Research Centre Press— List ofPublications

Hoerbiger Monograph No. 1.
March, 1948.

2nd Edition.

Price 1/or 25 cents U.S.

The Hoerbiger Institute
The Atlantis Bulletins.
1. The Research Group, Its Aim and Purpose.
2. Recent L iterature on Atlantis.
3. A tlan tis; the Key to the Past.
4. The Gorgon, the Polypus and the Kraken.
(In preparation.)
5. The Paul Schliemann Mystery. (In preparation.)
6. Vedie Flood Legends. (In preparation.)
7. A Bibliography of Classical A tlantean References.
The Hoerbiger Monographs.
1. Plato and Hoerbiger. By H. S. Bellamy.
2. A Bibliography of the Hoerbiger Theory.
3. A Basic Outline of Hoerbiger. (In preparation.)
The Avalon Reports.
1. The Earliest Survey. By K. H. Koop.
2. A Bibliography of Megaliths, Place Names, Units ofMeasurement, etc.
For Early Publication.
The Lost Atlantis. By W. J. Bryant. (About 10/6d.)
Geometrical Arrangem ent of Ancient Sites. By F. C. Tyler.
(About 5/-.)All Publications 1/-, or 25 cents in U.S.A., unless otherwisemarked.

Enquiries should be addressed t o :—EGERTON SYKES,
9, Markham Square, London, S.W.3.
B.T.S., 453-5, Fulham Eoad, S.W.IO.

Plato and Hoerbiger
A New Approach to the Atlantis Problem
By H. S. BELLAMY.
A tlantis has held a firm place in the minds of the learned •and the lay ever since Plato first mooted it as a fit subject forserious philosophical consideration. I t has been said th at thestory of the loss of A tlantis is nothing but a product of pureinvention—but th at theory must be discounted for a numberof weighty reasons. The weightiest will be given in the further
course of this disquisition; suffice it at this point to say; th at
the great philosopher was not in the habit of making up stories;
th a t he published the A tlantis report at the peak of his fame
when the telling of a mere fable would have done his reputationconsiderable h a rm ; th at he put forth his first Atlantis reference
under peculiar aspects of urgency; and, finally, th at P la to ’s
A tlantis report, if rightly considered, contains nothing th at
is improbable or impossible.
P la to ’s great report, as contained in his last two works,
the “ Dialogues” Timaeus and Critias, consists of two materials.
The one is unim portant: it deals with the culture and historyof Atlantis. The other is of supreme im portance: it deals withthe sudden loss of a “ continent” under peculiar cataclysmic
aspects.
The chief duty of any serious “ A tlantologist” must be to
explain the sudden and u tte r disappearance of Atlantis. The
entire loss of a continent or island is only possible throughsubmergence, for which, indeed, we have the authoritative
statem ent of Plato himself. But it is just here th at scientists
have failed to give a lead, or at least to afford some help.
According to the official view obtaining at present submer­
gences are only possible through land sinking into the waters,
the physical constitution of the E a rth ’s surface being w hat
it is, terrestrial crustal movements can only result in relatively
small and local, and mostly only slow, submergences of land;
the sudden disappearance of what, to all intents and purposes,
was a minor continent is deemed impossible. This standpointof non-co-operation on the p a rt of official science has caused

A tlantologists to explore all sorts of u n iru itfn l side-lines, toavoid clashes or th e accusation of being unscientific rom ancers.

However, if the “ orthodox” sciences are unable, or un­
willing to help, Atlantologists are entitled to try an approachfrom an “ unorthodox” side. The most promising avenue
available is th at which is afforded by the teachings of theA ustrian cosmologist, Hans Hoerbiger. The relevant sectionsof his “ Cosmic Ice Theory” are as follows:—
Interplanetary space is not absolutely “ em pty” but filled
w ith a medium which is exhaled from the sunspots. In spiteof its thinness this “ solifugal” medium offers a definite re­sistance to the planets, and causes their orbits to be finelypitched, inward-tending spirals. As goes without saying theinvolution ratio of each planetary body is different and depends
on its size, mass, speed, and distance from the Sun. Hence asmaller body must spiral sunward more quickly than a biggerone. If, for instance, our Moon, which is about fifty times
smaller, and about eighty times lighter, than our Earth, werean independent planet wending its way some distance outside
the terrestrial orbit, it would eventually trespass into theactive gravitational realm of the Earth, and be “ captured”
as a satellite. According to Hoerbiger this is exactly what
happened to the planet Luna, some twelve or thirteen thousand
years ago.
The capture of the Moon, of course, brought about a seriesof great physical changes on our Earth. The gravitation of thenew satellite distorted the terrestrial crust, which caused
terrific earthquakes and violent volcanic activity.
The
terrestrial atmosphere was throw n into confusion, with a longlasting general worsening of the climate as a result. But theprofoundest change was caused by the new satellite drawing
the waters of the terrestrial oceans more towards the tropics,
and holding them there. To the north and south of a latitude
of about 40 deg. th e'w aters fell, but within th at girdle theyrose—by something like eight or ten thousand feet in theequatorial belt.
Here, then, is the cataclysm which would be able to swal­
low up even whole continents situated in critical latitudes,suddenly and tracelessly. And here there are the seismic andvolcanic paroxysms, and the meteorological phenomena, which
attended the catastrophe. It was, as Plato significantly states,‘ ‘a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around thee arth ,” th at is, the capture of our present Moon, which caused' ‘in a single day and night of m isfortune” , the loss “ of theisland A tlantis in the depths of the sea.” This happened“ 9,000 years” before the age of Solon (that is, some 11,500years ago, a figure not so dissimilar from our estimate), andA tlantis which was situated “ in the sea in front of the Pillarsof Hercules” (a near enough approximation to our criticalzone), was destroyed “ by the agency of fire and w ater” ,through “ violent earthquakes and floods” .
The great catastrophe had not been quite unforeseen.
■“ Many great deluges had taken place” . . . “ after intervals”(the so-called conjunction floods caused by close passages ofth e planet Luna prior to the capture), before the “ great deluge■of a ll” . The Atlanteans, well aware of the ultim ate danger
threatening their land, sent out “ an expedition against thewhole of Europe and A sia” to acquire safe new seats by•conquest. One of the expeditions was directed against■“ A thens” (not the historical city, but a prehistoric stateis meant, of course). The struggle for what was con­sidered safe life space was terrible, “ some m ilitarypu rsu it was then common to men and women” . The■great battle between the Atlanteans and the “ A theneans”
was not decided by victory of arms, but brought to an end by
th e outbreak of the great cataclysm, which engulfed botharmies. The w aters of the M editerranean, which was thenalso formed in its present extent, swallowed up much of thefought-over homeland of the “ various families of Hellenes” ,leaving only a “ rem nant of A ttica” , all the rest having “ fallen
away all round and sunk out of sight” .
These few passages quoted from Jo w e tt’s translation of
P la to ’s Dialogues, Timaeus and Critias, must suffice for thisshort disquisition. They are ample, however, to prove two
im portant facts. First, no m atter from which source Plato■derived his knowledge of the loss of Atlantis, it will be con­ceded th at he could not under any circumstances have “ in­vented” all the most significant details quoted above (andmany m o re ); hence it is certain th at Plato has presented us
w ith a Report, and not with a made-up tale. Second, only ifviewed, from the angle of H oerbiger’s teachings regarding thecapture of Luna these details, and the many others alluded to,
make real sense; hence H oerbiger’s Theory though “ unortho­d o x ” , and still frowned upon in many quarters, offers a valu­
able approach to the A tlantis Myth. Both these points become
more evident still if P la to ’s m aterial is subject to a still deepergoing analysis.
I t need hardly be stressed th at P la to ’s Report of th e lossof A tlantis is not the only myth telling of the foundering ofgreat land-areas. There are numerous similar myths telling■of sudden submergence both in the Atlantic and in the Pacifichemispheres of the Barth, many of them stressing the cosmic
causation of the cataclysm. Some of them have already beenreferred to in my previous mythological works. But the full
discussion of all the im portant points of this myth-complex,
and especially of P la to ’s A tlantis Report in the light of Hans
-Hoerbiger’s Theory must be reserved for a special work.