 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
Searching Many people are searching for Atlantis and most of them have their favorite possible location. I believe several of the locations may be correct. As noted, 'Atlantis' was an era, and a varied civilization scattered across the globe, just as we are now. We could find Atlantis almost anywhere. It is detrimental to the search to make any assumption about it being in one single place or looking one particular way, like using Plato's description as the only possible piece of Atlantis which we'd accept as Atlantis. So, what should we really be looking for? Large enduring stuff, like stone. It may be all that's left. Even if Atlantis had developed into precisely who we are today: Plastics and rubber can burn, melt, float away or get sucked down into undercurrents. Wood floats away, burns, and rots into sediment or soil. Metals can melt, rust, reform under heat and pressure, or sink beyond retrieval, possibly only surviving if deeply embedded in stone. Ceramics and glass shatter, perhaps joining the sea floor or reappearing on beaches, centuries or millenia later, leagues away from origin, as pummeled 'beach glass'. Thus, the leftovers we're looking for and most likely to find are very large, nearly immovable, and exceedingly durable in composition. This would generally mean large stone structures. Even better if there were inscriptions, a sign to us of intelligence and purposeful design. Yet inscriptions can be worn off. It may only be the corners and angles of masonry which shall be found. It is ironic that stonework, which we consider to be a very low-level backward 'technology', is likely the most enduring. A Bimini Road analogy: Imagine if global changes put the American southwest under water. After millenia, the terrain would have filled in with a lot of sediment. Then suppose some divers went exploring a curious cluster of 'South Nevada Islands.' They would not likely find remnants of our existence having to do with habitat or habits - no houses, cars, TVs, computers, radios, not even a single VHS tape or CD. All of that would have long been washed away, dissolved, otherwise absorbed into the deep, or carried by the surf onto some other shore in bits. However, the divers might very well find a long, oddly curved stretch of a rock formation in these waters. It would surely be covered in a blanket of sealife, but still suggestive of something unusual because of a highly regular pattern to it. Perhaps only a few feet of it rise above the otherwise smooth and soft sea floor, but it stands out enough to be noticed. Would they debate it in the same way we debate the Bimini Road today? Would they ever investigate deeply enough to find out there's a monstrous dam buried there? Would they even realize the structure is curved from such a close look? Would the whole thing be passed off as an anomalous but natural rock formation and left alone to keep its secrets? Even if they investigated and uncovered the whole Hoover Dam, would they understand what we know about hydroelectric power generators or have any idea what that giant structure was really for? How many wrong guesses would there be, or quandries about why anyone would build such a road or wall under water? How many would presume that the arc in evidence was actually part of a circle which never existed? If they found a plaque or other signage stating "Hoover Dam", what presumptions might they make about the Hoover People or was Dam the name of a Hoover king who built this wall to commemorate his powerful reign or was Hoover the undersea god for whom this monument was constructed? Would they start building smaller models of it as monuments to their own achievements? (Just imagine if they found a Hoover brand vacuum cleaner later on!) Whether we're talking about Atlantis or our own legacy, surely only this sort of enigmatic megalith would remain after a truly global cataclysm. Maybe Atlanteans left the Great Pyramid behind, just as we'd leave behind Hoover Dam or parts of the Great Wall of China. What would it take to decipher them and prove any theories about them? If a Find looks like something natural or something we could do or have ever done, then it proves nothing to us. We write it off or stuff it into a currently accepted timeline. It seems like a true prehistory Find would have to be something we cannot do and/or absolutely could not occur naturally (based upon our current knowledge). In other words, it would have to be something that we just couldn't explain from anything we already know and that sort of thing seems to end up in the slag heap of archaeology, not in the news. They seem to only want to tell what they think they know AND can somehow own. Those limitations leave us very little which would qualify as proof. Even if we were standing in the middle of the ruins of a great Atlantean city, we might never know it? THIS is why we need to be interested in all testaments to Atlantis. Surely the more people we have paying attention to this, the less likely we'll be to miss it or for anyone to hide it. We do need to be careful about obscuring each other though. I have my own theories, but I don't usually write off anyone else's. They might just be right, and I'm perfectly okay with that. I just want our history to be found. I am convinced we will all benefit. Next in Sequence Select From Menu |
 |
|
|
|||
 uicksilver
|
|