MORE RESPONSES TO GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS

 

And replies from Andrew Collins.

From Carol Behanc

Congratulations on your website, and on your book, Gateway to Atlantis, which I am currently reading. You've converted me from Antarctica, which was impressed upon my mind as being the site of Atlantis, since reading the Flem-Ath's book a few years ago. Big question: If Atlantis was NOT in the Mediterranean, then why are you using a photo of the Portara in Naxos as your cover photo??? Naxos is very definitely in the Mediterranean, and has no connection with Atlantis, as far as I've ever heard!!

Andrew Collins replies:

When I began researching Atlantis for the book I too believed that Antarctica was Atlantis. However, as I read more and more it became clear that this was simply not the case. To start with it is to the south and not in the far west, the domain of Atlas, hence the name Atlantic and Atlantis (daughter of Atlas). Secondly, if we suppose Antarctica was Atlantis then what was the `opposite continent' beyond it? The Asian continent. It just doesn't make sense. Furthermore, so far there is no hard evidence that it was ever occupied. This said, I do believe that Antarctica was once occupied although this would have been tens of thousands of years ago, and not during the timeframe suggested by Plato. Hapgood's evidence of maps having been made of Antarctica prior to 4000 BC is also persuasive, although this is no reason to link it with Plato's Atlantis.

On the subject of the Apollo Gate, Naxos, the site has a special place in my heart. I have used it as a meditational aid when focusing on Atlantis. It is an ideal image to imagine as an entrance into the Atlantic Ocean akin to the legendary Pillars of Hercules, hence the title GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS.

 

Carol Behanc continues:

Re the "opposite continent", couldn't that just be all the continents, as described by the Flem-Aths, that surround the World Ocean, as viewed from Antarctica. The Atlanteans may not have subdivided the world land mass into continents, as we do now.

 

Andrew Collins replies:

We must go only on what Plato states. He says that Atlantis was an island that lay before an opposite continent to which it was linked via a series of other islands. These enabled ancient voyagers to reach the Opposite Continent from Atlantis. There seems to be no way that this can fit the Antarctica picture. What are the other islands? I, of course, suggest they are the Bahamas chain, the Mid Caribbean group and the Lesser Antilles which all link to the major islands of the Greater Antilles, leading up to one of the islands in this group.

What islands are we talking about if we choose Antarctica? The Melanesian and Micronesian islands? If so, then we are back to Southast Asia being the Opposite Continent.

Remember too that there are two stratums of data being drawn together into one by Plato and those who introduced this subject to the Mediterranean world. Firstly, one is in the timeframe of the existence and `destruction' of Atlantis and another, which is much later, conceivably during the first millennium BC. Can ancient mariners have viewed the world in such a topsy turvy way as to mistake Southeast Asia for another continent altogether. It is remotely possible, but unlikely.

On top of this we have the clear reference in the CRITIAS to a much smaller island that could have been just 400 by 600 kilometres in size. This could never have been Antarctica. The references elsewhere in the Atlantis dialogues to Atlantis being the size of Libya (north Africa) and Asia (from the Nile to the Indus Valley) in size is, as I have proposed, the extent of the Atlantean empire of islands and not any conceived of landmass.

 

 

From: "John Geiger"

A Review by John of GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS for the newsgroup SYNCHRONISTIC and sent to Andrew for his comments.

I purchased the book because David Rohl wrote the introduction which validated Andrew Collins for me although Rohl puts down Sitchin, Hoagland and others in the introduction as new age archaeologists which just proves that even the best have faults.

In Part 1, he reviews the history of the literary references to Atlantis from Plato forward which is a good summary including probably most of the significant historical sources in his bibliography.

Part 2 covers summarily most of the pre-Columbian old world contact with the Americas with criticism of the official response often given to the scanty findings including the following which is even more appropriate to the official UFO responses: "As may be seen, the whole Bay of Jars affair degenerated into a sensitive issue of international and political concern that has now ruined any chances we have of confirming the presence of Roman wrecks on the seabed outside Rio de Janeiro. This appalling situation makes me wonder just how many times national politics have stood in the way of truth when it comes to presenting evidence of pre-Columbian contact with the supposed 'New World.'" In his bibliography he does not utilize or cite Henrietta Mertz which shows that even a fairly good scholar misses some things (or he is elevating her to the status of Sitchin) as she has contributed one important book to the location issue.

Conquest, part 3, is post-Columbian contact especially as it relates to the then contemporary speculations on Atlantis and his determination of the probable location which he puts south of Havana Cuba on a submerged plain around the Isle of Youth. My inclination is that the site was around and involved Andros Island in the Bahamas. I think he is right equating Cuba with the historical Hesperides. Collins devotes considerable attention in part 4 "Destruction" to the physical demise of Atlantis which ties in to a recently published book, The Day Behemoth and Leviathan Died, written by my friend David Allen Deal which is important for two original ideas interspersed with some interesting tidbits most scholars have overlooked as evidenced by the following. Herodotus in book 2.142 relates that the Egyptians told him that "The sun, however, had within this period of time, on four several occasions, moved from his usual course, twice rising where he now sets, and twice setting where he now rises."

That is incredible by asserting that the sun changed its direction. But it probably happened-Deal delineates the mechanism-and the three "change" events are described biblically (I challenge you to find them.) More important for me was his description of the catastrophy which Sitchin calls the celestial battle in the 12th planet where the north wind impacts the earth leaving the hammered bracelet (Deal calls north wind "Tristan.") It is amazing that two such diverse individuals could conclude the same thing from totally different approaches. Deal also lays out the mechanism for Noah's flood (his second original idea) with some very interesting insights about its final resting place.

The connection of Deal with Collins' Gateway to Atlantis is the catastrophy which ended Atlantis and which Noah survived. Collins scenario is deficient but a good best guess with just his source material. Deal proposes that we were tangentially impacted along the 90 degree east line south of the Bay of Bengal which shifted our rotational axis from Hudson bay to its current location. This mechanism would slosh the oceans around enough to wash away everything but the foundations of a city in the Carribean. Collins leaves the impression that the mechanism of the destruction was a comet (not an asteroid) which broke up creating the Carolina Bays along the mid-Atlantic coast of the US; but this, if related, I would attribute to ejecta impacting from the Indian ocean 90 degree east proposed asteroid nearly tangential impact.

When Deal described this to me in the early 90's, my first reaction was that this explained how the mammoths were quick frozen in siberia by being rather suddenly transferred climatically from Minnisotta in the summer to the north pole in 20 min plusthe wind chill factor. Deal is dedicated to biblical accuracy and dating which detracts from the book, and this dedication has made for an interesting friendship with me, the atheist, over the years. Collins book covers the history of the Atlantis legend really thoroughly, treats well pre-columbian contacts with the new world, argues for carribean/gulf of mexico location (particularly the Island of Youth south of Cuba) and at least begins a dialogue about the nature of the catastrophe which destroyed the legendary city. For those intrigued by Atlantis, it should be added to your personal library. This is longer than I intended, John Geiger

Andrew Collins replies:

Thanks for the review. Obviously I have been unaware of the Metz or Deal material and so await some further information on this front. On the subject of the Carolina Bays, an Atlantic event involving their formation has also been proposed by Emilio Spedicato of Bergamo University. This was also Otto Muck's contention as well.

The distribution of the bays and the lack of any debris found in them argues against them being secondary impact craters of an event which happened in the Indian Ocean. Moreover, they are orientated north-west to south-east, which makes no sense of them being orientated towards the same. There seems to be overwhelming evidence to suggest that the comet nuclei involved approached from Siberia/Alaska direction as per the Tunguska event of 1908, which was also a comet. I do, however, accept that it might not have been an isolated incident, however, I reject Tollman's idea of seven pieces of a comet hitting different parts of the world at the same time. I do accept that the event might well have caused a crustal displacement of the type suggested by Hapgood et al. The orientation of the bays would conform to some degree with the suggested shift of the north pole from the Hudson Bay to its present position.

Like your idea about Andros being the centre of the Bahama/Atlantean culture. The island holds many mysteries. However, Manson Valentine found the greatest concentration of possible archaeological sites in the south-west corner of the Great Bahama Bank facing out towards the Old Bahama Channel and nearby Cuba. This hints at a strong relationship between the two landmasses. Moreover, I consider that Plato was basing his topographical description not necessarily on the central focus of the pre-8000 BC culture, but on reports reaching his world of what Cuba looked like in his age.

These would have been received from mostly Iberic Phoenician and Carthaginian vessels returning from this region. I don't believe that anything of what Plato says about Atlantis other than perhaps the seven-fold division of the city, the manner in which it was destroyed and its whereabouts are based on the earlier timeframe.

Thanks once again for your review. I look forward to reading the Metz and Deal material in due course.