Latest News
NEWS October 2024
OCTOBER 2024 The recent cyber attack on the Internet Archive is deplorable and can be reasonably compared with the repeated burning of the Great Library of Alexandria. I have used the Wayback Machine extensively, but, until the full extent of the permanent damage is clear, I am unable to assess its effect on Atlantipedia. At […]Read More »
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 »
Younger Dryas
Sweatman. Martin B.
Martin B. Sweatman is a geochemist at the University of Edinburgh who gained wider recognition with the publication of 
PreHistory Decoded [1621] in 2019. In it, he discusses many subjects dealt with in this compilation, such as Göbekli Tepe, Younger Dryas, and the Sphinx offering what the book’s subtitle describes as “a science odyssey unifying astronomy, geochemistry and archaeology.”
Building on the work of Clube & Napier he believes that around 10,900 BC an encounter with a fragment of Comet Encke led to catastrophic climate change of the Younger Dryas and kick-started the Neolithic Revolution. After an in-depth study of the carvings at Göbekli Tepe, he believes that they record astronomical events and in a 2017 joint paper with Dimitrios Tsikritsis, published in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, (Vol.. 17, No 1) they offer an illustrated outline of this theory(a).
In 2021, Sweatman published two papers on the Researchgate website about the Younger Dryas Impact theory(e)(f).
He has also published a paper also on the Researchgate website in which he argues that knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes was known as far back as paleolithic times(d).
Sweatman had previously used his scientific training to decode an early zodiacal system found across western Eurasia, from European Palaeolithic caves to sites in Turkey, Egypt and Mesopotamia. He has now gone one step further by linking Pictish symbols to this system.(b)
In May 2023, Sweatman returned to the subject of Göbekli Tepe in a paper on the Ancient Origins website(g). In it, he endeavoured to link the images found at Göbekli with the later symbols used in dynastic Egypt. He poses the question “But while the connections between Göbekli Tepe and Ancient Egypt are tantalizing, it is difficult to be certain of them. Could all these correlations between the animal symbols, constellations, Ancient Egyptian deities, mythical stories and writing methods just be a coincidence?” In a concluding paragraph, he answers it.
“So, the available genetic evidence strongly supports the idea that the builders of Göbekli Tepe were ancestral to the ancient Egyptians, and therefore all these symbolic connections we have noted are real and direct.”
In June 2023 article, Sweatman traced the evidence for the use of our zodiac symbology from the time of Paleolithic cave art (32,000 BC) and forward to Göbekli Tepe (11,000 BC) and Catal Hoyuk (7500 BC) in Turkey, the Dead Sea (4000 BC), then in predynastic Egypt and much later, on the monuments of the Picts in Northern Britain(h).
For balance, I offer links to some critical reviews of Sweatman’s theories(c)(j).
Sweatman had written a lengthy paper in which he claimed that there is clear evidence at both Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe that a lunisolar calendar had been used there. He was unable to have the paper published until June 2024(i).
(a) The_Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis_MBS.pdf (ed.ac.uk)
(b) https://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/about/news/20190715/dr-martin-sweatman-decodes-ancient-pictish-symbols
(g) https://members.ancient-origins.net/articles/cosmic-symbolism
(h) Prehistoric Zodiacal Dating Code Revealed At Göbekli Tepe (ancientoriginsunleashed.com)
(i) https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2024/06/lunisolar-calendar-paper-accepted-for.html *
Angelis, Alexandros
Alexandros Angelis (1978- ) is the Greek author of Our Unknown Ancient Past [1903]. He has published a lengthy article on Graham Hancock‘s website(a) in which he reprises elements from his book; ancient technology, Greeks in Polynesia, Hyperboreans and of course, Atlantis.
His book has a lot of material relating to Atlantis as does his website(b). Angelis has opted for the Azores as part of Plato’s Atlantis(c).
There are several matters raised by Angelis that I cannot agree with, particularly his suggestion that the ending of the Younger Dryas and Plato’s date for the inundation of Atlantis is too much of a coincidence not to be connected(d)! I contend that there is no coincidence as Atlantis (or Athens) did not exist until many millennia after the Younger Dryas. I have dealt with this in the Dating Atlantis entry and more fully in Joining the Dots.
(a) https://grahamhancock.com/angelisa1/
(c) https://ourunknownancientpast.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-azores-as-candidate-location-for.html
(d) https://ourunknownancientpast.blogspot.com/2021/08/plato-atlantis-probability-of.html
Vigato, Marco M.,
Marco M. Vigato is an Italian researcher based in Mexico City with a passionate interest in the ruins of ancient civilisations around the world.
In 2021, he involved himself in the long-running debate regarding whether Khufu was responsible for the building of Giza’s Great Pyramid. Following a ten-point argument supporting Khufu as the builder of the GP by Matt Sibson, whom we’ve met before in these pages, Vigato responded by producing a list of fifteen reasons why Khufu was NOT the builder of the GP(a).
In January 2022, Vigato had his new book, The Empires of Atlantis [1830] published, in which he offers a hyperdiffusionist view of Atlantis. He “traces the course of Atlantean civilization through its three empires, as well as the colonies and outposts formed by its survivors in Egypt, Göbekli Tepe, India, Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean, and North and South America” and “reveals how the first Atlantean civilization lasted from 432,000 to 33,335 BCE, the second one from 21,142 to 10,961 BCE, and the third Atlantis civilization–the one celebrated by Plato–collapsed in 9600 BCE, after the Younger Dryas cataclysm.”(b).
I always thought, that if you are going to speculate – speculate big. Vigato has certainly done so.
Jason Colavito has produced a lengthy critique of the book and to say the least of it, he offers a withering review of ‘Empires’(c) and its author. He denounces Vigato’s thesis as fundamentally flawed noting that “?Vigato’s exploration of Atlantis hits all the usual notes, but he claims to have a radically different idea about how to prove the reality of Atlantis; namely, to absolve himself of the need for scientific evidence. “This is a nonconventional book that combines two radically different approaches: that of modern science and that of the Western esoteric tradition. The product is an entirely new picture of the true origins of civilization.” When material evidence fails, he gives himself permission to suggest esoteric and occult explanations, thus removing the argument from the realm of the provable.” For good measure, Colavito also throws in an accusation of racism.
Another harsh critique has come from Carl Feagans, an enthusiastic Atlantis sceptic who ended with “Vigato began his book with a conclusion. He tried to support that conclusion with pseudoscientific and fictional accounts he apparently gathered for 15 years.”(d)
>Vigato was chosen as Author of the Month for April 2022 on Graham Hancock’s website. His article(e) offers a synopsis of the main themes of his book. My principal gripe is with his proposed early date for the demise of Atlantis at 9500 BCE. Although this date is supported by a number of commentators, none have explained how Atlantis at that early period could have launched an attack on Athens and/or Egypt that did not even exist as functioning societies at that time or for some millennia afterwards.<
(a) https://www.academia.edu/45014007/15_Reasons_why_Khufu_did_NOT_build_the_Great_Pyramid
(c) Review of “The Empires of Atlantis” by Marco M. Vigato – JASON COLAVITO
(d) Book Review: Empires of Atlantis – Archaeology Review (ahotcupofjoe.net)
(e) The Empires Of Atlantis – Graham Hancock Official Website *
Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis
The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH) is based on the claim that around 12,800 years ago the Earth had an encounter with a very large asteroid or comet that broke up in an airburst over North America and of which some fragments possibly hit the ground directly(a).
Many effects have been linked with this event with varying levels of enthusiasm including a suggested association with the demise of Atlantis. Elsewhere, megafaunal extinctions, cataclysmic floods, the disappearance of the Clovis people and the creation of the Carolina Bays(g), have all been proposed as consequences of this episode.
In 2006, Richard Firestone, Allen West & Simon Warwick-Smith published the foundations of the YDIH in The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes [110]. A year later the hypothesis had a more public airing at the American Geophysical Union Press Conference, Acapulco, Mexico, on May 23(d). This was followed the same year by the publication of a formal paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America(f).
Since then volumes have been written on the subject, both pro and con(c).
A 2014 paper(h) entitled Nanodiamond-Rich Layer Across Three Continents Consistent with Major Cosmic Impact at 12,800 Cal BP by Charles R. Kinzie et al., has developed further the idea of this event being associated with the Younger Dryas. In a similar vein is an article(f) from Megan Gannon.
December 2014 saw Graham Hancock raising the issue of a cometary cause for the Younger Dryas and its possible association with ancient Egypt(e).
Martin Sweatman brought further evidence to bear on this debate in an article(i) on the Graham Hancock website. This focuses on the investigations at Hall’s Cave in Texas described in a paper by Sun et al, where the team concluded that the trace elements found there could indicate a volcanic rather than an impact as the cause of the Younger Dryas cooling! Sweatman disagrees with their conclusions claiming that there seems to be an element of selectivity in choosing data, leading to a wrong conclusion.
2019 also gave us a paper that included an extensive bibliography and overview of the YDIH debate(k).
In 2020, the eminent geologist James Lawrence Powell published Deadly Voyager [1911], which offered further support to the YDIH. This book was instrumental in changing the negative stance of a number of ardent sceptics including Michael Shermer(j).
In 2022 Powell concluded a paper reviewing the YDIH debates with the following
“Finally, we can now assess Sweatman’s suggestion that the YDIH may be ready for promotion from hypothesis to the status of theory. If we combine the definitions of “theory” from the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, it would read something like this:
‘A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.’
Those who have read this article and Sweatman’s have the information to decide whether the YDIH meets this definition. In this author’s opinion, there is a strong case that it does. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that no other single theory can explain the YD and its associated effects.”(l)
I note that Robert Schoch claims that there is no evidence to support the Younger Dryas impact theory, instead, he believes that “it was most likely due to reduced solar activity at that time, a solar shut-down.”(n) Schoch’s wide-ranging critique has been refuted by the Comet Research Group.(o)
In 2012, Jennifer Marlon et al published a paper, now made available by Marlon on the Academia website, in which they present “arguments and evidence against the hypothesis that a large impact or airburst caused a significant abrupt climate change, extinction event, and termination of the Clovis culture at 12.9 ka. It should be noted that there is not one single Younger Dryas (YD) impact hypothesis but several that conflict with one another regarding many significant details.”(m)
Scienceopen.com is a website offering “A peer-reviewed open-access journal collection covering all aspects of airbursts and impacts on Earth by comets and asteroids”. October 2023 brought the publication of five papers on the subject(p).
In March 2024 The New York Times Magazine published an updated overview of the history and current status of the YDIH(q). The sceptical tone of the article includes an interesting look at the psychological drivers behind the popularity of the hypothesis with the general public. It concludes by noting that
In a sense, what West and his collaborators think now hardly matters. The hypothesis has already penetrated deeply, and perhaps indelibly, into the public imagination, seemingly on its way to becoming less a matter of truth than a matter of personal and group identity. Nobody I spoke with seemed to think it would go away soon, if ever. West, though, took a measured view. “All we can say is this is a hypothesis,” he said. “It’s still a debate. We may be wrong; we may be right. But only time will tell.”
>>In April 2024, geoarchaeologist Marc Young published a lengthy article(r) on Graham Hancock’s website, rebutting arguments put forward by YDIH sceptics.<<
(a) https://humanoriginproject.com/evidence-younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis/
(b) YDIH: Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis | Thongchai Thailand (archive.org)
(c) https://cometresearchgroup.org/publications/
(d) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1GCgOI3B1o
(e) https://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockG13.php
(f) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994902/
(g) https://cosmictusk.com/carolina-bays-in-the-midwest
(j) In praise of intellectual honesty – The Cosmic Tusk
(k) YDIH: Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis | Thongchai Thailand (tambonthongchai.com)
(l) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00368504211064272
(m) (99+) Arguments and Evidence Against a Younger Dryas Impact Event | Jennifer Marlon – Academia.edu
(n) https://www.robertschoch.com/plasma_iceage.html
(o) https://cosmictusk.com/comet-research-group-responds-to-robert-schoch/
(p) https://blog.scienceopen.com/2023/10/introducing-comet-research-group-on-scienceopen/
(q) The Comet Strike Theory That Just Won’t Die – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
(r) The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis: A Guide For The Perplexed – Graham Hancock Official Website *
Casey, Kevin A. & Patrick J.
Kevin A. & Patrick J. Casey are the American authors of a series of papers currently available on the academia.edu website(a), which are concerned with a globally catastrophic event that occurred 13,000 years ago. providing them with a title of ’13K Theory’. The kernel of their theory is that originally the Earth had two moons that at some later point collided, producing our current Moon, while the remnant of the second one eventually exploded over North America kick-starting what we refer to as the cooler Younger Dryas period.
They claim that this event wiped out the megafauna, altered the Earth’s axis and created our mountains, the Earth being generally flat before the dramatic episode! They are adamant that it was not a comet or asteroid that caused the devastation, and so clash with the conclusions of Richard Firestone and his colleagues.
Their final paper is entitled Atlantis Revisited(b), in which they nominate Rockall as being ‘by far’ the most likely location of Atlantis. They also claim that the war between the Atlanteans and the Greeks took place before the 13K Event! Enjoy.
(a) (99+) (PDF) 13k Theory, Children of the Book | Kevin A Casey – Academia.edu * (six parts)
(b) https://www.academia.edu/38380799/13k_Theory_Atlantis_Revisited.pdf
Jensen, John M. Jnr.
John M. Jensen Jnr. is an independent researcher living in Florida, who has published two books on 
ancient civilisations and catastrophism. He has explored in depth some of the subjects touched on here. His first book was Ancient Canal Builders(a), which explores the extensive ancient canal network on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States and Mexico. His second offering is Earth Epochs(b) in which he recounts pre-historic global catastrophes, including the Younger Dryas Event of 12,900 YBP, and what he calls the Last Great Cataclysm of 5,000 YBP and the Earth Axial Tilt of 3448 YBP.>In a separate paper he claims that the final catastrophe led to the breaching of the Gibraltar and calendar changes among other effects.<
However, he seemed to go off the rails when he proposed that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and that the many thousands of dolmens found around the globe were not tombs but places of refuge from carnivorous dinosaurs. No, I’m not making this up. He deals with the subject in greater detail in the well-illustrated Earth Epochs(d). Both of his books can be downloaded for free.(a)(b)
Jensen does mention Atlantis, but without dealing with the matter in any great detail, it seems to me that he does accept its reality. I do not agree with all his ideas but I think his work should be read, including his blogs(c).
>In 2018, Jensen offered a possible submerged urban site “located about 130 miles west of Homestead, FL in the Gulf of Mexico. It is in the middle of the Florida Continental Shelf. Based on Google Earth measurements, (setting Google Earth coordinates to the satnav position of this image) at the same elevation, then measuring the relative length and width of this image, renders a size of some 18 miles in width and some 14 miles in breadth. Making this metropolis at least the size of Miami proper, and likely larger.” He claims that this apparent metropolis must be more than 10,000 years old, based on the rate of sea level change following the last Ice Age. He offered a link to a paper about the feature on the academia.edu website, but this is no longer there(e).<
(a) https://www.academia.edu/3779666/Ancient_Canal_Builders_-_Overview
(b) https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/536932
(c) https://earthepochs.blogspot.ie/
(d) https://www.academia.edu/11703016/Earth_Epochs_Overview
(e) Earth Epochs (Sept.18, 2018) *
Archaeoastronomy *
Archaeoastronomy is a relatively new scientific discipline, which as the name implies combines archaeology and astronomy, particularly in the study of ancient megalithic monuments and their possible alignment with various celestial bodies.
Arguably the most famous example is Stonehenge, but our globe is littered with ancient monuments incorporating solar, lunar or astral alignments. Not all are as impressive or accessible as Stonehenge, Callanish or Newgrange but in remote places such as Nabta Playa or Fajada Butte (see Hadingham[1308.152]).
The subject was initially considered by some to be a ‘fringe’ topic, but in 1999 Clive Ruggles was appointed Professor of Archaeoastronomy at the University of Leicester(a) and is the author of the encyclopedic Ancient Astronomy [1310]+.
The University of Maryland has had a Center for Archaeoastronomy since 1978(c).
The subject has never been central to Atlantis studies but has hovered in the background, with writers such as Egerton Sykes(b) and Graham Hancock[855][1119] who employed aspects of the discipline in their publications.
Giulio Magli (1964- ) is an Italian archaeaostronomer with a website in English(e) dedicated to the application of the discipline in Egypt. In 2013, Magli proposed that aspects of the Göbleki Tepe site are related to the recent appearance of Sirius in the night sky around 9300 BC(f). Andrew Collins and Rodney Hale argue against this interpretation(g), which is perhaps understandable as they support a linkage with the Cygnus constellation. A 2004 paper by Magli, on precessional effects in ancient astronomy(h), has recently been applied by Lenie Reedijk to her contention that the Maltese temples were oriented to Sirius[1631].
A further application of the discipline was employed by Martin Sweatman and Dimitrios Tsikritsis who used it to interpret the carved symbols at Göbekli Tepe. In a 2017 paper(d) they concluded that the pillars there were used to record meteor showers and cometary encounters. They believe that one such encounter involved the explosion or impact of part of Encke’s Comet around 13,000 years ago, which triggered the Younger Dryas Event that kick-started the Neolithic Revolution. Scientists who have worked on the site responded critically(i), which in turn evoked further comments from Sweatman and Tsikritsis(j).
Sweatman later expanded their theory in his book Prehistory Decoded [1621].
The Sixth Oxford International Conference on Archaeoastronomy and the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Société Européenne pour I’Astronom~e dans la Culture (SEAC, European Society for Astronomy in Culture) was held jointly on the days around the summer solstice of 1999 at the Museo de la Ciencia y el Cosmos, in the historical city of La Laguna, in the island of Tenerife. One hundred participants from more than 20 countries of the five continents and almost 60 talks indicate undoubtedly the relevance of this meeting. The Proceedings of that Conference are available online(l) offering a global view of the subject.
Noah Brosch of Tel Aviv University offers a wide-ranging paper on ancient sites and artefacts around the world that clearly had astronomical functions(k).
Archaeoastronomy is one of only a few dozen words with four consecutive vowels.
[1310]+ Available online: https://archive.org/details/an-encyclopedia-of-cosmologies-and-myth-in-ancient-astronomy-clive-ruggles/mode/2up *
(a) Professor Clive Ruggles — University of Leicester (archive.org)
(b) Seachild: Fields of Study: Archaeological Evidence 2 – Archaeoastronomy
(c) https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~tlaloc/archastro/
(d) Wayback Machine (archive.org) *
(e) Archaeoastronomy egypt (archive.org)
(g) https://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/Gobekli_Sirius.htm
(h) https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407108.pdf
(j) https://www.academia.edu/33931844/MORE_THAN_A_VULTURE_A_RESPONSE_TO_SWEATMAN_AND_TSIKRITSIS (See the end of the paper)
(k) (99+) (PDF) Thinking about Archeoastronomy | Noah Brosch – Academia.edu
Moon, The *
The Moon and its origin have been the subject of speculation for centuries, examples of which are reviewed below. Professor Robert M. Hazen of George Mason University tells us in The Origin and Evolution of the Earth(ad) that “three competing theories—the fission theory, the capture theory, and the co-accretion theory—were all in contention prior to 1969, but the treasure trove of Apollo Moon rocks provided the answer: None of the pre-1969 theories worked……….The Moon is now thought to have formed as the result of an epic impact with a Mars-sized planet that was competing for the same solar system real estate as Earth. Earth was bigger and won, but the Moon was formed from the debris of the impact.”
The impact theory received a boost from the results of a study carried out at Durham University involving the use of a supercomputer for modelling(ag).
Irrespective of the controversies surrounding the formation of the Moon, what is less contentious is that for prehistoric man, the moon was a readymade calendar. An article(ap) by Rebecca Boyle has the following introductory paragraph.
“The sun’s rhythm may have set the pace of each day, but when early humans needed a way to keep time beyond a single day and night, they looked to a second light in the sky. The moon was one of humankind’s first timepieces long before the first written language, before the earliest organized cities and well before structured religions. The moon’s face changes nightly and with the regularity of the seasons, making it a reliable marker of time.”
The Moon has little connection with Plato’s Atlantis story apart from the more extreme speculations of some writers. One of the wildest is that the Atlanteans had established a research facility on the Moon(a), an idea rivalled by that of Alan Butler & Christopher Knight in their book, Who Built the Moon[0937], in which they propose that the Moon was ‘constructed’! This idea has now been revived by Rob Shelsky[1584]. In 1965, the Umland brothers[833] proposed that the Moon was a communications relay station for the Maya to make contact with their home planet!
In his recent book, Dead Men’s Secrets [1910.299], Jonathon Gray suggested that ancient texts support the idea that man has visited the Moon in the distant past! This is available as a pdf file(ac).
In 1970, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, of what was then the Soviet Academy of Sciences, advanced a hypothesis that the Moon is a spaceship created by unknown beings(k). These ideas inspired the title of Don Wilson’s 1976 book, Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon [1704].
In 2018 and in a number of previous editions of Ancient Aliens, David Hatcher Childress endorsed the daft idea that our Moon is hollow and artificial. Jason Colavito noted that this idea has “been going around for the past half-century, based on a piece of Russian propaganda from the 1960s aimed at Western audiences. Childress alleged that aliens created the moon by inflating an asteroid. Yes, really. “Like a glass blower blows glass, you go out into the asteroid belt, get yourself an asteroid, and with your alien technology you superheat that asteroid. Then you blow into it to make a giant space station,” he said. That seems like rather a lot of work to avoid showing yourself to the humans(ao).“
In 2023, Shane Leach tried to resuscitate this daft idea. He also recycled the suggestion that the Martian satellite, Phobos, was an alien construction. However, neither he nor Butler & Knight can claim originality as the idea of artificial moons was floated decades ago by the Russian I. S. Shklovskii(g) among others mentioned above.
Some years later Arnold L. Lieber published The Lunar Effect [1888] in which he put forward his theory of ‘biological tides’ that proposes that the Moon affects human behaviour. This seemed to reinforce the popular belief that aggression and even suicides were affected by the phases of the Moon. Commenting on Lieber’s theory at the time, astronomer Dr Nicholas Sanduleak debunked his claims(aa).
The idea that the Moon was to some extent hollow was given impetus in the 1970s when a study of moonquakes revealed that the Moon ‘rang like a bell’ (i). Now, nearly half a century later, Wallace Thornhill, a leading Electric Universe proponent, has endorsed the hollow Moon idea and seems sympathetic to the idea of a hollow Earth. This was expressed at a recent EU conference and be viewed at the 40-minute mark of a YouTube video.(j)
Neal Adams, a respected graphic artist(s), is probably best known for his work on the DC Comics characters Batman and Green Arrow. He is a vocal supporter of the Expanding Earth Hypothesis(t), but, he has gone further and also proposed a growing Moon as well(u)(r). Not content with that, he has extended his expansion investigations to other bodies in our Solar System, such as Mars, Ganymede & Europa(v). Adams considers the term “Expanding Earth” a misnomer and has named his proposed expansion process ‘pair production’!
The origins of the Moon have also been the subject of extensive controversy with one side claiming that it had been ‘captured’ 
by the earth, while the other extreme argues that it had been ‘expelled’ from our planet. The expulsion theory posits(b) that a collision with another celestial body tore material from the Earth, which in time became our Moon(h). Nils Olof Bergquist writing in the 1940s supported the expulsion scenario and had his original Swedish book on the subject translated into English as The Moon Puzzle[0786].
Aloys Eiling (1952- ) is a German researcher who has offered a variation on the Moon capture theory, suggesting that it took place when our planet was already populated – somewhere between 40,000 and 13,000 BC. He notes(ab) that “the capture of the Moon caused worse than a flood; it changed the geography of the world. Earth’s surface was devastated, millions died, and life in total was brought to the brink of extinction. In the collective memory of mankind, the event indelibly remained in the myths about a Deluge.”
The most radical of the captured moon school was Hanns Hörbiger, who proposed that there had been a series of Moon captures. Many of his ideas were adopted by H.S. Bellamy, who added that the capture of our current satellite had destroyed Atlantis. Kurt Bilau has also proposed a moon capture theory that incorporates two near encounters before finally becoming our current satellite(ah)(ai).
Georg Hinzpeter was influenced by the Moon-capture ideas of Hanns Hörbiger, with whom he had personal contact. However, when he suggested some modifications he fell foul of the Nazis and was informed “that his work was no longer going to be supported by the regime because it deviated from Hörbiger’s original theory.” (an)
After the war, he contributed to Sykes Atlantis magazine, where, like Bellamy, he theorised that the destruction of Atlantis coincided with the capture of our present satellite, an event that he claimed to have taken place around 11,500 years ago(am).
Nikolay Bonev, the astronomer, caused a stir in 1961 when he expressed the view that our Moon had once been an independent planet(d) that had experienced violent volcanic eruptions that were powerful enough to have produced a ‘recoil’ effect, which nudged it towards our Earth’s orbit and was eventually captured as our satellite.
In 1948, an amateur astronomer, L.C. Suggars, endorsed the idea of the Moon as a captured planet, based on its diameter/density ratio, which was consistent with that of the other minor planets (Mercury, Mars, Venus & Earth).(w)
More recently Emilio Spedicato expressed similar ideas(c) and in another paper(aj) he wrote “we consider the Sumerian tradition of a planet, called Nibiru, claimed to approach Earth every 3600 years. We argue that the real period was 20 years and that a close passage of that body near Earth around 9500 BC ended the last Ice Age and the Atlantis civilization. Moreover, Earth a satellite of Nibiru became our Moon, in addition to the previous satellite, that was Mars. We discuss ancient statements that the Moon originally looked bigger and brighter than now and that the period of about 2400 years when there were two satellites explains the myth of Isis and Osiris. We argue that Nibiru around 6900 BC disappeared in a giant impact on Jupiter.“
Stuart L. Harris has proposed(m) that the planet Nibiru had a close encounter with our Earth in 9577 BC that destroyed Atlantis, followed by another visit in 9417 BC during which it lost one of its satellites, which became our Moon!
Immanuel Velikovsky wrote a short paper(af) reviewing the three most popular theories regarding the origins of our satellite and concluded that “Since mankind on both sides of the Atlantic preserved the memory of a time when the Earth was without the Moon, the first hypothesis, namely, of the Moon originating simultaneously with the Earth and in its vicinity, is to be excluded, leaving the other two hypotheses to compete between themselves.” I think it noteworthy that Velikovsky makes no reference to the theories of Hörbiger in this paper. In 2020, Velikovsky’s unfinished book, In the Beginning [1956], promoted as a prequel to Worlds in Collision, was finally published, where he returns to the matter of the Earth without its Moon.
John Ackerman, a keen follower of Immanuel Velikovsky claimed that there were two catastrophic events related to “the capture of the Moon into its current orbit,” marking both the beginning and the end of the Younger Dryas period(p). Although Ackerman was an admirer of Velikovsky’s work, he was also critical of some of his conclusions(x).
The Moon controversies continue with the recent suggestion by Erik Asphaug, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who claims that originally the Earth had two moons that coalesced into a single satellite (n)! A few years earlier, Dr Martin Jutzi from the University of Bern, Switzerland put forward a similar theory involving a smaller second moon that had a slow-motion collision with the larger satellite. He proposed that this event explains “why the near side of the Moon – the one visible from Earth – is flat and cratered while the rarely-seen far side is heavily cratered and has mountain ranges higher than 3,000m.”(z) Jutzi thought that samples from the far side of the Moon might confirm the theory.
Gary Gilligan, a catastrophist, also supports the concept of moon capture but dated this event to as recent as 2000 BC(f) and then later advanced it to 1200 BC(g). He claims that he can “show that the moon could not have existed during prehistory as evidenced by the absence of the moon in Neolithic artwork and artefacts.” A comment that ignores the maxim ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’
Researcher, Mark Andrew commenting on Gilligan’s claims wrote that “Although Gilligan promises more evidence to come, his theory has to contend with the varied evidence of an earlier Moon, including the earliest known written myth of the Moon’s death and rebirth, the epic poem Descent of Inanna (dating from 1750 BC), and also the oldest known map of the moon (dating from 2800 BC).”(l)
Ticleanu, Constantin & Nicolescu in their paper delivered to the 2008 Atlantis Conference very briefly touched on the origin of the Moon. They claim that our Moon, a former planet, was captured by our Earth sometime within the last 40,000 years [750.368].
Two American commentators, Kevin A. & Patrick J. Casey maintain that a globally catastrophic event occurred 13,000 years ago(ae). The kernel of their theory is that originally the Earth had two moons that at some later point collided, producing our current Moon, while the remnant of the second one eventually exploded over North America kick-starting what we refer to as the cooler Younger Dryas period. They are adamant that it was not a comet or asteroid that caused the devastation, and so clash with the conclusions of Richard Firestone and his colleagues. They refer to this as the 13K Event, which is also known as the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH).
The moon could have formed immediately after a cataclysmic impact that tore off a chunk of Earth and hurled it into space, a new study has suggested. Since the mid-1970s, astronomers have thought that the moon could have been made by a collision between Earth and an ancient Mars-size protoplanet called Theia; the colossal impact would have created an enormous debris field from which our lunar companion slowly formed over thousands of years.
But a new hypothesis, based on supercomputer simulations made at a higher resolution than ever before, suggests that the moon’s formation might not have been a slow and gradual process after all, but one that instead took place within just a few hours. The scientists published their findings on October 4, 2022, in the journal The Astrophysical Journal Letters(al).
Unexpectedly, the orbital speed of the Moon appears to vary on its trip around the Earth(e).
Some of the ideas above regarding the origin of the Moon are extremist and are far more radical than a recent theory regarding the Sun proposed by Ev Cochrane, a comparative mythologist, in a YouTube clip(o), where he offers evidence that the Sun as observed in ancient times seemed quite different to how we see it today. This is borne out by the related mythologies and petroglyphs from our ancient past and shows a global consistency that cannot be explained by imagination.
Professor Neil F. Comins of the University of Maine challenged his students with the question ‘what if the Moon didn’t exist?’ The responses were interesting (no eclipses) and amusing (a new word for ‘lunatic would be required), but not always correct (no tides). One important consequence would be an eight-hour day(q).
Even more challenging are recent comments from Randall Carlson in an exchange between Carlson and Jesse Michels(ak).
JM “Do you believe that there are survivors of ancient Atlantis among us, perhaps with underwater bases or bases on the Moon and advanced technology!”
RC “Now there’s a loaded question, Jesse.” [pause] “I would say, a very provisional – Yes!”
Unfortunately, Michels did not pursue the matter in the clip available.
(a) See: Archive 3334
(b) https://www.q-mag.org/moon-mars-impacts-and-collisions.html
(c) https://aisberg.unibg.it/retrieve/handle/10446/316/1369/WPMateRi05%282008%29SpedicatoPetruzzi.pdf
(e) The Clockwork Moon | MalagaBay (archive.org)
(f) https://grahamhancock.com/earth-capture-the-moon-gilligan/
(g) https://www.gks.uk.com/moon-origin-egyptian/
(h) https://www.q-mag.org/moon-mars-impacts-and-collisions.html
(i) Wayback Machine (archive.org)
(j) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gouqy4OghyY
(k) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Moon
(l) https://web.archive.org/web/20160710150837/https://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/article/late-arrival/
(n) When the Earth Had Two Moons – Issue 74: Networks – Nautilus (archive.org)
(o) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eAwUiadZHY
(p) Firmament and Chaos (archive.org) *
(r) Neal Adams: 01 – The Growing Earth | MalagaBay (archive.org)
(s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Adams
(t) https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/dehilster/2014/09/22/is-the-earth-expanding-and-even-growing/
(u) Neal Adams: 02 – The Growing Moon | MalagaBay (archive.org)
(v) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy3_sWF7tv4
(w) Atlantean Research, Vol.1, No.2, September/October 1948
(x) Velikovsky’s Mistakes | Acksblog (cycliccatastrophism.org)
(z) Earth may once have had two moons – BBC News
(aa) SCIENCE WATCH – The Moon and Lunacy – NYTimes.com (archive.org)
(ab) https://grahamhancock.com/eilinga2/
(ad) The Origin and Evolution of Earth: From the Big Bang to the Future of Human Existence (archive.org)
(ae) https://www.academia.edu/38380799/13k_Theory_Atlantis_Revisited.pdf
(af) The Earth Without the Moon (varchive.org)
(ag) How did the moon form? A supercomputer may have just found the answer | Live Science
(ai) The Revelations of John – Atlantisforschung.de (atlantisforschung-de.translate.goog)
(aj) (99+) Nibiru-tiamat rel 6 June 13 | Emilio Spedicato – Academia.edu
(ak) Graham Hancock: Aliens, Atlantis & the Apocalypse – YouTube
(al) How did the moon form? A supercomputer may have just found the answer | Live Science
(am) Atlantis, Vol.4, No,4, November 1951
(an) https://www.academia.edu/16833657/Hitlers_Supernatural_Sciences
(ap) Ancient humans used the moon as a calendar in the sky (sciencenews.org)
Meltwater Pulses
Meltwater Pulses (MWP) is the term used to describe accelerated discharges of meltwater at 
different periods during the deglaciation that occurred as the last Ice Age ended. Each such event, which probably last hundreds of years have been given designations such as 1A, 1A0, 1B 1C and 1D.
MWP1a saw sea levels rise between 50 and 80 feet over a 500-year period around 13,000 BC and seems to be the least disputed of the postglacial discharges. A 2017 paper(a) has provided further data relating to this time, in particular the collapse of the European ice sheet.
MWP1b is of particular interest to the study of Atlantis as it coincides with Plato’s date of circa 9,600 BC for the Atlantean attack on eastern Mediterranean. However, this creates one major problem, namely that Athens and Egypt did not exist as structured societies at such an early date! In order to explain this coincidence Massimo Rapisarda has speculated[1173] that in writing the Atlantis tale, Plato had incorporated an ancient myth “linked to the memory of that ancient cataclysm,” which occurred at the end of the last Ice Age.
>Rapisarda also notes that the beginning and ending of the Younger Dryas period coincide with MWP1a and MWP1b respectively!(b)<
The last Pulse, MWP1c, took place around 6000 BC and should have left some evidence in historical records. Recently P.P. Flambas suggested[1368] that either MWP1b or MWP1c may have led to inundations known to the Greeks as the Flood of Ogyges.
See Also: Deglaciation, Lake Missoula, Lake Agassiz and Ronnie Gallagher
(a) https://phys.org/news/2017-06-collapse-european-ice-sheet-chaos.html
Carlson, Randall
Randall Carlson is an architect, geomythologist and catastrophist. He is the 
founder of Sacred Geometry International(a). Carlson also features in Graham Hancock‘s book, The Magicians of the Gods[1119]. Hancock’s book focuses on the cometary impact in the 11th millennium BC, proposed by Richard Firestone et al. nearly a decade ago. Hancock returns to the subject again in his latest offering, America Before [1680].
Carlson considers the destruction of Atlantis coincident with the ending of the Last Ice Age and the onset of the Younger Dryas Period(b).
On his GeoCosmicRex website(c) he outlines the early 20th century ideas of J Harlen Bretz and others who sought to explain the American Scablands as the result of the frequent catastrophic bursting of ice dams, with as many as 80 such events.
Since then, new data and new thinking has led many to a dramatic revision of conclusions and a more coherent theory to explain the creation of the Scablands and the sudden return to Ice Age conditions during the Younger Dryas Period. This is a consequence of the Firestone cometary impact theory, which has continued to gather support.
According to the Atlantisforschung.de website, Carlson is sympathetic to the traditional location of Atlantis in the Atlantic, with the Azores as its remnants(d).
>Carlson continues to support this theory in a number of videos presenting his case in a highly plausible but flawed(f) manner. He suggests that Plato’s text is ‘pure’ and should be taken at face value. For example, he quotes where Plato tells us that the Atlanteans came out of the Atlantic Ocean. This is incorrect, as the original Greek says ‘Atlantic SEA. To the Greeks, ‘ocean’ and ‘sea’ had different meanings. I have demonstrated elsewhere that the term ‘Pillars of Herakles’ has been applied to a variety of locations as a metaphor for the limit of Greek maritime knowledge at any given time as the trading and colonisation slowly moved westward. However, the greatest argument against an Azorean Atlantis is the inability of its proponents to explain why and how would such a civilisation attack Athens located 3,500 km away?<
It’s difficult to tell if that is the full story, particularly when you hear a brief (2023) exchange between Carlson and Jesse Michels(e).
JM “Do you believe that there are survivors of ancient Atlantis among us, perhaps with underwater bases or bases on the Moon and advanced technology!”
RC “Now there’s a loaded question, Jesse.” [pause] “I would say, a very provisional – Yes!”
Unfortunately, Michels did not pursue the matter in the clip available.
(a) https://sacredgeometryinternational.com/
(b) See Archive 2720
(c) http://geocosmicrex.com/holocene-mystery/