Thread: Atlantis and Lumeria - Ancient and advanced civilization

I think a key here is the assumptions that go along with the phrase 'technically advanced'. Several past civilizations had very good engineering and architecture. This doesn't however imply things like engines or electronics. Archimedes is said to have said that given a suitable place to stand, he could move the world with a lever. I think that there's something to be said for that. I've moved and positioned objects weighing several thousand pounds using just levers, rollers, blocks, and careful planning. Maybe someone who didn't see the result or didn't have a good intuitive understanding of statics and dynamics would assume that I must have used levitation or some advanced technology.

No, I don't presume to disprove anything with one anecdote, its just to illustrate that people's intuitions can go wrong about this sort of thing when they don't know how something was done.

I think that most of the stuff about Atlantis and Lemuria was made up by Theosophists. I used to believe it in the mid-90's before I recognized that I couldn't believe any of that stuff and had to look at it all fresh. Now I think the 'mainstream' view of history is basically correct, and the challenge for people like myself who believe in paranormal stuff is to figure out how that fits. The approach that the Theosophists took, which was to attack the credibility of science without offering scientifically strong arguments, is not healthy in my view. It drives a destructive wedge between an occultist's mind and reason, and between his mind and the rest of society. This would be necessary if the occultist was right, but in my case he wasn't.

Part of what changed this for me was going to math graduate school. Ideas which had previously seemed plausible no longer seemed at all plausible after my understanding of system dynamics and topology improved. And this taught me how limited I am by all of these abstract ways of thinking, even though I already knew it intellectually before that. Also I learned that just because something seems emotionally compelling and seems to fit with everything I already 'know' doesn't mean that it actually makes any sense. Again I already knew that at some level, but without recognizing the implications to that extent. I don't think a person can learn this from 'popular' science expositions, it takes intensive study of a subject that requires significant rigor, and I doubt that a person can even know what that is without doing it. Consequently I doubt I can convince anyone else of this. So maybe my own struggle was to a significant extent a cruel joke with not much to show for it.

If you don't care what I think just let it go, I don't feel like arguing. I just responded because its a topic I looked into a fair amount and put a lot of thought into.

I do agree with the possibility that very advanced lever and pulley systems could account for many of these ancient monuments. However there is still more significant data available, such as the precision of the cuts and measurements. In Giza, specifically, there are hallways which are completely straight down to the millimeter.

Furthermore, the fact that there are ruins which are deep underwater also leads me to believe that there is something significant to the possibility of ancient civilizations far predating known history.

I do not know who the majority of promoters of Atlantis/Lumeria theory is, and I'm not exactly sure if your label "theosophist" is correct. I, for one, believe in Science and support the scientific method to a pretty great extent. It is due to the fact that I am so in favor of the Scientific Method that I continue to bring up possibilities which some would consider far-fetched. I believe it is our job to explore, and continue exploring. And while I agree that one must follow certain sciences more intensely if they want a real grip on it, you cannot consider mythology if you trap yourself in the perspective of a historian. Rooting yourself too deeply in one particular scientific realm and you begin to fit everything into a narrower and narrower perspective, and then write off anything that doesn't fit, simply because it doesn't fit a viewpoint which you have grown attached to. So too much research can create the same problem in the scientist that you described in the theosophist writing off scientific theory.

I do not wish to argue and frankly I'd like to avoid an argument at all costs in this thread. Because I don't know. But I do require more than the sentiment that you did the research but then got really into math and decided it was foolish. I'm not sure what mindset you were in, and by the sound of it you were helping yourself by claiming a more mainstream worldview. Perhaps it was the healthiest thing you could do. For the sake of your mental health, you are certainly permitted not to explore the same possibilities which fascinate me. For the sake of my mental health, I must continue to play with possibility. So if you would like to examine this evidence, perhaps explain what you may have learned about ley-lines and vortexes, I would be keenly interested. I find the coincidence too great to be meaningless.

I think it was at Puma Punku, where they looked at tool marks left on building blocks under powerful microscope to compare them to tool marks left by cutting-edge modern technology. They came to conclusion, that walls build in Puma Punku were cut by technique or tools that are far more advanced than our modern tools are.

I do believe, that our civilization is not the first one.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

But I do require more than the sentiment that you did the research but then got really into math and decided it was foolish.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of my understanding and experience. But I agree that me writing pages and pages trying try to flesh all of that out better probably isn't going to do either of us any good. I think that me telling you what I think about vortexes is likely to be a waste of time for the same reason. Anything I say will from the outset seem inadequately supported and contrary to possibilities you want to consider, but if I take the time to support it more rigorously that will just seem like a more and more persistent attack.

As a possible clarification in my first point in the previous point: An ancient civilization can be more advanced than ours in some regards while also lacking much of our technology. My suggestion wasn't that past civilizations weren't advanced, and that they did everything with more primitive technology. My suggestion was that its worth considering what being advanced means, and not assuming that they were equal to or ahead of us in some general technological sense just because they could do certain things that we can't do as well.

That aside, here's another idea which I haven't mentioned for a while which might be helpful....A thought about an ancient civilization can feel real because other people are thinking about it, and because it is somehow in some sense in our 'past', but this isn't the same as being in our historical past. For instance, suppose that Atlantis was real, and then we changed our thoughts about life in a way that changed both our present and the history leading up to it. Now Atlantis is 'gone', but not just buried in a geological sense, its gone as if it was never there except in our emotional or 'soul' memories. Or it might not even have been in this world, which is a similar way of trying to express the same thought.

If you want additional ideas about Atlantis, Lemuria, and other past civilizations, then Thinking and Destiny by H. W. Percival, which is available for free at thewordfoundation.com, has a lot about that. Percival was also a Theosophist, but I think that a very large portion of late 19th, early 20th century occult/mystic thought can be fairly characterized as Theosophist. The movement had a huge impact. Max Heindel, for example, called himself a Rosicrucian, but if you compare his Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception to Theosophy by Rudolph Steiner, its pretty much the same stuff. There's the blindness that comes from having too narrow a focus, but also the blindness of having inadequate context and information about what you're trying to form reasonable hypotheses about.

In any case, I wish you a fruitful exploration.

I agree that when I say technologically advanced, it can be interpreted to mean I'm implying they had particular technology that there's no evidence of. Granted, they did find in Gabon that the uranium they've been mining has already been used, as though a nuclear reactor did exist in prehistory.

And again, if you were to watch Magical Egypt, you would find there's a lot of interesting aspects to the Pyramids which reveal an interesting combination between science, medicine, art, architecture and mathematics. Like I said earlier, they've already replicated the pyramid's dimensions and discovered healing properties.

And again, it's not explainable how Yonaguni got where it is in the time frame historians and archaeologists have allotted for it. It had to have been built much earlier than when it is supposed most of these ancient sites were erected, because the world needed to take a great shift in order to move the ancient site under water.

I'd like to address your point about the metaphysical or belief-based reality theory regarding Atlantis, as well, though. This is an interesting concept, though it's difficult to really say if history can be affected by our combined expectations. Intuitively I would say that history is accumulative, but there's also a history of thought-forms, the rising and falling Gods which are essentially tulpae, and there's a whole mythology that exists to a subtle and mental extent, like a war between human ethos and the symbols tied to ethos. A culture's ethos, or collective beliefs, attitudes, ethics, etc, is reflected symbolically through their mythology.

However, there is a fine line between myth and history, and while it's irrefutable to claim that myth is anything less than a symbolic means or maintaining cultural traditions, it also seems to be a way of preserving very old history. It turns into myth because as a society decays in intelligence or understanding, or a story is transferred to a new society, they are forced to understand the history symbolically. So they understand that their forefathers founded their society on flying bird boats, and the like.

Intuitively I believe there was an ancient society but I believe reality may be very different than we think it is, and there's a lot to the mystery that I do not understand.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Granted, they did find in Gabon that the uranium they've been mining has already been used, as though a nuclear reactor did exist in prehistory.

The existence of an natural reactor does not at all imply nuclear technology (Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Similarly the existence of a mine with uranium in it also does not imply uranium mining. Uranium ore is typically only about 0.1% Uranium, and Uranium decays into Radium and Lead, both of which have primitive (though toxic) uses. Maybe this was your point, but it wasn't clear to me.

If you want to avoid an argument "at all costs", just don't reply and I'll leave you alone now.

Here's a couple of thoughts:

First, humans have possessed about the same potential for intelligence for tens of thousands of years; why can't they have made the pyramids with such precision? Ancient peoples were just ancient; they weren't stupid, and there should be no reason we need to be amazed at their building skills or surprised if they were a bit more advanced than we at first thought -- or are willing to admit, as it were.

Second, the earth has been spinning for a very long time, with advanced life like us occupying it for millions of years. Since the entire known human history has moved from hunter-gatherers to space travel and cell phones in less than 25,000 years, yet homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands, why couldn't we have gone through some cycle of development and destruction once or twice before? For that matter, who is to say that some other race of beings (small intelligent dinosaurs being one of my favorites) didn't go through multiple cycles as well? And evidence might be truly scares -- I saw "Life After People," and was suitable amazed at how quickly the planet cleans up after its infestations.

I guess I offer these thoughts not for the sake of argument, but to suggest that this pastime humans have of imagining wonderful and mystical explanations for what might well be just inevitable (and, for lack of evidence, irretrievable) history that happened without any input from us.

Shadowofwind - I want to avoid a bickering match. I want to avoid defensive attitudes. I don't have my mind made up on the subject and defensiveness won't get me anywhere. I am merely presenting all the evidence I've obtained. Some of it is obviously debunkable.

Sageous - This essentially reflects my opinion. The only difference being that some of the precision regarding the pyramids is very difficult to imagine without precision cutting tools that, as far as I can tell, would require energy and engines which archeologists do not believe ever existed on the planet before the last century. You're right that the earth can clean up pretty quickly, but there is something that does have a tendency to survive, and that's granite and limestone, which is what these ancient sites are made from.

What I find most curious is the placement of these ancient sites, especially regarding the fact that so many of them form a perfect straight line across the planet. I also can't help but believe the so-called vile vortices are linked. But so far no single theory has made a whole lot of sense, least of all the channelings from Seth and what have you.

Originally Posted by gab

I think it was at Puma Punku, where they looked at tool marks left on building blocks under powerful microscope to compare them to tool marks left by cutting-edge modern technology. They came to conclusion, that walls build in Puma Punku were cut by technique or tools that are far more advanced than our modern tools are.

I do believe, that our civilization is not the first one.

Puma Punku (spelling?) blows my mind away!!

I recently watched a program on ancient Egypt. It was on netflix if anyone is curious. The mini series has about five episodes. The most amazing site was one that reminded me of Puma Punku. It also features perfectly cut blocks and stones that show signs of advanced technology. They also can't figure out what those features are for.

But! The biggest difference between ancient technologies and today is capitalism. As far as I can see ancient technology was always tied up with the mystery religions. I think that's why the knowledge was lost.

Who knows! I hope we find more sites like Puma Punku

All these myths must originate from some kind of truth

I forgot the site where I read this but supposedly Atlantis and Lumeria were highly advanced civilizations and had some kind of power that harnesses a universal energy.



After Lemuria and Atlantis were destroyed, survivors fled to different areas and created civilizations like Tiwanaku ( Puma Pumku ), Mayan, Egyptian. Then those civilizations were destroyed or invaded/overrun. The story of Atlantis was told to Plato by an Egyptian priest.

One universal truth was passed down through all these civilizations and supposedly lost. Really it's hard to understand anything about these ancient civilizations without delving into the study of human spirit.

I do believe a higher dimension/universal energy can be harnessed and channeled into the physical realm but this energy/higher dimension comes from within human beings. Meditation basically does this. But supposedly Pyramids are a natural technology that "raises your vibration" which I totally believe but have no idea how that technology works.


I believe we are headed into another "Atlantis/Lemuria" type of society.

Love, peace, creativity, passion, joy.. these are the things that really matter to the human spirit and are all experienced subjectively. I for one am really grateful to be alive in this time period.


That theorized grid system you posted is interesting Original_Poster. The world must have been connected at some point

One should be wary of the type of pyramid. Giza is actually 8-sided, and this has a beneficial effect but a 4-sided pyramid is actually harmful to the body in the long run.

Here's what I think bout Atlantis. It was the Indus Valley civilisation. Look it up. I think Plato put all the myths that had accumulated about it into a cohesive story, like Rick Riordan did with The Kane Chronicles

Damn I remember this thread. Recently I learned that the Bermuda Triangle doesn't actually account for a statistically relevant number of ships or planes lost than any other portion of the sea that size. So perhaps calling them "Vile vortices" isn't fair but it's how they're recognized.

Atlantis was a story. Lemuria was a hypothesis as to why there were lemur ascestral fossils in both India and Madagascar. There isn't any real basis for the existence of either.



This really goes into the more New Age stuff, but he still talks about why neither are real.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

What do you think the chances are that there may have existed an ancient and technologically advanced society which was wiped out, with nearly all evidence removed?

The evidence strikes me as compelling.

Thank you, I lol'd.

Question: Why couldn't we recreate the pyramids even with today's advanced technology in the precision they were created? Why do ancient sites form their own equator? Why do ancient ruins exist in the friggin ocean? Etc.

Hypothesis: Technologically advanced ancient civilization.

Problem: Would be more evidence

Potentially, but how do you solve these riddles?

Doesn't matter, your hypothesis is invalid.

But can you answer the question?

No, but your hypothesis is invalid.

How fucking constructive of you.

The Mystery of Pumapunku

This thread exists to provide hypotheses not debunk them, friend.

Debunking hypotheses is part of any effective process of forming hypotheses.

The sea level has gone up 100 meters in the past 20,000 years, and 50 meters in the past 10,000 years. Cities tend to be built on flat areas like river deltas, since they're good for farming and navigation, and easy to build on. As an example, if the grade in a particular area were 6%, which is relatively steep for a road, that would put a 20,000 year old shoreline 'city' more than 50 kilometers out at sea. (Though most 'ruins' aren't that old of course.) Additionally, there are other reasons that land rises and falls. Land can sink during earthquakes. Cities built on river delta silt tend to sink under their own weight, a process which can be greatly accelerated by storm erosion. In northern latitudes where there were glaciers, land tends to sink as nearby land rises as its decompressed as the ice melts. So yeah, there are ruins in the ocean.

The idea that the pyramids can't be recreated with today's technology is just misinformation. Of course its always possible to find an academic of some sort who can't imagine how a particular problem was solved. This doesn't mean there aren't 10 other academics who can solve it. Of course those 10 other guys don't get interviewed by cable TV because that doesn't sell ads.

I don't understand what it means for a site to have its own equator. The sun and moon go down in the west and come up in the east. Ancient people were 1000 times more aware of the movement of heavenly bodies than modern people, since almost everything important in their lives depended on understanding and predicting seasons. I'd be surprised for significant ancient ruins not to have precisely engineered east-west divisions and other such things. Nobody has been suggesting ancient people were stupid. Except maybe for the people who say that that ancient people couldn't plausibly accomplish anything without outside help or the equivalent of modern electronics.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

The idea that the pyramids can't be recreated with today's technology is just misinformation. Of course its always possible to find an academic of some sort who can't imagine how a particular problem was solved. This doesn't mean there aren't 10 other academics who can solve it. Of course those 10 other guys don't get interviewed by cable TV because that doesn't sell ads.

Some more context for this statement....My current company, which is pretty low tech, uses granite that's engineered to micrometers. My previous company dealt with crystals that were polished with tolerances in nanometers, almost layers of atoms. These are not architectural applications of course. But that's because modern people with money don't desire that kind of precision with architecture. If they did, engineers could be hired to do that. And if it needed to be done without the assistance of lasers and whatnot, that could be done too, it would just take more time and resources to develop a solution, which would cost more.

The article linked by StephL debunks the alien theory which was never made in this thread, fails to explain the precision of the stones and calls it a day. That isn't constructive by a long shot.

I don't doubt that modern technology could accomplish this, and now that I look at it, the prevalent theory on Yonaguni is that an earthquake shoved it under water. However, the dates these ancient sites were erected still remain total ballpark estimations, and so far I haven't found a viable means of debunking the theory that many of them were inherited. Or at the very least, Khufu took a fuck longer to build than is supposed. The only reason it's supposed they erected it so quickly was because they built it for that particular Pharaoh. Frankly I find that construction time more improbable to believe than that they inherited the pyramids and repurposed them.

If the ancients built any of them less than 12,000 years ago, we are starkly underestimating how brilliant they were. Not just their capability to build really big stuff, but to make ducts perfectly straight within a millimeter that span hundreds of feet, and to have such perfect symmetry and mathematical impeccability regarding so many frivolous measurements, far surpassing the extraordinary attention to detail shown by the ancient Greeks both in their statues and the Parthenon. The Parthenon monuments the epitome of ancient greek accomplishments and still pales in comparison. In fact ancient monuments paint a picture of devolving architectural ability rather than what you assume would be the opposite. It would also mean Egyptians traveled to the new world and then went to Easter Island. I'm not saying this is all impossible, I'm just saying it continues to remain worthwhile to investigate the possibility that they inherited these structures from an older, more advanced civilization. I believe it's less far-fetched to imagine that human civilization was once far more advanced than we give them credit for. The details of these monuments alone and their synchronicity with Earth's magnetic field prove they were far more advanced than we give them credit for already, but it's still out of the question that their tools were more advanced as well.

Hitting a few highlights, not in order....

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The details of these monuments alone and their synchronicity with Earth's magnetic field prove they were far more advanced than we give them credit for already, but it's still out of the question that their tools were more advanced as well.

What is synchronous with the earth's magnetic field and what does that show? The magnetic field is approximately in line with the axis of rotation, though it drifts around a bit more. What shows awareness of the magnetic field, as opposed to the earth's rotation? And who is this "we" who doesn't imagine them making careful and accurate astronomical measurements?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I don't doubt that modern technology could accomplish this

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Why couldn't we recreate the pyramids even with today's advanced technology in the precision they were created?

It seems that either there's some nuance lost here in translation to words, or you're moving the goalposts.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

If the ancients built any of them less than 12,000 years ago, we are starkly underestimating how brilliant they were. Not just their capability to build really big stuff, but to make ducts perfectly straight within a millimeter that span hundreds of feet, and to have such perfect symmetry and mathematical impeccability regarding so many frivolous measurements, far surpassing the extraordinary attention to detail shown by the ancient Greeks both in their statues and the Parthenon.

Again, who is this "we"? These were men, not chimps. Men can put a man on the moon, and they can build big precise stone structures with careful engineering and slave labor, if that's what they value. Maybe the Greeks cared more about aesthetics.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

It would also mean Egyptians traveled to the new world and then went to Easter Island.

I don't see how this follows at all. Some problems have natural solutions which arise where they are needed. People share ideas with other people who travel other places. People get ideas telepathetically from other remote people, particularly where gods are involved.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The article linked by StephL debunks the alien theory which was never made in this thread, fails to explain the precision of the stones and calls it a day. That isn't constructive by a long shot.

But you find theories about aliens being involved with man's technological development to be credible, that is a relevant aspect of where you are truly coming from. And the underlying psychology, logic, and worldview is very much connected. Unless the goal is to play games on the surface while avoiding the heart of things, I think she was on topic. (Though I didn't follow the link, so I'm just guessing from your response.)

Large scale farming tends to be labor intensive during short periods, with a lot of spare time in other seasons. They unavoidably had extra time and not much else to occupy it. I don't see how millimeter precision over hundreds of feet is a big deal. I'd try using a bright lamp in a box with a millimeter slit on each side, a measuring standard like a stout stick, and patience. If that didn't work, I'd consider why it failed, and modify the approach accordingly. Maybe the video didn't address the precision of the stones because like me they didn't understand why its considered a problem.

The precision of those sort of things are not anything special. If you just put a ruler across two blocks you can make sure they are even in size with each other. It doesn't take any advanced technology what so ever. It just takes some guy with a ruler.

Also, cutting stone doesn't require advanced tools. You could carve pretty much anything out of stone, using just a rock as a tool. It would take forever, but it is entirely possible. The problem with early tools is that they are slower than power tools, and are often made out of softer metals that need to be resharped often. There wasn't any issue with a lack of precision.

In the end attention to detail, is simply attention to detail. None of those things are beyond humans with the most simple of tools. You don't need advanced tools to make straight lines, and the length and size doesn't matter in the slightest. If you can make a straight even block two inches long then you can do it 1000 miles long. All it takes is you doing it two inches at a time.

Also all the talk of stuff lining up is just gibberish. People like to draw lines all over maps and try to connect points but they don't actually line up in meaningful ways. It is just a trick to use lines in fancy patterns that mimic meaning when there is none.

Shadowofwind - I never did say aliens were necessary to explain this. Not once. The link debunks aliens, which is a hypothesis I never brought up. This is something I'm having a problem with. My position is being made for me by virtue of the fact that I bring up these questions. If I were to ask "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Would it be considered feasible to respond "Not because of aliens?" This is not a thread where I try to prove a claim, the intention was made very clearly that this thread is here in order to discuss ancient mysteries, not argue whether or not they came from aliens. If someone wants to provide evidence they came from aliens and another person wants to then respond why it's improbable that falls in line with the thread, but StephL's link was non-sequitur.

Their structures follow the electro-magnetic field in the sense that ancient ruins fall into the gridlines I've laid out in the OP. Furthermore, when they attempted to build the whitehouse so the sides matched up perfectly with directions, they failed to come close to the pyramid's precision in this endeavor. Through their harmonization with the EM field, they've got healing properties (which I also believe I've linked)

When I said originally that we couldn't recreate these structure with modern technology I was mirroring this claim as laid out by many of the sources I'm picking this information from. I agree that this is not provable based on one failed attempt. However, there is a very short timeline Egyptologists argue that the Pyramid of Khufu was erected in, and I remain very doubtful even with today's tools we could accomplish that level of precision in such a short time. Even if you agree that it was erected less around the era it's assumed, you still seem to have as much trouble with the proposed timeline that I do. And even Alric, apparently.