Could Atlantis be under Greenland's Ice?

[Mario Dantas]

**SNIP**

**Again, please do not post high res pictures unless necessary, as it really clogs up bandwidth for our mobile user.**

Hello,

A hundred years ago (1912), a very distinguished and highly regarded Geologist (Pierre Termier, 1859-1930, a member of the Academy of Science and director of the Geological Survey of France) presented an article (Atlantis) before the Oceanographic Institute of Paris.

He must have believed that however "impossible" the Atlantis tale might be, it had to have some truth in it. This historical presentation also lead Geologist Charles Schuchert to publish a counter argument "ATLANTIS AND THE PERMANENCY OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN BOTTOM", PNAS, in 1917:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....1091177/?page=1

Pierre Termier

**SNIP**

**Please don't post entire articles, particularly when they are so long. A link and a clip of the relevant point you wish to discuss is enough.**

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited March 14, 2012 by aquatus1

[Abramelin]

Hi Mario,

I just had to think of this: ok, suppose Greenland was indeed Atlantis, and that it by god knows what unknown tectonical process moved to the far north of the Atlantic.

But how could this have happened without it changing shape? It had to cross the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. That is like passing a mountain range the size and height of the Himalayas without a scratch.

Does that seem likely to you?

++++

EDIT1:

I cannot imagine no one has thought of this argument against your theory, so if it has been posted already, my excuses to the one who did.

EDIT2:

I see several have mentioned the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Swede: "ploughed through", LOL!!), but not one about what effect it must have had on the shape of "Atlantis"/Greenland.

EDIT3:

Quoting from a source dating from 1912 won't help you much.

If you think scientific finds/theories can prove your point, then post about the latest finds.

Science evolves, my friend. If it didn't, you could quote from Aristotle or Ptolemy.

.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

A word of advise to you, Mario:

When you post a quote of Biblical lengths it is always best to underline those parts you think we should read at any cost.

If not, the scroll-wheels of our mice will have a bad day...

You cannot possible assume that every word in that huge quote will prove your point. It's always just some alineas of the text that will do it. And after we are being hinted at reading those alineas, we might also be tempted to read the rest of that tome of text.

And another thing: most admins don't appreciate it when you copy and paste entire webpages.

I talk from experience, heh.

.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

Hi Mario,

I just had to think of this: ok, suppose Greenland was indeed Atlantis, and that it by god knows what unknown tectonical process moved to far north of the Atlantic.

But how could this have happened without it changing shape? It had to cross the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. That is like passing a mountain range the size and height of the Himalayas without a scratch.

Does that seem likely to you?

++++

EDIT1:

I cannot imagine no one has thought of this argument against your theory, so if it has been posted already, my excuses to the one who did.

EDIT2:

I see several have mentioned the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Swede: "ploughed through", LOL!!), but not one about what effect it must have had on the shape of "Atlantis"/Greenland.

.

While not directly related to the shape of Greenland, I think my Post #225 adequately supports the point you were trying to make Abe, in that deep sea cores taken from in and around the Mid-Atlantic Ridge go back MILLIONS of years and show NO evidence whatsoever of anything sliding across it like Mario is claiming. Nor is there any support for the claims of subsidance (whether Plato's or others) of any kind of land mass in the area that could even remotely be misconstrued as Atlantis.

cormac

[Abramelin]

While not directly related to the shape of Greenland, I think my Post #225 adequately supports the point you were trying to make Abe, in that deep sea cores taken from in and around the Mid-Atlantic Ridge go back MILLIONS of years and show NO evidence whatsoever of anything sliding across it like Mario is claiming. Nor is there any support for the claims of subsidance (whether Plato's or others) of any kind of land mass in the area that could even remotely be misconstrued as Atlantis.

cormac

That was about to be my "EDIT4", lol !!

But whoever posted what, what Mario is suggesting is so unlikely that he will have to come up with some sound theory to back it all up.

And something tells me he can't.

But maybe he's a true genius, and we will just have to wait for his revelation.

Anyway, I love his pics, lol.

[kmt_sesh]

While not directly related to the shape of Greenland, I think my Post #225 adequately supports the point you were trying to make Abe, in that deep sea cores taken from in and around the Mid-Atlantic Ridge go back MILLIONS of years and show NO evidence whatsoever of anything sliding across it like Mario is claiming. Nor is there any support for the claims of subsidance (whether Plato's or others) of any kind of land mass in the area that could even remotely be misconstrued as Atlantis.

cormac

I couldn't agree more. Any modern geologist who might claim such a thing should be taken out behind the barn and given a whoopin'. Of course, it's exceedingly unlikely that any modern, reputable person of science would suggest such a thing in the first place. Continents don't slide around the ocean like chunks of Styrofoam and reposition themselves thousands of miles away in more or less the exact same shape. And even when chunks of continents move and reposition due to plate tectonics, the process requires incredibly long stretches of time. This requires millions of years, not thousands.

It all goes back to the same thing I and so many others stress in myriads of silly Atlantis discussions: the oldest evidence for the tale of Atlantis is Plato's writings. All mention of Atlantis the island in Hellenistic or Classical writings are subsequent to Plato, and elaborations of Plato. Therefore, Plato is really the only source. Why people even try to "prove" Atlantis was real in the first place is beyond me, but at least when they search for Atlantis, they should consider themselves obligated to follow the details as given in Timaeus and Critias. Other than searching for possible sites as foundational to the myth within or adjacent to the Mediterranean and germane to the history of the region, taking so many liberties as to make Plato's descriptions unrecognizable brings the whole discussion to the level of absurdity.

Plato simply must be spinning in his grave, looking upon us moderns from the afterlife and laughing at all of the 21st-century rubes who are trying to place his mythical Atlantis all over the planet.

Except for New Jersey. Atlantis was probably around New Jersey. Or perhaps Minot, North Dakota. Much of the landscape of North Dakota is akin to the surface of the moon, so I'd wager no one's been interested enough to look there.

[cormac mac airt]

I couldn't agree more. Any modern geologist who might claim such a thing should be taken out behind the barn and given a whoopin'. Of course, it's exceedingly unlikely that any modern, reputable person of science would suggest such a thing in the first place. Continents don't slide around the ocean like chunks of Styrofoam and reposition themselves thousands of miles away in more or less the exact same shape. And even when chunks of continents move and reposition due to plate tectonics, the process requires incredibly long stretches of time. This requires millions of years, not thousands.

It all goes back to the same thing I and so many others stress in myriads of silly Atlantis discussions: the oldest evidence for the tale of Atlantis is Plato's writings. All mention of Atlantis the island in Hellenistic or Classical writings are subsequent to Plato, and elaborations of Plato. Therefore, Plato is really the only source. Why people even try to "prove" Atlantis was real in the first place is beyond me, but at least when they search for Atlantis, they should consider themselves obligated to follow the details as given in Timaeus and Critias. Other than searching for possible sites as foundational to the myth within or adjacent to the Mediterranean and germane to the history of the region, taking so many liberties as to make Plato's descriptions unrecognizable brings the whole discussion to the level of absurdity.

Plato simply must be spinning in his grave, looking upon us moderns from the afterlife and laughing at all of the 21st-century rubes who are trying to place his mythical Atlantis all over the planet.

Except for New Jersey. Atlantis was probably around New Jersey. Or perhaps Minot, North Dakota. Much of the landscape of North Dakota is akin to the surface of the moon, so I'd wager no one's been interested enough to look there.

Atlantic City. Isn't it obvious?

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Atlantic City. Isn't it obvious?

cormac

I wouldn't gamble on it.

Ha! Get it? Atlantic City, gamble?

Never mind.

[Doc Socks Junior]

The guy you're quoting, Mario, presented his little theory in 1912. Wegener proposed plate tectonics in 1920. And plate tectonics has been proven to be right. Pierre Termier was just a little early. Distinguished, but subject to the fact that geologists at that time just didn't know whazzup. Peace.

And kmt, I don't get it? Oh. *gets it

[Mario Dantas]

The extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles

Atlantis and Greenland within Pangaea breakup: Where reality ends and imagination begins...

Mario M. Dantas dos Reis

Praia. Republic of Cabo Verde

Abstract

The purpose of the present paper is to exhibit evidence supporting a new reconstruction model of Pangaea breakup. The ancient tectonic configuration attempt to determine how present continental arrangement and crust evolution might have developed, as consequence of an important meteoric impact event erased from the Geological record. Satellite photography, geological maps, and oceanic basin’s digitally enhanced images permitted to estimate a new model regarding the north Atlantic section. The research concentrates on Geo-tectonic regional and general continental reconstructions concerning Greenland and the northeastern Atlantic margins. The geological scenario of the displays is located within the Azores-Gibraltar region. Northwest Africa and Iberian Peninsula’s continental shelf distinctive contours are objects of study and results here rendered from satellite imagery to have direct and extensive co-relation (outline fit) with Greenland’s absolute eastern continental shelf. Greenland might have occupied a central position in the north Atlantic, later tectonically evolving towards the Arctic present continental configuration. World digital magnetic anomaly maps, and geoid database are equally presented as evidence of two major tectonic events: a generalized mid-oceanic magnetic anomaly in the north Atlantic region, starting at the (average) Cabo Verde latitude in the Mid Atlantic Ridge, reaching the Arctic; and a huge nearly antipodal impact crater “counterpart” under the Indian sub-continent. The Cabo Verde and Canary islands origin are likewise investigated as probable related hot-spots produced when Greenland’s continental mass initiated its dislocation northwards. By recognizing these continental and oceanic floor circumstances we propose Greenland as a possible match for Plato´s Atlantis.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Mario Dantas

[Mario Dantas]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/182iN709SwHYAGsyUAOaen5_EPZzpniUvawJvZQmCJnM/edit

[The_Spartan]

Mario, do you think that humans were around the time when the Pangaea broke up?

You are posting that "Atlantis" could be under the ice in Greenland and that Greenland broke of from Pangaea and slowly moved upwards.

The Pangaea started breaking up during 175 Million years ago. So, do you think Humans were around that time?

[kmt_sesh]

Mario, do you think that humans were around the time when the Pangaea broke up?

You are posting that "Atlantis" could be under the ice in Greenland and that Greenland broke of from Pangaea and slowly moved upwards.

The Pangaea started breaking up during 175 Million years ago. So, do you think Humans were around that time?

Yes. I'm wondering the same thing.

[aquatus1]

Mario, the purpose of a discussion forum is to, well...discuss.

You haven't been doing any discussing. The very few points that you have acknowledged, you have not actually addressed; Instead you posted some other bit of your argument that did not actually address the point itself.

In other words, you are presenting what you believe is correct, but you are not listening to anyone who tells you that something is incorrect. Earlier I said that I believed it was unlikely that you would develop a valid theory if you focused on your conclusion instead of the evidence. This above behaviour is precisely why that was said.

Real researchers don't focus on the "yes" answers. They go out of their way to find the "no" answers.

In all cases, if you intend to keep posting in this discussion forum, you do need to start discussing. UM is not a soapbox for individual agendas.

[Mario Dantas]

Aquatus1, everybody,

(Hoping that those of you who are writing on this thread, actually read Plato's dialogs "Timaeus" and "Critias")

I have created an experiment that puts aside the geological timing and focus on other "issues".

I need you to answer me why is there such a perfect continental fit between several regions of the world and Greenland (you never spoke about the "supposed" continental fit in my models). Why is the strongest positive anomaly (in the geoid map), in front of Gibraltar? Why are Laurissilva fossils in southern Europe and north Africa only found alive in the Macaronesia? Why is the distance between the Cape Verde islands and the Azores equal to Greenland's length? Why is the largest desert in the world located below the Gibraltar region? Why is that the Azores triple junction (where the three major continental plates meet: American, Eurasian, and African plates) is located in front of Gibraltar? Why did sea levels rose as much as 140 m, at the end of the last glaciation? Why is there continental sediment where there is no continent at all (in the northern MAR)? Why orogenic events took place in both sides of the Atlantic (the Atlas range, the Appalachians, or the Scandinavian)? Why 10% of all the world's "conus genus" are located in the Cape Verde islands? Why are the three major nesting places for the Caretta Caretta turtle situated in the same latitude (Miami, Cape Verde, Oman) Why is the Sahara so uniformely constituted of Sand and dust (which is responsible for more than 60 % of all dust (aerosol) in the world's atmosphere? Why is the northern MAR shape similar to Greenland? Why is Iceland so volcanicly active and within the northern MAR? Why is southern Greenland so geological similar to the Cape Verde islands? Why is the windward group geologically similar to Greenland's southwest, and the leeward group likewise similar to the southeast? Why is there also a coincidental continental fit between each island group and said Greenlandic regions? Why are volcanoes (extinct and active) situated at the inward regions of the Archipelago, and not somewhere else? Why is the sea floor uplift in these islands, related to continental drift (Serralheiro, 1970)? Why have the two archipelagos (Cape Verde and Canary islands) synchronously came into being so far distanced from each other? Why are there vestiges of a continent in these tiny islands? Why is ancient sea floor now covered with extensive lava flows? What caused the widespread "extinction" of benthic fauna in the Macaronesia? Why was the term "Macaron Nesoi" given to the islands of the Macaronesia?

Lava Lake Tectonics

Regards,

Mário Dantas

Edited March 16, 2012 by Mario Dantas

[cormac mac airt]

Aquatus1, everybody,

(Hoping that those of you who are writing on this thread, actually read Plato's dialogs "Timaeus" and "Critias")

I have created an experiment that puts aside the geological timing and focus on other "issues".

I need you to answer me why is there such a perfect continental fit between several regions of the world and Greenland (you never spoke about the "supposed" continental fit in my models). Why is the strongest positive anomaly (in the geoid map), in front of Gibraltar? Why are Laurissilva fossils in southern Europe and north Africa only found alive in the Macaronesia? Why is the distance between the Cape Verde islands and the Azores equal to Greenland's length? Why is the largest desert in the world located below the Gibraltar region? Why is that the Azores triple junction (where the three major continental plates meet: American, Eurasian, and African plates) is located in front of Gibraltar? Why did sea levels rose as much as 140 m, at the end of the last glaciation? Why is there continental sediment where there is no continent at all (in the northern MAR)? Why orogenic events took place in both sides of the Atlantic (the Atlas range, the Appalachians, or the Scandinavian)? Why 10% of all the world's "conus genus" are located in the Cape Verde islands? Why are the three major nesting places for the Caretta Caretta turtle situated in the same latitude (Miami, Cape Verde, Oman) Why is the Sahara so uniformely constituted of Sand and dust (which is responsible for more than 60 % of all dust (aerosol) in the world's atmosphere? Why is the northern MAR shape similar to Greenland? Why is Iceland so volcanicly active and within the northern MAR? Why is southern Greenland so geological similar to the Cape Verde islands? Why is the windward group geologically similar to Greenland's southwest, and the leeward group likewise similar to the southeast? Why is there also a coincidental continental fit between each island group and said Greenlandic regions? Why are volcanoes (extinct and active) situated at the inward regions of the Archipelago, and not somewhere else? Why is the sea floor uplift in these islands, related to continental drift (Serralheiro, 1970)? Why have the two archipelagos (Cape Verde and Canary islands) synchronously came into being so far distanced from each other? Why are there vestiges of a continent in these tiny islands? Why is ancient sea floor now covered with extensive lava flows? What caused the widespread "extinction" of benthic fauna in the Macaronesia? Why was the term "Macaron Nesoi" given to the islands of the Macaronesia?

Lava Lake Tectonics

Regards,

Mário Dantas

Many of us have read the Timaeus and Critias many, MANY times.

When you "set aside the geological timing" as well as other conter-evidence, you've effectively set aside the facts in favor of your pet fiction. THEREIN lies the problem.

cormac

[Doc Socks Junior]

Nope, I am NOT going to answer the several dozen questions you are posing. That would require patience, which (thanks to a ****ty online homework program involving completely incorrect calculus formulas) I do not have. But regardless of that.

What do your questions even mean? Whoop-de-frickin-do, Greenland was part of Pangaea. It moved to its present location. All commonly accepted facts. Except, humans weren't alive when this happened, so your Atlantis theory is a bunch of wishful thinking and fairy dust.

Who would've thought, I feel better now.

EDIT: I'd just like to add that your questions are basic, and don't bring anything new to the table. I can see where you are going with them, but geology isn't a madcap science of "Find the most improbable explanation." It is a careful science of multiple working hypotheses.

EDIT 2: Occam's Razor.

Edited March 16, 2012 by socrates.junior

[The_Spartan]

he still hasn't answered my Question.

Yoo Hoo Mario!!

Do you think Humans were there during the time of the break up of the Pangaea?? And did they build Atlantis on Greenland?

As i said, Pangaea started breaking up 175 million years ago.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens came around 7 million years ago only.

Come on Mario...stop beating around the bush, skirting the actual question.

Answer me.

its no bloody fun discussing about Altantis in Greenland when Humans were not even around there to build it.

[aquatus1]

(Hoping that those of you who are writing on this thread, actually read Plato's dialogs "Timaeus" and "Critias")

Oh for...Yes, Mario, we have read it. Atlantis is mentioned only once in Timaeus, and Critias was never actually finished (there is speculation that the story was too similar to an already existing tale for Plato's tastes). Both of them together are about ten pages worth of material. It is not exactly a hard read.

Timaeus and Critias are part of a 6 dialogue set (Critias, Laws, Philebus, Sophist, Statesman, Timaeus), the others of which refer directly to politics, in much the same way that Atlantis is used as an example of one of Plato's political societies. Plato wrote multiple dialogues on politics and philosophy, he wrote none on history, and certainly no travelogues.

That Atlantis is fictional and a metaphor is not even in question by any academic, to the point that when they did an Atlantis special for ABC (CBS?), they had to find philosophers to talk about Atlantis, because they couldn't get any historians who believed it to be real.

I have created an experiment that puts aside the geological timing and focus on other "issues".

Okay, see, in the previous post, it was pointed out that you never actually discussed any of the issues we pointed out to you, that you just kind of ignored it and started talking about different topics, remember that? Please read what you wrote up there, and think about it a little bit.

I need you to answer me why is there such a perfect continental fit between several regions of the world and Greenland (you never spoke about the "supposed" continental fit in my models). Why is the strongest positive anomaly (in the geoid map), in front of Gibraltar? Why are Laurissilva fossils in southern Europe and north Africa only found alive in the Macaronesia? Why is the distance between the Cape Verde islands and the Azores equal to Greenland's length? Why is the largest desert in the world located below the Gibraltar region? Why is that the Azores triple junction (where the three major continental plates meet: American, Eurasian, and African plates) is located in front of Gibraltar? Why did sea levels rose as much as 140 m, at the end of the last glaciation? Why is there continental sediment where there is no continent at all (in the northern MAR)? Why orogenic events took place in both sides of the Atlantic (the Atlas range, the Appalachians, or the Scandinavian)? Why 10% of all the world's "conus genus" are located in the Cape Verde islands? Why are the three major nesting places for the Caretta Caretta turtle situated in the same latitude (Miami, Cape Verde, Oman) Why is the Sahara so uniformely constituted of Sand and dust (which is responsible for more than 60 % of all dust (aerosol) in the world's atmosphere? Why is the northern MAR shape similar to Greenland? Why is Iceland so volcanicly active and within the northern MAR? Why is southern Greenland so geological similar to the Cape Verde islands? Why is the windward group geologically similar to Greenland's southwest, and the leeward group likewise similar to the southeast? Why is there also a coincidental continental fit between each island group and said Greenlandic regions? Why are volcanoes (extinct and active) situated at the inward regions of the Archipelago, and not somewhere else? Why is the sea floor uplift in these islands, related to continental drift (Serralheiro, 1970)? Why have the two archipelagos (Cape Verde and Canary islands) synchronously came into being so far distanced from each other? Why are there vestiges of a continent in these tiny islands? Why is ancient sea floor now covered with extensive lava flows? What caused the widespread "extinction" of benthic fauna in the Macaronesia? Why was the term "Macaron Nesoi" given to the islands of the Macaronesia?

Mario...an experiment is is a procedure specifically designed to test a hypothesis or make a discovery. What you did above is not an experiment. It is an attempt to shut people up by blitzkrieging them with questions.

If you have no intention of discussing anything, please stop wasting bandwidth not discussing it.

[Mario Dantas]

Aquatus1,

Shall we discuss the continental fit between Greenland, Iberian peninsula and northwestern Africa? Why is there a "fit" of more than 3.000 km? Have you noticed that canary islands also have a perfect fit, as the Cape Verde islands? Why would three (four?) continental landmasses far apart from each other have such a lengthy occlusion? Or do you deny it? Are you ignoring on purpose what has been shown to you?

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-53imY2_pntk/SroBwEDYtrI/AAAAAAAACg0/S5npL7sc8sU/s800/111.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cIbBYYO1vsI/SrQFyX7FDOI/AAAAAAAACa8/tRN5TGM1ZS4/s1024/kirchersimulation.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-3psSAHaK-wY/S2WA3tucdsI/AAAAAAAADJw/0BD-OCUklJk/s1023/wefwef.png

If you (all) deny this evidence,there will be no use in continuing here...

Although there are many other evidences corroborating what the images are clearly stating, we would take eons discussing it. It is not possible to even pass the "star-up" phase, without being bashed around like some lunatic would. I urge you to observe attentively to the information that has already been forwarded so far. I will never forgive you for having erased Pierre Termier' article without even consulting me. Thanks a lot!

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[Leonardo]

Aquatus1,

Shall we discuss the continental fit between Greenland, Iberian peninsula and northwestern Africa? Why is there a "fit" of more than 3.000 km? Have you noticed that canary islands also have a perfect fit, as the Cape Verde islands? Why would three (four?) continental landmasses far apart from each other have such a lengthy occlusion? Or do you deny it? Are you ignoring on purpose what has been shown to you?

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-53imY2_pntk/SroBwEDYtrI/AAAAAAAACg0/S5npL7sc8sU/s800/111.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cIbBYYO1vsI/SrQFyX7FDOI/AAAAAAAACa8/tRN5TGM1ZS4/s1024/kirchersimulation.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-3psSAHaK-wY/S2WA3tucdsI/AAAAAAAADJw/0BD-OCUklJk/s1023/wefwef.png

If you (all) deny this evidence,there will be no use in continuing here...

Although there are many other evidences corroborating what the images are clearly stating, we would take eons discussing it. It is not possible to even pass the "star-up" phase, without being bashed around like some lunatic would. I urge you to observe attentively to the information that has already been forwarded so far. I will never forgive you for having erased Pierre Termier' article without even consulting me. Thanks a lot!

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Mario,

A continent is not defined by the mass of land above sea-level, but to the extent of the continental shelf - that's why it's called the "continental shelf".

The Canary Islands are part of the continental shelf of Africa, thus they are part of the "continent of Africa".

There is no 'fit' between the 'continent of Greenland' and Europe/Africa because there is no 'continent of Greenland'. Greenland is part of the North American continent and resides on the continental plate of that name.

The land mass of Greenland does not move independently of the rest of the continent of North America.

[Doc Socks Junior]

As I said before, it has been established that they "fit". THAT MEANS NOTHING TO YOUR THEORY.

[Mario Dantas]

Mario,

A continent is not defined by the mass of land above sea-level, but to the extent of the continental shelf - that's why it's called the "continental shelf".

The Canary Islands are part of the continental shelf of Africa, thus they are part of the "continent of Africa".

There is no 'fit' between the 'continent of Greenland' and Europe/Africa because there is no 'continent of Greenland'. Greenland is part of the North American continent and resides on the continental plate of that name.

The land mass of Greenland does not move independently of the rest of the continent of North America.

Dear Leonardo,

I never said that the fit pertained to landmasses above sea level, as you put it. The Canary and the Cape Verde islands are not part of the african shelf.

The global continental shelf highlighed in cyan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elevation.jpg

Are you denying then that there is a fit between Greenland, the northwestern Africa, and Iberian peninsula shelf?

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-L9f5NzhftNA/TF2wdGE-QwI/AAAAAAAAEJk/jISh2nEvwbE/s671/Canary+islands22.jpg

Maybe it is a coincidence that they match to such an extent, maybe not. Excuse for saying this but you all here are denying the obvious. Any other coincidental aspects thrown here, will always be a mere coincidence:

To establish cause and effect (causality) is notoriously difficult, expressed by the widely accepted statement "correlation does not imply causation". In statistics, it is generally accepted that observational studies can give hints, but can never establish cause and effect. With the probability paradox considered, it would seem that the larger the set of coincidences, the more certainty rises and the more it appears that there is some cause behind the effects of this large-set certainty of random, coincidental events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[Mario Dantas]

As I said before, it has been established that they "fit". THAT MEANS NOTHING TO YOUR THEORY.

Socrates.junior,

I did not understand your idea, can you please elaborate?

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[The_Spartan]

whether it fits or not is not the question.

What is the purpose of wasting time creating all those maps, writing that abstract etc., when humans were not even around the time of the break up of Pangaea???

what is the purpose of your whole argument, when there was never any humans at that time, to even build Atlantis?

Where does Atlantis come into the the subject of your theory???