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

Latest News

  • NEWS September 2023

    NEWS September 2023

    September 2023. Hi Atlantipedes, At present I am in Sardinia for a short visit. Later we move to Sicily and Malta. The trip is purely vacational. Unfortunately, I am writing this in a dreadful apartment, sitting on a bed, with access to just one useable socket and a small Notebook. Consequently, I possibly will not […]Read More »
  • Joining The Dots

    Joining The Dots

    I have now published my new book, Joining The Dots, which offers a fresh look at the Atlantis mystery. I have addressed the critical questions of when, where and who, using Plato’s own words, tempered with some critical thinking and a modicum of common sense.Read More »

Recent Updates


Nan Madol

Nan Madol is a large stone city on the Micronesian island of Pohnpei in the Western Pacific. The entire site covers 170 acres and according to Frank Joseph is comprised of an estimated 250 million tons of basalt!(b) An article on the Smithsonian website offers very different figures(c).

The city Nan_Madolhas a series of canals connecting the structures, which were built on nearly a hundred artificial islands. It has been called both the ‘Venice’ and the ‘Atlantis’ of the Pacific. Conventional archaeology dates the site to around 1200 AD.

James Churchward claimed Nan Madol as part of his concocted Mu. David Hatcher Childress has proposed that the site was part of Lemuria, another invention. Erich von Däniken in his The Gold of the Gods was happy to claim that as a result of extraterrestrial intervention, the ancient Micronesians, had mastered flight and used this ability to transport the stone for the construction of the city!

In 1979, Bill S. Ballinger published Lost City of Stone [1920], following the author’s visit to the island a few years earlier. In common with other commentators, he could not offer any credible explanation as to the identity of the site’s builders or its purpose.

Recent archaeological research in 2017, led by Mark McCoy from Texas Southern Methodist University, has, not unexpectedly, regenerated foolish speculation that the remarkable site might in some way be connected with Plato’s Atlantis(a).

Dr Heinrich Kruparz, the Austrian author of Atlantis und Lemuria [990] has also penned a paper (in English) on the mysterious megaliths of Nan Madol(d).

Another site offers a series of interesting images from Nan Madol(e).

>The megalithic site of Pohnpaid is less than four miles from the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Nan Madol, and is the subject of a book by Carole Nervig, The Petroglyphs of MU [2087]. She featured as Author of the Month on Graham Hancock‘s website for December 2022(f). The author includes a lot of waffle about earth grids created by an ancient Mother Culture a la Hancock!<


(b) Atlantis Rising magazine  #51  p.46


(d) · 

(e) Scientists are puzzled by this mysterious ancient city (

(f) The Petroglyphs of Mu: Pohnpei, Nan Madol and the Legacy of Mu – Graham Hancock Official Website *

Termier, Pierre

Pierre Termier (1859-1930) was a French geologist who analysed basaltic lava dredged up from the Atlantic seafloor 500 miles north of the Azores in 1898. Termier was confused termier1when he found that the sample was vitreous rather than crystalline. This had to mean that the water had been submerged after cooling. Since lava disintegrates after 15,000 years Termier was forced to conclude that there had been volcanic activity above sea level in the relatively recent past, perhaps coinciding with the destruction of Atlantis.

In 1912 Termier delivered a lecture[574] to the Institut Océanographique(b) in which he outlined his belief that Atlantis had been located in the Atlantic, a machine translation in English is available here as Archive 3667. A brief 9-page article by Termier, entitled New Light on the Lost Atlantis, has been reprinted by Kessinger Publishing. Termier also addressed the Smithsonian Institute who published his text in their 1915 annual.

In January 1917 a firm rebuttal of Termier’s ideas was written by Charles Schuchert of Yale University and published in Geographical Review,*however, the journal also published a favourable review by Rudolph Schuller in the same edition(a).*

In 1924 Termier he published La Derive des Continents, a paper in which he rejected Wegener’s theory of ‘Continental Drift’ as fanciful.

Although Termier’s claims are still quoted by some as factual, their scientific basis has been gravely undermined long ago, further weakening the case for Atlantis in the Atlantic.


(b)  (French)


The Sphinx (at Giza) is considered by many to be considerably older than the usually accepted 3rd millennium BC. Its construction has been generally attributed to the Fourth Dynasty ruler Khafre, circa 2500 BC, whose head is believed to be currently represented on the Sphinx.

The controversial French scholar Rene Schwaller de Lubicz investigated several of Egypt’s ancient monuments. sphinxHe was probably the first to remark on the apparent water erosion, on the Sphinx, as evidence of an earlier date for its construction than was previously accepted. He first voiced his views in 1949[449] and expanded his theories in 1957 [450]. His work has now been translated into English(a).

Jason Colavito has added that Schwaller de Lubicz got it from Gaston Maspero, who adopted it from Auguste Mariette, who came up with it because he mistook a Ptolemaic stela for an Old Kingdom one and therefore mistook a myth on the Inventory Stela(t) for a historical account.”(s)

However, in an extensive 2018 paper by Manu Seyfzadeh and Robert Schoch, they argue for the historical value of the Stele noting in the paper’s abstract that; “The Inventory Stele tells a story about Khufu and the Great Sphinx which contradicts the current mainstream narrative of when the Sphinx was carved. The story’s historical relevance has long been challenged based on its mention of names and certain details which are believed to be anachronistic to the time of Khufu. Here, we address the elements commonly cited by the critics one by one and find that they are largely based on misconceptions in part due to errors and oversights contained in the two commonly referenced translations and based on a missing context which relates to the economics and symbolism of supplying provisions to the royal house.”(z)

A recent article(h) on the Giza for Humanity website reveals the work of Shérif El Morsi, an Egyptian researcher, who has documented evidence of a ‘relatively recent’ incursion by seawater onto the Giza Plateau.>Morsi’s conclusions was exaggerated by some media headlines to suggest that he was proposing a total submergence of the Sphinx and pyramids(aj). However, Ivan Petricevic offers a more sober interpretation of Morsi’s claim(ak).<

Michael Baigent has pointed out[141.167] that Dr Zahi Hawass in 1992 ‘reported that analysis of the rear leg of the Sphinx proved the earliest level of masonry around the body dated instead from the Old Kingdom period, that is from about 2700 BC to 2160 BC. The pyramids were constructed in the middle part of this period…….. For if Khafre had built the Sphinx along with his pyramid around 2500 BC, and if repairs to its heavily eroded body were made before 2160 BC, then this severe erosion covered up by the facing stones must have occurred in only 340 years – perhaps less: an extremely unlikely event. In practical terms, given the extent and depth of the erosion, it seems impossible.’

John Anthony West was inspired by the writings of de Lubicz and enticed the American geologist Robert Schoch to inspect the Sphinx and give his professional assessment of the age of the monument. Schoch concluded that the Sphinx had suffered extensive water erosion and should be dated no later than 7000 to 5000 BC. On a second trip to the Sphinx Schoch and West brought Thomas Dobecki, a geophysicist, to carry out additional tests. The results reinforced Schoch’s initial conclusions. More recently, Schoch has pushed back his date for the Sphinx to around 10,000 BCE(ae).

In 1996 Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval published The Message of the Sphinx [1542] in which they endorse Schoch’s water erosion theory. but considered his date to be too conservative. Instead, they proposed that around 10,500 BC was more appropriate! However, Colin Reader, an English geologist, disputes Schoch’s conclusion(I) and explains why in an extensive 1997/9 paper(j).

>Furthermore, Chris Ogilvie-Herald, co-author with Ian Lawton of Giza: The Truth has published a paper, Climate Change and the Great Sphinx, in which he purports to demonstrate “the assertion made by Prof. Robert Schoch and John Anthony West that the Sphinx predates dynastic Egypt by many thousands of years is erroneous.” (ai)<

When Schoch announced his findings they were greeted with hostile criticism from conventional Egyptologists. A. Harrell, a Professor of Geology at Ohio’s University of Toledo, was probably the first geologist to challenge Schoch’s geological arguments in 1994(v).

However, experts in Schoch’s discipline have agreed in growing numbers with his published views, but the debate is far from over. For an overview of the case for an early date follow this link(b).


Sphinx 1853

One Egyptologist who postulated an early date for the Sphinx was Cairo-born Moustafa Gadalla, who concluded that “there is no other rational answer except that the water erosion occurred at the end of the last Ice Age c.15,000-10,000 BCE”(e). Concerning the traditional attribution of the building of the Sphinx to Khafre, Gadalla refers to the ‘Inventory Stela’ and notes that “This stela describes events during the reign of Khufu, Khafra’s predecessor and indicates that Khufu ordered the building of a monument alongside the Sphinx. This means that the Sphinx was already there before Khufu and therefore could not have been built by his successor, Khafra. The stela was dismissed by some because its stylistic features appeared to be from the New Kingdom. This is not a sufficient cause to dismiss it, since there are numerous stelae and texts from the Old Kingdom that were later copied in the New Kingdom and no one dismissed their authenticity.”(y)

The German researcher Klaus Aschenbrenner has added his support for an early date for the Sphinx. He claims that the water erosion was caused by acid rain resulting from a 7600BC asteroid impact postulated by Alexander Tollman.

Mark Carlotto has proposed an even earlier date of 21,000 BCE, based on the work of Charles Hapgood. He contends in a 2021 paper that the Sphinx may have been part of a lunar temple aligned with the rising of a full moon!(af)

These proposed early dates pale into insignificance when contrasted with the claims made by two Ukrainian researchers at a conference in Sofia in 2008 when they proposed a date of 800,000 years ago(n), an approximate date which their paper(u) explains is also based on a study of water erosion, but unlike Schoch, who investigated the effects of rainwater on the Sphinx, Manichev & Parkhomenko focussed their attention on horizontal wave-cut hollows that correspond to a time of higher sea-levels and greater intrusion into the Nile Valley.  

There is by now little doubt that the head of the Sphinx that we see today is quite different from its original size and shape. West had a New York City police artist, Lieutenant Frank Domingo, compare the head of the Sphinx with a known head of Khafre and demonstrated that they had distinctly different facial structures(ac). Comparative photographs are to be found in one of West’s books[453]. A further anomaly is the fact that the head of the Sphinx is disproportionately smaller than the rest of the body suggesting a radical recarving of a larger head in antiquity. Robert Schoch has an interesting article(c) on his website, written by his colleague, Dr Colette Dowell, regarding the shape of the Sphinx’s head. Colin Reader, who disagrees with Schoch’s dating of the Sphinx does, however, share his view regarding the size of the Sphinx’s head(l), an opinion that is also held by architectural historian, Dr Jonathan Foyle(k).

Schoch has now suggested that the Sphinx was originally carved in the shape of a lioness(ac). 25 years ago Richard Waters proposed that the head of the Sphinx had been designed as a lion(ah)*.

Not only is the identity of the Sphinx disputed, but even its race and gender are questioned(ad).

The late Alan Alford argued that the commonly accepted idea that the Sphinx represents a lion may be incorrect and that it is a model of a dog, possibly intended as an image of Anubis the divine guardian of the Earth and the Underworld. This idea was recently endorsed and investigated extensively in a fascinating book[622] by Robert Temple, who has also pointed out(m) other anomalies with the shape of the Sphinx apart from the size of the head.

Assyrian Sphinx

Assyrian Sphinx

Bassam el Shamma, an Egyptian Egyptologist, has recently promoted the idea of the previous existence of a second sphinx on the Giza Plateau. His theory, based on a range of evidence, is outlined on the Atlantis Online website(d). The idea of a second Sphinx is also supported by Gerry Cannon and Joseph P. J. Westlake in a paper also available online(f). Cannon has co-authored a book(r) with Malcolm Hutton, entitled The Giza Plateau Secrets and a Second Sphinx Location Revealed, in which they expand on this idea.

Antoine Gigal, the French researcher, has posted a two-part paper offering the evidence that originally there had been two sphinxes(w)(x).

>Mark Lehner, a leading pyramid expect, published his views on the dating of the Sphinx controversy in a 1994 article, later published on the Hall of Ma’at website(al). Evan Hadingham publish a review of Lehner’s opinion of the Sphinx in the Smithsonian magazine of February 2010(ab).<

Robert Bauval whose book, Secret Chamber[859], delves deeply into the subject of hidden chambers on the Giza Plateau and has excerpts available on the internet(p).

Paul Jordan the well-known Atlantis sceptic is also the author of a book [0415] on the Sphinx.

It should also be kept in mind that sphinxes were found in several other cultures particularly Mesopotamia (see image right). Further east in India we have the Purushamriga(q), while in Burma the sphinx is known as a Manussiha. Back in the Mediterranean, many images of sphinxes have been discovered in Greece, where lately (2014) two sphinxes were recently found in a 300 BC tomb(g), each weighing about 1.5 tons. However, in my opinion, the claim(o) of a huge sphinx in Romania’s Carpathian Mountains is nothing more than a case of mistaken identity, a good example of pareidolia.

Closer to home the Welsh Griffon (Gryphon) is a local form of a sphinx. Lee R. Kerr is the author of Griffin Quest – Investigating Atlantis[807], in which he sought support for the Minoan Hypothesis based on his pre-supposed link between griffons and Atlantis or as he puts it “whatever the Griffins mythological meaning, the Griffin also appears to tie Santorini to Crete, to Avaris, to Plato, and thus to Atlantis, more than any other single symbol.” I don’t see it.

The Atlantic magazine published an interesting collection of photos of the Sphinx dating from 1849 until the present.(aa)




(e)   See: Archive 2937



(h)  See: Archive 2635


(j) See: Archive 2646




(n) Scientists: Geological evidence shows the Great Sphinx is 800,000 years old (

(o) See: Archive 3003

(p) See: Archive 3598



(s) Geologist Robert Schoch Claims to Be Able to “Translate” Alleged “Writing” at Göbekli Tepe – Jason Colavito


(u) Wayback Machine ( 

(v) The Geological Evidence for the Sphinx’s Age’ by James Harrell (

(w) An Undiscovered Sphinx of Giza, Part I (

(x) An Undiscovered Sphinx of Giza, Part I ( (Despite the URL this is Pt.2)

(y) 1996 – Historical Deception ( (Chapter 19)

(z) (99+) (PDF) The Inventory Stele: More Fact than Fiction | Manu Seyfzadeh –



(ac) The Great Sphinx: Enigma in the Sands | The Unredacted 



(af) A New Interpretation and Dating of the Sphinx based on the Moon – Before Atlantis 

(ag) Riddles Of The Sphinx ( 

(ah) Der Ursprung des Großen Sphinx und die Atlantisforschung – ( *

(ai) (99+) Climate Change and the Great Sphinx | Chris Ogilvie-Herald – *

(aj) Fossil Discovery Suggests the Pyramids and Sphinx Were Submerged Under Water | ARCHAEOLOGY WORLD ( *

(ak)Sea of Theories: Were The Pyramid and the Sphinx Once Submerged Under Water? — Curiosmos *

(al) (99+) Notes and Photographs on the West-Schoch Sphinx Hypothesis | Mark E Lehner –*


Nazis and Atlantis

Nazis and Atlantis

One of the most bizarre and tragic outcomes of Plato’s 2,400-year-old story is the fact that it was seized upon by elements in the Nazi regime as part of the foundation for their extreme nationalistic and racist views. The Nazi search for Atlantis was institutionalised with the creation of the SS Ahnenerbe by Heinrich Himmler.

Vanessa Ward has written a useful review of the nationalistic use of the Atlantis story by both Rudbeck and the Nazis(a).

Heather Pringle adds further insights in her excellent book, The Master Plan[0032].

Since the war, Nazi philosophy has persisted in a variety of forms, the most extreme being the killing of 77 people by the Norwegian, Anders Breivik in 2011.

Less violent were the writings of Miquel Serrano who offered what he called ‘Esoteric Hitlerism.’(b) Other Nazi factions are outlined in Joscelyn Godwin‘s book, Arktos[0789].

From the calm of 21st century rural Ireland, it seems incredible to this compiler, that something as horrific as the Jewish Holocaust could have had any connection, however vague, with the writings of a Greek philosopher who wrote nearly two and a half millennia ago.

Thorwald C. Franke has highlighted(c) that recently(2017), a small German right-wing group, ‘Pro Deutschland’, has cited on their website the ‘superior civilisation’ of Atlantis in support of their extremist views.

More recently (2021), Franke has taken issue with a Smithsonian video, which implied that a belief in Atlantis was prevalent among the upper echelons of Germany’s National Socialism. However, Franke maintains that apart from Himmler, most senior Nazis, including Hitler had no interest in Atlantis. Anyway, when Franke wrote to the Smithsonian pointing out how they had overstated this Nazi support for Atlantis, he found that his comments were blocked and the same institution failed to respond to a follow-up email(d)!>In a subsequent newsletter (No. 173), he added further evidence that most of the top Nazi echelons had little or no interest in Atlantis(e).<



(c) Newsletter No. 90

>(d) Atlantis Newsletter Archive – Atlantis-Scout  Newsletter No. 167

(e) Newsletter No. 173<

Fessenden, Reginald Aubrey

Reginald Aubrey Fessenden, (1866-1932), was a remarkable Canadian ReginaldFessendenlrgwho, at the age of 24, had been head chemist to Thomas Edison. He was Professor of postgraduate Mathematics and Electrical Engineering, Western University of Pittsburgh and Engineering Commissioner, Ontario Power Commission. While there he took on the challenge of wireless communication and he made his first radio voice ‘broadcast’ on Christmas Eve, 1906, at a time when Marconi was still signalling in Morse code. In fact, his first voice transmission was on December 23rd 1900 which was heard one mile away.

Fessenden investigated an ancient civilisation in the Caucasus and identified it as Atlantis. The famous Egyptologist Flinders Petrie was interested in his work, which revealed evidence that people from the Caucasus had an influence on the development of ancient Egyptian culture(b). Dr Margaret Murray (1863-1963), who worked with Petrie, was also sympathetic to this view. More recently, Ronnie Gallagher has taken up this cause(c) and has gone further by suggesting the possibility that not only were migrants from the Caucasus responsible for kick-starting the development of Egyptian culture but that people from the same region had a similar influence on the early inhabitants of Sumeria and the Indus Valley.

Fessenden approached the Smithsonian seeking help with organising an expedition to Russia to search for evidence in support of his theories. Their response of March 1924 is available online(e).

Fessenden was also the author of The Deluged Civilisation of the Caucasus Isthmus published in three parts between 1923 and 1933 and now available on the Internet(a). In this extensive work, he discusses an alternative interpretation of the geography of early Greek myths and its consequences for Plato’s story of Atlantis.

>The journal Nature published a very brief review of Fessenden’s work in the 20th Dec. 1924 edition(g).

Fessenden’s monumental work on the civilisations of the Caucasus concludes with a short paper having the interesting title of Synopsis of Some Unpublished Chapters of the Deluged Civilization of the Caucasus Isthmus he notes a number of intriguing points, keeping in mind that this was written nearly a century ago.

“The names of the gods of the Babylonian Creation legend, i.e. Lakamu, Lakmu, Kingu, Anshar, An, Marduk, Gaga, are the names of the most prominent mountains of the Caucasus range. The names are all unchanged except Kingu, now Elbruz, and Anshar, now Kasbek; whose old names are given in the Encyclopedia Britannica, article “Caucasus”. 

Almost all of these names are very distinctive and are found nowhere else, e.g. Lakamu, Gaga, etc., though Kingu is found as Kongur on the shore of Lake Sevanga. In addition, their characteristics correspond with those of the gods. For example, Kingu is the greatest, Anshar next, then An; and Marduk is near Anshar, and Gaga is a smaller mountain between Marduk and Terek. The Apsu was the crest of the range.” (f)

He also identified the Jakin or eastern Pillars of Hercules as shown on one of Adolf Stieler’s maps on the old shore of the Caspian Sea and furthermore, he quoted from Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘Babylonia’ where similarities between the names of locations in Babylonia and Finland are noted!<

In 1940, Fessenden’s widow, Helen, just a year before her own death, completed Reginald’s unfinished autobiography [1615]. In Chapter 28, his support for Atlantis being situated in the Caucasus is reiterated.

Jason Colavito has written a short critique of Fessenden’s work(d).






(g) *

Mitchell-Hedges, Frederick Albert *

Frederick Albert Mitchell-Hedges  (1882-1959) is famous for a number of matters, including the alleged discovery of the most Mitchell-Hedgesperfect of crystal skulls ever found and the removal without permission of three boxes of pirate booty from Roatan Island, off Honduras, and its sale in New York for $6,000,000(a).

Mitchell-Hedges promoted the idea that Roatan Island or more specifically the smaller island, Helene, at its eastern end, which he described as “the highlands of a vast continent submerged by the Flood”(d) and was a remnant of Atlantis and that its original inhabitants were survivors of its destruction.

The Milwaukee Sentinel of February 10, 1935, regaled the world with the claim by Mitchell-Hedges that “I found the cradle of civilization in Central America.” He also speculated that it might be possible that the light of civilization did not travel west but east – and from that supposedly mythical land ‘Atlantis’?” He added that “I hesitate to estimate the age of this civilization. My own “speculations” – I call them that, even though certain bases for a calculation exist – lead me to the view, certainly no later than 15,000 BC. flourished, or that they may have flourished beyond 25,000 B.C.”

His daughter Anna (1907-2007), went even further, with a claim that the crystal skull, which she owned until her death in 2007, had an extraterrestrial origin from where it was brought to Atlantis and from there to Belize where it was finally unearthed. In 1970, Anna was reported, in Sykes’ Atlantis magazine(f), to have written that her father had discovered the skull in a Maya temple in Lubaantun in what was then British Honduras, now Belize! 

Therefore, it is obvious that the provenance of the skull is not clear-cut, with claims that it was in fact purchased by Mitchell-Hedges in the 1940s at a Sotheby’s auction in London(b).

Another reasonably objective article on the subject can also be accessed on the internet(c).

Apart from all this, in 2008, an investigation led by the Smithsonian Institute concluded that all 13 life-size skulls, including the Mitchell-Hedges one, were Victorian fakes(e). A 2010 article in Archaeology magazine by anthropologist Jane MacLaren Walsh concluded that The Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull is not ancient; not even very old.”(g)

(aMitchell Hedges and the Lost Treasure of Roatan – Ancient Lost Treasures ( *

(b) Archive 2328 | ( 


(d) discovered&searchLimits=


(f) Atlantis, Vol. 24, No. 1/2, Jan-March, 1971.

(g) Archaeology Magazine – The Skull of Doom – Archaeology Magazine Archive