properly wish you welcome before you have activated your space.

Hello Bumblebee. =D

I have been reading a book called '1421 - The Year China Discovered the World'. The author, an ex-Naval captain, puts forward some very convincing ideas of how a lot of the 'New World' (America, Australia, Antarctica) was visited and charted by the Chinese in the early 15th century. The reason the Western world (and a lot of China, for that matter) doesn't know about it is that China underwent a policy change before the explorers got back. The fleets that returned were dismantled, foreign links were severed and China closed in on itself. The maps produced by the Chinese were copied by Europeans, who used them for their explorations. It is known that Columbus and Magellan had maps to tell them where they had to go, and this is probably where they came from. Even the Admiralty had a copy of a map so they were able to tell Cook to look for land '40 degrees South' - the latitude of South Australia. So the Piri Reis map was most likely compiled from Chinese maps or copies of them.

That last sentence should have said "So the Piri Reis map was possibly compiled from Chinese maps or copies of them." I know that some people have questioned Gavin Menzies methods and findings, but nobody has questioned his assertion that early explorers had maps showing the way to the lands that they would 'discover'. Somebody had to have made these maps and Menzies suggests that only China would have had the manpower and resources necessary to build ships of the kind necessary to make the voyages. It has been said some of the ships he suggests the Chinese built would have been too big for certain stages of the voyages. I'm not an expert so I have no opinion on this. The book is a good read and should be approached with an open mind.