477 replies to this topic

[Mario Dantas]

Swede, on 17 March 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

Let us be honest here. You have been promoting your misguided "experiment" in various venues for quite some time.

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...

Quote

As to the "web" being  "full of evidences that in fact Greenland was situated further down south, in front of Gibraltar", one must question your sources, as no credible geological source even hints at such silliness. Kindly provide qualified references to such.

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.

Quote

As has been well pointed out by myself,cormac, Aquatus, et. al., when one arbitrarily suspends the matter of multidisciplinary dating methodology, your "proposition" rapidly falls out of the realm of credibility. This same applies to the lack of willingness to fully explore/understand the geological data.

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.

Quote

You have already been supplied with numerous references in regards to plate tectonics, geology, and timelines.

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.

http://en.wikipedia....st_Gondwana.svg

To further investigate the comparative geological aspects in regards to Greenland and west Africa, please take the time to assimilate the following:

http://www.geus.dk/p...anhstart-uk.htm

http://www.geus.dk/p.../nh01_1s-uk.htm

Now compare this data to that of West Africa. Also note the Canary Islands aspect:

http://www.earthmove...ricaDavison.pdf

And more on the formation of the Canary Islands:

http://www.mantleplu...org/Canary.html

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:

Quote

The mountains and fjords of Greenland preserve a record of nearly four billion years of Earth history - a story of mountain building, volcanic eruptions, primitive life and ice ages. During the vast period of time, through processes of continental drift, Greenland has journeyed from the southern hemisphere through the tropics to its present polar position.

http://www.geus.dk/p...reenland-uk.htm

I urge you to observe how close is Greenland from the straits of Gibraltar:


http://www.geus.dk/p...enland_kort.jpg

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 20 March 2012 - 12:15 PM.

[aquatus1]

Well, that's it then...

Mario, since you have made it clear that you have no intent of discussing the topic with anyone here, I really can't see the point in continuing to post.

[Mario Dantas]

Aquatus,

That is not what i meant or said! You are putting words in my mouth...

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[Abramelin]

Mario Dantas, on 20 March 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Aquatus,

That is not what i meant or said! You are putting words in my mouth...

Regards,
Mario Dantas

No, I am quite sure that is how Aquatus understood your post.

I had a similar understanding.

And even your picture of Gondwana contradicts your claims. We all have seen it. Think this: if that picture is any proof of your 'theory', then were does Britain show up in your equation?

According to that pic, it was even closer to the Strait of Gibraltar.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 20 March 2012 - 07:35 PM.

[Mario Dantas]

To all,

I hope this year will bring good news. Keep up the good work!

Stay tuned!

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[Abramelin]

Mario Dantas, on 20 March 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

To all,

I hope this year will bring good news. Keep up the good work!

Stay tuned!

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Evading difficult questions, right.

I agree with Aquatus: you are not in for discussions.

You are just posting crap ideas and hope to get away with it, and then you pretend you forgot to read what people asked you.. That won't work, my friend.

As long as you keep posting these idiotic ideas, we will be here, waiting for you, and ready to reply to you.

But maybe you have more 'luck' on other sites with more gullible people.

[aquatus1]

Okay, that's it, then.  Thread closed, Mario, if you wish to appeal, please PM the Head Admin, otherwise, feel free to peruse the rest of the site.

[kmt_sesh]

I am willing to re-open Mario's discussion under two provisions:

1) Everyone remain civil when engaging debate.
2) Mario, this must be a two-way enterprise going forward, so fully engage in other posters' comments and questions and take part in discussions.

I will be monitoring this thread, so if either of the two provisions are not met to my satisfaction or under the critique of another Moderator, I will close the thread and closed it will remain.

Thanks.

[Mario Dantas]

Dear kmt_sesh,

Thanks for the oportunity!

I understood the conditions under which this topic was reopened and will act accordingly.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 27 October 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[Mario Dantas]

To anyone,


Precious information regarding Greenland being Atlantis can be found in an incredible wide range of scientific data. Here is a good example:

The land below and around the ice

    
The geology of Greenland reflects a history that stretches back over nearly four billion years. By far the greatest part of the sub-continent is made up of crystalline rocks of the Precambrian shield. Fjords and valleys that cross the present day shield were formed by river erosion and later deepened by glacial erosion during the many advances and retreats of the Inland Ice.

http://www.geus.dk/v...i03_kort002.jpg

The geographical position of Greenland has changed systematically over the past 500 million years as a result of plate tectonic movements, from the tropics to its current position in the Arctic. The figures give time in million years before the present.




The mountains and fjords of Greenland preserve a record of nearly four billion years of Earth history - a story of mountain building, volcanic eruptions, primitive life and ice ages. During the vast period of time, through processes of continental drift, Greenland has journeyed from the southern hemisphere through the tropics to its present polar position. [...]

Greenland has a land area of over 2 million km2, 81% of which is covered by a central ice cap - the Inland Ice. The surrounding ice-free marginal zone is sparsely populated and is characterised by a mountainous arctic landscape. Ice-scoured outcrops are spectacularly exposed along steep fjord walls carved by glaciers draining the Inland Ice. [...]

The geological development of Greenland spans almost four billion years. The central basement shield is composed of gneiss complexes and belts of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks that came into existence during mountain-building episodes 3800-1600 million years ago. Around the margins of this basement shield, thick sedimentary deposits accumulated in extensive basins. Two coast-parallel younger mountain chains formed in North-East and North Greenland about 430-350 million years ago. Major volcanic successions, related to the plate-tectonic opening of the North Atlantic Ocean 60-55 million years ago, were erupted in both East and West Greenland. The Ice Age that began about 2 million years ago is represented by widespread glacial deposits, erosional features and the present-day Inland Ice.[...]

http://www.geus.dk/publications/boeger/geol_hist_greenland-uk.htm

I have an opinion formed about this whole (four billion years old) story. If one observes carefully the above image (of plate tectonic movements), what does it show, regarding Greenland’s move?

Greenland first drifted northeastwards (in the time span of 490,450,430,365,335,320, and 310 million years ago), it would certainly have hit the west African continent. The sahara region would have been flooded with debris (mud, sand and biodiversity). The formation of the African Atlas range is perhaps the proof that such event did in fact take place. Also the unknown origin of the Guel er Richat structure ( in Mauritania), nearly in front of the Cape Verde Islands is likewise suspicious. The existence of an Azorean Triple junction, in front of Gibraltar, where three major continental plates meet, is probably a recent geologic wound, corroborating Plato’s story that an island in fact existed there. There is a known continental gap between west Africa/North America and Greenland was located very near that region when the Atlantic started to open and the continental kernel known as Pangaea, fragmented and started to separate.  It should be predictable that it (Greenland) could only have “bounced” back if it encountered a continent (America), then reaching the north Atlantic eastern region it must have hit northwestern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula:


Notice that Greenland starts moving from a nearly vertical position and ends in that same position (again, in the tectonic movement image), as in this altered image (below) of the north Atlantic ocean. The movement of Greenland was imprinted somehow on the ocean floor (northern MAR) and can be captured by satellite imagery and in geoid maps. Both Greenland and the northern MAR undeniably have the same angles and proportions...
Newfoundland_island, in the northern American continent could have ruptured due to Greenland’s continental impact.








Moving on, from 310, 270, 260, 250, 170, 140, until 120 million years ago the trajectory happens at pretty much the same longitude, but when arriving in the Arctic region, Greenland first “bumps” into the Scandinavian Peninsula (120) and, while entering the northeastern region of the American continent, it finally stops, as the “chronogram” of Greenland’s move clearly show.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

Greenland first drifted northeastwards (in the time span of 490,450,430,365,335,320, and 310 million years ago), it would certainly have hit the west African continent.

No it wouldn't have since, while Greenland was indeed moving over the last 490 million years, so were the rest of the continents/tectonic plates. Greenland never came into contact with Africa. None of which is relevant to the timeframe of modern humans, which is the last 200,000 years BP.

cormac

[DieChecker]

cormac mac airt, on 05 November 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

No it wouldn't have since, while Greenland was indeed moving over the last 490 million years, so were the rest of the continents/tectonic plates. Greenland never came into contact with Africa. None of which is relevant to the timeframe of modern humans, which is the last 200,000 years BP.

cormac

I agree. Mario needs to show some reason to believe humans existed more then 200 million years ago. Homo Erectus was running around some 1 million plus years ago, but even then Greenland was basically where it is now.

[Quaentum]

Mario Dantas, on 05 November 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

To anyone,


Precious information regarding Greenland being Atlantis can be found in an incredible wide range of scientific data. Here is a good example:

Actually the data you have presented is well before humans so can not be Atlantis.  Besides, Atlantis is nothing more than a tale.

[Mario Dantas]

cormac mac airt, on 05 November 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

No it wouldn't have since, while Greenland was indeed moving over the last 490 million years, so were the rest of the continents/tectonic plates. Greenland never came into contact with Africa. None of which is relevant to the timeframe of modern humans, which is the last 200,000 years BP.

cormac

Cormac,

I am glad you are willing to discuss (?).

All i tried to do was to state that there is a set of events, which are part of my experiment, and it happens that they turn out to be coincident with regards to every single orogeny on both sides of the north Atlantic.

Yes, i agree that according to science (as we know it today) Greenland traveled with the rest of the continents/tectonic plates, as you put it, and there is also “still” no evidences indicating that Greenland ever shocked against Africa.  As you might remember i have already stated that in my “thought experiment”, time is not taken into account. The reason for this time ”conditioning” is that dating results would be forcibly wrong if such an event (demise of Atlantis) did happen, aprox. 10.000 years ago. Therefore, these events can be relevant to Modern humans timeframe, under the light of this “timeless” experiment.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

DieChecker,

When you say:

Quote

I agree. Mario needs to show some reason to believe humans existed more then 200 million years ago. Homo Erectus was running around some 1 million plus years ago, but even then Greenland was basically where it is now.

I would argue that the problem here is not whether humans or Homo Erectus lived during these far away periods, millions of years ago, but if the actual geologic time scale is the correct one...

Regards,
Mario Dantas

  

Quaentum

Quote

Actually the data you have presented is well before humans so can not be Atlantis.  Besides, Atlantis is nothing more than a tale.

You are entitled to have your own opinion. Please, bear in mind that in this theory, the geologic timing is ruled out. Once you do that, all types of evidences start to happen.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 07 November 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Mario Dantas, on 07 November 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Cormac,

I am glad you are willing to discuss (?).

All i tried to do was to state that there is a set of events, which are part of my experiment, and it happens that they turn out to be coincident with regards to every single orogeny on both sides of the north Atlantic.

Yes, i agree that according to science (as we know it today) Greenland traveled with the rest of the continents/tectonic plates, as you put it, and there is also “still” no evidences indicating that Greenland ever shocked against Africa.  As you might remember i have already stated that in my “thought experiment”, time is not taken into account. The reason for this time ”conditioning” is that dating results would be forcibly wrong if such an event (demise of Atlantis) did happen, aprox. 10.000 years ago. Therefore, these events can be relevant to Modern humans timeframe, under the light of this “timeless” experiment.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

DieChecker,

When you say:


I would argue that the problem here is not whether humans or Homo Erectus lived during these far away periods, millions of years ago, but if the actual geologic time scale is the correct one...

Regards,
Mario Dantas



Quaentum




You are entitled to have your own opinion. Please, bear in mind that in this theory, the geologic timing is ruled out. Once you do that, all types of evidences start to happen.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Your "thought experiment" has no basis in reality so doesn't apply to ancient human or geological history. Neither does ignoring the geological/chronological timeframe because it's inconvenient for you. Creating your own fiction and claiming it's relevant to the actual evidence doesn't make it so.

Which then makes your argument for Atlantis meaningless, as it is applied to a specific location and a specific point in time. Both of which are within human history.

Once you do that you can create all kinds of fiction. Which is what you're doing here, creating fiction.


cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 07 November 2012 - 08:07 PM.