Probably almost everybody has heard of Atlantis. Until about the mid 1990's, it meant a mythical land, long sunken under the waves of the north Atlantic. Perhaps the progenitors of Ancient Egypt and others. All we really had was Plato's two dialogues on the topic, containing heresay from Egyptian priests a generation or so before his time, around 300 BC; placing the era 9000 years before then, so 11,000 years ago before now, very close to the 10,500 BC dates we now have from other sources.

Various medieval maps of then undiscovered continents (with inexplicably accurate coastlines, not verified until satellite radar in the 1950's) emerged to hint Antarctica as a possible location. Speculation as to forgotten lands under the Pacific helped researchers and the public understand: that the global sea level was so much lower during the Ice Age meant not only that everywhere to look was now long submerged but that any evidence would be elusive, probably impossible.

With the advent of the discovery of the Richat Structure, aka The Eye of the Sahara (in modern Mauritania): a much more perfect match for Plato's story, the mystery is starting to come together. Bak then, northwestern Africa was much more lush and green. There was an extensive river system which emptied into the sea. If this was Atlantis, it may have been occupied for centuries with populations ranging in the thousands, maybe even millions. All the elements for a sea-faring global culture are present. The puzzle of human origins is starting to fall into place, but only for the most recent of lost human civilizations.

It may take us another century to put it all together. Some of these data points may be politically charged. Not just the orthodoxy of established branches of science: in general, opponents of an accurate understanding are invested in maintaining the status quo; but what informs us the most is our modern understanding of science: anthropology, archaeology, geology, geography, and astronomy.

There was certainly trade between the two continents of Africa and South America: Egyptian mummies were recently forensically found to have traces of aspirin, cocoa and tobacco (perhaps as medicines, shortly before their deaths) plants that were originally indigenous only to the Americas. But this is not the only connection: ancient Egyptian boats are exactly like what Peruvian natives weave today, out of reeds, to venture out onto Lake Titicaca in Peru - shaped just slightly more like a crescent moon than a canoe, or a classic dragon headed Viking vessel - and it just so happens to be the perfect shape for a relatively small ship to handle an ocean's waves. So, what if the Olmecs weren't the first to land here?

We've all heard stories of the Vikings settling in Iceland, Greenland - legends we should take more seriously have those expeditions drifting further inland, and assimilating into the population, possibly as far as Minnesota or Florida. Even in mainstream science, it is becoming somewhat more accepted today, that Columbus was not first to discover America, and maybe it was a well-kept secret - more of a validation of its existence to the political dominance of the day. There is even a legend of a Chinese expedition across the Pacific - which landed in California, and set out north, east and south from there - the southern band having settled among the Aztec and Inca, eventually assimilating into their societies, bringing with them the same circular calendar, the same dragonesque lizard gods; even the same styles of clothing. Traces of an unmistakably Asian perspective on astronomy is present in the temples and calendars of ancient America.

Perhaps the one reason why these expeditions are reduced to legends, and even myths, may be because they either failed to thrive; or were, for whatever reason, either unable or unwilling to return. So: their stories had nothing to latch on to permanently, either. But we have at our advantage today the ability to enhance data, extrapolate / divine / dowse the truth, based on so meager clues.

The Olmecs are said to have arrived in Mexico by twelve roads through the sea, (possibly referring to twelve seperate expeditions, out from West Africa; or even the 12 constellations of the Zodiac, already in use elsewhere): and settled in a variety of places, even as far south as Guatemala, in Central America - where they are credited with dividing the early Maya culture in half, via language. Telling. But where did the Maya come from, and how long had they been there already? Like many ancient cultures, we have no idea what they called themselves. Maya is an Aztec word, loosely translating as "ancient aliens."

When Cortez "discovered" Mexico, the Aztec natives were waiting. Their ancient prophecies predicted that very day, and no one had seen facial hair in person until then; so they were naturally certain he was Quetzalcoatl - exactly like the Inca Viracocha: an old bearded white man wearing a long white robe, carrying a staff and a book. Sounds like Merlin, or Jesus (so possibly Hippasus or some other exiled Pythagorean on extended walkabout). They expected salvation, further astronomy and medicine. We expect they were probably the same person, in legend. What happened instead is one of the cruelest ironies ever to befall upon an established native culture. Their faith in their assumed conclusions found a near lethal advantage. So much of their civilization was destroyed by Christian missionaries, convinced calendars predicting eclipses must be devil-worship. Today, we wish we just knew what all is missing.

Cultures were, of course, sometimes, often enough, forced to adapt or perish - and we will likely never know many crucial particulars. It seems we can only gaze in awe and wonder at what they've left behind, derive less turbulence from that, become less impressible. But all of these sites have a common theme - to each other, and with other contemporary sites around the world. There's math, and astronomy, and Sacred Geometry, various other technologies and advancements not likely to be arrived at so independently as we're maybe meant to allow. They knew the world was round, and often exactly where they were on the Earth - and, in some cases, exactly where other sites are, and how far away.

Whoever built these networks of monuments, they're long gone - and left little that we can even discern about who they were, why they did any of that, much less what happened to them. We can only guess. But when they vanished or wandered off, they left behind their pyramids, unimagininable engineering, inexplicable art, and astronomical observatories. Centuries passed, millennia - and other peoples arrived, to eventually call these places and new monuments their home. In order to survive, defend against neighbors, they had to claim as their own: the power that was evident by their very existence. They surely noticed the most basic of alignments to the sun, throughout the year, as cycles progress (we can't miss them, and sometimes we're trying not to look) - and perhaps even decoded some inscriptions themselves, basing their now new written languages on that higher truth. Whatever supersitions probably make more sense as percolated up through that. But perhaps the most telling clue so far: is just the names of these places - their meanings in contemporary indigenous tongues: Temples of the Sun and Moon; Cities of the Gods; "Maya" is Aztec for "old peoples" and "Anasazi" is Navajo for "Ancient Aliens" (?)

In the 16th Century, when Cortez arrived in America, the dominant culture of Mexico City was the Great Aztec Nation. Expecting primitive natives and hoping for El Dorado, he found instead Tenochtitlan; and Teotihuacan (above right). These First Americans had never seen a horse before, and here were hundreds (some may have indeed thought a man on horseback was one giant monsterous creature). Stumbling upon an entirely new civilization; as great and bustling a city as any of its day: with such imposing landmarks as the Pyramids of the Sun and Moon, and Avenue of the Dead - what must he have thought this civilization capable of, and what all did anyone even care about? By then, overpopulation threatened to divide by inevitible decline. Bloodthirsty ritual human sacrifices, as distracting as any Colosseum, but which were thought to be a kind of Devil worship by European soldiers and explorers. And slavery was common; surely these unsuspecting peasants were seen as potential commodities. Whatever his thoughts, or orders from Rome, he easily conquered its people and looted all of its gold. Many of the pricelss treasures of antiquity, some that could perhaps have provided us with further clues of the common, global, mother culture - sadly, probably all lost forever.

Outnumbering Cortez nearly 100 to 1, Montezuma had no reason to contemplate extinction. But the fall of the Aztecs and subsequent minimizing on the global stage - whose bloody rituals horrified the equally superstitious pre-renaissance Christians back home in Western Europe - goes down in history as one of the most stunning slaughters of all time. Trail of Tears, The Holocaust, millions were murdered for their land and place in time. Palaces were looted, libraries raided, temples burned, reality canceled - every last golden trinket was melted down, and uncountled priceless jade statuettes were smashed for fear of evil spirits - astronomical calendars accurately predicting eclipses far into the future - very few ancient historical records escaped destruction. Archaeologists in the western hemisphere cry every day. But it almost goes without saying that a civilization like the Aztec, even if the were recent descendents of the Anasazi, with Chinese guides; even if there were Inca and Olmec ambassadors advising: based on what little we know of as their own inventions (beyond the stereotypically demonizing bloody human sacrifices), is probably fairly as much as anybody else, even modern technology, honestly incapable of designing, much less constructing, these massive pyramid cities which we associate with them today (and so think of them today as not important, even silly). And why would they do that? So who did?

These giant stone blocks are as big as a house - we could not move them today (or: let someone explain what tiny fraction of that we are only now just barely inventing, being rarely and unaffordably partially capable of). And they're from very far away; most of the quarries have been identified, often hundreds of miles and over mountains and water. Just being in the presence of such monuments seems to conjur up the spirits of our ancestors, if not such requisite reverence. Who thinks they can build a mountain, so not pause in awe at these? But look closer: nothing we know of our past (firsthand) can account for the vast number and precision of alignments incorporated within. Stepped pyramids representing every planet in our solar system, each laid out as accurate as we could manage today (or would bother to); perhaps an artistic comment as a schematic of an electronic circuit, with mylar mosaic sidewalks as the perfect electromagnetic insulator: were not possibly built by a people who did not possess the wheel, and whose major pastime was mass Human sacrifice. It is important to remember that Uranus and Neptune were not discovered until around 1800, well after the Aztec empire was a distant memory - and Pluto, in the early 20th Century, and there's a pyramid for each of them, corresponding to their orbits and years and sizes and proportions - several centuries after the Aztecs put their more violent marks on these perhaps grandest of all Pyramids of what is now Mexico City, mathematically and geometrically mirroring their more famous counterparts in Egypt; likely many millennia after they were originally constructed - right next to a still slightly active volcano; what more could you ask for? Something to convince a skeptic, dubious and compelling in equal balance. Because it's still more the controversy of all of that, which still dominates the topic.

Maybe the ball courts were merely repurposed, refurbished; like the Sphinx Temples. Maybe those rooms of such specific and perfect dimensions were for engineering reasons: like housing a matrix of batteries, charged with EM / Solar energy... But throw a ball through that hole in the overhead do-dad thingy, it soon becomes a sport. And 100 years later, when your political rival loses the playoffs, headless football is the tradition the world remembers you for? Maybe that's just how discredited this technology must be? Nazca wasn't discovered for what it was until we could fly over it, in the 1920's. The Astronaut, the Delta-wing glider figurines, the shuttle pilot (below)... That's how these explanations usually go, when accepted by established science. None of that would be surprising, if represented by one tangible piece of evidence. The issue is: everything is like that, it just upsets paradigm; so political. Imagine if you had to discredit gravity, or evolution; that's how this is, but it's changing. Maybe the Age of Aquarius is just fading in that slowly...

Looking harder at the symmetry and balance permeating every unusual angle of these sites, it is becoming more widely accepted today even in mainstream science, that who we know of as the Egyptians or the Aztecs had nothing to do with these original constructions. Like Gobekli Tepi, in modern Turkey (Garden of Eden area), a vast / immense / historical find, intentionally buried for dozens of centuries: there is often evidence of older archaeology underneath, suggesting the cultures we know of merely restored them, which is supported by local legends when available. Looking over any Mesoamerican site, especially Teotihuacan and Tiahuanacu, it is hard to not come away with a sense of standing in the playground of giants - and that is very likely how these ancient peoples felt, when they stumbled upon these scenes themselves; and as much is sifted from their legends, surviving to this day, in the surviving traditions of the people of modern Mexico. There are pyramids under 100 feet of water off the west coast of Cuba, that could not have been above sea-level later than 10,000 BC, about twice as long ago as when writing was supposedly first invented, and supposedly right around the same time Atlantis was destroyed by a global flood. As for the Mayan culture, the word "Maya" means, simply, "old ones" - just as "Anasazi," from the Four Corners area of the American Southwest, means "ancient aliens." A skeptical open mind requires us to ask perhaps only responsible questions, like: could it be that the Anasazi were assimilated Asians, that Chinese expedition circa 1000 AD, who eventually migrated south to Mexico? Right, how does that not make sense, besides just not being written down already? Maybe it's just embarrassing that the groundswell guesses have more to go on. Maybe just: some of us just won't believe any of this until aliens officially land, and all this documentary blizzard is to eventually, gradually... pave that path, safely enough, to avoid panic. Okay, how long have aliens been living among us?

So far, Mexico City claims the world record for longest inhabited human city, through its association with and proximity to nearby Teotihuacan - predating Rome, Athens, Baghdad, and many other top contenders (including Gobekli Tepi and other places even newly rediscovered); if we only knew by what probable phoenomenal margin. The pyramids of Teotihuacan are aligned to the planets and stars - as they appeared in the sky during the Age of Leo, circa 10,500 BC, the exact same era as the Pyramids of Giza are equally, amazingly aligned - and in such a way that we would scarcely be capable of today. Each site's largest / main pyramid has the exact same size square foundation footprint: 440 Egyptian Royal cubits per side, and much of that has been explored, conjectured upon. And mind-bogglingly. But why would we or anyone else even want to? Just to let us know? We have no need of architectual reminders that there are giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn, and how many moons they have; but yet there are pyramids corresponding to every planet, spaced out in perfect proportions - with even a tiny monument for Pluto, way off in the mountains. If any of us are interested, we can look it up in a book, or turn on the Discovery Channel. One worries how much of that is mostly sensationalism, supporting exceptionalism. But still, established orthodoxy refuses to change the encrusted entrusted timeline to account for a great Common Ancestral possibly even Global Culture that certainly must have existed, yet in unexplorable antiquity. Some things are just beyond us? What an idea.

If it is a proven quality of maturity to appreciate ambiguity, enough to continue: then it is perhaps to our credit, in this great age of mass communication, that we are able to make connections across fields of science that previously had no interest in or use for each other - and this collaboration may be the key to rediscovering our ancient heritage on this planet, and possibly beyond. But, very often, wrong ideas remain, until elder statesmen retire. Plate tectonics had to wait decades, because Africa and South America.

Piecing it all together: this amazing civilization, or just the most recent previous version, only recently emerging from the mists of time, was certainly maritime based. We have no reason to believe their territory did not span the entire world (collectively or individually, intentionally or otherwise), unless it's still that incredulous a heresy to even imagine considering. Nazca requires 100 feet of altitude minimum to appreciate, much less construct; they could have had hot-air balloons, but would have needed many years, and there's distinct phases. These people we presume were human, our ancient ancestors: knew the measurements of the Earth, and the stars of the sky, as well as we do today (and in some cases somewhat better) - but far beyond the needs for planting or religious ceremonies; so they didn't stop there, and these may have been peripheral applications. These overt subtleties are far more accurate than is necessarry for mere agriculture; even in hostile, challenging, climates; and they don't accomodate rashly changing climates - which, in many cases, seems to be why the locations were abandoned, at least by historic cultures. Can medieval-ish peasants grow enough food and hunt enough game to subsist there? If that's the only consideration, why do they all align to each other? Stonehenge has a simpler Woodhenge immediately around it, but it matters if that was before or after or both, with or without how accurate it predicts eclipses for eons, or where / when any Camelot or Merlin, if they really existed.

Precision accuracy is required to navigate the high seas. Without landmarks, clear night skies are required to reckon the stars. Latitude (north-south) is immediately apparent if you know what to look for, but Longitude (east-west) requires knowing (more or less) exactly what time it is. The slightest incorrect fuzzy reasoned educated guess, can mean hundreds of miles off. Of course, an Atlantean pocketwatch would resemble the Antikythera Mechanism: find one. And why would one do such a thing? Perhaps to prove it's possible to sail to all the places of the world that they had settled or colonized - to again place Stonehenge exactly where it is, so precisely aligned to Easter Island, Palenque, the Acropolis and the Pyramids of Giza. Invent one. Kon Tiki, Thor Heyerdahl's 20th century book and documentary, did not have the luxury of knowing that Pacifica DNA exists in so many Native Americans.

For further proof, scan the ocean floor from orbit, but with high enough resolution (less than a meter per pixel), because: some of these sites are on precice points of global alignment, though now many meters underwater, that's just the nature of the project. Yoniguni off the coast of Taiwan; Pohnpei in the South Pacific; Bimini Island in the Bahamas. Also, the Azores; Nazca; Machu Picchu; Tiahuanaco; Angkor Wot; and many others above water: all are sites which are arranged at specific regular overt intervals around the globe, aligned to each other in familiar patterns, known to the ancients as Sacred Geometry. A pentagram might be enough, but "the square root of two" is almost never made / marked by nature. Even if their architecture could possibly have been conceived and constructed by primitive peoples - so many other ideas would have naturally been tried first, and many would remain. They do not. Rome, Greece, the Great Wall of China: these are known, classic examples of a primitive culture emerging from the Dark Ages. But Giza, Teotihuacan, Yoniguni: this is a completely different civilization, altogether. Those techniques are perfected, and require centuries of development missing from evidence. You can say it's whatever time of day all day long if you want, and don't know how to read a clock. Again, the most telling bit is how no one notices how conspicuous that is: no one knows even that. We disrespect ourselves by ignoring the need to understand our own even distant history. Is it presumptuous of us to think we require that much validation as a species?

Each of these sites, sacred perhaps, but in their own way, tells us that the end of their era was about 13,000 years ago - when Mankind was not supposed to have had much technology beyond fire and stone spears; no wheel, no writing, certainly no mathematics or astronomy, or mass-communication. But here all of these sites are. What are we to make of them? Clearly, history has to be rewritten. If it falls to us, the people, this is the part where (historically) we stand up and demand to do whatever we want in our own way. But if we don't have access to the material, it's exactly like trying to write a research paper without access to a library. Everybody nod in the general direction of Alexandria.

The purpose of this presented material is to try to make sense of it all... As author / curator: I must offer-up that I have been caught-up in this whirlwind all my life. I watched "In Search Of..." reruns and read Chariots of the Gods as a kid. It's still surprising to me that some people really do seem to need to see all of this as so much foolishness. It is never my intention to fuel any dumpster-fires or be in any way irresponsible with my suppositions. As scientists, we have an obligation to remain both open minded and skeptical in equal balanced measure. The most conspicuous piece of information is perhaps just that no one seems to be okay enough with even that.