Dear Swede, everybody,
If for some reason there is a problem in discussing these issues, i hope you will tell me at once... If the geologist within you is not interested in the results of a four years research regarding the possibility of Greenland being Atlantis, i am afraid that is it...
Yes, i have been promoting my theory, but the discussion aspect of it is to me very important, (remember Plato only wrote dialogs?) All i am trying to do is to talk to people. But i don’t really want to be bashed around anymore (i have been abundantly accused of hideous things, unjustly). I really hope you are interested in discussing it...
There are evidences my friend, but they must be looked for in a different way. A strangely coincident “continental” fit is obvious, and can be easily replicated on a huge number of software with high precision. But there are many more elements, e.g. the fact that the whole Ketilidian mobile belt region (in southern Greenland) bear the exact same geologic characteristics as the Cape Verde islands, each island being an relict geologic “counterpart” of the ancient Greenlandic body. Noticed you posted a few links (Geus.dk) so i will comment later.
I want to explore and learn more although, geology is not exactly easy. I analyse a lot of data through very quick readings, leaving whole bunches of documentation for further examination, at leisure. My theory is, nevertheless, rather based on Plato’s Atlantis, geology has a major role in it, but there are a whole lot of other sciences involved.
(Geologic) expertise is indeed essential to correctly understand/explore the geological data, as you put it, but specialization often lacks imagination (no offense), in the sense that you need to have a more interdiscliplinar approach, while dealing with Atlantis theme...
Regarding being “out of the realm of credibility”, all i can say is that credibility and reality are frequently opposite.
To add a few more: First, note this simple Wiki map. The correlations between the Congo and Sao Francisco formations and those of the West African/Sao Luis formations are matters that have been well studied and verified.
To further investigate the comparative geological aspects in regards to Greenland and west Africa, please take the time to assimilate the following:
Now compare this data to that of West Africa. Also note the Canary Islands aspect:
And more on the formation of the Canary Islands:
And, to reiterate, the "proposal" that a sizable subsection of the North American craton has been essentially "floating" back and forth (particularly given the depth of said craton) across tectonic plate boundaries places your "experiment" in a less than favorable position.
Thanks for the links, i really appreciated... I knew the site (GEUS.dk) already, and have read many useful information there.
The Ketilidian mobile belt region is very important to my research because the “fitting” between southern Greenland and the Cape Verde islands is corroborated by extensive geologic information e.g. the existence of undifferentiated metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks in both regions (Cape Verde/Greenland). Lastly, my theory does not propose a “back and forth” motion of Greenland. Greenland existed further south and simply moved towards north:
I urge you to observe how close is Greenland from the straits of Gibraltar:
Edited by Mario Dantas, 20 March 2012 - 12:15 PM.