Comments on: Google Atlantis

By: Rod Martin, Jr.

Rod Martin, Jr. — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:19:00 +0000

A good article on the value of not jumping to a hasty conclusion. That shows the value of skepticism, yet I think perhaps restraint would be a better paradigm. Some forms of skepticism are almost only restraint (yet they contain doubt, a bias), but some forms descend into self-indulgent ridicule.

Shannon Stewart makes a good point, but then loses her restraint, negating “the validity of your entire argument.” She is being “skeptical” and illogical. But what of her “good point?”

Has anyone interviewed the Greek philosopher? The “invention” hypothesis is a good theory, but shouldn’t we only always characterize it as such? Over a hundred years ago, scientists thought the myth of Troy was nothing more than myth and unworthy of investigation. It took an amateur to break through that conceptual barrier.

The 1948-49 Woods Hole expedition to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge found evidence of subaerial phenomena there, and beach-like terraces. A review of expedition literature, 1959, mentions none of the controversial material. Conspiracy? Likely not, but unconscious bias? Perhaps. Atlantis has garnered quite a stigma associated with clairvoyants, theosophists and Nazis. The Woods Hole data is hardly proof of Atlantis, yet it seems to support the possibility.

While reviewing the literature, I discovered three items of evidence which support the possibility of an Atlantis-like event right when Plato said Atlantis subsided. All three date to approximately 9620 BCE. Prove Atlantis? Hardly. The weakest of the three sorely needs corroboration, but if found to be a proxy for a real event, would prove that a Texas-sized landmass subsided somewhere in the oceans of the Earth, about 9620 BCE.

By: Susan

Susan — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:51:13 +0000

It’s clearly a giant alien spatula. Those things we thought were islands? Pancakes.

By: Rowan

Rowan — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:56:07 +0000

I do have a problem with one part of this post. The implication that by scanning the ocean floor with SONAR you have somehow ‘explored’ it. SONAR will examine a location, you get its shape and maybe an idea how hard it is. That is by no means exploring it. I have no doubt that the ‘find’ of this ‘artifact’ is incorrect but instead take issue with labeling this area as ‘explored’. We have gone to so few areas under the ocean that it is amazing that we know as much about it as we do.

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:38:04 +0000

I heard about this on the radio, fired up Google Earth to take a look. At first I thought “gee… only 25 or so streets? Not much of a city.” Then I used the measure tool in Google Earth and was amazed that it was about 160km x 120km… that would be one huge city! New York City is only like 20km x 2.5km… and how many streets are in NY? Imagine city blocks 12km on a side! Ridiculous. Of course, there is also the little issue of Atlantic being a made up place. How could anyone leap to such insane conclusions? I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am.

By: Max

Max — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 09:45:10 +0000

How do you know that any work of fiction is fiction?

By: Mchl

Mchl — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:40:27 +0000

@Shannon Stewart: To me, your signing as a playmate model invalidates all you say.

Well, not really. But it could if I didn’t care what you actually wrote.
And then, there is this slight possibility, that you’re genuinely named Shannon Stewart… maybe even the Shannon Stewart… :P

Even if we assume, Plato’s Atlantis was not only a literary device, the pattern found in Google would still be just a data collection artifact.

By: Shannon Stewart

Shannon Stewart — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:57:19 +0000

I agree that the images are probably nothing more than what Google says they are. However, I have a serious issue with this statement.

“It is clear, for example, that Plato (who first wrote about Atlantis) invented Atlantis as a literary device and was not claiming that it actually existed.”

Really? How is it clear?? Did Plato write, in some manuscript known only to you, about what Atlantis really was? I do not believe so. I believe you are doing nothing more in interjecting your own opinions and claiming them to be fact.

To me, that mere statement negated the validity of your entire argument.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:24:57 +0000

@Maria:
What do you mean “constructed?” Like a cabal of [ahem] “international bankers” who intentionally, for some reason, decided to collapse the economy?

No, the economic crisis is not constructed. It’s certainly due, at least in part, to the structure of Wall Street and the way our investment culture works (or at least worked)… And part of it is just cyclical. It’s more like a whole bunch

Last year, This American Life did a two SUPERB 1:00 episodes all about the “Giant Pool of Money” that resulted in the housing and economic collapse. Together, they’re the best — and most accessible — summary of what played into the economic collapse. They are WELL worth listening to in their entirety.

“The Giant Pool of Money”:
http://www.thislife.org/radio_episode.aspx?episode=355

“Another Frightening Show About the Economy”:
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263

By: Maria Marques

Maria Marques — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:33:39 +0000

The global economic crisis looks “constructed” . Can Skeptics comment about it?

By: João Moniz

João Moniz — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:56:12 +0000

In fact this is not the first time I have heard or read about some people using Google Earth for this kind of claim.
Last year I have heard and saw some emails of a crazy woman that using Google Earth have found the repaints of Atlantis in Terceira Island in the archipelago of Azores (middle of the Atlantic). What she found was nothing else that roads and trees that she said were giant drawings made by the Atlantis civilization. She even wrote a book (I don’t remember the title now) and went to a local Tv Show.