147 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

Riaan, on 27 July 2010 - 04:36 PM, said:

It would be very convenient simply to ignore this little problem!

The problem being: I had collected lots of info only to loose it again; don't quote only part of what I said just to suggest I evaded your point.

But I didn't ignore it; I have explained those ravines, and they don't need to have been rivers formed on dry land.

And even if they did (I haven't found any scientific study even suggesting that they did), then it must have happened many millions of years ago.

-

Back to what I tried to explain concerning those rivers/ravines/canyons.




Publication details
Ó Cofaigh, C. & Evans, D.J.A. 2007. Radiocarbon constraints on the age of the maximum advance of the British-Irish Ice Sheet in the Celtic Sea. Quaternary Science

"The Irish Sea Till was deposited by the Irish Sea Ice Stream during its last advance into the Celtic Sea. We present 26, stratigraphically well constrained, new AMS radiocarbon dates on glacially transported marine shells from the Irish Sea Till in southern Ireland, which constrain the maximum age of this advance. The youngest of these dates indicate that the BIIS advanced to its overall maximum limit in the Celtic Sea after 26,000–20,000 14Cyr BP, thus during the last glaciation. The most extensive phase of BIIS growth therefore appears to have occurred during the LGM, at least along the Celtic Sea and Irish margins. These data further demonstrate that the uppermost inland glacial tills, from the area of supposed ‘‘older drift’’ in southern Ireland, a region previously regarded as having been unglaciated during the LGM also date from the last glaciation."

http://www.dur.ac.uk...l&pdetail=48740

I hope you do get my point now.



.

Edited by Abramelin, 27 July 2010 - 05:36 PM.

[Riaan]

Abramelin, on 27 July 2010 - 05:21 PM, said:

The problem being: I had collected lots of info only to loose it again; don't quote only part of what I said just to suggest I evaded your point.

But I didn't ignore it; I have explained those ravines, and they don't need to have been rivers formed on dry land.

And even if they did (I haven't found any scientific study even suggesting that they did), then it must have happened many millions of years ago.

-

Back to what I tried to explain concerning those rivers/ravines/canyons.

I hope you do get my point now.

Yes, I did sort of miss it the first time. In my opinion, though, there is no way that an ice sheet covering the entire basin could have carved out something that looks 100% like a river bed. If this river bed was formed millions of years ago as you suggest, it would imply that the submarine canyons were formed at the same time. That would in turn imply that the turbidity current theory is nonsense.

[Abramelin]

Riaan, on 27 July 2010 - 08:37 PM, said:

Yes, I did sort of miss it the first time. In my opinion, though, there is no way that an ice sheet covering the entire basin could have carved out something that looks 100% like a river bed. If this river bed was formed millions of years ago as you suggest, it would imply that the submarine canyons were formed at the same time. That would in turn imply that the turbidity current theory is nonsense.

I was suggesting that this area was above land many. many millions of years ago, and long before man walked the earth.

Tectonic processes - those that are still busy widening the Atlantic Ocean - made that area sink to its present depth.

--

On the other hand, the Porcupine Seabight area may have been at the edge of the ice sheet that covered Ireland and the UK during the last ice age.

The glaciers that protruded into the ocean carried lots of gravel and bolders.

The melting of those glaciers, as soon as those glaciers entered the warm Gulf Stream, caused the dropping of the gravel and boulders on a area that gently sloped towards the deep abyss bordering the Celtic Shelf.

Once a path is carved out, the rest will carve it out deeper, and you will get your 'river beds' on the sea floor.

--

It's either one or the other, but you are suggesting that the sea level dropped like 4000 meters.


I know you stick desparately to your idea that this area was above sealevel in human times.

I don't know why you are so convinced, but *I* am convinced you are wrong.

Now, just show me a scientific document that explains these 'rivers', rivers that existed during the time man walked the earth (according to you/ or maybe even as recent as, say, 10,000 BC).

Look Riaan, it's not just you and me and Lightly who saw these 'rivers', many others will have seen them too on the maps they encountered on the www. Why is it that only you think that these 'rivers' must have been created when our ancestors were there to watch it happen??

.

Edited by Abramelin, 27 July 2010 - 09:04 PM.

[Riaan]

Abramelin, on 27 July 2010 - 09:01 PM, said:

Why is it that only you think that these 'rivers' must have been created when our ancestors were there to watch it happen??

Good observation! Yes, I am clinging to this idea, but not because of the 'river bed' only. It is linked to my theory about Atlantis, images below (you may have seen it posted long ago). The plateau region (of my Atlantis) is now about 4000m below sea level.  We should probably not discuss Atlantis here, but to me the correlation between the Schoner 1515 map and the sea floor as indicated cannot be coincidence. Some have commented that they see no correlation whatsoever.

The map and mountains on the Schoner map actually agree wuite well with Australia and a filled-up lake (lots of rain). The latter is precisely where the Schoner map indicated it to be.

What do you think?

[Abramelin]

I don't care about that.

Stay on topic.

You can't explain all this, so you just pull out another rabbit from your high hat.

Explain why you think you are right and I am wrong about Friesland Island, and the Porcupine Seabight.

I think you are desparate and lost for arguments.

Distorting ancient charts to your convenience won't help you.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 27 July 2010 - 10:23 PM.

[Riaan]

Abramelin, on 27 July 2010 - 10:17 PM, said:

I don't care about that.

Stay on topic.

You did ask, but I agree, we'll stay oin the topic here.

[Abramelin]

Riaan, on 27 July 2010 - 10:19 PM, said:

You did ask, but I agree, we'll stay oin the topic here.

What did I ask?

Ah, this is what I asked:

Now, just show me a scientific document that explains these 'rivers', rivers that existed during the time man walked the earth (according to you/ or maybe even as recent as, say, 10,000 BC).

.

Edited by Abramelin, 27 July 2010 - 10:26 PM.

[Siara]

I've never heard of this before... how bizarre.  Is there any chance that Frisland could be a gigantic iceberg (frozen land)?  This Zeno map was drawn during the medieval "little ice age".

[Siara]

Riaan, on 08 September 2009 - 08:21 PM, said:

Frisland and surrounding islands

Boy, it's an AWFULLY close match, isn't it?  Supposedly there's an ancient map of Antarctica showing the actual coastline beneath all the ice.  I guess if someone actually had access to that information they could also have access to this information.  The sea was a lot lower during the Ice Age but this part of the world would have been under miles of glacial ice at that time.

In some was the western coast of Frisland matches Iceland so closely it's difficult to believe it isn't two depictions of the same coast with and without ice.  The bay marked Sanefiol (or whatever that says) is pretty near the bay between Akranes and Reykjavik.



I wonder if the 14th century maps could be a composite of several different maps including an ancient traditional maps from that part of the world?   How fascinating.

[jmccr8]

Hello Abramelin,
  I was just wondering,as most references to the ice age seem to follow what occured after the last one.When I was reading an article a few years ago at the doctors office about the extinction of the mega-beasts in N.America.The article indicated that there have been 13-16?ice ages in history.It would be interesting to see if they all happened in the same geographical areas or if there were other areas of the planet were affected due to the status of the earths condition at that time.jmccr8

[lightly]

 N.Z. shelf.jpg   38.98K   4 downloads
  (click to enlarge)

Abramelin, on 25 July 2010 - 06:49 PM, said:

Yes, rivers, 25 or more millions of years old...

  hi Abramelin..  i was thinkin...   was New Zealand far enough south to be affected by the Pleistocene ??
  Probably was affected?    You say the rivers in the above image were formed 25 M+ years ago ...  i am wondering.. would 25 million year old riverbeds still be as distinct?   see what i'm trying to say??

sorry to wander off Frisland topic.. but this river/ravine thing is interesting too?

[Abramelin]

jmccr8, on 28 July 2010 - 01:00 AM, said:

Hello Abramelin,
  I was just wondering,as most references to the ice age seem to follow what occured after the last one.When I was reading an article a few years ago at the doctors office about the extinction of the mega-beasts in N.America.The article indicated that there have been 13-16?ice ages in history.It would be interesting to see if they all happened in the same geographical areas or if there were other areas of the planet were affected due to the status of the earths condition at that time.jmccr8

Hi Jmccr8, I know there were many before, but, lol, I could only find detailed info on the last one, so that's why I talked about it. There may have been more ancient ice ages when the ice sheets covered even more of teh area of the Celtic Shelf.

[Abramelin]

Siara, on 27 July 2010 - 11:59 PM, said:

Boy, it's an AWFULLY close match, isn't it?  Supposedly there's an ancient map of Antarctica showing the actual coastline beneath all the ice.  I guess if someone actually had access to that information they could also have access to this information.  The sea was a lot lower during the Ice Age but this part of the world would have been under miles of glacial ice at that time.

In some was the western coast of Frisland matches Iceland so closely it's difficult to believe it isn't two depictions of the same coast with and without ice.  The bay marked Sanefiol (or whatever that says) is pretty near the bay between Akranes and Reykjavik.



I wonder if the 14th century maps could be a composite of several different maps including an ancient traditional maps from that part of the world?   How fascinating.

Hi Siara,

Iceland was already on the maps during Zeno's time; Friesland island and a couple of other 'mythical' islands were placed near Iceland and Greenland on those maps.

I hope you read what was written before; personally I am convinced it was nothing but the Faroe Islands. And that's because of the place names and because the Faroer were inhabited by Frisian pirates.

[Abramelin]

lightly, on 28 July 2010 - 03:39 AM, said:

N.Z. shelf.jpg
  (click to enlarge)




  hi Abramelin..  i was thinkin...   was New Zealand far enough south to be affected by the Pleistocene ??
  Probably was affected?    You say the rivers in the above image were formed 25 M+ years ago ...  i am wondering.. would 25 million year old riverbeds still be as distinct?   see what i'm trying to say??

sorry to wander off Frisland topic.. but this river/ravine thing is interesting too?

I don't know if it was far enough south then, and I don't know how far the ice sheets reached during more ancient ice ages, millions of years ago. They researched that area, and know it sank like 26 or more millions of years ago.

Yes, I know what you are trying to say, but I noticed those rivers almost touch the coast of present day New Zealand. You would have to check if there is a river on NZ that is almost close to the beginning of that submarine river. The outflow of that river onland could keep the ancient riverbed on the sea floor in existence.


--

Found something about New Zealand, not Zealandia:

The map below shows the approximate coastline during the lowest sea level of the last ice age, about 30,000 years ago. Sea level began to rise towards present about 20,000 years ago but rose in stages. Some of the more recent rise is possibly the source of flood myths around the world. However, NZ was not inhabited at that time.

http://ncealevel2sci...leistocene2.png

From:
http://ncealevel2sci...ces.com/Geology

It could be that your rivers were carved out by glaciers.
.

Edited by Abramelin, 28 July 2010 - 11:03 AM.

[lightly]

Abramelin , Thanks a  lot for the info ... according to that image of the last glacial max,  it looks like N.Z.  was affected only on the higher altitudes by snow/ice accumulation, rather than being plowed over repeatedly by ice sheets  , as here in the Great Lakes...   But .. who knows.. the Ice ages waxed and waned for some 200 million years?)   i'll have to read most of the 2nd link later...  (too bad most of the images turn into question marks with this slow dial up connection! ! )....  i'll see if i can find a present day river that matches up with the submerged one.   Sort of doubt it tho.. because of the many smaller branches flowing together  to form the larger river .. in typical river fashion.
* ( Sorry for the detour again Riaan,  just interested in the river/ravine question)

Edited by lightly, 28 July 2010 - 12:20 PM.