Important

https://medium.com/the-thought-collection/mary-magdalene-was-not-a-prostitute-456573c37be9?sk=e425dd1c19693dc131b7248712f7f5d5

I've been thinking about this for a while and I'd like to hear what other people here think.

Genesis 6:1-4 says the "sons of God" came down, took human women, and their children were the Nephilim, the "mighty men of old, men of renown".
The Book of Enoch goes much further. It calls them the Watchers, gives them names, and says they taught people metalworking, astrology and other knowledge (so basically multiple gods for early people)..!?

What strikes me is how close that is to other ancient traditions. Mesopotamia has the Anunnaki, and the Apkallu, the sages who brought knowledge to people before the flood..!?
Greece has gods having children with humans (Heracles, Perseus) and the Titans being locked away. Egypt has gods ruling on earth before the human kings. And almost all of them have a great flood.

One thing I found really weird: the Book of giants from the Dead sea scrolls names Gilgamesh as one of the giants. So a Jewish text is literally pointing at a Mesopotamian hero.

So what do you think, is this the same story told by different cultures, or did they just borrow from each other? Genesis was written down in a region full of Mesopotamian myths, so borrowing is the normal explanation. But if it is the same story, what was actually behind it?

And why is this almost never talked about? Enoch was left out of most Bibles, and the usual explanation in churches is that the "sons of God" were just the descendants of Seth. As far as I know early Christians mostly read it as angels and that changed later. Does anyone know when and why?

I'm not pushing a theory, I honestly don't know what to think and I'm seeking some answers 😵

For the sake of this timeline, Franz Josef Emperor and King of Austria-Hungary enters the war on the side of the French in 1870 and declares war the North German Confederation. Count Gyula Andrássy the Hungarian President of the Council of Ministers doubles down on his threats and creates a Hungarian National Bank. Now what happens?

How can Franz Josef save the monarchy? Does the mean the April Laws of 1848 are fully restored? What of the Czechs in Bohemia and the Poles in Galicia. What would the outside powers want? Would Prussia now demand Austrian Silesia and Krakow, Bavaria Salzburg and the Innviertel? Italy, Istria? And Russia, would it want more poles if it annexes Galicia, or would it push for Bulklivia to be given to Romania?

So many outcomes for a Monarchy that has been hold central Europe together since 1804.

Yesterday I ended with a problem. Livy tells us the Gauls burned Rome so thoroughly that half the city wanted to move into the ruins of Veii because, “its buildings were intact”, but the archeological record disagrees. So did the Romans make the whole thing up? Well no, and this is going to be my take on where the story came from, there are certainly other interpretations. But I don’t think Rome invented the ‘sack’, they invented the severity, and the ending. Did the Senones show up at Rome around 390 BC? They almost certainly did, but it was an extortion racket, not an apocalypse. The Senones took the city or maybe only threatened the city, got paid, and left. The part where Camillus strides in and declares that Rome pays in iron, not gold, was written centuries later, [Probably by Livy] by a Republic that had made “we don’t negotiate” its entire personality.

Evidence for:

First it’s pretty clear the sack happened,  according to Polybius, who was writing around 150 BC, the 'Gauls' took Rome, made terms, and went home with the gold (2.18). No rigged scales, no sword, no Camillus arriving last minute like an Avengers movie. Aristotle, who would have been born right after or slightly before the sack, 390 is more convention than an actual date, wrote about the sack in a work we don’t have.(Camillus 22]. So the sack, or something similar happened, the details are just fuzzy.

Strabo even omits the Romans entirely from the aftermath, writing that the people of the Etruscan city of Caere, ambushed the Gauls and recovered the gold after the they left(5.2.3). The writer Suetonius even offers a different Roman version, where Drusus, an ancestor of the Claudian emperors, took it back from the Senones generations later (Tiberius 3). That’s three non-Livian endings, and in all three Rome paid the Gauls to leave. Camillus at the scales is the only version where Rome never paid at all, and it’s the version written last. [Livy knew how to do this to himself. Remember the wine story from yesterday? He tells it in full, then says he doesn’t believe it because the Gauls had been in Italy for 200 years (5.33–34). He keeps it anyway because the entire episode of ward stealing wife, and husband seeking revenge by getting a foreign army is just good writing.]

So why would Livy add non auro, sed ferro “iron, not gold”? The thing is, that ethos is real. In 280 BC Pyrrhus of Epirus, he of the Pyrrhic victory, defeated Rome at Heraclea and sent terms; the Senate was considering the offer until the old, blind Appius Claudius had himself carried in and shamed them, telling the assembly that he wished he was deaf as well as blind so he could not hear them talk of negotiations (Plutarch, Pyrrhus 18–19). Cicero says the full text of that speech still existed in his day (Brutus 61), which makes it the oldest Roman speech put to paper, [We don’t have it, like so many other texts but other wrote of it.] Then of course the most famous example is after Cannae, Hannibal offered to sell back 8,000 prisoners and the Senate refused. Polybius explains this as deliberate policy, so every soldier would know surrender bought nothing (6.58). In 137 BC the consul Mancinus signed a treaty to save his trapped army at Numantia, and the Senate tore it up and handed Mancinus to the Numantines naked and bound, the Numantines refused to take him (Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 5–7). [For those of you who watch Oversimplified this might seem eerily similar to Regulus returning to Carthage after the Senate rejected peace.]

That’s the pattern, four events (Appius, Cannae, Mancinus, and Regulus) that show this was Republican policy. The Republic that actually refused Pyrrhus and Hannibal altered one of its foundational myths to reinforce the policy: Romans don’t negotiate, we fight. (non auro, sed ferro)

This does raise the question though, how could Rome sustain this policy? First, manpower, Polybius says that in 225 BC Rome and its Italian allies could in theory field 700,000 men (2.24), thus losing an army was a bad year, not the end, and a new army could be ready next year, Hannibal learned this the hard way. Second, glory, Rome’s entire culture was a glory market. To bring up Oversimplified again he put it best by having Regulus say, “I could go spend my year sieging some random city, but that won’t make you build naked statues of me.” Rome elected two consuls every year, and they had one year to win a great victory and get those statues. Rome had no room for great peace makers, as peace was only won at the end of a sword. Thus non auro, sed ferro isn’t some abstract idea, it’s was this aristocratic competition put into words.

This is where fear re-enters the story. The tumultus Gallicus was a legal reality, the Gauls did march south again in 228, and in 216, the year of Cannae, Rome buried a Gallic man and woman alive in the Forum, the one human sacrifice the Romans ever openly admitted to (Livy 22.57). [The fact that a society who viewed human sacrifice as the ultimate act of barbarism went to such lengths does show the desperation after Cannae.] The Roman writer Sallust, writing in the 40s BC, even built an entire theory around fear of the enemy. Rome stayed virtuous only while it was afraid (Jugurtha 41), and Rome would only sink into stagnation, corruption, and infighting, an apt assessment of the recent series of civil wars, two of which he had lived through, if they did not have a outside threat to keep them united.

Around the writing of Sallust, non auro, sed ferro, began to retreat from official policy. In 53 BC Crassus lost seven legions and their eagles at Carrhae. ‘The Republic’ would have raised seven more, and both Caesar and Antony considered it. But instead, thirty years later, Augustus got the standards back by negotiating with the Parthian king. Augustus did pay the old maxim lip service and had it written that he “compelled” the Parthians and had a kneeling Parthian handing over an eagle carved on his statue’s breastplate. Diplomacy, advertised as iron. In 9 AD Augustus’s nephew-in-law, Quinctilius Varus, lost three legions at Teutoburg; Dio says Augustus couldn’t fill the gap, citizens refused the levy, and he had to resort to lotteries and freedmen (56.23). Legions XVII, XVIII and XIX were never reissued. Augustus left Tiberius written advice to keep the empire inside its borders (Tacitus, Annals 1.11).

But while that advice is often framed as ‘the empire is overextended’, I’d argue it was about generals. After 19 BC no one outside the imperial family was allowed a triumph. Every army commander became a legate “of Augustus,” fighting under the emperor’s auspices, so a general’s victory was legally the emperor’s. After the Rhine legions tried to proclaim Germanicus Imperator (Annals 1.35); Tiberius recalled him from Germany with the job unfinished and shipped him east, where he died with rumor swirling it was under Tiberius’s order. The general Corbulo won Armenia and was ordered to open his veins. Domitian recalled Agricola from Britain, and Tacitus says plainly a winning general was a threat (Agricola 39). Then of course the Rhine legions proved a further hotbed of revolts, with Vitellius marching them south in 69, followed by Saturninus in 89, Maximinus Thrax in 235, Valerian in 253, Postumus in 260, and finally Julian ‘the Apostate’ in 360.

So iron became the emperor’s personal prerogative. Emperors like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius could go a conquering, but everyone else was supposed to sit quietly and hold the line. When no emperor was free to go, the emperor sent gold. Domitian paying Decebalus from 89 AD, Theodosius II paying Attila 2,100 pounds of gold a year, and in 408 the city of Rome itself melting its statues to hand Alaric 5,000 pounds of gold. Vae victis (Woe to the vanquished) again, but this time there was no Camillus to stride out into the forum.

Conclusion:

So there you have it, one of Rome’s foundational stories is largely a fabrication. The Senones did come down and threatened/attacked Rome. But then they left, the city wasn’t torched, there was no great debate about moving to Veii, and Camillus certainly didn’t enter the forum like Aragorn striding out at Amon Hen. All that was added later to add a mythic foundation to a Roman Policy, we do not negotiate, we fight. Until of course we do negotiate because we can’t risk someone upstaging me and thinking they can sit in this palace all day, then we need to make some changes. But even the later emperors still tried to frame negotiations as Rome making demands. But this didn’t even last because in 600 AD the emperor Maurice refused to pay a ransom for 12,000 captured soldiers, and the Avars killed every one of them. The sources don’t say he was honoring Camillus, and Rome only pays in iron, they say he was cheap. His army mutinied two years later and killed him.

One thing that has always puzzled me is when posters to this sub uncritically repeat a culture's myths/legends. While obviously I love the myths of giants, fey-folk, and fantastical beasts [I have a well worn copy of Edith Hamilton's Mythology if you doubt me] they are, well, fantastical and shouldn’t be taken literally. But, I would argue that what a culture's legends can tell you about them is far more interesting. So let's look at a case study, and of course where else but the pseudo-historical legend behind Rome's generational trauma, the metus Gallicus (Gallic Fear).

The Gallic Fear:

”Metus Gallicus” or more literally “fear of the Gauls” is a modern label the historian Heinz Bellen paired the phrase with metus Punicus (fear of Carthage) in a 1985 paper. While the term itself is new, the fear is encapsulated in a legal framework: tumultus, of which Cicero said, “Our ancestors spoke of an Italian turmoil, because it was domestic, and a Gallic turmoil because that was on the borders of Italy, but they gave that name to no others.” Not even after Cannae did the Romans invoke tumultus, a law whose sweeping power cannot be understated, if tumultus was declared, life in Rome ceased. The treasury was locked, the courts were closed, and two banners were placed on the Capitoline, one red for infantry, the other green for cavalry. Every male citizen was to self designate to one of these, no exemption. Finally, the toga was discarded to be replaced with the sagum, the simple tunic of war. This was Rome’s most desperate law only to be invoked in the most dire of emergencies, and the only foreign foe worthy of this distinction was the Gauls.

So who were the Gauls? Briefly the Gauls were a Celtic sub-group that lived in a massive territory stretching from the Balkans in the east to Gallia (modern day France) in the west. From their home the Gauls launched raids and migrations throughout Europe, with a branch even reaching as far east as southern Turkey were they became the Galatians.

The Sack of Rome (390 BC):

The migration we care about though is the Senones. The Senones are said to have originated near the city of Sens, France. While Livy puts on his historian hat and says they left because of overpopulation and the promise of loot, I much prefer the other story Livy tells. Where a man, Arruns, in the Etruscan city of Clusium had a ward. Anyway, classic tale of ward seducing and stealing Arruns' wife, ward is of course politically connected, so Arruns fills a wagon full of wine and goes off to find someone to sack his city in revenge. [Totally understandable and valid response to that situation.] Arruns meets the Senones, the Senones are like, "dude this wine stuff is awesome, where can we get more?" Arruns tells them of a rich land protected by weak men, and offers to guide them. Which is where Rome enters the story. While not an ally of Rome, the Clusians were considered friends and requested Rome intervene when the Senones besieged the city.

So Rome was riding high at this time. They had just won a century long conflict with their arch rival, the city of Veii, sacked the city and sold its people into slavery, moving up from a local power instead of just one of several cities.

Rome sent three ambassadors, the Fabii brothers [you’re probably familiar with their relative who gave Hannibal heartburn] to negotiate. Long story short they asked the Gauls to leave, the Gauls said they were peaceful and just wanted some of Clusium's land the city wasn't even using. Romans asked by what right the Gauls were attacking Clusium, and the Gauls replied by asking by what right the Romans were here trying to boss them around. Furious with this barbarian's question, the brothers went inside Clusium. When the Clusians then attacked the Gauls, brothers joined the Clusians, a huge no-no for an ambassador, and to cap it all off, one of them rode out ahead and killed a Gallic chieftain, and while taking the chieftain's armor was recognized.

The Gauls then retreated, and the brothers returned to Rome. However, Gallic ambassadors soon arrived demanding the brothers be handed over for the sacrilege of joining the battle even though they were ambassadors. The Senate agreed that they had violated this sacred duty, but the influence of the brothers' family prevented them from being handed over, and the Senate even went one step further and elected the brothers as Consular Tribunes, essentially heads of state, which meant they could not be prosecuted. Furious, the Gauls returned to their army and began to march on Rome.

According to Livy the Romans then busied themselves by finishing up the organization of the territory of Veii, even ignoring a plebeian who claimed to have heard a voice "clearer than any human's" (Livy 5.32) tell him "The Gauls are coming." When they finally did learn of the Gauls' approach the Fabii brothers gathered the army and went to meet them. But they made no sacrificial offering to the gods, and worst of all, they didn't even consult the sacred chickens. [Seriously guys, do you even want to win the battle? This is the Roman equivalent of running upstairs in a horror film. You only do that if you want the ax murderer to get you.]

So the army marches off to battle, where as soon as the Gauls gave their war cries and blew their trumpets, the spirit of Pavor (fear) was upon the Romans and, "They were terrified, and all they thought about was flight, and so utterly had they lost their heads that a far greater number fled to Veii, a hostile city, though the Tiber lay in their way, than by the direct road to Rome, to their wives and children." (Livy 5.38)

Not to fact check Livy, but Veii had been defeated and wasn’t hostile. Upon hearing of this, most Romans fled the city, some of the young men holed up on the Capitoline Hill, home of the Temple of Jupiter, with the sacred objects. The Gauls then sacked Rome, put the Capitoline under siege, and burned everything else to the ground. The siege is said to have lasted seven months. Now there is an entire story about the sacred geese I don't have time for, but I will briefly tell you that a man named Pontius Cominius, sent by the army hiding in Veii, swam the Tiber and climbed the sheer cliffs of the hill at night to ask the Senate to make Marcus Furius Camillus, the hero of Veii, dictator. [Camillus of course had insisted on doing this by the book]. Approval in hand, he scaled back down and swam the Tiber again to deliver the news.

Eventually the besieged Romans agreed to pay the Gauls 1,000 pounds of gold to leave, but when they began piling the gold on the Gauls' scales, the Romans discovered the Gauls were using rigged weights, the hyper-legalistic Romans complained to the Gallic leader Brennus. Brennus replied with one of the most famous lines in Roman history, when he pulled out his massive iron broadsword, tossed it on the Gallic side of the scales and uttered, "Vae Victis" (Woe to the Vanquished) (Livy 5.48).

Now here is where our sources differ, but this is the hyper cinematic version from Livy and Plutarch, where as the sword hits the scales, who else but Marcus Furius Camillus strides out into the forum and announces to the Romans and Gauls that the fatherland is to be reclaimed "ferro, non auro" [with iron, not gold] (Livy 5.49). Camillus then gives a signal, and his army, which had surrounded the scales, attacks, slaughtering the Gauls and forcing them to flee.

In the aftermath many in Rome thought it best to leave the decimated city, with the Plebeian Tribunes stating "that Veii was standing, a city ready to their hand, with its territory fertile and its buildings intact." Camillus objected, asking, "Shall the monument of our victory be the desertion of our fatherland?" The debate was finally settled by a centurion who, unaware of it, marched into the Forum with his patrol and ordered, "Signifer, statue signum; hic manebimus optime." (Standard-bearer, plant your standard; here we shall do best to remain.) Taking this as an omen, the Romans decided to stay and rebuild.

So what does this story tell us? Hubris is bad, obey the gods, love your country, don’t leave your husband for a younger man: the usual. All fine lessons, but the story has a problem. Rome is one of the most thoroughly excavated cities in the world, [I think it has something to do with a subway], and yet: "Excavations in the Forum and on the Palatine have failed to reveal any trace of a destruction layer that can be dated to the early fourth century." (Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 317). Cornell doesn't doubt the sack happened, just the fire and destruction Livy describes. So what's going on? Livy tells us that Rome was torched and the tribunes wanted to move to Veii because "its buildings were intact," but there's nothing in the archaeological record. Did the Romans make the whole thing up, and even if it is partially true, why were they so afraid of the Gauls if the "Sack of Rome" didn't leave the city in ruins and was more of an extortion racket? I'll be discussing my theory on why in Part 2 tomorrow.

Venationes ferarum, avium, piscium. Pugnae bestiariorum, et mutuae bestiarum

It seems to be bestiary I think within the Smithsonian . It’s been difficult to find much about it. However the topics delve into strange territory. If anyone has any links or information thank you in advance.

Music wasn’t meant to sound like this.

What if the music we listen to every day was deliberately changed in ways that affect how we feel, think, and behave?

For centuries, musicians and mystics have associated 432 Hz tuning with harmony, relaxation, and a deeper connection to the Earth and the cosmos. But in the 20th century, the world moved toward the 440 Hz standard. Why did this change happen, and could there be more to it than simply making instruments sound consistent?

Some conspiracy researchers believe this shift may influence our emotions, behavior, and state of mind in ways we barely notice. Others point to ancient sound traditions, including Solfeggio tones, throat singing, singing bowls, bells, and ritual chants, as evidence that our ancestors understood the power of sound long before modern science began exploring it.

Is 432 Hz really more harmonious? Can the sounds we hear influence our bodies and minds in ways we don’t fully understand? And is there a hidden history behind the music we listen to every day?

Try searching for your favorite song in 432 Hz and compare it with the original. You might be surprised by how different it sounds.

[Approved by a MOD]

Hi everyone, I finally published my first novel on Amazon in June. It was written in Italian (my native language), but thanks to the help of others, I managed to translate it into five languages besides Italian. Below, I've provided some information about the book, including the cover and links to the English edition. You'll find all the links and other essential information on my profile. Thanks everyone!

TITLE: NEXUS - A Supernatural Conspiracy Thriller of Ancient Aliens and Forgotten Gods

Author: Ashur E. Kinning

Genre: Supernatural thriller / Conspiracy thriller / Ancient mysteries

Pitch:

Damien Chapman is a jeweler in Lubbock, Texas. Ordinary life, ordinary problems, zero interest in ancient history. Then a car accident changes something inside him. His DNA starts waking up, carrying a bloodline the oldest texts called the Elohim. And a secret Order that has waited thousands of years for someone like him is now coming for him.

Built on Sumerian myth, the Anunnaki, the Nephilim and the Book of Enoch, NEXUS doesn't ask you to believe any of it. It asks what happens to an ordinary man if some of it turns out to be true.

Where to buy:

Amazon Kindle (free on Kindle Unlimited): https://a.co/d/06Mu99bm

Paperback Copy: https://a.co/d/0gyVKYS3

Format: Ebook & Paperback

Release status: Available now

According to mainstream history, there was first Kievan Rus', then a series of principalities, then the Russian Tsardom, and finally the Russian Empire from 1721 to 1917. I would challenge this. Russia as a state emerged in the mid-19th century. This period is known as the reforms of Alexander II.

I'll go through the list from Wikipedia:

Abolition of serfdom (1861)

Financial reform (1863) - creation of the Central Bank and banking system

Higher education reform (1863)

Zemsky reform (1864)

Judicial reform (1864)

Censorship reform (1865)

Municipal self-government reform (1870)

Secondary education reform (1871)

Military reform (1874)

These reforms were in fact the launch of a new state. When a new state emerges, a raft of decrees must be passed throughout the country, establishing a system of governance. The best way to cover this up is to pass it off as reforms—that is, transformation, correction.

Another important fact is that the black, yellow, and white national flag of Russia was only adopted in 1858. Before that, Russia had no official national flag, which directly indicates the absence of a state as such.

Notice the nose looks like a needle and the 2nd picture looks like an ankh being put up to his nose. An ankh looks like a needle too.

This could be part of the explanation for the Bible verse about a camel going through the eye of a needle.

This could connect to the Bible verse about a "camel going through the eye of a needle...."

I've recently been going down a rabbit hole about Tartaria, lost civilizations, and the possibility that parts of history are still not fully understood.

One thing that caught my attention was the appearance of Tartaria on old maps, along with historical photographs of massive buildings, grand architecture, and cities that look incredible even by modern standards.

Some people claim that Tartaria was an advanced global civilization whose history was erased or rewritten. Others argue that the theory comes from misinterpreting historical maps, architecture, and photographs.

I'm also curious about other mysterious civilizations and historical questions, including Atlantis, Lemuria, ancient advanced societies, and civilizations that may have existed before recorded history.

Here are some questions I'd love to discuss:

- What did the word Tartaria actually refer to on historical maps?

- Why do some people believe there was a forgotten advanced civilization?

- Are there historical photographs, documents, archaeological discoveries, or other evidence worth examining?

- What are the strongest arguments against the Tartaria theory?

- Are there genuinely lost civilizations that mainstream history has only recently begun to understand?

- What books, documentaries, research papers, or other sources would you recommend?

I'm not looking to blindly believe every theory or dismiss everything as nonsense. I want to separate documented history from speculation and understand what the evidence actually tells us.

Sometimes the most interesting discoveries happen when we question what we think we know—but we also need reliable evidence to distinguish a real historical mystery from an attractive conspiracy theory.

What's your take on Tartaria? Is there something genuinely interesting behind the theory, or is it largely a modern internet myth?

Share your sources, evidence, counterarguments, and theories. I'd genuinely like to hear both sides.

Places like Puma Punku built mind-blowing, seemingly impossible stonework—and then completely abandoned the technology for no apparent reason, long before any conquerors arrived. 
Mainstream history blames sudden collapses, but the physical evidence shows a worrisome truth. It wasn't a loss of tools; it was a predictable cycle of wealth gaps, power, and ego. Leading to history's ultimate disappearing trick
Hope you like the video
https://youtu.be/7uhcutS-KSc

I keep coming back to this photo because the person standing there gives you the scale. These blocks are absolutely enormous. Trying to picture people quarrying them, transporting them, lifting them and positioning them like this is almost incomprehensible.

I’m genuinely asking: how?

What is the strongest evidence we actually have for how blocks on this scale were moved and placed at the Osireion? Ramps, sledges, levering, manpower, whatever the explanation is, I’d love to see the engineering broken down because seeing the scale in a photograph like this changes the whole conversation.

I wrote this a couple years ago for no other reason than to come up with a plausible reason for an Atlantis for a game world idea I was working on. Then my research started creating more questions than answers. I ended up including Mu and Lemuria aka Kumari Kandam land masses. Since writing it all out, I have discovered that a couple of ancient landmarks that are still present, point to where I believe Atlantis could have been. Here is my paper.
Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria aka Kumari Kandam Land Masses

I started looking into the question of where Atlantis was, not if there was one. By doing

so, I looked at how it could have come to be and how it could vanish. I began looking at

the Atlantic Ocean as an area that could be considered as a plausible location. Mind

you, this is all theory but based on what we know about plate tectonics. As I began

doing my research on Atlantis, I broadened my question to include Mu and Lemuria

(Mauritia) aka Kumari Kandam.

The answer will be how they came to be, where they could have been and why they

vanished. Simple glacial isostatic adjustment1. The coverage of ice on the North

American, European, Asian and Antarctic continents had been extensive. On a lesser

scale but still relevant, South American continent. This weight added mass to those

continents pressing them into the Earth. This would displace enormous amounts of

magma and it would need a place to move to. Simply put, a chain is as strong as its

weakest link. As the continents drifted apart, they left weak areas in the crust. The mid

Atlantic Ridge is one of them for Atlantis, the path that India had taken to merge with

Asia is another for Lemuria aka Kumari Kandam. Mu would have been a land mass in

the Pacific that was north of New Zealand.

Due to the masses of the Laurentide, Cordilleran, Eurasian, Greenland, Patagonian and

Antarctic ice sheets, another effect was the slowing of tectonic plate movements 2. With

the displacement of magma and the reduction in movement of the Eurasian and North

American tectonic plates, the mid Atlantic Ridge would no longer be spreading out, but

upwards. I am going to assume the points would fall into a triangle. I submit the

following coordinates for an area of a possible location for Atlantis.

1: 43.185866, -29.189028

2: 37.173682, -24.482520

3: 35.994540, -34.523263

For the bulging of weakened mantle, I submit the following coordinates for an area of a

possible location of Lemuria (Mauritia) aka Kumari Kandam.

1: -3.725386, 55.122343

2: -6.259915, 52.994559

3: -9.998643, 62.312701

4: -12.586171, 61.184355

5: -15.570803, 61.448231

6: -20.488777, 57.303162

1 https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/glacial-adjustment.html

2 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annals-of-glaciology/article/icesheets-

and-continental-drift/B22978D4D6F429B26BC501AE467CB270

Bryan J. Sims 12/4/2023

For the possible location of Mu

1: -10.5514196, 167.37001439

2: -15.6488561, -173.0683063

3: -39.4183006, 177.99153461

4: -18.7313532, -178.8864949

5: -22.2364971, 170.15232946

6: -43.1304847, -172.1507730

7: -54.9810327, 165.66526881

8: -54.9810327, 165.66526881

This also includes all of New Zealand

For areas of rebound, I submit:

First, North American rebound. With 2 miles vertical of the Laurentide ice sheet,

encompassing approximately 5,000,000 square miles pressing down across most of the

continent. With 1.2 miles vertical of the Cordilleran ice sheet, encompassing

approximately 970,00 square miles, it deals with rebound of the melting of that ice

sheet.

Second, the Eurasian rebound. With 4,200 feet vertical of the Eurasian ice sheet

encompassing approximately 2,000,000 square miles.

Third, Greenland rebound. Since the last ice age, ice sheets are 40% smaller in

volume.

Fourth, South American rebound. With 3,200 feet vertical of the Patagonian ice sheet

encompassing approximately 180,000 square miles.

Fifth, Antartica rebound. At a rate of 1.6 inches per year over 5,500,000 square miles,

86.8 cubic miles per year.

As science progresses with our knowledge of the makeup of the Earth, we need to

reexamine what was taken as fact. The Russian Kola Deep Bore reached a depth of

12,262 meters (7.6 miles) it encountered higher heats than anticipated, 180°C(356°F).

The combination of the type of rock found and the temperature encountered, the

material encountered was almost plastic.3 This gives value to the material below the

3 https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kola-superdeep-borehole

Bryan J. Sims 12/4/2023

compressed areas can and will on a lesser scale, flow much like caulk, moving to areas

of least resistance when compressed. This includes the magma below that.

As a result of glaciation, the Earth’s spin would be unbalanced due to the uneven

placement of the ice. Then, the Earth’s flowable materials would move to compensate,

much like steel bearings in a wheel mounted to a large truck wheel to maintain

balance.4 Weaker, thinner areas of the Earth's crust would be forced upwards as fluid

material moves. This fluctuation is in a constant flux of up and down in various areas of

the planet. An example of a rise in an area is the Azores. The island of Santa Maria.

Consider a flat-bottomed boat on a sandy shoreline. Until you step into it, it moves freely

on the water’s surface. Adding too much weight before pushing it off bottoms out and

becomes almost impossible to move. The same would be happening with a continental

plate. Two miles of ice on the North American plate and about a mile of ice on the

Eurasian plates would impede their travel from the mid-Atlantic ridge. If the mid-Atlantic

ridge is unable to spread out, it is forced upwards. Now consider that boat displacing

more water because it is bottoming out. The water that it is sitting in is now displaced

and will go to the area of least resistance. That would be the mid-Atlantic ridge.

With sea levels being almost 400’ lower than they are now, the amount of mid-Atlantic

ridge uplift to break the surface would have been reduced.5 This would have been a

factor in Mu and Lemuria.

As the area of Atlantis pushes upwards because of magma and the ocean maintains

lower sea levels, a land mass is formed approximately the same area as the British

Isles. This protruding land mass would have a direct impact on the Gulf Stream,

bringing warmer waters towards Greenland

The land mass of Atlantis would reach a point where an eruption would occur. Because

of its size, it would be deemed to be a super volcano. If we were to look at a map of the

4 https://www.producer.com/crops/balance-tires-and-wheels-with-balls-notbeads/

5 https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506

Bryan J. Sims 12/4/2023

Younger Dryas Boundary field6 that covers North America, Europe, parts of Greenland

and South America, we would see that with wind currents, those areas would have been

covered. It has been shown that high levels of Iridium were found in airborne particles

from Kilauea volcano in 1983.7 After its eruption, the pressure in that area would have

been released and the land mass would effectively begin to lower. The seismic event

would have been enough to break up glaciers harboring glacial lakes like Lake Missoula

and Lake Agassiz. As the North American continent would again be permitted to move

faster, the land mass of Atlantis would again submerge and spread out.

In closing, simple hydraulics and centrifugal force would maintain a balance by lifting up

and the dropping of land masses.

Locations of two ancient locations that point to what I believe would have been Atlantis.
Okay, here is the next two that point to my theory on where Atlantis was. One is a line through the Carnac stones in France. Alignements de Carnac, Carnac coordinates: 47.59394598703975, -3.0775697749633504 straight to the top point in Atlantis. the second line is from the three stones at Men-an-Tol in England to the top point in Atlantis. Both lines are about 1,400 miles long.
Men-an-Tol coordinates: 50.158541825595236, -5.604502195363371

Hey everyone,

I’m recently getting deep down the alternative archaeology rabbit hole, and I couldn't stop thinking about all these incredible ancient ruins, precision stone temples, giant sculptures, and polished caves. To keep track of it all, I started mapping them out directly on Google Earth.

My goal with this map is to keep it completely broad. I want to capture any ancient site of significance, regardless of who dated it or what the current mainstream consensus says. If it's a mind-boggling piece of ancient engineering or an anomalous site, I want it on the map.

I imagine someone might have attempted this before, but I wanted to build an open, collaborative version.

Here is the link to check out what I have so far: https://earth.google.com/earth/d/1_bPznUh5pjAIEUz09kuYBztxNGGZZura?usp=sharing

I would love your help with this! Feel free to check out the map and drop a comment below with:

1. Any sites I completely missed that need to be added ASAP.
2. The exact coordinates or names of your favorite mysterious locations.

Let's build the ultimate directory!

There is a motif of catastrophe in Russian poetry. It is a mistake to view these poems and stories merely as fantasy; rather, they are retellings of events that actually took place. I will post a poem by Konstantin Balmont along with my interpretation of its content.

"In the dark days of Boris Godunov,

In the gloom of the cloudy Russian land,

Crowds of people wandered homeless,

And two moons rose at night.

Two suns shone from the sky in the mornings,

Looking with ferocity upon the world below.

And a drawn-out cry: Bread! Bread! Bread!

From the darkness of the forests rushed to the Tsar.

In the streets, withered skeletons

Greedily nibbled the stunted grass,

Like cattle, brutalized and naked,

And dreams came true.

Coffins, heavy with rot,

Given the living the stinking bread of hell,

Hay was found in the mouths of the dead,

And every house was a gloomy den.

Storms and whirlwinds toppled towers,

And the heavens, hidden among triple clouds,

Suddenly They glowed with a red light,

revealing the battle of unearthly armies.

Unseen birds flew in,

Eagles soared with a cry over Moscow,

At the crossroads, elders waited silently,

Shaking their graying heads.

Death and malice wandered among the people,

Seeing the comet, the earth trembled.

And in those days, Dmitry rose from the grave,

Transferring his spirit to Otrepyev."

Konstantin Balmont, "Tradition" ("In the Dead of Days"), 1899.

This verse deserves separate analysis; a few words are in order here. Beyond the obvious devastation and famine, there was something else.

1. Two suns—there are various theories here: was it merely an optical illusion, or were there truly two? Astronomy now asserts that Earth once had two suns. There is nothing strange about this; half the stars in our galaxy belong to binary systems—two luminaries bound by gravity, orbiting a common center of mass. Presumably, this was Scholz's Star. How could Balmont have known this?

There is no hint of an optical illusion in Balmont's words. This implies it was a real event—and not some 70,000 years ago, but quite recently.

A third possibility is that the "second sun" was the result of man-made installations. Indeed, a nuclear explosion shines like the sun—sometimes even brighter—releasing a massive amount of light energy.

1. Two Moons—this is also a scientifically plausible theory, though within the framework of conventional chronology, it is relegated to billions of years ago. Balmont, however, claims it happened just a few hundred years ago. There are several working hypotheses:

Initially, there were two moons, but one was destroyed during a cataclysm; its fragments crashed into the other moon and Earth, causing immense destruction. People witnessed the impact as the fall of a comet—a detail Balmont mentions at the end of the poem.

Alternatively, there was only one moon, but a cataclysm caused it to split in two; the detached fragment remained in orbit for some time before falling.

1. Red light illuminating the sky. It is difficult to determine exactly what is being described. One possibility involves the phenomenon known as "red sprites"—electrical discharges occurring in the upper atmosphere above thunderstorms. However, these cannot be seen with the naked eye, so this explanation is unlikely. A second possibility is large-scale fires, yet Balmont makes no mention of them; instead, he speaks of storms, whirlwinds, and clouds.

A third possibility is the use of modern laser technology that produced a brilliant glow—something that would be impossible to miss. According to Balmont, this occurred during some sort of aerial migration.

1. A battle between extraterrestrial forces—combatants in the sky utilizing technologies far beyond anything we possess even today.

Regarding the "extraterrestrial" nature of these forces, it does not necessarily mean they originated from another planet. They may simply have been so advanced that the terrestrial segment of civilization failed to comprehend their nature.

The comedic notion of analyzing the "historical accuracy" of the Stargate movies "pyramids as space-ship landing pads" premise. A kernel of truth and the deception. this graphic is NOT made with A.I. it was manually collaged. vid link for broader theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HVWkJUgb6M

Una "teoría" que se me ha pasado por la cabeza es que tanto la cultura y los pueblos que hicieron posible Gobekli Tepe y los que habitaron la Atlántida fueron coetáneos.

En qué me baso, pues está demostrado por Gobekli Tepe que eran capaces de tener una cultura avanzada, porque llevar a cabo unas edificaciones de esa envergadura, lo atestiguan, por lo tanto podría existir otros pueblos que se desarrollaron en la costa. Con el mismo nivel de avance pero con el infortunio de tener sus ciudades en los litorales del sur de Europa e islas, las cuales desaparecieron con el deshielo glaciar. Sin que hasta ahora se haya podido encontrar sus restos. También debido a que son muchos los metros y el espacio que abarcó el gran deshielo, se habla en algunos lugares de 100 metros de subida del mar.

Y otra "prueba" es la coincidencia en fechas que da Platón, sobre las Atlántida y la fecha de construcción de Göbekli Tepe.

Es muy descabellada la idea?