HI HELEN, YES I KNOW DAT ONE. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE GIANTS DISCOVERED IN A CAVE IN THE GRAND CANYON? AROUND 1909 I WANT TO SAY. HOW WOULD YOU SAY THE ITEM ON OAK ISLAND RELATES? OR DO YOU SEE NO CONNECTION?
I GROW WEARY OF THE INFINITE NUMBER OF "BENEVOLANT SPACE BROS" OUT THERE TO TEACH US AND SAVE US FROM OURSELVES YADDA YADDA. DO YOU THINK COWS SEE US AS BENEVOLANT? I FIND THE ADMIRAL BYRD STORIES FAR MORE INTERESTING.WHAT I DO FIND CATCHY ARE THE TEACHING STORIES OF VERACOCHA,QETZACOATL,OSIRUS THERES YER SPACE BROS LOL. ZEP TEPI SUPERCEDES THE NIBIRU BIZ BY ABOUT 40,000 YEARS.

JUST A QUICK NOTE HELEN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WzhWp6xzgE
SITCHEN IS THE NEWAGERS CHRISTIANITY.COINTELPRO (DIFFERENT FLAVORED GRASS FOR THE "DIFFERENT" CATTLE TO CHEW ON)JUST FODDER.

OOPS I FORGOT TO MENTION, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING NEW ABOUT CUBA IN MONTHS MYSELF.

GIANTS:-

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giants.html

Question: Where do you think these Giants came from?

What was it that interested Hitler about the Antarctic? Long read but definately worth it. Be sure to follow the links.

http://greyfalcon.us/Quest%20of%20the%20Nazis.htm

----------------------

Mystery of the Piri Reis Maps....

http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/pirireis.jpg

TROANA MANUSCRIPTS

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/leumurian5.html

CROP CIRCLES DECODED

http://imageevent.com/cropcirclerational/c...sw48zce25.buffalo_s

Admiral Byrde, was rather interesting wonder what happened to the rest of his Diaries? I understand that the sposors of his expeditions confiscated his diaries. Soooo what we have on this is only what his daughter or son can tell us...So who do you believe? hmm

Here is one that has always interested me:-

THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT:

http://www.think-aboutit.com/Misc/philadelphia_experiment.htm

HEY HELEN,HMMMM WHERE TO START...........WELL.........
DITTO ABOUT BYRDE. HITLER HAS A CONNECTION TO HPB THRU THE THULE SOCIETY. THEREFORE ANYTHING HE DID AS FAR AS THE NAZI DEALINGS IN ANTARTICA AND ELSEWHERE SHOULD BE VIEWED THRU THAT TYPE OF LENSE. I HAVE TOLD YOU BOUT THE PIRI REIS MAP B4.I WOULD ASK YOU TO LOOK INTO THE (MAP OF THE CREATOR)FOUND IN THE UKRAINE. THE GIANTS ARE THE NEPHILIM. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. WE'LL BE SEEIN THEM AGAIN DON'T WORRY. LOL PEOPLE LIKE ANDRE THE GIANT CARRY A RECESSIVE GENE FROM ANCESTERS MATING WITH THEM.
THE IRONY BOUT HITLER IS DAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GENETIC JEW. HIS ACTIONS WERE ATTACKING HIS CLOSEST BRETHEREN GENETICLY SPEAKING.
U SHOLD ASK YOURSELF WHERE "THOSE" PEOPLE COME FROM AS WELL AS THE CELTS.
BUT SINCE YOU DID ASK I WILL SAY THE PLANET KANTEC. NEVER HEARD OF IT? LOL WELL JUST LOOK BETWEEN MARS AND JUPITER. WHEN REFERENCES ARE MADE TO BLOODLINES EXTENDING "OFF PLANET" THATS WHAT THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO.
AS FAR AS THE PHILLY EXP GOES,WELL THERE'S A WHOLE TON OF DISSINFO THERE. SPECIALY MONTAUK. NOT SO MUCH THE PEOPLE,(EINSTEIN,TESLA,VON NEUMAN)BUT THE RESULTS AND SO CALLED TECHNOLOGIES FROM IT. AL BELIK AND THE LIKE ARE THE DISSINFO AGENTS.
HMM WHATELSE WAS THERE,OH YAH CROP CIRCLES. WELL THERES A LOT THERE. FIRST OF ALL DOUG AND DAVE MY ASS!!!!.SORRY JUST HAD TO GET DAT OFF ME CHEST LOL.
I WOULD CALL IT IN LAYMANS TERMS REIKI FOR EARTH. ORIGINATING FROM THE REALM OF THOUGHT DOWN THROUGH THE REALM OF CONTEMPLATION AND THE REALM OF VARIABLE PHYSICALITY TO OUR REALM. UNLESS THERES A CHOPPER NEAR BY THEN I'D SAY ITS NWO PROPAGANDA. WHEEEW I THINK THAT WAS ALL YOU MENTIONED.
CATCH YA LATER

A Semitic People - jews etc

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_lauraknight04.htm

Atlantis

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantid...alienvisitation.htm

Atlantis
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_atlantida.htm

HI HELEN, YES I AM A AVID FOLLOWER OF LAURA KNIGHT JADCZYK'S WORK.
IT MIGHT BEHOOVE YOU TO DO THE SAME LOL. SHE'S OUR SAVIOR, SHE HAS ALL THE RIGHT ANSWERS YADDA YADDA. NOW REPLACE HER NAME WITH SITCHIN AND SEE HOW SUSPICIUS THAT APPEARS. BUT SERIOUSLY YOU NAMED AN INVALUABLE RESOURCE THERE.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/earth2.htm
http://www.sott.net/signs/signs_cropcircles_supplement.htm
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/fulcanelli_da_vinci_code.htm
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/Laura-Knigh...st_growing_cult.htm

Hi Mike,

Laura with her questions along with the answer's on the Cass site was rather interesting to say the least..Seems to be a lot of answer's that do ring home to the truth. What lies ahead is not all that encouraging is it?

HI HELEN,
BEEN A WHILE, I HOPE ITS CAUSE YOU WERE READING CASS. LOL WELL I BEEN GETTING THAT FROM A LOT OF DIFF DIRECTIONS AS PPL ARE STARTING TO WAKE UP A LIL BIT. ALL I CAN SAY IS MY CREEDO:WHERE KNOWLEDGE EXISTS,FEAR CAN NOT!
IM NO LONGER AFRAID OF THUNDER,THE DARK,TORNADOES ETC.....
THOSE OF US WHO DON'T OUT WEIGH OR IQ'S NEED TO WORK TOGETHER , OR AT LEAST REACH AS MANY PPL AS ARE "REACHABLE". ON THAT NOTE,HERES A STORY I BEEN RUNNING INTO IN A FEW CIRCLES. IT KINDA FITS HERE TOO:
Now, more than in the past 100 years or so of our nation's history, we have a great number of people who sense that something 'just ain't right'. So what is one to do? First of all, you begin a quest for the truth about any particular topic. Pick one. Currently, you can choose from the NAU, Real ID, NAIS, the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that aren't in Iraq, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the water boarding issue in Gitmo, the legality of the "income tax," the effects of the 'free trade' agreements on our nation, the "Clean Water Restoration Act," the "Military Commissions Act", Agenda 21, the "CFR" or heck, for some real light study, how about the institution of central banking and fractional reserve banking systems? There are a lot more, but this should at least give the idea that we have a problem. A very, very, big problem. It's like that infamous elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about and most don't want to see.



Yet those giant piles of elephant excrement keep getting on everyone's shoes, so many have no choice but to begin to contemplate that where there is crap, there is a crapper. And before one can get the elephant out of the room, you have to admit that there is one. Some people will sit with brown stuff running down their faces and look at you with a blank stare saying, "What elephant?" They don't even notice the manure. Those folks are the furniture....You can't help them, so don't waste your time trying. Some people will marvel at the manure that keeps spontaneously generating out of thin air and blame it on the opposing political party; you may or may not be able to help these people. They are certainly worth a try. What you really want is the person that is wondering what kind of beast keeps splattering them and why isn't anyone on NBC-BS talking about it? These are people that are ready for some truth. Now you've got something to work with.



When you find someone who wants to know what the heck is going on, you just received a parallel promotion. Now you have the duty of teaching this person what you know, but don't look for a paycheck, this job has more eternal rewards. Since not many of us were raised up in households that knew the effects of birth certificates, Social Security numbers, and positive versus non-positive law (if lots of us were raised with that knowledge we wouldn't be in the mess we're in) we all had to start learning at some point. So you have to find out what the capacity for understanding of this person is. Even though it's way too late to be polite, you have to keep some empathy about you or you'll just scare the person into hopelessness, paranoia, or worse yet, apathy, and that isn't helpful to you, them or our nation.



If someone asks you "How can Congress pass a law that violates the Constitution?," don't hit them with a dissertation on the power structure of the NWO complete with breakdowns of the effects of our membership in the UN, the truth about the "Civil War," the history of the Federal Reserve and the Shadow government all at once. Just answer their question and it will lead to another question. Think of it like food. They need to eat little bites at a time. They may be hungry for the whole meal because they are one of the rare people who truly want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but they still need to chew only what they can swallow. It is an elephant after all.



Then there are those folks who notice the elephant feces, and ask about it, and when you begin to show them the elephant, they disdainfully say, "How preposterous! That cannot possibly be!! I know that is indeed elephant manure, but still....I'll acknowledge the tail and leave the rest to my imagination, thank you. Dismissed." These people are even more disappointing than the last type. They see some of it, but want to keep their hands over their eyes and admit into existence the little bit of what they can see through their fingers. If they keep being forced to admit that the tail is connected to a rump, and the rump is connected to rear legs, and the legs -well you get the picture, and they may, but it requires a lot of patience.



Finally there are people who don't want to look at the elephant even though it's standing on their foot. We all have plenty of these people in our lives. When told about something like the NAIS with all of its effects on choice for consumers, loss of rural jobs and businesses, privacy issues, consolidation of agriculture and effects on property rights, they say things like "I want to be sure my burger is free from terrorism." These people will trade your real liberty for their false sense of security in a heartbeat. They think they get the truth from the evening news, believe that you can't understand issues without a doctorate, and that the government gives us rights. They are absolutely sure there are no absolutes. They sit there obstinately no matter how persuasively you plead with them to move. They are the furniture. They stay where they have been put and will not be swayed.



Sometimes the furniture is part of your immediate family. You give them articles, places on the internet to visit, links to government documents on the topic, and endless reams of documentation and mainstream news articles, and they toss back a flippant accusation that "You're just a conspiracy theorist. None of this is that bad." Usually you'll ask, "Did you read what I gave you?," and they'll say something like "I scanned some of it, but didn't really have time to spend on it. My kid had a soccer game and then our favorite show was on, so we got pizza on the credit card and just enjoyed the entertainment." They just told you they don't know, don't care, and asked that you please stop confusing them with the facts...When you find that you are engaged in conversation with a coffee table, stop. Save your breath for those with questions. No impassioned plea ever moved a couch. Don't talk to the furniture.

I KNOW KINDA LONG BUT IT APPLIES LOL

Sorry about this being off topic, but felt the need to share it with you...I have just received this:

Cuban Atlantis Conspiracy?
by Andrew Collins


I regularly receive emails asking what happened regarding the apparent discovery by a Canadian salvage company of alleged archaeological structures in the deep sea off the west coast of Cuba back in 2001. There was a lot of publicity concerning these finds at the time, then the whole thing simply went dead.

Back then I had just written a book entitled GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS (2000), which proposes that Cuba was the flagship of Plato's Atlantis (see more by clicking here). I also predicted that important underwater remains awaited discovery off the island's west coast. Now those discoveries had seemingly been made, so I was patted on the back by my contemporaries. I wrote articles on the subject, appeared on various radio stations, and was even invited to lecture at the last ever conference organised by the late Thor Hyerdahl in the Canary Islands, which took place in June 2001 (Regrettably, I was unable to attend as I was already lecturing in Vienna that same weekend).

I was as excited as everyone about what had been found off Cuba by Russian-born salver Paulina Zelitsky and her Canadian partner Paul Weinsweig, who traded under the name ADC Communcations. I was involved in the whole affair from the offset, interviewing Weinzweig at length on the telephone, and speaking to them both on a regular basis. I was also involved in setting up a publishing deal for exclusive world rights on the story with publishers Randon House. So here is one email I received recently asking what went on, and whether or not there was a conspiracy to hush the matter up:

"We're trying to find out why there is no more news on the sunken ruins found near Western Cuba since 2004. No one has proven that the stones are either natural or man made. We're beginning to believe there is a conspiracy to make this find go away.

"I remember a while back you posted a comment on your website in which you said you witnessed actual data from Paulina Zelitsky from ADC. You said you had to be careful about what you said and not to disclose anything they said was forbidden. Did you see anything suspicious that would warrant a conspiracy? Is there anything that you can say that won't break your promise? Can you contact Paulina Zelitsky to confirm why the public has not heard from them?"

And my reply: "There is no conspiracy, simply human necessities. Paulina Zelitsky and Paul Weinzweig held out as long as possible for the best possible deal on world rights to release pictures and video footage of what had been found. I know, I was involved with the deal from Random House, and was to have ghost written the accompanying book, which would have been accredited to them (I was chosen since the agent working on the project was working with me also, and I had just released GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS, which pinpointed Cuba as the site of the main island of Atlantis).

"The money on offer was seven figures in pounds sterling (based on a sliding scale of what had been discovered), but Paulina Zelitsky and Paul Weinzweig refused the offer, wanting even more to fund their future expeditions. They hoped that NatGeo would top the offer. However, when finally the pair released video footage of what they had found it was deemed both of poor quality and not what was hoped, and since Zelitsky and Weinzweig had run out of money, a stalemate ensued. No further footage could be got, so the Random House offer (which they could have taken) was withdrawn. I have no idea what offer NatGeo made, but I suspect it was afterwards withdrawn also.

"Zelitsky and Weinzweig had to go back to what they know best - treasure hunting and vessel salvage, and no one has heard from them since. They have simply vanished off the map. Story ends.

"This said, I firmly believe that prehistoric archaeology does await discovery off Cuba, and hopefully within the next year I will take part in a major expedition to identify suspected structures off both the north and south coasts of the island.

"Cuba is by far the best candidate for Atlantis's flag ship, and one day hopefully we will be in a position to prove that."

"What exactly Zelitsky and Weinzweig discovered remains a mystery. Whether artificial structures, ballast from Russian submarines or natural features, we might never know. All theories are possible."


source: http://www.andrewco llins.com/ page/news/ news25.htm

Andrew Collins is currently working on a book about the hunt for the Egyptian Hall of Records slated to be published next year.

HI HELEN,
THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF MY POINTS ALL ALONG. NOT ONLY IS IT ALL PART OF "ATLANTIS" NONE OF IT WILL SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY BECAUSE IN A MONOTHEISTIC PATHOCRACY, WE CANT ALLOW A SUPERIOR PAST CIVILLISATION TO EXIST. IT ALSO KINDA MESSES UP THE BIBLE BANGER TIME LINE OF HISTORY.
ZEP TEPI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Friends:

Last the sismological studies made in the last 20 Spanish, Portuguese, North American years by specialists, and French in the area of the Gulf of Cadiz, and Straits of Gibraltar, demonstrate that between the 10.245 BC, until year 1577 (tsunami of Lisbon), they have been taken place tsunamis, associated to earthquakes of great intensity, at the rate of one every 1500 years (maximum every 2000). The calculations have done it geologists thanks to the finding of typical geologic deposits of the registry of tsunamis. Once again we are not before a mere invention or speculation born of my mind, but before results of very serious and rigorous scientific studies made by scientists of many Universities. The table of the possible registries of tsunamis that you can see in the following Link (in Spanish, and English) demonstrates that great probabilities that exist they have happened at least two great catastrophes sismic-tsunamical in same time to which Plato fixes the date of the war between Atlanteans and Athenians. As you can see the table, geologists S.M. Lebreiro, I.N. Mc Cave, and P. Weaver (1997), the Straits of Gibraltar area of and Gulf of Cadiz think that in approximately in the 1245 BC, one of these great tsunamis could happen, in. I believe thatcould be around the 1330 BC. As it wants that it is, according to same calculation of geologists, could happen another one between the 1500 BC and the 1300 BC. If it is certain that still scientists make lack more proofs, before a enough probability scientific we are elevated at least, because these calculations are sustained in the fossil registry of tsunamis in that area. They are not mere speculations without scientific fundament, all the opposite, have much scientific fundament.

We all know the list of obligatory points that the Conference of Milos the 2005 dictated for majority that should gather any hypothesis on Atlantis that seeks to be considered as a serious intent, worthy of scientific discussion. This original list of 24 points has been revised and corrected by Georgeos Díaz-Montexano in the following way:

1. The Acropolis of Atlantis should have been located where an Insular-Land used to be and where parts of it may still exist.

2. The Acropolis of Atlantis should have had a most distinct geomorphology composed of alternating concentric rings of land and water.

3. The Insular-Land Atlantis should have been located before (in front) the Pillars of Hercules, in the Pelagus Atlantic.

4. The Insular-Land denominated like Atlantis were divided by Poseidôn in ten parts or districts, and one of those ten parts was an extremity that arrived until the part of the Pillars of Hercules, and its denomination was Gadeira.

5. The Insular-Land Atlantis was (in part) from Libya, and (meizôn) so greater (or as powerfull) as Asia (Anatolia and Middle East?).

6. Atlantis must have sheltered a literate

7. The Acropolis of Atlantis should have been routinely reachable from Athens by sea; and at some time it must have contacts with the Greeks.

8. At the time, the Atlanteans should have been at war with Athenians (Poseidôn against Athena).

9. The Acropolis of Atlantis should have sunk entirely or partly below the water.

10. The Acropolis of Atlantis was destroyed in Cecrops, Erechtheus, Erichthonius and Erysichthon times, before Theseus’s times.

11. The Acropolis of Atlantis was 50 stadia from the sea.

12. Atlantis had a high population density, enough to support a large army (10,000 chariots, 1,200 ships, 1,200,000 hoplites)

13. The region of Atlantis involved the sacrifice of bulls.

14. The destruction of Atlantis was accompanied by an great earthquake (seismôn) and a Kataklüsmos: “cleaning by liquid or waters” (tsunami?).

15. After the destruction of Atlantis, the passage of ships was difficult.

16. Elephants were present at least in a part of Atlantis, and ivory was used.

17. Hot and cold springs were present in Atlantis.

18. Atlantis lay on a coastal plain of 3000 stadion of Maxima length, and 2000 stadion from the sea until approximately in the middle of the plain; surrounded by mountains falling into the sea.

19. Atlantis controlled other colonies or states of the period.

20. Some Winds in Atlantis came from the north.

21. The Atlanteans constructed canals in the plain where was the Acropolis.

22. In Atlantis they were constructed “aqueducts over the bridges”.

23. Atlantis were “beneath the sun” (huph’ hêliôi), expression that it indicates was - most of the year - in a sunny place.

24. Every 5th and 6th year, they sacrificed bulls.

“Milos Conference Match”, reviewed and corrected by Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (2005-2007).However there are only some few points that are obligatory, the other ones they could be left as secondary. I have been able to reduce to only 10 indispensable or obligatory points. These points are the most exclusive or characteristic in Atlantis, that is to say, those points that cannot be ignored, and that they are not common to all the civilizations, that is to say that cannot be with easiness in any place of the world. In this reduction of points I have omitted the figures and measures, because the studies of the diverse codexes and MS demonstrate that big contradictions exist. Consequently, the figures of the measures and distances neither the figures of the dates can be considered as sure elements in the scientific discussion.These are that is to say the 10 key points that are obligatory, that it should complete any theory on Plato’s Atlantis, so that it can be considered as a serious and rigorous intent of approach to the enigma of Atlantis.

1. The Atlantis should have been located where an Insular-Land used to be and where parts of it may still exist.

2. The Insular-Land Atlantis should have been located “before the mouth” of the Pillars of Hercules, but in the Pelagus Atlantic, not in the Mediterranean neither in another sea or the ocean.

3. The Insular-Land denominated like Atlantis were divided by Poseidôn in ten parts or districts, and one of those ten parts was an extremity that arrived until one part of the Pillars of Hercules, and its denomination was Gadeira.

4. In Atlantis, in its ground, a native human species arose, that is, indigenous a human species or endemic, that is to say, that the first human beings of Atlantis did not come from any other part of the world but that were born in he himself ground of Atlantis.

5. Atlantis must have sheltered a literate population with writing system, and endemic or indigenous language, with metallurgical and navigational skills, and use of chariot-horses.

6. Elephants were present at least in a part of Atlantis, and ivory was used.

7. The Atlantis Acropolis lay on a rectangular coastal plain, surrounded by mountains falling into the sea.

8. Atlantis were “beneath the sun” (huph’ hêliôi), expression that it indicates was - most of the year - in a sunny place.

9. The war between the Atlanteans and Athenians occurred in Cecrops, Erechtheus, Erichthonius and Erysichthon times, before Theseus’s epoch, that is, in the times of Mycenaean Greece.

10. The Acropolis of Atlantis should have been reachable from Athens by sea; and at some time it must have contacts with the Greeks.
Any hypothesis or theory that it doesn’t respect these obligatory points, simply not even are not entitled to be considered as a serious or scientific hypothesis. Some considerations on the points 4 and 5.The study of the languages of old Iberia Nêsos that had writing, as Tartessians, Turdetanians, Iberians, etc., it demonstrates that the old residents from Iberia, before the arrival of the phoenicians, Greek and Roman, they spoke some languages that don’t belong, that is to say that are not kindred, of none of the linguistic well-known families; consequently, it is impossible to sustain any hypothesis on the origin of the old residents from Iberia, without before to demonstrate that the civilizations proposed as cradle of Iberia, have the same languages.

Conclusion. The proof demonstrates - until the moment - that the old civilizations of Iberia like Tartessians and Iberians are absolutely original, autochthonous, indigenous, endemic, that is to say that they had their origin in the same Iberia Nêsos, from the most remote antiquity, that is to say, from before the human being that lived in Iberia learned how to speak.

The languages of Iberia, like it passed with the language of Sumerian, they were born in the same floor of Iberia makes hundred of thousands of years, or makes millions of years, because nobody has been able to demonstrate - so far - that the languages of Iberia derive of other well-known languages. When one compares the old languages of Iberia with other old languages that neither has well-known family or demonstrated as it is the case of the Sumerian, or of Basque, then the conclusion is that the old languages of Iberia, that is to say, the language of Tartessians, or the language of most of the tribes Iberians, is not Sumerian, neither it is Basque, in spite of so near Basque being geographically. Plato’s texts locate Atlanteans like inhabitants of the lands that are next to Atlantic Pelagus, “before the mouth” of (pro tou stómatos) Hercules’ (Gibraltar) Pillars, and next to the region of Gadeira, that is to say, in the environment of the strait of Gibraltar, and the costs of Iberia and Morocco, but always in Atlantic. This same all the authors of the antiquity that spoke of these three geographical points, say and that they spoke of Atlantis. Consequently, it is an unquestionable fact for any person that respects the scientific rigor and the truth. Then, if Atlanteans was inhabiting of the Atlantic costs of Iberia and Morocco, then Atlanteans cannot have been Etruscs, neither Sumerians, neither the same inhabitants of any other place of the Planet. Plato’s Critias affirms that Atlanteans had an autochthonous origin, that is to say, indigenous, endemic, starting from Euênôr that was the first human being that arose in Atlantis, being born of the own earth, that is to say that didn’t come of any part. Plato is informing us that Atlantis overcomes its origins to a human autochthonous, indigenous, endemic population that had its origin in the same floor of Atlantis that didn’t come or it descended of any part, and the scientific proof they demonstrate that in Iberia - almost a million years ago - it also arose kind of a hominid autochthonous, indigenous, endemic, that is to say that didn’t come of any place, because although one believes could come from África, the true fact is that it is an unique species that has not been found. so far. in any other place of the world. This species has been baptized as “Homo Antecessor”, that is to say, the predecessor of the human modern species; and lastly, we have seen as well as in Iberia, the oldest civilizations had an autochthonous, indigenous, endemic language that didn’t come from any place of the world. Critias also tells us that Atlanteans had its own grammar or it notarizes, and logically its own language. As before said that they were natives of a human autochthonous, indigenous, or endemic species, then it is logical to suppose that their language was also autochthonous, indigenous, or endemic, that is to say, born in the same floor, and not derived of any other nation or linguistic family.

Conclusion: Plato’s descriptions point to Iberia, at least like a part, or very important extension of old Atlantis Nêsos, and the autochthonous, native, or endemic character of Atlanteans, it is also confirmed by the evidences scientific pickups in Iberia. Not it exists in any other place of the planet, another Nêsos (island / peninsula) that has been next to Hercules’ Pillars, next to a region of Gadeira, and next to a sea Atlantic, and that has also had a human autochthonous, indigenous, or endemic species, that is to say that has not come of another place, and that has also had an autochthonous, indigenous, or endemic language, that is to say, a language that has arisen in same Nêsos, that is to say that has not derived of other languages. Only Iberia Nêsos gathers all these requirements that are obligatory, because, simply, all these key points or indispensable requirements are all data that are written in Timaeus and in Plato’s Critias.

More Info in: http://www.GeorgeosDiazMontexano.com/
http://www.AtlantisinIberia.com/

Friday March 19, 2004: I would like to draw the reader's attention back to a comment quoted in a previous chapter:

Quite apart from the difficulty of fitting most places described in the Iliad and the Odyssey into the physical reality of the lands surrounding the Aegean Sea, there is also a problem with the spiritual content of Homer's works. Plato had doubts as to their Greek origin and the great philosopher was by no means an admirer of this imaginative poet whose gods, with their jealousies and vengeances, behaved like spoilt children. Plato was particularly worried about the corrupting influence of Homer's poems on the minds of Greek youth, above all because of their "lack of respect" for the gods. He suggested that certain passages of the Iliad and Odyssey should be corrected or even expurgated and if he had been the dictator of his "ideal state," he would have had them burned, thus breaking the chain of transmission of these unique and extremely ancient poems. [Wilkens]

I think that there is an additional explanation for why Plato was so antagonistic to the tales of Homer: Plato's own story of Atlantis was the story of the original exemplar of the Trojan War and he knew that many of the features of the original war were being distorted by Homer and attributed to a much later war, on a different scale, with certain elements added that would create misunderstanding in the minds of readers.

The idea of a ten year war - with massive losses on both sides - being fought over a woman exercised me for quite some time especially while I was reading Herodotus' account of Helen. His observations are so pithy and his style of writing is so entertaining that I would like to share it with the reader:

Those of the Persians who have knowledge of history declare that the Phenicians first began the quarrel. These, they say, came from that which is called the Erythraian Sea to this of ours; and having settled in the land where they continue even now to dwell, set themselves forthwith to make long voyages by sea.

And conveying merchandise of Egypt and of Assyria they arrived at other places and also at Argos.

Now Argos was at that time in all points the first of the States within that land which is now called Hellas.

The Phenicians arrived then at this land of Argos, and began to dispose of their ship's cargo: and on the fifth or sixth day after they had arrived, when their goods had been almost all sold, there came down to the sea a great company of women, and among them the daughter of the king; and her name, as the Hellenes also agree, was Io the daughter of Inachos.

These standing near to the stern of the ship were buying of the wares such as pleased them most, when of a sudden the Phenicians, passing the word from one to another, made a rush upon them; and the greater part of the women escaped by flight, but Io and certain others were carried off.

So they put them on board their ship, and forthwith departed, sailing away to Egypt.

In this manner the Persians report that Io came to Egypt, not agreeing therein with the Hellenes, and this they say was the first beginning of wrongs.

Then after this, they say, certain Hellenes (but the name of the people they are not able to report) put in to the city of Tyre in Phenicia and carried off the king's daughter Europa;--these would doubtless be Cretans;--and so they were quits for the former injury.

After this however the Hellenes, they say, were the authors of the second wrong; for they sailed in to Asia of Colchis and to the river Phasis with a ship of war, and from thence, after they had done the other business for which they came, they carried off the king's daughter Medea.

And the king of Colchis sent a herald to the land of Hellas and demanded satisfaction for the rape and to have his daughter back.

But they answered that, as the Barbarians had given them no satisfaction for the rape of Io the Argive, so neither would they give satisfaction to the Barbarians for this.

In the next generation after this, they say, Alexander the son of Priam, having heard of these things, desired to get a wife for himself by violence from Hellas, being fully assured that he would not be compelled to give any satisfaction for this wrong, inasmuch as the Hellenes gave none for theirs.

So he carried off Helen, and the Hellenes resolved to send messengers first and to demand her back with satisfaction for the rape; and when they put forth this demand, the others alleged to them the rape of Medea, saying that the Hellenes were now desiring satisfaction to be given to them by others, though they had given none themselves nor had surrendered the person when demand was made.

Up to this point, they say, nothing more happened than the carrying away of women on both sides; but after this the Hellenes were very greatly to blame; for they set the first example of war, making an expedition into Asia before the Barbarians made any into Europe.

Now they say that in their judgment, though it is an act of wrong to carry away women by force, it is a folly to set one's heart on taking vengeance for their rape, and the wise course is to pay no regard when they have been carried away; for it is evident that they would never be carried away if they were not themselves willing to go. And the Persians say that they, namely the people of Asia, when their women were carried away by force, had made it a matter of no account, but the Hellenes on account of a woman of Lacedemon gathered together a great armament, and then came to Asia and destroyed the dominion of Priam; and that from this time forward they had always considered the Hellenic race to be their enemy: for Asia and the Barbarian races which dwell there the Persians claim as belonging to them; but Europe and the Hellenic race they consider to be parted off from them.

The Persians for their part say that things happened thus; and they conclude that the beginning of their quarrel with the Hellenes was on account of the taking of Ilion: but as regards Io the Phenicians do not agree with the Persians in telling the tale thus; for they deny that they carried her off to Egypt by violent means, and they say on the other hand that when they were in Argos she was intimate with the master of their ship, and perceiving that she was with child, she was ashamed to confess it to her parents, and therefore sailed away with the Phenicians of her own will, for fear of being found out.

These are the tales told by the Persians and the Phenicians severally: and concerning these things I am not going to say that they happened thus or thus, but when I have pointed to the man who first within my own knowledge began to commit wrong against the Hellenes, I shall go forward further with the story, giving an account of the cities of men, small as well as great: for those which in old times were great have for the most part become small, while those that were in my own time great used in former times to be small: so then, since I know that human prosperity never continues steadfast, I shall make mention of both indifferently. [...]

And the priests [of Egypt] told me, when I inquired, that the things concerning Helen happened thus:--Alexander having carried off Helen was sailing away from Sparta to his own land, and when he had come to the Egean Sea contrary winds drove him from his course to the Sea of Egypt; and after that, since the blasts did not cease to blow, he came to Egypt itself, and in Egypt to that which is now named the Canobic mouth of the Nile and to Taricheiai.

Now there was upon the shore, as still there is now, a temple of Heracles, in which if any man's slave take refuge and have the sacred marks set upon him, giving himself over to the god, it is not lawful to lay hands upon him; and this custom has continued still unchanged from the beginning down to my own time.

Accordingly the attendants of Alexander, having heard of the custom which existed about the temple, ran away from him, and sitting down as suppliants of the god, accused Alexander, because they desired to do him hurt, telling the whole tale how things were about Helen and about the wrong done to Menelaos; and this accusation they made not only to the priests but also to the warden of this river-mouth, whose name was Thonis.

Thonis then having heard their tale sent forthwith a message to Proteus at Memphis, which said as follows: "There hath come a stranger, a Teucrian by race, who hath done in Hellas an unholy deed; for he hath deceived the wife of his own host, and is come hither bringing with him this woman herself and very much wealth, having been carried out of his way by winds to thy land. Shall we then allow him to sail out unharmed, or shall we first take away from him that which he brought with him?"

In reply to this Proteus sent back a messenger who said thus: "Seize this man, whosoever he may be, who has done impiety to his own host, and bring him away into my presence, that I may know what he will find to say."

Hearing this, Thonis seized Alexander and detained his ships, and after that he brought the man himself up to Memphis and with him Helen and the wealth he had, and also in addition to them the suppliants. So when all had been conveyed up thither, Proteus began to ask Alexander who he was and from whence he was voyaging; and he both recounted to him his descent and told him the name of his native land, and moreover related of his voyage, from whence he was sailing.

After this Proteus asked him whence he had taken Helen; and when Alexander went astray in his account and did not speak the truth, those who had become suppliants convicted him of falsehood, relating in full the whole tale of the wrong done.

At length Proteus declared to them this sentence, saying, "Were it not that I count it a matter of great moment not to slay any of those strangers who being driven from their course by winds have come to my land hitherto, I should have taken vengeance on thee on behalf of the man of Hellas, seeing that thou, most base of men, having received from him hospitality, didst work against him a most impious deed. For thou didst go in to the wife of thine own host; and even this was not enough for thee, but thou didst stir her up with desire and hast gone away with her like a thief.

Moreover not even this by itself was enough for thee, but thou art come hither with plunder taken from the house of thy host. Now therefore depart, seeing that I have counted it of great moment not to be a slayer of strangers. This woman indeed and the wealth which thou hast I will not allow thee to carry away, but I shall keep them safe for the Hellene who was thy host, until he come himself and desire to carry them off to his home; to thyself however and thy fellow-voyagers I proclaim that ye depart from your anchoring within three days and go from my land to some other; and if not, that ye will be dealt with as enemies."

This the priests said was the manner of Helen's coming to Proteus; and I suppose that Homer also had heard this story, but since it was not so suitable to the composition of his poem as the other which he followed, he dismissed it finally, making it clear at the same time that he was acquainted with that story also: and according to the manner in which he described the wanderings of Alexander in the Iliad (nor did he elsewhere retract that which he had said) it is clear that when he brought Helen he was carried out of his course, wandering to various lands, and that he came among other places to Sidon in Phenicia. Of this the poet has made mention in the "prowess of Diomede," and the verses run this:

"There she had robes many-coloured, the works of women of Sidon, Those whom her son himself the god-like of form Alexander Carried from Sidon, what time the broad sea-path he sailed over Bringing back Helene home, of a noble father begotten."

And in the Odyssey also he has made mention of it in these verses:

"Such had the daughter of Zeus, such drugs of exquisite cunning, Good, which to her the wife of Thon, Polydamna, had given, Dwelling in Egypt, the land where the bountiful meadow produces Drugs more than all lands else, many good being mixed, many evil."

And thus too Menelaos says to Telemachos:

"Still the gods stayed me in Egypt, to come back hither desiring, Stayed me from voyaging home, since sacrifice was due I performed not."

In these lines he makes it clear that he knew of the wandering of Alexander to Egypt, for Syria borders upon Egypt and the Phenicians, of whom is Sidon, dwell in Syria.

By these lines and by this passage it is also most clearly shown that the "Cyprian Epic" was not written by Homer but by some other man: for in this it is said that on the third day after leaving Sparta Alexander came to Ilion bringing with him Helen, having had a "gently-blowing wind and a smooth sea," whereas in the Iliad it says that he wandered from his course when he brought her.

Let us now leave Homer and the "Cyprian" Epic; but this I will say, namely that I asked the priests whether it is but an idle tale which the Hellenes tell of that which they say happened about Ilion; and they answered me thus, saying that they had their knowledge by inquiries from Menelaos himself.

After the rape of Helen there came indeed, they said, to the Teucrian land a large army of Hellenes to help Menelaos; and when the army had come out of the ships to land and had pitched its camp there, they sent messengers to Ilion, with whom went also Menelaos himself; and when these entered within the wall they demanded back Helen and the wealth which Alexander had stolen from Menelaos and had taken away; and moreover they demanded satisfaction for the wrongs done: and the Teucrians told the same tale then and afterwards, both with oath and without oath, namely that in deed and in truth they had not Helen nor the wealth for which demand was made, but that both were in Egypt; and that they could not justly be compelled to give satisfaction for that which Proteus the king of Egypt had.

CONTD:
The Hellenes however thought that they were being mocked by them and besieged the city, until at last they took it; and when they had taken the wall and did not find Helen, but heard the same tale as before, then they believed the former tale and sent Menelaos himself to Proteus.

And Menelaos having come to Egypt and having sailed up to Memphis, told the truth of these matters, and not only found great entertainment, but also received Helen unhurt, and all his own wealth besides.

Then however, after he had been thus dealt with, Menelaos showed himself ungrateful to the Egyptians; for when he set forth to sail away, contrary winds detained him, and as this condition of things lasted long, he devised an impious deed; for he took two children of natives and made sacrifice of them. After this, when it was known that he had done so, he became abhorred, and being pursued he escaped and got away in his ships to Libya; but whither he went besides after this, the Egyptians were not able to tell. Of these things they said that they found out part by inquiries, and the rest, namely that which happened in their own land, they related from sure and certain knowledge.

Thus the priests of the Egyptians told me; and I myself also agree with the story which was told of Helen, adding this consideration, namely that if Helen had been in Ilion she would have been given up to the Hellenes, whether Alexander consented or no; for Priam assuredly was not so mad, nor yet the others of his house, that they were desirous to run risk of ruin for themselves and their children and their city, in order that Alexander might have Helen as his wife: and even supposing that during the first part of the time they had been so inclined, yet when many others of the Trojans besides were losing their lives as often as they fought with the Hellenes, and of the sons of Priam himself always two or three or even more were slain when a battle took place (if one may trust at all to the Epic poets),-- when, I say, things were coming thus to pass, I consider that even if Priam himself had had Helen as his wife, he would have given her back to the Achaians, if at least by so doing he might be freed from the evils which oppressed him. [...]

In truth however they lacked the power to give Helen back; and the Hellenes did not believe them, though they spoke the truth... [Herodotus, The Histories, selected excerpts]

We will come back to this story later because even though it seems confused and improbable, it holds the key to our problem. One thing that ought to be clear is that I don't think that it was a woman they were fighting over; no indeed, it was the "treasure." What was that treasure? Well, let me suggest that the main thing we notice about this story is that it sounds a bit like George Bush demanding Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just such a situation as we see developing in our own time between the United States and the rest of the world may have developed between Atlantis and Europe and Asia around 12,000 years ago, and then again later, between the Trojans and Achaeans in Europe. This might give us a clue as to what sort of "treasure" the Trojan War was really being fought over.

Tracking this problem has led me down many interesting pathways and the most useful clues have come from the alchemist Fulcanelli. One his oft-reiterated themes is that the “ancient Greeks” — not the Egyptians — were the source of the Hermetic science and all esoteric knowledge. However, in a particular passage, he seems to contradict himself in the following remarks:

Atlantis. Did this mysterious island, of which Plato left the enigmatic description, ever exist? A question difficult to solve, give the weakness of the means which science possesses to penetrate the secret of the abysses. Nevertheless, some observations seem to support the partisans of the existence of Atlantis. […]

Faith in the truthfulness of Plato's works results in believing the reality of the periodical upheavals of which the Mosaic Flood , we said it, remains the written symbol and the sacred prototype. To those who negate what the priests of Egypt entrusted to Solon, we would only ask to explain to us what Aristotle's master wanted to reveal by this fiction of a sinister nature. For we indeed believe that beyond doubt, Plato became the propagator of very ancient truths, and that consequently his books contain a set, a body of hidden knowledge. His Geometric Number, and Cave have their signification; why should the myth of Atlantis not have its own?

Atlantis must have undergone the same fate as the others, and the catastrophe, which submerged it, falls obviously into the same cause as that which buried, forty-eight centuries later, under a profound sheet of water, Egypt, the Sahara, and the countries of Northern Africa. But more favored than the land of the Atlantean, Egypt gained from a raising of the bottom of the ocean and came back to the light of day, after a certain time of immersion. For Algeria and Tunisia with their dry "chotts" covered with a thick layer of salt, the Sahara and Egypt with their soils constituted for a large part of sea sand show that the waters invaded and covered vast expanses of the African continent. The columns of the Pharaohs' temples bear on them undeniable traces of immersion; in the hypostyle chambers, the slabs, still extant, which form the ceilings have been raised and moved by the oscillating motion of the waves; the disappearance of the outer coating of the pyramids and in general that of the stone joins (the Colosses of Memnon who used to sing) the evident traces of corrosion by water that can be noticed on the sphinx of Giza, as well as on many other works of Egyptian statuary have no other origin. [Fulcanelli, Dwellings of the Philosophers, pp. 511-512.]

Notice that he said: "To those who negate what the priests of Egypt entrusted to Solon, we would only ask to explain to us what Aristotle's master wanted to reveal by this fiction of a sinister nature." Fulcanelli then goes on a long series of remarks that actually DO negate what the priests of Egypt told Solon, namely, that Egypt had never been inundated. Now, why did Fulcanelli first say to "have faith in the truthfulness of Plato's words," and then turn around and negate them?

Another item of curiosity here is his remark about the "Mosaic Flood." Everybody knows that Noah was associated with the Flood and Moses was associated with the Exodus. Certainly, there was a sort of "flood" in the story of Moses where the Red Sea drowned the Pharaoh, but that story doesn't seem to have much to do with a real Flood; or does it?

Timaeus and Critias, written by Plato some time around 360 BC are the only existing ancient written records which specifically refer to Atlantis. The dialogues are conversations between Socrates, Hermocrates, Timaeus, and Critias. Apparently in response to a prior talk by Socrates about ideal societies, Timaeus and Critias agree to entertain Socrates with a tale that is “not a fiction but a true story.”

The story is about the conflict between the ancient Athenians and the Atlanteans 9000 years before Plato’s time. Knowledge of the ancient times was apparently forgotten by the Athenians of Plato’s day, and the form the story of Atlantis took in Plato’s account was that Egyptian priests conveyed it to Solon. Solon passed the tale to Dropides, the great-grandfather of Critias. Critias learned of it from his grandfather also named Critias, son of Dropides.

Let’s take a careful look at the main section of the story, omitting the introduction that describes Solon going to Egypt and chatting up the priests.

Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science, which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why.

There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Phaeton, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father’s chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us.

When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient.

The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed - if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples.

We want to here make note of the fact that present day evidence suggests that Egypt has been inundated and that it also experienced a rainy climate as evidenced by the water erosion on the sphinx. Fulcanelli even commented upon the inundation of Egypt. And so we see that Fulcanelli has given us a hint, a clue. This leads us to question whether or not this story actually came from the mouth of an Egyptian priest in terms of Egypt as we now know it. If so, such a priest would have known of the period of heavy rain and shallow seas in Egypt, by which the Sphinx and other monuments were eroded, and which deposited a layer of salt on the interior of the pyramids and other structures that Fulcanelli mentioned. And so we suggest, to reconcile this difficulty, not that the story is false — because Fulcanelli has told us to “have faith in the account of Plato” — but rather that this was a deliberate exoteric “blind.”

Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children.

In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.

Again, let’s interrupt the dialogue to point out that it is hardly likely that a priest of the Egypt we know would have declared the Athenians to be “the fairest and noblest race of men,” nor that they “performed the noblest deeds” and had the “fairest constitution … under the face of heaven!” Another clue that the speaker is giving us that it is NOT Egypt as we know Egypt that is the source of this information.

Solon marveled at his words, and earnestly requested the priests to inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens. You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, said the priest, both for your own sake and for that of your city, and above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.

Yet again, the Egyptian priest is giving greater antiquity to the Greeks than to the Egyptians! Another clue for the reader to understand that this is not an Egyptian story of Egypt as we now know it!

As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time.

Here, of course, we come to the idea that there was an ancient connection and communication between the "real Egyptians” and the "real Athenians." Georges Gurdjieff once remarked that Christianity was taken from Egypt, a statement that might suggest that he agreed with the Pan-Egyptian school. But no: Christianity, he hastened to explain, was not taken from the Egypt of history, but from a “far older Egypt” which is unrecorded."