Even more extreme are his ideas regarding a hollow or partially hollow Earth as expressed in his, Gods with Amnesia. Apart from promoting this silly idea, Sepehr’s book is claimed to contain an amount plagiarised material(b).
He is harshly critical of the ‘out-of-Africa’ theory as evidenced by blogs on his Atlantean Gardens website(a). Sepehr takes a hyperdiffusionist position and proposes that an ‘out-of-Atlantis’ hypothesis would be more appropriate, although he seems to be overly influenced by the writings of Blavatsky in this regard. For me, his site is unreliable, containing too much pseudoscience and speculation.
John Lock is presented as the ‘author’ of The Mystery of Atlantis. The book is very badly presented with strange formatting, many page numbers missing, no title page etc, etc. It was published by CreateSpace, an Amazon company.
As I read through the book, there small hints that it was written decades before the publication date of 2015. The content of the book supported the North Sea as the location of Atlantis, a concept given great exposure in the 1950’s by Jürgen Spanuth (1907-1998). Further investigation revealed that the text was word for word taken from Spanuth’s Atlantis:The Mystery Unravelled which in turn was the English translation of Das Entraselte Atlantis (Atlantis Revealed). It is obvious that the text was just badly scanned, resulting in the poor formatting, numerous typos and missing images.
This is the most blatant case of printed plagiarism that I have encountered, which may also be a breach of copyright.
Georgeos Diaz–Montexano (1966- ) is the nom de plume of Cuban born Jorge Diaz Sanchez. He has been exploring off the coast of southern Spain and Gibraltar for evidence of Atlantis. He is the founder of the Civilisations Origins Scientific Society and is a leading advocate for the Afro-Iberian location theory. He contends that Atlantis was only partially submerged and that parts of it, which remained above water, are now to be found in south west Spain and northern Morocco.
Jacques Collina-Girard who, the following year also opted for the Strait of Gibraltar and more specifically Spartel Island mirrored Montexano’s theory on the location of Atlantis, first expressed publicly in April 2000. Intense rivalry exists between the two men as is evident from the content of Diaz-Montexano’s websites.
More recently Diaz-Montexano has also accused Dr. Rainer W. Kühne of plagiarism(a) and for good measure threw in a few unkind words about Robert Sarmast and his identification of Cyprus as the location of Atlantis. His online debates in various forums with other writers have been frequently marred by acrimony.
Diaz-Montexano has studied the earliest versions of the Atlantis story and published a considerable amount of controversial material on the Internet relating to the accuracy of the Platonic texts that we use today. Unfortunately, the English version of this work has been poorly translated from the Spanish leaving a monolingual such as myself unable to clearly understand what has been written. One of the most interesting comments(b) from Diaz-Montexano relate to his study of a 16th century translation of Critias that in his view indicate that 9,000 was NOT the number of years recorded by Solon. His firm conclusion is that Atlantis was destroyed between 1500BC and 1300BC.
Diaz-Montexano has also unearthed a number of ancient Spanish works including a Chronicle of Zaragoza that he maintains includes a number of obvious references to a Spanish connection with Atlantis(c) . Unfortunately, once again, the quality of his English makes any clear reading very difficult. The only ‘Chronicle of Zaragoza’ that I could locate was a two-page document covering the period 450–568 AD that is totally unrelated to the Atlantis question. Nevertheless, it does appear that he has discovered information that may have an important bearing on the resolution of the Atlantis mystery.
Without wishing to detract from any work that Diaz-Montexano has done, it may be no harm to point out that while he has been free with his accusations of plagiarism, he himself has been accused of fraudulently misleading the public regarding his academic qualifications(d).
In August 2012 he published the first volume of a large six-volume work, ATLANTIS <> TARTESSOS. AEGYPTIUS CODEX. Epítome de la Atlántida Histórico-Científica, devoted to arguing the case for a Iberian Atlantis. Unfortunately, this huge undertaking is only available, at least initially, in Castilian Spanish. This promises to be an important addition to Atlantean literature and Diaz-Montexano is to be congratulated for his efforts.
The first volume begins with a critical overview of recent Atlantis theories such as those of Robert Sarmast (Cyprus) and Ulf Erlingsson (Ireland) and then proceeds to analyse the texts of ancient writers wherever they refer directly or indirectly to Atlantis. He cites the original Greek texts together with a modern (Spanish) translation. This first volume is also available as an inexpensive (€1.95) Kindle ebook. July 2015 saw the publication of another Kindle book by Diaz-Montexano entitled ATLÁNTIDA Historia y Ciencia (Atlantis: History and Science) together with a synopsis online(e).
Late in 2016 will see the broadcasting of a new documentary by National Geographic concerning Atlantis in the Mediterranean. Diaz-Montexano has already been interviewed in connection with this production as has Robert Ishoy. The exact focus of the show, if there is one, is still unclear, but the involvement of James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici as co-producers has widely publicised.
In conjunction with the filming of the new NG documentary, Diaz-Montexano has decided to publish, in English, the details of his Atlantis studies over the past decades. Available is the introduction and outline of the new book(f), NG National Geographic and the scientific search for Atlantis published in January 2017, in both English and Spanish, to coincide with the airing of the documentary at the end of that month.
*(e) See: Archive 2579 (English & Spanish)
Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky(1831-1891) was nothing but another charlatan in a long line of fraudsters who have tried to exploit the story of Atlantis. However, she and her ilk are frequently quoted as ‘authorities’ on the subject. Consequently I felt obliged to give some of her history in order to bring some perspective into her rather dubious credentials.
Blavatsky was born in Ekaterinoslav, now known as Dnepropetrovsk in the Ukraine. She had a colourful life including a stint as a circus bareback rider to being a professional pianist. She was born in the Ukraine and married a Russian military man, who was a provincial governor. After a brief period she left him and embarked on extensive travels in the East, during which she claims to have spent seven years studying in Tibet. Eventually, she ended up in New York and became a co-founder of the Theosophical Society. Theosophy is an occult philosophical religious system allegedly based on ancient Hindu writings. She claimed to have had direct contact with two dead Tibetan Mahatmas. In 1877, Blavatsky published a huge, two-volume book called Isis Unveiled. It contained ONE page on Atlantis in which she presented her views regarding Atlantis. She claimed that the people of Atlantis were the “fourth race” on Earth. She said they were a super-human people who lived long before human beings. According to Blavatsky, the era of Atlantis lasted for eight to ten million years, and the cataclysms that caused its main continental formations to sink happened as much as four to five million years ago. She believed Atlanteans had amazing psychic powers. However, they were corrupted by a great dragon king, Thevetat, and turned into wicked magicians who started a war that destroyed Atlantis.
In 1884, following accusations by the Indian press that she was promoting a deception, the London Society for Psychical Research carried out an investigation and the following year declared that Blavatsky was a fraud.
In her next book, The Secret Doctrine,published after her death, Blavatsky tells much more about her Atlantis. In that book she comments on an ancient text that she claims to have been written in Atlantis. She tells how the survivors of Atlantis settled in Egypt and built the pyramids about 100 thousand years ago. A far cry from the conventionally accepted, though sometimes disputed, date of around 2600 BC for their construction. In 1893, W.E. Coleman made a study(c)(e)of her books and concluded that they were the result of a remarkable act of plagiarism. Isis Unveiledwas calculated to contain at least 2,000 passages copied without credit. A core of around 100 books were used which in turn quoted with references to a further 1,400 works. By the time Secret Doctrinewas being ‘assembled’ Ignatius Donnelly’s first book had been published and was also subjected to Blavatsky’s style of literary cannibalism.
*Coleman concluded his analysis with the following observation; “ There is not a single dogma or tenet in theosophy, nor any detail of moment in the multiplex and complex concatenation of alleged revelations of occult truth in the teachings of Madame Blavatsky and the pretended adepts, the source of which cannot be pointed out in the world’s literature. From first to last, their writings are dominated by a duplex plagiarism, – plagiarism in idea, and plagiarism in language.” *
Theosophy spawned a number of breakaway groups and has inspired quite a number on the lunatic fringe of Atlantis writers. Anthroposophy, a concoction of Rudolf Steiner, was one of these. Blavatsky has done nothing to advance the study of the Atlantis mystery, instead with her deceit; she only muddied the waters further. Since Atlantis had disappeared through flooding, it was possible to write almost anything about it, without any real danger of being definitively refuted. It is rather like libelling the dead; they can’t come back to prove you wrong. To-day Blavatsky is often referred to as “the grandmother of the New Age movement”.
For further information you can view a website(a) devoted to Blavatsky. A further site(b) outlines in some detail the level of plagiarism that she engaged in.
In 2013, Gary Lachman, the musician and occult writer, published a book attempting to rehabilitate Blavatsky and followed up with an article in the June edition of Fortean Times of the same year promoting the book. Jason Colavito has written a review(d) of the FT article. Colavito has also debunked(f) the claim that Blavatsky had discovered the theory of relativity before Einstein, an idea put forward by her grand-nephew Boris de Zirkoff (1902-1981).
Atlantis of the North  was the third book written by Dr Jürgen Spanuth on the subject of Atlantis. His first book published in German, led to court action by Spanuth after being labelled ‘a peddler of lies’. The matter ended when his detractors, ten professors, admitted that their objections to his work were groundless.
Spanuth’s book controversially locates Atlantis in the North Sea near Helgoland and attributes its destruction to the consequences of widespread natural catastrophes that the world experienced in the 13th century BC. These disasters led to large-scale migrations, one of which was from Scandinavia into the Mediterranean where Spanuth insists that the migrants were known as the ‘Sea Peoples’, or as he calls them ‘North Sea Peoples’ and portrayed on the walls of the temple of Medinet Habu. He claims that there is considerable agreement between Plato’s Atlantis story and the carvings at Medinet Habu.
Furthermore, Spanuth identifies a cometary impact with the Earth as the cause of these upheavals. He claims that this impact is preserved in mythology as Phaëton by the Greeks and others as Typhon, Sekhmet, Anat, and Tistrya etc. Incidentally, the Carolina Bays visible today have been linked with this event.
It has been pointed out that much of the material used by Spanuth seems to have been drawn from the research archives of the Nazi Ahnenerbe-SS. The result is a closely argued work that is worth reading, however unacceptable the Heligoland location is now seen.
In 2015, Spanuth entered the world of controversy again when The Mystery of Atlantis Unravelled was published by Amazon’s self-publishing department, CreateSpace, with a new title The Mystery of Atlantis and the author’s name changed to ‘John Lock’! This is simply a badly scanned copy, blatant plagiarism and possibly breach of copyright as Spanuth only died in the 1998!
Robert Paul Ishoy is a graduate of California State University Fresno (CSUF) where he got his BA Degree in History and an Associate’s Degree in Social Sciences. His website tells us that “Since completion of his education Robert has served in the military as an intelligence specialist and as a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division. After the military, Robert has worked in Corporate Security and Loss Prevention for major retail and distribution companies and is currently employed as a government contractor under the Department of Defense as an intelligence specialist.”
His thesis, which promotes the idea that Sardinia was the site of Atlantis, was written during his senior year at CSUF. In 2010 he was proposing a multidisciplinary expedition to the Italian island in order to explore and investigate in situ the evidence for the possible existence of Atlantis there. This expedition is now planned for 2015.
A promotional video is available on YouTube(b).
Ishoy maintains a website(a) to support his views and is at pains to point out that his theory was in the public domain at least two years before Sergio Frau had his book published. However, the earliest claim to the Sardinian Hypothesis must go to Paolo Valente Poddighe who put it forward in 1982. Poddighe has accused Frau of plagiarism.
It is remarkable that in the same week that Sergio Frau generated renewed interest in his ‘Atlantis in Sardinia’ theory that news emerged(c) that Ishoy, who promoted the same idea three decades ago has now had the support of National Geographic, who were planning a documentary on the concept, co-produced by James Cameron, of Titanic fame and Simcha Jacobovici, both of whom were also responsible for the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus. However, Diaz-Montexano believed that the focus of the documentary was to be on his theories!
In the end the over-hyped NG documentary proved nothing.