National Geographic Teams with Simcha Jacobovici to Find Atlantis in Sardinia

9/17/2016

When Rupert Murdoch bought National Geographic, there was deep concern among lovers of science that the Fox News magnate would send the magazine and its affiliated cable channel into the gutter. Murdoch’s son James, who now National Geographic and its TV channel through his management of 21st Century Fox, had his flunkies go on a media blitz promising that under his leadership, NatGeo properties would emphasize high-quality science with the production values of HBO. James Murdoch claimed that the new National Geographic Channel would be a high-end destination for wealthy viewers looking for real science. “It’s better shows, it’s bigger talent,” National Geographic Channel CEO Courteney Monroe told Business Insider.

So naturally the new and improved NatGeo hired Holy Bloodline conspiracy theorist Simcha Jacobovici for a splashy new documentary about finding the “real” Atlantis. In Sardinia.

According to The Star, the documentary is a sequel to the terrible 2011 Finding Atlantis documentary that aired on NatGeo. That film, which I reviewed at the time, claimed that Atlantis was located in Spain, earning the ire of Spanish archaeologists, who felt that their legitimate work on Bronze Age Spain had been hijacked by a religious crank who dropped in, spouted nonsense about Atlantis being the source of King Solomon’s wealth, and claimed credit for their work.

According to the Sierra Vista Herald, Jacobvici is working with Titanic director James Cameron to hunt Atlantis off the coast of Sardinia, and the resulting film will air in December.

“Finding the historical and archeological truth behind the Atlantis myth has always been a fascination of mine,” Cameron said in a press release. “Our exploration team will investigate several new theories about where the real Atlantis was, who these mysterious people were and what disaster wiped them from the Earth over three millennia ago.”

Note the telling choice of language: Atlantis, to Cameron’s mind is real—but is a Bronze Age civilization that ended in the Bronze Age collapse around 1200 BCE. Before they even started, Cameron and Jacobvici have already abandoned a literal reading of Plato, who placed Atlantis’ destruction around 9600 BCE. That’s not a great start.

Regular readers will remember that Sardinia is the birthplace of Italian journalist Sergio Frau, who has pushed the claim that the island was the real Atlantis for the past two decades. Additionally, last year, a large rock assumed to be an ancient megalith was photographed underwater off Sicily, prompting speculation that Atlantis was located in the general vicinity of the western Mediterranean.

Atlantipedia reports that Frau was not approached to participate in the documentary despite being the only Sardinia-as-Atlantis theorist to have presented his research to the United Nations.

According to the Herald, Jacobovici brought Robert Ishoy, a former Army intelligence specialist, who makes many of the same claims as Frau, specifically that Plato’s Pillars of Heracles were the Straits of Messina and not Gibraltar, and that Sardinia matches Plato’s description of Atlantis in every detail except those that are inconvenient.

“It really comes down to just Plato,” Ishoy said. “Plato was the only true historic work that we have that talks about Atlantis. Everything else after that is speculation. So you really only have Plato.” Except, of course, when you offer special pleading to dump the parts you don’t like. In Ishoy’s case, he doesn’t like Plato’s timeline and therefore chops 8,400 years off of it to better fit Atlantis into the Bronze Age narrative he wants to tell. One might also note that there are not elephants on Sardinia, as Plato said of Atlantis, at least none that were alive after the Ice Age. Ishoy, though, counts the Ice Age dwarf elephants as part of Sardinia’s fauna, despite placing Atlantis 30,000 years after they were all dead!

Ishoy further identified Plato’s copper-like metal orichalcum with obsidian, which is neither the same color nor a metal, because both were mined and both were valuable.

Ishoy proposed his Atlantis theory as a college student in the 1980s as part of a paper he wrote for his bachelor’s degree. He posted that paper to the internet in 2001. Apparently posting a poorly researched college term paper online is all one needs to do to become a cable TV expert nowadays.

To build off the publicity of the new documentary, two months ago Ishoy launched a company, the Society for Historical Exploration, which had been in development for several years and which is actively soliciting donations to fund research into history. His team includes a real anthropologist, historian, and archaeologist. His company has attracted about $1,800 in donations as of this writing.

He said, moreover, that he believes that the Bronze Age civilization of Sardinia was the equal of ancient Egypt, even though the Nuragic ruins that remain are not on the same scale as the pyramids and temples of Egypt.

“In my opinion, this civilization rivals ancient Egypt. That’s how massive it was,” Ishoy told the Herald. “And yet there’s almost nothing known about them on this island of Sardinia. And I believe it ties into Atlantis, because this is the civilization that I associate with Plato’s description.”

Ishoy now calls himself “the person who discovered Atlantis” despite having done no such thing.

48 Comments

Titus pullo

9/17/2016 10:14:45 am

Real science can be entertaining (quantum entanglement for example) but there are pop cultural things like Atlantis that audiences are interested. Nothing wrong with having an episode once in a while tackling these things as long as they do it as factually as possible and not take things out of context to whet appetites for more speculative crap. Watched NASA unexplained files last night and a few times they took former astronauts Alfred Worden and Alan Bean out of context to make things sound more mysterious. They even confused the lower and upper stages of the LM saying the fuel in the decent stage was needed for the ascent stage to make Armstongs landing with a minute or more of fuel left sound even more scarier and not logical. Now about HBO production values, mostly good but they do have a thing about very graphical sex in their miniseries. Brings in the young men I'm sure but it's not really needed say in Game of thrones.

My son started his second year at the Park School in cinema and film production. Had a real internship last summer where he produced and directed a marketing promo short for SUNY welding programs at community colleges so maybe he can make a living in film production? He also said the one thing he hates about park is how many of the kids smoke? I guess it's the artist thing? Ha ha

Templar Secrets

9/17/2016 12:10:00 pm

>>Simcha Jacobovici<<

Atlantis must have existed, because the physical remains of Jesus and his family have been discovered.

Shane Sullivan

9/17/2016 12:17:05 pm

James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol9nTzDnFAE

9/17/2016 12:28:46 pm

>>>actively soliciting donations to fund research<<<

Entering that maze without a centre again - nothing to find, but the journey is the real deal and not the "discovery".

T. Franke link

9/17/2016 01:14:29 pm

Well, dismissing the literal reading of Plato is absolutely legitimate if you put forward reasons for this. Atlantis skeptics who insist on a literal reading ridicule themselves since dealing with ancient texts usually requires historical criticism, resulting in a non-literal reading.

Not talking about Sergio Frau when talking about Sardinia as Atlantis is a strange thing.

Find here my article why Frau's hypothesis does not work:
http://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlantis-sergio-frau-english.htm

9/17/2016 01:40:32 pm

>>dismissing the literal reading of Plato is absolutely legitimate if you put forward reasons for this<<

It's a morality fable and nothing more

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=531

"It is interesting to note that so many people regard Atlantis as a model society, but Plato invented it to show a society that had gone wrong!"

9/17/2016 03:16:56 pm

@Templar Secrets:
Although you are legitimately of the opinion that it is a morality fable, you have not the right to reject a historical-critical approach a priori, or to insist on a literal reading.

Funny, that the skeptics on your recommended page sit together on a table with the inscription "Pietro d'Abano", because Abano believed in the existence of Atlantis :-)

If you want to know more about the labyrinthic difficulties of the Atlantis question, maybe you look here:
http://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlantis-labyrinth-engl.htm

9/17/2016 03:54:51 pm

Simcha Jacobovici should be invited to a Skeptics Congress.

However, bear-baiting is illegal...

When you find that the story of Atlantis is something different to Plato's imagination, please let me know,

9/17/2016 04:00:12 pm

@Templar Secrets:

My humble opinion is that Plato's Atlantis is as real as Herodotus' Egypt. Herodotus made mistakes when describing Egypt (e.g. he thought Egypt is 11000 years old), and so analogously mistakes crept into the Atlantis account. The Atlantis story is a distorted historical tradition, that is what I think. Atlantis was not 9000 years old and it was not in the Atlantic Ocean. There are no literary "signs" showing that the story is ment ironically or otherwise not true.

My Web link given above shows you how skeptics and believers both go wrong in many ways, usually.

9/17/2016 04:02:41 pm

I therefore look forward to reading your forthcoming book "Atlantis before Plato".

9/17/2016 07:25:22 pm

@Templar Secrets:
The book about my opinion about Atlantis will be my 2nd next book from today. It is obvious that Atlantis existed before Plato's time.
I already translated into English:

- Gunnar Rudberg: Atlantis and Syracuse.
- My own book: Aristotle and Atlantis.

My books "Herodotus and Atlantis" and "Critical history of the hypotheses and the opinions on Plato's Atlantis" are not translated in to English.

You can find explanations here:
http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/franke-thorwald-c/

9/18/2016 05:25:51 pm

" There are no literary "signs" showing that the story is ment ironically or otherwise not true."

You mean other than the fictitious characters of the dialogue? Because that's kind of high on the list of things you teach second graders on how to identify fiction vs. nonfiction. And while it's not impossible for an author to use a real place in a fictional story--it happens all the time, especially big cities like London, New York, Chicago,Tokyo, etc--you can't guarantee from the story alone that a place is real. Gotham City is as well-known as New York or LA, and so is Metropolis, but neither city is REAL. In order to make the claim that a place is a real place, you MUST have corroborating, non-fictional details from other, pre-existing sources. And to remind you, "corroborating" means "confirms that these descriptions are accurate." If you aren't using a literal reading, then you are not providing corroborating detail, and at MOST you are able to show that this other place here may have served as an INSPIRATION for that one in the fictional story.

Much like being able to point to certain features of New York City and say that these are the inspiration for things in Metropolis or Gotham, and yet New York City is NOT Metropolis OR Gotham.

In short, you absolutely CANNOT prove that "Atlantis was real" by dismissing the literal reading of Plato, no matter what reasons you put forward, because then you are not proving what you think you're proving.

9/18/2016 05:35:31 pm

@V:
I think you make a very basic mistake. You think, that I "have to" prove that it is real. Well, do I have to? Because ...... we can turn the game the other way round! Can you prove, that it is fictional? Can you? No, you can't.

That it the only point I want to make for the moment: The Atlantis question is not an easy question, and neither me nor you can give an easy answer.

The only easy thing to say is that the literal meaning cannot be real. But this is not much said.

I point again to my article about the labyrinthic structure of arguing about Atlantis: Usually one mistake follows the next when Atlantis skeptics and Atlantis supporters talk to each other, and both are wrong:
http://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlantis-labyrinth-engl.htm

9/18/2016 05:44:12 pm

@V:
PS: Ah, and consider this: Herodotus made mistakes about Egypt. The literal Egypt of Herodotus does not exist. Yet it makes sense to assume that Herodotus talked about the real Egypt, only making mistakes.

In the same way it is absolutely possible to think of Atlantis as a distorted historical tradition which can be found by re-distorting the distortions by the historical-critical method. Of course it could be possible to prove Atlantis to be real by dismissing its literal meaning! Otherwise, it would not work for Herodotus, too. But for Herodotus, it is well accepted to do so.

Kathleen

9/17/2016 09:31:24 pm

Hello Mr. Franke. I wondered if you are the historian for the new Society for Historical Exploration?

9/18/2016 05:24:49 am

@Kathleen:
No, I am not affiliated with the new Society for Historical Exploration. I am an independent researcher.

9/18/2016 03:35:27 pm

Thanks

Mark L

9/18/2016 10:56:57 am

T Franke, the reason your comparison between Herodotus and Plato is meaningless, is because there's plenty of other evidence for the existence of Egypt. It still being there, for one.

Is there any evidence for the existence of Atlantis? A single fragment of anything physical, or indeed anything outside Plato at all?

I no more believe in the existence of Atlantis than I do the existence of Hogwarts. Well, there's more evidence for the existence of Hogwarts.

9/18/2016 03:41:09 pm

Dear Mark, the comparison to Herodotus does not prove the existence of Atlantis, but it is *not* meaningless ....... because it disproves the wrong idea that you only have to consider the 9000 years and you are done with Plato's Atlantis.

You surely can *not* say that there is more evidence for the existence of Hogwarts, because (a) the author of Hogwarts willingly tells you that it is fiction, yet in Plato's dialogue it is claimed to be real by Socrates, and it is never denied to be real; (b) Hogwarts is about a world of witchcraft, whereas Atlantis is about the real world (as the ancient Greeks saw it); (c) Krantor puts forward the claim that he had a piece of evidence (which could be wrong, but anyway: He claims it); (d) most authors in antiquity were in favour of Atlantis' existence. (e) Many details of the Atlantis account which look like an invention can be demonstrated to be mistakes by historical-critical analysis of the text in the context of his time.

Or in short: Nobody can claim to have an easy answer. Neither you nor me.

9/18/2016 05:45:46 pm

Oh, yes, because no historical character ever had words put into their mouth by a playwright far removed. Lend me your ears! Et tu, brute? There was never a playwright making the majority of his reputation off using historical figures as fictional characters!

Guess what? HARRY POTTER claims that Hogwarts is real. He's in the books, and he never tells you it's not real! That invalidates what the author has to say, right? And why is "a world of witchcraft" so much less believable than "pissed-off pantheon of gods?" Kantor's claim is absolutely irrelevant, since you provide no detail, and if making a claim makes something real, well, then, I claim that Harry Potter is real, so it is now. Likewise, nobody's ever been mistaken about truth EVER in all of history! There's never been ANY writing that we have been able to demonstrably PROVE to be false! Especially not authors from antiquity. Not like Aristotle's De Physica doesn't make some truly outrageous claims that are so demonstrably false, such as the claim that "women have fewer teeth than men." Or that motion is unnatural.

And no, you can't demonstrate that these things are "mistakes" without a clear, confirmed older source that provably refers to ATLANTIS and not some other location. Saying that Big Ben is on the opposite shore of the Thames from Parliament is a mistake, because you can go look for yourself and see that no, Big Ben is ATTACHED to Parliament. Saying that "The major clock tower of the City of Lothgardenfall sits opposite its Parliamentary building across the river" is not a mistake, it is an invention. Proving that Big Ben is attached to Parliament in London doesn't say SHIT about what's in the City of Lothgardenfall. (Which, right now, has a river, a clock tower, and a Parliamentary building and literally nothing else.)

Oh, and don't get me wrong. I certainly can accept the concept that a timeline can be gotten wrong by a given work. It happens all the time. But your "historical-critical analysis" is based on a completely biased approach, as far as I can tell--ie, you have made the assumption that Atlantis existed and are working backward to prove it, and that is BAD SCIENCE, sir. It is bad science AND bad analysis.

9/18/2016 06:04:30 pm

@V:
Look, V, you are not talking to a child, and not to a weird Atlantis searcher, searching Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean. And not to a illiterate person who thinks that Plato's dialogues reflect real scenes, which they surely do not.

Did it ever came to your mind that you simply have no proof that Atlantis is not real? You only have the simple answer that Atlantis is not real in a literal way. But you have absolutely nothing in your hands that it is not a distorted historical tradition.

Fact is, that Plato lets his characters say that it is real. Fact is, that the story contains no possible distortions of historical facts which would not be known from other ancient texts.

My statement is simple: It is not easy to see what this Atlantis story is. It is not OK to mock on Atlantis supporters (or sekeptics), only because they support the existence (or are skeptic).

9/18/2016 06:06:39 pm

@V:
PS: And also this: I do not have to proof anything. Because the game works the other way round, too: You, too, cannot prove your claims.

9/19/2016 03:53:24 pm

@V:
PS 2: Why should it be bad science to make the assumption that Atlantis was real and to work backward to prove it with historical-critical method? Because: The result is open. Maybe nothing can be found on this path. -- By the way: Almost all ancient sites have been found by this method. We know the names and events of ancient places ONLY by ancient texts. And to find the correlation of text and place, you always have to start with the text. It is not always so easy as with Athens, and not always so difficult as with Troy. Think e.g. of the Ptolemaic map and its coordinates for places: Many of them could be assigned to real places in Europe only in recent years, after a systematic mistake was detected in the calculation of the coordinates. We know the ancient names of many places only by this. It is working backward with historical criticism. There is nothing bad about it. Or let us put it otherwise: Before you have not searched, you cannot find.

Day Late and Dollar Short

9/19/2016 05:42:16 pm

The burden of proof lies on you, the person making the claim Atlantis is real, when objectively, there is no evidence for Atlantis the way Plato describes it.

Also, Heinrich Schliemann delivered on his extraordinary claims with evidence, you're not actually providing evidence. Also, Heinrich Schliemann was wrong about what he thought he was discovering a lot of the time.

That's essentially what you're arguing, that Shliemann was employing sound methods. I think many archaeologists would disagree.

9/20/2016 06:16:53 pm

@Day Late and Dollar Short:

(a) I did not claim in this discussion that Atlantis is real. I claimed that neither me nor others have proofs for or against. See the difference? The burden of proof does NOT lie with me. The burden of proof lies with those who claim that Atlantis is real, or is not real. Yes. The burden lies even with those who claim that it is not real.

(b) You are the only one talking about Heinrich Schliemann in this discussion. I did not. But you assume that I did. Why? Hallucinations? Do you think that all Atlantis searchers are equally dumb?

I agree that Schliemann was not a professional and had exaggerated ideas, yet he pushed through the idea that Hisarlik was (at least) the classical site of Troy. Schliemann contributed to the progress in the field of ancient history although he had many weird and wrong ideas.

Oliver Smith link

9/21/2016 02:32:27 pm

If you read Timaeus-Critias carefully the Egyptian priests tell Solon the Atlantis story from their memory and don't consult their written record. Plato briefly mentions documents, but neither Solon or the priests directly read from them. The priests say they will later show Solon their documents, but of course they could have lied. Nowhere does Plato say Solon saw these documents.

A major mistake Atlantis researchers from Spanuth to Franke make is treating the source of the Atlantis story as a written Egyptian historical source, when it is an oral tradition. Spanuth just outright lied about Plato's dialogue and said it says Solon inspected the Egyptian documents for himself - Timaeus-Critias says no such thing.

Either Plato made up the Egyptian oral tradition of Atlantis - or Solon really did travel to Egypt and acquire this tradition by word of mouth. If the latter its more or less a game of Chinese whispers, many details would have accidentally or on purpose changed over the generations the story was retold. This means is impossible to find Atlantis if it was real.

"By judicious selection of those parts of Plato’s account which fit, and rejection of those which do not as distortions or exaggerations, a case can be made for almost any part of the world as the site of a historical Atlantis, and indeed it is hard to find any part of the world which has not been proposed at one time or another.” (Vitaliano, 1973)

Those people convinced Atlantis was real like Franke just cherry-pick what parts of the story they consider accurate or distortions. I was doing this myself a few years ago - it's a waste of time and the wrong approach.

9/21/2016 04:31:12 pm

@Oliver Smith:
It is a written tradition. Not an oral tradition. Of course we never see Solon looking into the documents in the scenes of the dialogue which are not necessarily historical themselves as the dialogue scene with Socrates etc. itself (and which would make no sense since the documents were not written in Greek), yet it is said that the priest relies on written material, and that Solon got access to it with a translator, as we can assume, since in the Critias Solon talks of translation. The Atlantis story is clearly no oral tradition. Yet e.g. by translation, mistakes could easly creep in. That Atlantis is considered as oral tradition is one of the crazy modern ideas of those who want to apply all their methodes developed with real oral traditions to the Atlantis story. No. Makes no sense. If Atlantis not an invention, it is a written (and translated) Egyptian tradition. As Plato clearly says.

9/21/2016 05:38:17 pm

There's a forthcoming journal anthology special on Atlantis. I have an article in it on the oral tradition. It should be out within the next month. http://shimajournal.org/index.php

Solon according to Plato did make translation notes, but if you read carefully these did not include the Atlantis story:

"There is no indication, in the Timaeus at least, that Solon did other than transmit the tale orally… Only in the Critias do we hear of a Solonian manuscript (113a-b). The two dialogues are not necessarily inconsistent on this point. The manuscript, we are told, contained a list of names which Solon had established by inquiry as to the Greek equivalents of those used in Egyptian documents. We are not told that it contained any more than a mere list of names, designed as an aide memoire by Solon for his projected epic poem on the Atlantis legend." (Luce, 1978)

Like Spanuth you're making a major misreading. The transmission of the Atlantis story according to Plato was oral; there was no writing. Critias the younger had to recollect the story from memory and he had trouble with this. See Timaeus 26a: "for owing to lapse of time my recollection of his account was not sufficiently clear." If there was a written document with the story he wouldn't need to do this, but just read from the document. There is though no document. The Atlantis story is an oral tradition. Of course the question that remains is its authenticity. Is it a genuine oral tradition Solon acquired in Egypt and passed down the family of Dropides (the route Plato describes) or invented/fabricated by Plato? I show in my article the latter is most likely the case, although I formerly argued it was a genuine oral tradition. Why I changed my mind is covered in the article since I review the (lack of) evidence. Do you know we don't even have reliable historical evidence Solon visited Egypt? Herodotus has to be discarded because its chronological nonsense.

9/22/2016 02:31:37 pm

@Oliver Smith:
I repeat: The dialogue scene is Plato's invention. Furthermore, Critias says in this (invented) scene, that he as a young boy read often and for long in the notes of Solon. How do you can do this, if it is only a list of names? Because it was not only a list of names, of course. We can assume that Plato himself got Solon's notes via his family and reflects his own youth in this invented scene. -- And how can so many details be handed down over the time, if not by written word? And the longest period of transmission is not from Solon to Plato, but from the time of Atlantis (whenever this was) to Solon's time: Written in the Egyptian records.

I repeat: If it is not an invention, then it is a written tradition. Absolutely clearly not an oral tradition. The oral parts are Plato's invention. It is one of the many self-contradiction in the skeptics' theories: On the one hand side they say, the dialogue scenes are invented (which is right), on the other hand they take the events of these dialogue scenes literally (which is wrong). The historical core is not the dialogue scene but what the persons of the dialogue talk about.

9/22/2016 06:42:54 pm

Solon's written notes/manuscripts are briefly mentioned in Critias 113a-b. Nowhere does it say they contained the Atlantis story (this is your misreading), but names (of people) translated from Egyptian into Greek: "do not be astonished if you hear names that sound like Greek names". All Plato says is Critias studied these names when he was a boy; the notes did not contain the tradition of Atlantis.

Throughout Timaeus-Critias, it is repeated the Atlantis story was passed on by word of mouth and Plato informs Critias had trouble remembering what he heard from his grandfather hence he had to "recall" from his memory what was being said. (Ti. 26a; "I didn't remember Solon's story very well", see also Cri. 118a). Plato also notes that Critias is not telling the story verbatim, but the best he could remember, i.e. "a concise version" (Ti. 25e).

From Solon>Dropides>Critias the elder>Critias the younger the transmission of the Atlantis story according to Plato was oral. I'm aware Plato mentions the tradition in Egyptian documents, but the priests do not read from them, nor does Solon. In other words the Egyptians could have lied about the documents and the Egyptian tradition of Atlantis has to be treated as an oral tradition. If you think i'm wrong, show me where Plato directly states the Egyptians read from these documents, or Solon. He doesn't. Instead he says the Egyptians rely on their memory to pass on the Atlantis story.

Regardless, i'm confused as to why as a historical Atlantis proponent you would argue for a written historical source since no Egyptian document or Solonic manuscript exists. If you're claiming there is an Egyptian hieroglyphic source for Atlantis, where then is it?

9/23/2016 06:40:19 pm

@Oliver Smith:
Your non-understanding turns to be over-stubborn. Where the Egyptian document is? (Not necessarily in hieroglyphs, by the way): What a strange question. Gone with the wind, of course. -- The rest is answered in my postings above.

9/24/2016 06:14:53 pm

I refuted what you posted. For someone who dedicates so much time to Atlantis it would help if you actually read Timaeus-Critias. It doesn't appear you've ever read the dialogue, at least not properly.

Ken

9/17/2016 04:01:37 pm

Everything the Murdochs touch turns into shit (albeit - really flashy shit).

Look for an upcoming 'scientific' expose which shows that global warming really is a hoax.

9/17/2016 04:03:11 pm

I almost forgot - really flashy - and profitable.

9/17/2016 04:05:41 pm

Bingo!

Jim

9/17/2016 07:32:26 pm

Wait,,, isn't Atlantis under the ocean ?,,and Sardinia named after a fish ? Whoa, how has no one made this connection before ?

Only Me

9/17/2016 07:43:42 pm

So, National Geographic is making its own Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar. They certainly assembled an appropriate cast of "experts", didn't they?

I think I'll watch it just to see how much of a mess it will be.

9/17/2016 07:57:40 pm

Rave reviews from UNESCO expected ?

9/17/2016 08:09:33 pm

Actually, that's hard to say. It depends on if they find anything of historical value off the coast, and if Sardinia would be more interested in protecting what's found because of its value or promoting it for nationalistic reasons.

Personally, I expect them to find worn stones and vaguely shaped geographical features they can interpret as "evidence" of Atlantis.

Andy White

9/17/2016 10:21:29 pm

You had me at "worn stones."

Mike Morgan

9/19/2016 12:16:40 am

Let us hope these "worn stones" contain no holes. :>)

9/19/2016 04:59:57 am

I'll take ruins over runes any day.

GEE

10/1/2016 07:30:08 pm

Jason, thank you for keeping me informed!

peter daughtrey link

10/9/2016 08:27:11 am

It appears that the upcoming documentary will also also bring up to date the latest research about the area immediately outside the Gibraltar straits. In particular the work of Gorgios Diaz Montexano and the ancient Egyptian maps he claims to have discovered showing their sunken land of the dead. I think he is correct in that this area of south west Spain was part of where Plato was describing, but only the eastern extremity. In Critics Plato specifically implies that. In my book, Atlantis and the silver city, I lay out evidence that Plato was referring to the whole of the Iberian peninsula s south west coast including Portugal' s Algarve region, north Morocco and a large part of what is now seabed between the two. Ironically the Egyptian maps match this description including a large inlet on the southern coast which I claimed had led to the ancient ringed capital, remnants of which still exist.

10/9/2016 12:34:12 pm

Unfortunately I spent money on 'Atlantis and the silver city'. The opening chapter contains many errors about Solon and the classical literature about Atlantis. I stopped reading after that point.

The ancient Egyptians had no knowledge of the Iberian peninsula during the 2nd millennium BCE, nor did the Greeks. So Gorgios Diaz Montexano has made a major mistake.

Al Nika

12/22/2016 10:53:18 am

Exactly! G.D.Montexano has no idea what he is talking about. The known world for the Mediterranean people, up to the time of Solon, was up to sicily, maybe including Sardinia. The underworld started at the pillars of Hercules (tuniz-Sicily straits). It was a dangerous sea the tyrrenian sea. They had a vogue knowledge about Spain. To say that Atlantis was in Spain is the same as saying that the cradle of all civilizations started in Iberia, when we know that it started around Mediterranean sea. Without including alborean sea. Anyway, the second expedition/documentary took place and they found nothing. How do I know? It would have been all over the news.

Georgeos Diaz-Montexao link

1/20/2017 11:03:25 pm

With all my regards... In order to be able to affirm that it is all " a major mistake": my analyzes and interpretations on ancient Egyptian maps, and those made in Carthage (but of Egyptian tradition), which together total almost two hundred (published most of my books), the first Must be made, according to the true rigor of the historical-scientific method, is to know in detail my investigations, and for that it is necessary to read my publications. That is the minimum that must be done.

If someone is really interested in knowing my arguments, my analyzes and interpretations of such maps, according to what is observed in them, and according to what can be read written in the same papyri or walls of Egyptian tombs and temples , Where these maps are, you only have to read the books where I have published and described them, or at least read the articles and summaries that I have published.

I have recently published a book in English (soon also in French, Portuguese and Italian) which is a short summary of the more than thirty books published on my researches of more than twenty years.

And before anyone feels angry, notice that I have never been a fanatical believer in Atlantis, nor do I claim that Atlantis -like described in Plato- has existed. My work has consisted solely in the search for ancient primary sources written in all the ancient languages I have been able to (and on old maps) in which reference is made to Atlantis, or to an Atlantic island, or Atlantic culture with some important development, Which would have existed in antiquity somewhere near the Atlantic coasts of Iberia and Morocco. I have also collected many archaeological and seismological indicial proofs.

My research seems to corroborate that there was indeed an ancient tradition (including among the Egyptians) about the existence of an island in the remote west that was considered as a cradle or origin, and that this tradition can be traced back to about 4000 years ago, And not only through Egyptian maps on the paradisiacal island regions of the West or the Sunset (Amenti and Hetep), but through maps recorded in open-air rocks (Art (Rupestre) discovered by archaeologists officials of the Spanish state, where You can appreciate what looks like an island in front of the Strait of Gibraltar, right between what would be Iberia and Morocco, with a concentric circular city within the same island, sinking boats, waves, animals running, etc. and which has been dated At the end of the Bronze Age.

I also contribute with other indicial proofs like a proto-canaanite or pre-tartesian inscription found in a cave of Cadiz close to pinting ships with sails from different nations or different styles (dated between the Chalcolithic or Neolithic by the same archaeologists), where clearly is read, in Semitic: "place where the island was submerged", or well, "place of the sinking of the island", indicating the same inscription towards the Atlantic Sea, in the same direction of the Gulf of Cadiz. These inscriptions and ships were found by archaeologists long before I even came to live in Spain in 1994. The paintings have been dated by various relative and scientific methods, and according to the most recent data, they range from the Neolithic to the late The Bronze Age.

I was also the first to discover that in Iberia archaeologists were discovering cities of Calcolític and early Bronze that used as urban pattern, the same design, "sui generis", used as urban pattern for the construction of the metropolis of Atlantis. That is to say, several moats or trench that were flooded with water and that were alternated with earth spaces or earth-rings, all, concentrically, around a small central island, just like in Atlantis capital.

Some of this indicial proofs, as well as certain underwater ruins of possible submerged ports and buildings (with as yet unidentified function) at depths that indicate were built before about 10000 and 6000 BP years, will be advanced in the documentary Atlantis Rising, where I have participated as an adviser for Iberia and Atlantic. I know that In this documentary is going to show only some of the evidences of the many that we have filmed, the rest will be in another documentary predicted for 2020.

So, I warn that it is very likely that some of the underwater archaeological evidence that I have been reporting in the last two decades are not seen in this documentary, but in the next for 2020. When I can see the documentary, the next day 29, I will then be able to know what evidence and what filmed places have been reserved for the next documentary. But the list of sites under the Atlantic (between Iberia, Morocco and Madeira) is 18 places, and on land are 50 sites, covering almost all of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal), and some places in Morocco, the Canary Islands, Madeira and Azores.

My best wishes,
Georgeos
http://www.AtlantisRising.es