An A-Z Guide To The Search For Plato's Atlantis

Recent Updates

Immanuel Velikovsky

Fritzius, Robert

Robert S. (Bob) Fritzius is a retired electrical engineer. He is also a Velikovskian catastrophist and additionally is the author of a short article on his website apparently supporting the Atlantis opinions of Olof Rudbeck(a) with the comment that “I see no fault with his thesis, and so far, no contradiction with what is known of Swedish ancient history and Baltic geography.”




Warshofsky, Fred (L)

Fred Warshofsky is an American science writer and film director. In 1977, he Fred-warshofskypublished Doomsday: The Science of Catastrophe in which he reviews the catastrophist literature of his day, particularly the work of Velikovsky. He also fleetingly touches on the subject of Atlantis[1146.87] noting “the increasing evidence that Atlantis was an island city in the Aegean”, namely Santorini, which matches Atlantis “in startling detail.”

Walworth, Ralph Franklin (L)

Ralph Franklin Walworth (1921-2000) was English geologist and author of Subdue the Earth[1145], which gives an overview of catastrophism not too long after Velikovsky had generated a storm of controvery with the publication of his Worlds in Collision[0037].  Walworth covers subjects such as plate tectonics, mountain building and ice age theory. Perhaps inevitably, he devotes a section of his work to the subject of Atlantis and considers the Atlantic as its most likely location.

Klimasturz (t)

Klimasturz(e) is a word, coined by Rutger Sernander (1866-1944) a Swedish botanist and archaeologist, meaning a ‘plunge’ in climate that leads to major or minor ice ages. It is a term used by some writers to describe a rapid climate deterioration such as the Younger Dryas.

Immanuel Velikovsky entitled chapter 11 of his Earth in Upheaval ‘Klimasturz’ as it is concerned with evidence of rapid climate changes resulting from the global catastrophes that he claims occurred in both the 15th and 8th centuries BC.


Baalbek, situated in the Bekka Valley in Lebanon, undoubtedly presents us with what I consider to be one of the greatest mysteries of the ancient world. It was the site of a most impressive Roman temple complex dedicated to Jupiter. However, the very name Baalbek suggests an earlier connection with the Caananite/Phoenician god Baal.

*Velikovsky(i) and others have supported the idea that Baakbek was in fact the location of the biblical Dan, recorded as the most northern city of ancient Israel.

One commentator has suggested a link with Indian yogis!(t)*

Although the Roman remains are still impressive, it is some blocks in the lower and presumably earlier courses(d), that have continued to stump archaeologists, three of which are of cut limestone and are estimated to weigh baalbek3up to 800 tons(c). (compare with content of link(k))

An article(q) by Gian J. Quasara regarding this strange masonry is worth a read.

Even more disturbing is a block still lying in a nearby quarry, where it was cut, and which has been calculated to exceed 1000 tons and named  The Stone of the Pregnant Woman. Another block, in the same quarry, was only discovered in the 1990’s and is thought to be even heavier at 1200 tons(g).

Hugh Newman, self-described ‘megalithomaniac’(r), has produced a paper(s) on the enormous Baalbek monoliths, in which he cites Graham Hancock speculatively dating the Baalbek megaliths at 12,000 years or more old.

In March 2014, it was widely reported(e) that even heavier megaliths had been identified on Siberia’s Mount Shoria. However, the images I have seen suggest to me a natural origin(f). A short video clip is available(j).

We do not know how such huge objects were made or moved in ancient times. I often think that the bigger question is why did they bother to cut such large blocks!  An online article(b) tells how the ingenuity of our ancestors produced the most powerful hand crane in history which multiplied the force of its operator 632 times. However, just because we do not yet know precisely how the Baalbek blocks were manipulated, does not justify wild claims that they were moved by high-tech Atlanteans or extraterrestrials. I may not know how stage magicians saw ladies in half, but that does not compel me to label them Atlantean or alien.

The most persistent question relating to all megalithic structures is “how did they manage to build them using such large heavy rocks and blocks”? Many ingenious solutions are on offer, but perhaps the most remarkable is that proposed by W. T. Wallington who has demonstrated that using basic materials, which were available to the Egyptians, one individual can manipulate a 4500kg stone block. His website includes a remarkable video clip of his method. A review(n) of this video is worth a read. Another or comparable technology may have been used by Edward Leedskainin when he single-handedly built Coral Castle in Florida City(o). What is certain is that Leedskainin had no help from intergalactic visitors.

The late Alan Alford wrote an extensive paper on Baalbek(a). Furthermore, the earlier notes on the subject by Immanuel Velikovsky are also available online(i).

December 2014 found the latest estimate for the weight of the largest  dressed stone found at Baalbek calculated to be 1650 tons(h).It is clear that some explanation is required, hopefully, something better than the implication of extraterrestrial intervention. I would like to think that if we had alien visitors that their technology would be in advance of the ‘stone’ age. Surely they would have something better to produce than enormous foundation stones, which to my puny mind does not smack of the best that a civilisation capable of travelling across the cosmos would have to offer! I find the claims of Graham Hancock or Erich von Dániken equally unconvincing in this instance.

A sober well-referenced article outlining the arguments in favour of identifying the megaliths as Roman is available online(k) as well as supportive blogs from Frank Dörnenburg(m).

A UNESCO sponsored hitech survey of the Baalbek site as part of a Risk Preparedness Strategy is now proposed so that the most appropriate remedial action can be taken in the event of natural deterioration or even war damage(l).

Brian Foerster’s website(p) has some remarkable images of the Baalbek masonry.

*(a) (7 parts)*












(m) (offline October 2017)









Nibiru was a Sumerian astronomical term used to describe a planetary body that periodically approached Earth. This account was hijacked by the late Zechariah Sitchin to construct his Planet X theory in which he claimed that this planet had an orbit which took it to the outer limits of the solar system returning every 3600 years to the vicinity of Earth. Sitchin claimed that during one of these visits some of the inhabitants came to earth and become the ‘gods’ of the Sumerians. However, Sitchin failed to explain how the inhabitants of this Planet X survived the lack of heat and light that it would have had to endure as it moved away from the proximity of the Sun. For us inhabitants of Earth a drop of just a few degrees is fatal.

However, Emilio Spedicato has a radically different and certainly more rational view of this Sumerian planet.  He ascribes a much shorter orbital period of 20 years to Nibiru and claims that close encounters with this planet as having had a dramatic physical effect on the prehistory of our planet including the capturing of our Moon, the destruction of Atlantis and later the biblical Exodus! His scenario has elements that can be traced to Velikovsky, Ackerman and Hörbiger.

Professor Spedicato’s November 2012 paper, From Nibiru to Tiamat, an Astronomic Scenario for Earliest Sumerian Cosmology, can be read or downloaded from the excellent Diffusion and Migration website(1). A number of other his papers can be found on the same website and are certainly worth studying.

In sharp contrast to the serious work of Spedicato, for the past couple of years we have been subjected to a barrage of silly articles(b) linking Nibiru with the promised 2012 global catastrophes ‘predicted’ by the Mayan calendar.

A debunking of both Sitchin’s scholarship and the existence of Nibiru has been offered by a number of sites(c).




Schaeffer, Claude Frédérick-Armand (L)

Claude Frédérick-Armand Schaeffer (1898-1982) was a French archaeologist who is probably best known for his work at the Ras Shamra site in schaefferSyria which he identified as the ancient port city of Ugarit. He worked on and wrote about the site from 1929 until his death.

Schaeffer enter the arena of catastrophism in 1948 when he declared[806] that during the Bronze Age on at least five occasions widespread catastrophic destructions has taken place throughout the Middle East. He attributed these events to seismic activity,which was perhaps related to the ‘seismic storm’ referred to by Stavros Papamarinopoulos in his paper, Plato and the seismic catastrophe in the 12th century BC Athens(b).

It was left to others such as Velikovsky and René Gallant[0748] to add the possibility of extraterrestrial bombardments.

Plato recorded how the priests of Sais told Solon of a succession of catastrophies that befell the region, including earthquakes, inundations such as the Flood of Deucalion and the fall of Phaeton adding historical support for the theories of Schaeffer, Velikovsky and Gallant inter alia.

Dale Drinnon has a worthwhile article(a) on Schaeffer and his relationship with Velikovsky.



Astromythology (L)

Astromythology (Astrotheology) is the study of the astronomical origins of religion; how gods, goddesses, and devils are personifications of astronomical phenomena such as lunar eclipses, cometary appearances and planetary alignments, Christianity(c), Islam(d), Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, and the ancient Egyptian(b) faith systems are examples of religions that have been influenced by astronomical observations. A series of videos on the subject is available on YouTube(a).

In Greek mythology, works such as Hesiod’s Theogony has been identified, by commentators including Immanuel Velikovsky, as a description of spectacular clashes between planetary bodies.

Claude Gétaz, a Swiss researcher, has gone further and claimed that the Atlantis story is an interpretation of celestial events. Alan E. Alford[009] similarly suggests that Plato’s Atlantis story is a recounting of a very ancient and dramatic astronomical event, namely the  explosion of a planetary body, witnessed by humans.

Graham Phillips, in The End of Eden[036], proposes a close encounter with a large comet as the stimulant for the introduction a range of monotheistic religions.




(c)  (offline)


Saturn Theory

The Saturn Theory(b) suggests a radical revision of our understanding of the recent history of our solar system. It involves the re-positioning of Saturn, Venus, Earth and Mars and that this complex celestial drama was recorded in the mythologies of the ancient world. There are a number of competing models the theory, one has Earth as a satellite of Saturn, while another has our planet at least closer to Saturn. The late Amy Acheson (1946-2005) suggested that a vindicated Saturn Theory will demonstrate that “Atlantis was not an earthly location” but was a celestial “variation of the mythical home of the gods” (a).

Although I am a supporter of catastrophism I find it hard to accept any of the Saturn Theory’s variants. I am also a convinced euhemerist and believe that myths often contain cores of historical reality. Unfortunately myths can be notoriously ambiguous and consequently where they record remarkable sights in the sky what is interpreted as a close encounter by one person can with equal conviction be seen as an approaching comet by another.

For me the clincher is that the previous arrangement of the solar system, posited by the Saturn Theory, would conflict with the relative harmony of Bode’s Law, even if we do not understand its underlying principles. A 1974 paper(c) by Oreste and Margaret Lombardi compared Bode’s Law with the Fibonnaci Sequence and the Golden Mean when applied to our solar system. The authors concluded “that there is some underlying law involving gravitation and the golden mean that determines both aphelion and apogee distances.” With respect to some underlying gravitational principle, R. Louise, the French astronomer, remarked(d): “that satellite systems mimic the planetary system suggests some possible unsuspected property of gravitation.”

For my own part, I have always felt that Bode’s Law was a highly convincing concept, but, unfortunately, I do not have the mathematical or astronomical ability required to objectively verify its reality, nor the proposed Fibonnaci Sequence and the Golden Mean relationship with it. It would appear that acceptance of Bode would create difficulties not just for the Saturn Theory but also for Velikovsky’s idea that Venus was just a large piece of ejecta from Jupiter that had catastrophic close encounters with Earth and Mars, within human experience, just a few thousand years ago. Such an idea would mean that prior to the Saturnian rearrangement of the planets or the Velikovskian creation of Venus, the positional relationship of the planets probably did not conform to any known mathematical model but after this/these calamitous events everything ‘coincidentally’ settled into orbits that are now claimed to conform to Bode, Fibonacci and the Golden Mean! All this is a coincidence too far.






Sea of Kronos

The Sea of Kronos (Cronos), according to modern researchers such as Alan Alford and Frank Joseph as well as Immanuel Velikovsky, is a name frequently applied to the Atlantic Ocean by ancient writers. Velikovsky cites Plutarch, Clement of Alexandria and Aristotle in support of this contention(a). If Plato believed that Atlantis had been located in the Atlantic why did he not simply say that it was situated in the Okeanos or the Sea of Kronos?

The 1624 Argonautica Map by Abraham Ortelius has the Adriatic Sea designated as ‘Cronivm Mare’. Eratosthenes in his Map of the Oecumene referred to the frozen Cronian Sea as being seven days north of Britain. Diodorus Siculus (Bk.III 61.3) describes Kronos as lord of Sicily, Libya and Italy!

Until it can be shown otherwise, I am inclined to think that Plato did not know precisely where Atlantis had been located but used the term ‘beyond the Pillars of Herakles’ as indicative of a place outside the ambit of what was then current Greek maritime knowledge!