What do you think?
Rate this book
Atlantis 2021 - Lost continent discovered
Nan Madol is probably the most mysterious ancient city in the world. Despite being more than 1.5 km long, the ruins of this city are located on a small island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Where is the rest of the country? Inexplicably, some of its walls begin at the bottom of the sea. How is that possible? Thousands of kilometres away, in the northern Sahara, a Japanese satellite identified the remains of a gigantic river, now dried up, which cut through a whole chunk of Morocco, turning it into a quasi-island. That island is exactly where Plato said Atlantis was. What is the connection between Nan Madol, "the island" in the Sahara near the Strait of Gibraltar, and Atlantis? In this book we give you the answer.
- GenresHistory
285 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 27, 2021
115 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 23, 2022
Unlike the fantasy tale by Stephen Shaw, just finished before beginning this and seemingly titled similarly about Atlantis, this one seems a serious expose of known facts from Plato and from recent research findings.
Unlike many researchers and authors of history on various other subjects, however, this writer too seems more ambitious than tenable, in that he proceeds to leap quite unnecessarily across chasms in evidence, and twist and mangle logic until he presents A to mean not A.
His chief aim seems to be to establish that the discovery of recent decades via satellite in Northwestern Africa must be the only possibility of Atlantis, and towards this aim he then twists words of even Plato, saying that when Plato said island, he meant Mauritania.
Later half of the book, preceded by an assertion by Carlos Bisceglia to the effect that Plato confused location of Atlantis and in reality it was about an older civilisation in the Pacific Ocean, author proceeds thence to describe it at length.
While it's interesting and impressive, first, he hadn't really made his case, merely extrapolated from a recent research by Brasseur who apparently was so confused, inferring that so was Plato, and perhaps his sources.
Second, one comes to suspect that Carlos Bisceglia studied the work of this Brasseur, researched the subject and proposing to write the book, was told it Worrell, do he simply tacked on the poorly thought tearing to shreds of Plato in name of Atlantis to provide the book a catchy, saleable title.
"Due to a misunderstanding, the famous explorer Christopher Columbus called by the name 'Indians', peoples who had nothing to do with India. The famous explorer wanted to circumnavigate the globe to find a shorter way from Italy to India. On his journey, he came across America by chance. Convinced that he had reached India, Christopher Columbus called the local people 'Indians'. ... "
So far, that's all true; most people know this, rarely acknowledge it, and keep using the false nomenclature for people of another continent anyway.
But Carlos Bisceglia is mentioning it for a convenient reason - he labels his own theory a universally acknowledged fact, which it isn't, and Plato the one who made the mistake, which Plato certainly did not.
" ... Similarly, probably due to a misunderstanding, Plato made a similar error. Just as the explorer Christopher Columbus called not one, but two peoples (the 'Indians of India' and the 'Indians of America') by the name 'Indians', so Plato called two completely different peoples with the same name 'Atlanteans'. Originally, “the Atlanteans” were the inhabitants of the Western Mediterranean, or “people of Ma”. But for Plato, “the Atlanteans” were also the inhabitants of the coasts of Sundaland, Sahuland and ancient “Micronesia”, the “people of Mu”. We try now to remedy this error by identifying both peoples correctly."
None of that is true. It's Carlos who's shredding Plato's work and sticking pieces thereof wherever it suits him.
Other researchers, and even more so, serendipitous workers in various fields, have made diverse discoveries, separately, that lead people to believe that Plato's account of Atlantis - a large island situated in Atlantic Ocean, facing straits of Gibraltar and visible from Mediterranean, with a chain of smaller islands reaching a large continent opposite across Atlantic Ocean - was reality.
***
"In the Timaeus the following is said: “In fact, our writings tell us of a military power which, unprovoked, organised a military expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city [Athens] put an end. [...] The men of Atlantis had subdued parts of Libya within the 'Pillars of Hercules', as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia [Italy]. This vast power, gathered together, endeavoured to subdue at once our country [Egypt], your country [Greece] and the whole region on this side of the Straits. On that occasion, Solon, your city [Athens] shone in the excellence of its virtue and strength among all mankind. It was pre-eminent in courage and military prowess and was the leader of the Greeks. And even when the other allied peoples surrendered, seeing themselves forced to resist alone, after suffering extreme danger, the Athenians defeated and triumphed over the invaders. And Athens preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated to Atlantis, and generously freed all others living on this side of the Pillars of Hercules”."
Again, Carlos Bisceglia quotes Plato, but doesn't read it himself!
"In his account, Plato explicitly says that this 'Lost Athens' existed some 11,500 years ago. In fact, in the dialogue Critias it is said: “First of all, we should not forget that the time that has elapsed since the war that took place between the peoples who lived beyond the Pillars of Hercules and those who lived on this side of them amounts to about 9000 years from the days of Solon”. Furthermore, Critias also says 'that in total it was 9,000 years since, as is told, war broke out'. Considering that this story would have been told about 2,500 years ago, adding the 9,000 years mentioned by Solon, it would appear that 11,500 years ago a war broke out between Atlantis and the peoples of the Mediterranean, led by the “Lost Athens”. In this war the 'Lost Athens' would have led the Mediterranean to victory."
The phrase quoted, "war that took place between the peoples who lived beyond the Pillars of Hercules and those who lived on this side of them", leaves no doubt or choice of orientation. Atlantis was NOT coastal North West Africa, but across the Strait of Gibraltar, not within with a Mediterranean coastline.
***
Carlos Bisceglia seems to be either so overexcited post satellite discovery of Richart feature in Sahara that had people speculate whether this was Atlantis, since it seemed man-made and confirmed somewhat with descriptions of Atlantis by Plato, that he hurried to write this without research on Atlantis related recent discoveries; but his insistence that a large river beginning in Atlas mountains a hundred km south of coastal region makes northwest Africa seem like an island is an overreach that indicates an ambitious project for a thesis no sane examiners ought to pass, rather than an adult thinking coolly.
Far more likely is a scenario whereby survivors of Atlantis, after the main island sank, created a copy in Sahara, far enough away from volcanoes - and from sea, to keep it safer!
"Generating close to the Mediterranean coast, and flowing into our modern Atlantic Ocean, this gigantic river, in some places as wide as a small sea, “cut” almost entirely through a piece of Northwest Africa. Looking at it from the point of view of an observer on the ground, who did not have an aerial view of the area, this land almost surrounded by water (except where the river had its source on Mount Atlas) would have looked like a big island. In this description, the coast washed by the Tamanrasset would appear as surrounded by a 'narrow sea'. (The only way to tell that it was a river, and not a 'narrow' sea, was to examine the salinity of the water. But we do not know if this knowledge was already possessed in ancient times). The other way around, the coast washed by the Western Mediterranean and our present Atlantic Ocean would appear as surrounded by an 'open sea'. This is exactly Plato's description of the seas that surrounded Atlantis."
On one hand he claims they thought it was an island because they did not see it "from above; on the other, he thinks a hundred kilometres inland from coast is close enough that seen from land or ship, northwest Africa would look like an island.
But then he also claims Egypt and Greece were too primitive to know thst salinity was the difference between river and sea!
Carlos Bisceglia is either an idiot or a total fraud. What exactly does he think ancient people drank? Coca-Cola and wine? Everyone had to know salinity was the difference, apart from flow!
And he's talking of Egypt, one of the most advanced civilised nations of that era! Or has his community figured out how pyramids were constructed, and why?
" ... Plato really believed what he wrote about the end of Atlantis. But the area of Mount Atlas, in the Mediterranean, at least in the last 100,000 years has never been submerged by water. How can this apparent contradiction be explained?"
Because the two - Atlantis and Atlas - are identified only in mind of Carlos Bisceglia, but the identification is not in evidence or justified by logic, much less true or proven in any other manner.
So, no contradiction except that of the identification. This point about sinking of Atlantis is yet another proof of Carlos Bisceglia being wrong.
Strangely enough, he talks repeatedly of comet strikes only when discussing coastal tropical Southeast Asia and its continental shelf, but never imagines the scenario to grant that it could've happened to Atlantis as described by Plato, an island in Atlantic Ocean.
***
"Anyone who has heard of the history of Atlantis knows very well what, according to Plato, happened to that land. For example, in Plato's dialogue entitled 'Timaeus' it is said: “But later there were violent earthquakes and floods. In a single day and night all your warriors sank together into the earth. And the island of Atlantis likewise disappeared into the depths of the sea. That is why the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud which closes off the access. This was created by the subsidence of the island”.
"Let us immediately point out that, from a strictly scientific point of view, it is impossible to think that a continent, anywhere on Earth, could have “sunk to the bottom of the sea” in recent geological times, that is since the time when human beings have existed on Earth. No one, in fact, can think that continents or islands float on the sea, as if they were huge rafts. An island emerging from the water is only the visible part of something that starts under the sea and connects directly to the earth's crust. In practice, an island can be compared to the top of a mountain that starts below sea level, a protuberance of the earth's crust. We only see the top of the mountain out of the sea, while everything else is under water. The same can be said of a continent, albeit of much larger proportions."
Quite on the contrary, recent research via satellite discoveries proposes st least two continents are sunken beneath islands visible above, one under Seychelles (Kumari Khanda?), and another under and stretching northwards from New Zealand north upto northeast from Australia, near or including Tonga. The latter is called, tentatively, Lemuria.
Atlantis sinking over Mid-Atlantic Ridge is far easier to comprehend, due to stresses of the Ridge and the volcanic activity from Iceland onwards to South along the Ridge.
" ... So, if a continent were to 'sink', this would not only mean that the part of the land that emerged from the water would sink below sea level. It also means that the base of the Continent, which rested on the Earth's crust, would sink into the 'mantle' below. To end up there, it means that the base of the Continent would have to dramatically crack the Earth's crust, causing catastrophic seismic effects at a global level.
"For this reason, a Continent cannot sink into the underlying 'mantle' in a matter of days or months. ... The idea that a continent could collapse into the mantle below in a matter of hours is therefore physically impossible, whichever way you look at it."
It's more complex than that, and obviously Carlos Bisceglia isn't a knowledgeable expert in physical sciences, including physics or geology or geophysics. And at least two continents have been pronounced discovered sunken under existing islands, one in Pacific and another in Indian Ocean.
It's amazing that someone can swallow, not only the twisted and impossible church narrative regarding occupation of West Asia by Rome, but also that of Brasseur who firmly believed that Atlantis was in reality tale of another island in the other great ocean westwards - and yet, not only not believe an account by Plato who is only reporting what Egyptians said to Greeks enquiring about history, but go to great lengths to construct a far more unbelievable, incredibly twisted narrative.
Far more surprisingly, while he knows about satellite discovery of Richat structure and theory about that being behind the legend of Atlantis, he's set out to prove it without familiarising himself with Atlantis related serious works - he certainly does not know about Challenger ship discovery a century or so ago, mentioned by Ignatius Donnelly, about level of sea immediately past straits of Gibraltar being far too shallow, confirming the assertion by Plato that sailors found it difficult in his day to navigate in that region.
On the contrary Carlos Bisceglia goes to great lengths asserting not only that islands cannot sink, but that no such barriers exist, and then proceeds to take a straightforward narrative about a great island or two with a chain of islands towards west reaching a great continent surrounded by a true open sea, into one about Spain, Africa, and Canary Islands strictly instead.
It's unclear how much of this is racism assuming Greek and Egyptian civilisations would take a contiguous land for an island and didn't know the difference between river and sea, and how much is a subconsciously terrorised mind dominated by church that writes off anything not explicitly sanctioned by either church or science current to his own times, as impossible.
That he knew about satellite discovery of the so-called Eye of Sahara, Richat Structure, while he didn't know of continents sunken under Seychelles and New Zealand, is understandable - he probably hurried to write this post discovery of Richat Structure; and he might not have lived long enough to correct his assertion in this publication about impossibilityof islands, even continens sinking - but that he wrote this without familiarising himself about writing by anyone else on the topic, and didn't know about Challenger ship discovery, shows shoddy scholarship.
***
"If a continent had indeed sunk beneath the ocean in 9,500 BCE, the tsunami generated by that event would have devastated much of the Earth, reaching hundreds of kilometres inland of every part of the globe. Furthermore, the seismic activity generated by the sinking of an entire continent into the mantle below would have triggered an earthquake of magnitude 10 on the Richter scale that would have lasted for an incalculable period, affecting the entire planet Earth. Countless volcanoes would have sprung up along the crack in the Earth's crust caused by the 'Sunken Continent', covering the Earth's atmosphere with poisonous gases. All of Earth's volcanoes would have 'woken up'. The human species and almost all animal species would have disappeared within week."
That's one scenario, but other possibilities exist, some discussed by Ignatius Donnelly in his work on Atlantis, where he begins with the Challenger ship's discovery of underwater barrier in Atlantic Ocean before the Strait of Gibraltar.
Carlos Bisceglia doesn't say so, but the strong resistance at subconscious level in him is about humanity being unaware of such a cataclysm, whether now or at time of Plato; it was then already a legend not known to Greeks, told by Egyptian priests centuries before Plato and disbelieved by Plato's contemporaries when he wrote of it.
There are two strong factors to respond to this with - one, the island probably sank with not so much of a universal extinction but much less, so it wasn't even a local history in Europe; two, to the subconscious resistance about "If this really did happen, why first we know?", there's this - most of generations from twentieth century already didn't, don't, know about the late nineteenth century event of a volcanic eruption in Indonesia that was huge - and this, despite the increasingly global communications and records, libraries and more.
Some know due to reading habits of extensive nature, others font know, and couldn't care less. This would be true to more or less extent about most events, whether holocaust or other genocides, current or immediate past.
Plato did a favour to history in writing about Atlantis, and it became known due to his fame, else would be lost as account by Solon and others were. Donnelly connects it with old testament; whether that's correct or not, it gives one an awareness of possibilities; meanwhile Carlos Bisceglia was also unaware of finds underwater in Caribbean Islands, presumed to be evidence of Atlantis and its colonised islands.
"But the ancient people could not have known all this things. ... "
Carlos Bisceglia is amazingly contemptuous of "ancient people"; does he include writers of gospels therein? Evidently not, since an excommunication due to vociferous protests against various articles forced on flock by church would leave an imprint he lacks. So the key is, anything however fantastic, Carlos Bisceglia would swallow as long as told by a church authenticated priest.
His disdain for "ancient people", however, is out of place. It's only based on a racism with an attitude presuming not only superiority but sole validity of all knowledge only if and when authenticated by Europe and her descendants, going back to Rome.
It's very ignorant, apart from racist colonialism.
" ... Their limited knowledge of geology led them to think that islands and continents in some ways 'floated' on the sea like 'giant ships'. It was therefore thought that they could suddenly 'sink' like a boat. ... "
Not necessarily. Piles of mud can sink, too.
" ... But we know today that this is not the case. We cannot even think that a continent can 'disappear' simply because it is hit by phenomena such as tsunamis or floods. ... "
It's unclear how long Carlos Bisceglia lived, whether he heard of the continents sunken under Seychelles and New Zealand. He was incorrect.
Other places sunken include cities of India, famous legendary ones, one coastal.
" ... Although such phenomena are frightening for us small human beings, they are only a 'passing breeze' compared to the mass of a continent. Moreover, as time passes, sooner or later the waters recede, and what seemed submerged re-emerges. ... "
That re-emergence isn't that fast, but meanwhile Carlos Bisceglia was also unaware of finds underwater in Caribbean Islands, presumed to be evidence of Atlantis and its colonised islands.
" ... But this does not seem to be the case with Atlantis. That land disappeared, never to reappear again. It must ....
Unlike many researchers and authors of history on various other subjects, however, this writer too seems more ambitious than tenable, in that he proceeds to leap quite unnecessarily across chasms in evidence, and twist and mangle logic until he presents A to mean not A.
His chief aim seems to be to establish that the discovery of recent decades via satellite in Northwestern Africa must be the only possibility of Atlantis, and towards this aim he then twists words of even Plato, saying that when Plato said island, he meant Mauritania.
Later half of the book, preceded by an assertion by Carlos Bisceglia to the effect that Plato confused location of Atlantis and in reality it was about an older civilisation in the Pacific Ocean, author proceeds thence to describe it at length.
While it's interesting and impressive, first, he hadn't really made his case, merely extrapolated from a recent research by Brasseur who apparently was so confused, inferring that so was Plato, and perhaps his sources.
Second, one comes to suspect that Carlos Bisceglia studied the work of this Brasseur, researched the subject and proposing to write the book, was told it Worrell, do he simply tacked on the poorly thought tearing to shreds of Plato in name of Atlantis to provide the book a catchy, saleable title.
"Due to a misunderstanding, the famous explorer Christopher Columbus called by the name 'Indians', peoples who had nothing to do with India. The famous explorer wanted to circumnavigate the globe to find a shorter way from Italy to India. On his journey, he came across America by chance. Convinced that he had reached India, Christopher Columbus called the local people 'Indians'. ... "
So far, that's all true; most people know this, rarely acknowledge it, and keep using the false nomenclature for people of another continent anyway.
But Carlos Bisceglia is mentioning it for a convenient reason - he labels his own theory a universally acknowledged fact, which it isn't, and Plato the one who made the mistake, which Plato certainly did not.
" ... Similarly, probably due to a misunderstanding, Plato made a similar error. Just as the explorer Christopher Columbus called not one, but two peoples (the 'Indians of India' and the 'Indians of America') by the name 'Indians', so Plato called two completely different peoples with the same name 'Atlanteans'. Originally, “the Atlanteans” were the inhabitants of the Western Mediterranean, or “people of Ma”. But for Plato, “the Atlanteans” were also the inhabitants of the coasts of Sundaland, Sahuland and ancient “Micronesia”, the “people of Mu”. We try now to remedy this error by identifying both peoples correctly."
None of that is true. It's Carlos who's shredding Plato's work and sticking pieces thereof wherever it suits him.
Other researchers, and even more so, serendipitous workers in various fields, have made diverse discoveries, separately, that lead people to believe that Plato's account of Atlantis - a large island situated in Atlantic Ocean, facing straits of Gibraltar and visible from Mediterranean, with a chain of smaller islands reaching a large continent opposite across Atlantic Ocean - was reality.
***
"In the Timaeus the following is said: “In fact, our writings tell us of a military power which, unprovoked, organised a military expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city [Athens] put an end. [...] The men of Atlantis had subdued parts of Libya within the 'Pillars of Hercules', as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia [Italy]. This vast power, gathered together, endeavoured to subdue at once our country [Egypt], your country [Greece] and the whole region on this side of the Straits. On that occasion, Solon, your city [Athens] shone in the excellence of its virtue and strength among all mankind. It was pre-eminent in courage and military prowess and was the leader of the Greeks. And even when the other allied peoples surrendered, seeing themselves forced to resist alone, after suffering extreme danger, the Athenians defeated and triumphed over the invaders. And Athens preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated to Atlantis, and generously freed all others living on this side of the Pillars of Hercules”."
Again, Carlos Bisceglia quotes Plato, but doesn't read it himself!
"In his account, Plato explicitly says that this 'Lost Athens' existed some 11,500 years ago. In fact, in the dialogue Critias it is said: “First of all, we should not forget that the time that has elapsed since the war that took place between the peoples who lived beyond the Pillars of Hercules and those who lived on this side of them amounts to about 9000 years from the days of Solon”. Furthermore, Critias also says 'that in total it was 9,000 years since, as is told, war broke out'. Considering that this story would have been told about 2,500 years ago, adding the 9,000 years mentioned by Solon, it would appear that 11,500 years ago a war broke out between Atlantis and the peoples of the Mediterranean, led by the “Lost Athens”. In this war the 'Lost Athens' would have led the Mediterranean to victory."
The phrase quoted, "war that took place between the peoples who lived beyond the Pillars of Hercules and those who lived on this side of them", leaves no doubt or choice of orientation. Atlantis was NOT coastal North West Africa, but across the Strait of Gibraltar, not within with a Mediterranean coastline.
***
Carlos Bisceglia seems to be either so overexcited post satellite discovery of Richart feature in Sahara that had people speculate whether this was Atlantis, since it seemed man-made and confirmed somewhat with descriptions of Atlantis by Plato, that he hurried to write this without research on Atlantis related recent discoveries; but his insistence that a large river beginning in Atlas mountains a hundred km south of coastal region makes northwest Africa seem like an island is an overreach that indicates an ambitious project for a thesis no sane examiners ought to pass, rather than an adult thinking coolly.
Far more likely is a scenario whereby survivors of Atlantis, after the main island sank, created a copy in Sahara, far enough away from volcanoes - and from sea, to keep it safer!
"Generating close to the Mediterranean coast, and flowing into our modern Atlantic Ocean, this gigantic river, in some places as wide as a small sea, “cut” almost entirely through a piece of Northwest Africa. Looking at it from the point of view of an observer on the ground, who did not have an aerial view of the area, this land almost surrounded by water (except where the river had its source on Mount Atlas) would have looked like a big island. In this description, the coast washed by the Tamanrasset would appear as surrounded by a 'narrow sea'. (The only way to tell that it was a river, and not a 'narrow' sea, was to examine the salinity of the water. But we do not know if this knowledge was already possessed in ancient times). The other way around, the coast washed by the Western Mediterranean and our present Atlantic Ocean would appear as surrounded by an 'open sea'. This is exactly Plato's description of the seas that surrounded Atlantis."
On one hand he claims they thought it was an island because they did not see it "from above; on the other, he thinks a hundred kilometres inland from coast is close enough that seen from land or ship, northwest Africa would look like an island.
But then he also claims Egypt and Greece were too primitive to know thst salinity was the difference between river and sea!
Carlos Bisceglia is either an idiot or a total fraud. What exactly does he think ancient people drank? Coca-Cola and wine? Everyone had to know salinity was the difference, apart from flow!
And he's talking of Egypt, one of the most advanced civilised nations of that era! Or has his community figured out how pyramids were constructed, and why?
" ... Plato really believed what he wrote about the end of Atlantis. But the area of Mount Atlas, in the Mediterranean, at least in the last 100,000 years has never been submerged by water. How can this apparent contradiction be explained?"
Because the two - Atlantis and Atlas - are identified only in mind of Carlos Bisceglia, but the identification is not in evidence or justified by logic, much less true or proven in any other manner.
So, no contradiction except that of the identification. This point about sinking of Atlantis is yet another proof of Carlos Bisceglia being wrong.
Strangely enough, he talks repeatedly of comet strikes only when discussing coastal tropical Southeast Asia and its continental shelf, but never imagines the scenario to grant that it could've happened to Atlantis as described by Plato, an island in Atlantic Ocean.
***
"Anyone who has heard of the history of Atlantis knows very well what, according to Plato, happened to that land. For example, in Plato's dialogue entitled 'Timaeus' it is said: “But later there were violent earthquakes and floods. In a single day and night all your warriors sank together into the earth. And the island of Atlantis likewise disappeared into the depths of the sea. That is why the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud which closes off the access. This was created by the subsidence of the island”.
"Let us immediately point out that, from a strictly scientific point of view, it is impossible to think that a continent, anywhere on Earth, could have “sunk to the bottom of the sea” in recent geological times, that is since the time when human beings have existed on Earth. No one, in fact, can think that continents or islands float on the sea, as if they were huge rafts. An island emerging from the water is only the visible part of something that starts under the sea and connects directly to the earth's crust. In practice, an island can be compared to the top of a mountain that starts below sea level, a protuberance of the earth's crust. We only see the top of the mountain out of the sea, while everything else is under water. The same can be said of a continent, albeit of much larger proportions."
Quite on the contrary, recent research via satellite discoveries proposes st least two continents are sunken beneath islands visible above, one under Seychelles (Kumari Khanda?), and another under and stretching northwards from New Zealand north upto northeast from Australia, near or including Tonga. The latter is called, tentatively, Lemuria.
Atlantis sinking over Mid-Atlantic Ridge is far easier to comprehend, due to stresses of the Ridge and the volcanic activity from Iceland onwards to South along the Ridge.
" ... So, if a continent were to 'sink', this would not only mean that the part of the land that emerged from the water would sink below sea level. It also means that the base of the Continent, which rested on the Earth's crust, would sink into the 'mantle' below. To end up there, it means that the base of the Continent would have to dramatically crack the Earth's crust, causing catastrophic seismic effects at a global level.
"For this reason, a Continent cannot sink into the underlying 'mantle' in a matter of days or months. ... The idea that a continent could collapse into the mantle below in a matter of hours is therefore physically impossible, whichever way you look at it."
It's more complex than that, and obviously Carlos Bisceglia isn't a knowledgeable expert in physical sciences, including physics or geology or geophysics. And at least two continents have been pronounced discovered sunken under existing islands, one in Pacific and another in Indian Ocean.
It's amazing that someone can swallow, not only the twisted and impossible church narrative regarding occupation of West Asia by Rome, but also that of Brasseur who firmly believed that Atlantis was in reality tale of another island in the other great ocean westwards - and yet, not only not believe an account by Plato who is only reporting what Egyptians said to Greeks enquiring about history, but go to great lengths to construct a far more unbelievable, incredibly twisted narrative.
Far more surprisingly, while he knows about satellite discovery of Richat structure and theory about that being behind the legend of Atlantis, he's set out to prove it without familiarising himself with Atlantis related serious works - he certainly does not know about Challenger ship discovery a century or so ago, mentioned by Ignatius Donnelly, about level of sea immediately past straits of Gibraltar being far too shallow, confirming the assertion by Plato that sailors found it difficult in his day to navigate in that region.
On the contrary Carlos Bisceglia goes to great lengths asserting not only that islands cannot sink, but that no such barriers exist, and then proceeds to take a straightforward narrative about a great island or two with a chain of islands towards west reaching a great continent surrounded by a true open sea, into one about Spain, Africa, and Canary Islands strictly instead.
It's unclear how much of this is racism assuming Greek and Egyptian civilisations would take a contiguous land for an island and didn't know the difference between river and sea, and how much is a subconsciously terrorised mind dominated by church that writes off anything not explicitly sanctioned by either church or science current to his own times, as impossible.
That he knew about satellite discovery of the so-called Eye of Sahara, Richat Structure, while he didn't know of continents sunken under Seychelles and New Zealand, is understandable - he probably hurried to write this post discovery of Richat Structure; and he might not have lived long enough to correct his assertion in this publication about impossibilityof islands, even continens sinking - but that he wrote this without familiarising himself about writing by anyone else on the topic, and didn't know about Challenger ship discovery, shows shoddy scholarship.
***
"If a continent had indeed sunk beneath the ocean in 9,500 BCE, the tsunami generated by that event would have devastated much of the Earth, reaching hundreds of kilometres inland of every part of the globe. Furthermore, the seismic activity generated by the sinking of an entire continent into the mantle below would have triggered an earthquake of magnitude 10 on the Richter scale that would have lasted for an incalculable period, affecting the entire planet Earth. Countless volcanoes would have sprung up along the crack in the Earth's crust caused by the 'Sunken Continent', covering the Earth's atmosphere with poisonous gases. All of Earth's volcanoes would have 'woken up'. The human species and almost all animal species would have disappeared within week."
That's one scenario, but other possibilities exist, some discussed by Ignatius Donnelly in his work on Atlantis, where he begins with the Challenger ship's discovery of underwater barrier in Atlantic Ocean before the Strait of Gibraltar.
Carlos Bisceglia doesn't say so, but the strong resistance at subconscious level in him is about humanity being unaware of such a cataclysm, whether now or at time of Plato; it was then already a legend not known to Greeks, told by Egyptian priests centuries before Plato and disbelieved by Plato's contemporaries when he wrote of it.
There are two strong factors to respond to this with - one, the island probably sank with not so much of a universal extinction but much less, so it wasn't even a local history in Europe; two, to the subconscious resistance about "If this really did happen, why first we know?", there's this - most of generations from twentieth century already didn't, don't, know about the late nineteenth century event of a volcanic eruption in Indonesia that was huge - and this, despite the increasingly global communications and records, libraries and more.
Some know due to reading habits of extensive nature, others font know, and couldn't care less. This would be true to more or less extent about most events, whether holocaust or other genocides, current or immediate past.
Plato did a favour to history in writing about Atlantis, and it became known due to his fame, else would be lost as account by Solon and others were. Donnelly connects it with old testament; whether that's correct or not, it gives one an awareness of possibilities; meanwhile Carlos Bisceglia was also unaware of finds underwater in Caribbean Islands, presumed to be evidence of Atlantis and its colonised islands.
"But the ancient people could not have known all this things. ... "
Carlos Bisceglia is amazingly contemptuous of "ancient people"; does he include writers of gospels therein? Evidently not, since an excommunication due to vociferous protests against various articles forced on flock by church would leave an imprint he lacks. So the key is, anything however fantastic, Carlos Bisceglia would swallow as long as told by a church authenticated priest.
His disdain for "ancient people", however, is out of place. It's only based on a racism with an attitude presuming not only superiority but sole validity of all knowledge only if and when authenticated by Europe and her descendants, going back to Rome.
It's very ignorant, apart from racist colonialism.
" ... Their limited knowledge of geology led them to think that islands and continents in some ways 'floated' on the sea like 'giant ships'. It was therefore thought that they could suddenly 'sink' like a boat. ... "
Not necessarily. Piles of mud can sink, too.
" ... But we know today that this is not the case. We cannot even think that a continent can 'disappear' simply because it is hit by phenomena such as tsunamis or floods. ... "
It's unclear how long Carlos Bisceglia lived, whether he heard of the continents sunken under Seychelles and New Zealand. He was incorrect.
Other places sunken include cities of India, famous legendary ones, one coastal.
" ... Although such phenomena are frightening for us small human beings, they are only a 'passing breeze' compared to the mass of a continent. Moreover, as time passes, sooner or later the waters recede, and what seemed submerged re-emerges. ... "
That re-emergence isn't that fast, but meanwhile Carlos Bisceglia was also unaware of finds underwater in Caribbean Islands, presumed to be evidence of Atlantis and its colonised islands.
" ... But this does not seem to be the case with Atlantis. That land disappeared, never to reappear again. It must ....
December 21, 2022
Still looking but science is opening doors.
July 4, 2022
interesting hypothesis
It is worth reading the arguments the author puts forward. Yet, at times he wants to believe that Plato misinterpreted information and he wants to fulfill it with his own interpretations.
Has good information and he wants ro prove that his hunch is real. Yet, lacks support
It is worth reading the arguments the author puts forward. Yet, at times he wants to believe that Plato misinterpreted information and he wants to fulfill it with his own interpretations.
Has good information and he wants ro prove that his hunch is real. Yet, lacks support
May 27, 2023
Too much information that doesn’t relate to Atlantis
Much of the book is helpful, especially relating to climate changes in north Africa. However when he tries to conflate the people of Atlantis with the people of mythical Mu, half a world away, he lost me. It would be better to have written a shorter book that focused on Atlantis.
Much of the book is helpful, especially relating to climate changes in north Africa. However when he tries to conflate the people of Atlantis with the people of mythical Mu, half a world away, he lost me. It would be better to have written a shorter book that focused on Atlantis.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews