477 replies to this topic

[mlauzon]

Egyptian-Illuminati, on 24 March 2008 - 05:02 PM, said:

Greenland - the place where no one talks about, is covered by ice a couple miles thick, and only the outer layers of the island are habitable.

No, Atlantis is under Antarctica's ice.

[Mario Dantas]

Quote

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L03302, 6 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2009GL041663

North Atlantic geoid high, volcanism and glaciations

Eugenio Carminati
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Roma “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy
Istituto Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, CNR, Rome, Italy
Carlo Doglioni
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Roma “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy
Istituto Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, CNR, Rome, Italy


Shallow topography, geoid high and intense volcanism in the northern Mid Atlantic Ridge are interpreted as enhanced by the loading on the adjacent continents by ice caps during upper Cenozoic glaciations. The load of ice packs on the continental lithospheres of North America and northern Europe generated radial mantle flow at depth. In our model, these currents, where flowing from west and east, faced each other below the northern Atlantic, joining together and upwelling. Numerical modeling of this process supports the development of dynamic topography leading to uplift of the sea-floor and inducing a regional geoid high. The upper mantle, being pumped from the deep mantle and rising to a few km shallower than average, may have contributed to larger asthenospheric melting, and to ridge centered excess magmatism, as observed in the Northern Atlantic.

Hello,




Lonie's lament:
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/LonnieSLament


Just updated my album collection. These two albums are really another investigation regarding continental fit, in the north Atlantic, this time with topographic, bathymetric and geoid maps. I had mainly worked before with satellite imagery, thus different details were available in the compositions. In my opinion, the abstract above (as well as many other scientific information), speaks of a same event, although differently. Again, without the time “constraint” factor, we can make various suppositions. As we understand the Atlantis demise related by Plato, we should question whether this huge anomaly (strongest positive anomaly in the world) has or not anything to do with said Atlantis disappearance. Plato’s location is particularly interesting (with relation to the average geoid map) because it explicitly says where exactly stood a huge island, that is in front of Gibraltar:

Geoid:
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/Geoid

These images also use Kircher’s chart as a complementary “model”. I asked myself why do these images have such a similitude. They are pretty obvious to me, but that does not mean they are what i believe they are, correct? Nevertheless, i force myself to always play the devil’s advocate, by equating again and again, numerous changes in the proposed “scenario”. In the geoid imagery, there must be an important information on what happened that dire day and night of misfortune, according to Plato. Why only in the northern Atlantic region of the MAR there is such an anomalous feature?






By reading the abstract we understand that (sometime ago*) there was an unusual rise from the deep mantle to the upper mantle region that extensively melted parts of the Asthenosphere in the north Atlantic sea floor. Could some of this information be inaccurate? I am astonished by the fact that (perhaps) scientific data managed to describe in detail, what really happened (although, perhaps with a wrong geologic timing). Why all elements (from this perspective) seem to be indicating that such an event took place?





PS: Please observe the enlarged images of the geoid map album, located in the Azores/Gibraltar region. They are undeniably similar to Kircher’s map. Why? why? why?

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 07 December 2012 - 11:26 AM.

[Abramelin]

mlauzon, on 05 December 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

No, Atlantis is under Antarctica's ice.

No, it's in Kennedy Space Center.

[Abramelin]

Mario Dantas, on 07 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

PS: Please observe the enlarged images of the geoid map album, located in the Azores/Gibraltar region. They are undeniably similar to Kircher’s map. Why? why? why?

Regards,
Mario Dantas

And once more, that other map by Kircher:

[Quaentum]

Mario Dantas, on 07 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Hello,




Lonie's lament:
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/LonnieSLament


Just updated my album collection. These two albums are really another investigation regarding continental fit, in the north Atlantic, this time with topographic, bathymetric and geoid maps. I had mainly worked before with satellite imagery, thus different details were available in the compositions. In my opinion, the abstract above (as well as many other scientific information), speaks of a same event, although differently. Again, without the time “constraint” factor, we can make various suppositions. As we understand the Atlantis demise related by Plato, we should question whether this huge anomaly (strongest positive anomaly in the world) has or not anything to do with said Atlantis disappearance. Plato’s location is particularly interesting (with relation to the average geoid map) because it explicitly says where exactly stood a huge island, that is in front of Gibraltar:

Geoid:
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/Geoid

These images also use Kircher’s chart as a complementary “model”. I asked myself why do these images have such a similitude. They are pretty obvious to me, but that does not mean they are what i believe they are, correct? Nevertheless, i force myself to always play the devil’s advocate, by equating again and again, numerous changes in the proposed “scenario”. In the geoid imagery, there must be an important information on what happened that dire day and night of misfortune, according to Plato. Why only in the northern Atlantic region of the MAR there is such an anomalous feature?


Regards,
Mario Dantas

You are cherry picking from the Kircher map.  You use the visual but ignore the text, specifically in the box that says "Site of Atlantis now beneath the sea according to the believes of the Egyptians and the description of Plato." .  Basically that Atlantis is underwater at that location.  If you accept the map then it does not support your Greenland Theory and likewise, if you reject the map you lose support for your Greenland theory.

The Egyptian's had no writings or stories about Atlantis, indicating it all came from Plato.  The Kircher map is based solely on Plato's story which also doesn't support your Greenland theory.

Finally, Your Greenland theory is not supported by geography.  Greenland is part of the North American tectonic plate and as such, for Greenland to be located where the Kircher map shows Atlantis, the rest of the North American plate would have been similarly displaced.

[Quaentum]

mlauzon, on 05 December 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

No, Atlantis is under Antarctica's ice.

Atlantis is a fictional tale that is not located anywhere on Earth

[Mario Dantas]

Quaentum, on 07 December 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

You are cherry picking from the Kircher map.  You use the visual but ignore the text, specifically in the box that says "Site of Atlantis now beneath the sea according to the believes of the Egyptians and the description of Plato." .  Basically that Atlantis is underwater at that location.  If you accept the map then it does not support your Greenland Theory and likewise, if you reject the map you lose support for your Greenland theory.

The Egyptian's had no writings or stories about Atlantis, indicating it all came from Plato.  The Kircher map is based solely on Plato's story which also doesn't support your Greenland theory.

Finally, Your Greenland theory is not supported by geography.  Greenland is part of the North American tectonic plate and as such, for Greenland to be located where the Kircher map shows Atlantis, the rest of the North American plate would have been similarly displaced.

Hello Quaetum,

Timaeus (Benjamin Jowett) translation refers that the island disappeared in the depths of the ocean:

...the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.

http://classics.mit....to/timaeus.html

My interpretation is that "the depths of the sea" really meant the visual horizon of someone close, or in the Iberian peninsula:

Quote

Horizon

The circular boundary of the part of the earth's surface visible from a particular point, ignoring irregularities and obstructions.

Regarding Egyptians not having any record of Atlantis, i ask have every single piece of evidence been found yet? Until now, there has not been found any evidence, i think is what you meant...

Quote

Finally, Your Greenland theory is not supported by geography.  Greenland is part of the North American tectonic plate and as such, for Greenland to be located where the Kircher map shows Atlantis, the rest of the North American plate would have been similarly displaced.

Greenland being Atlantis, as i am proposing  is not supported by a variety of sciences. Greenland is perhaps a tectonic plate itself, although i have to agree that the majority of scientific data indicate something else.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 07 December 2012 - 05:32 PM.

[Quaentum]

Mario Dantas, on 07 December 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Hello Quaetum,

Timaeus (Benjamin Jowett) translation refers that the island disappeared in the depths of the ocean:

...the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.

http://classics.mit....to/timaeus.html

My interpretation is that "the depths of the sea" really meant the visual horizon of someone close, or in the Iberian peninsula:





Regarding Egyptians not having any record of Atlantis, i ask have every single piece of evidence been found yet? Until now, there has not been found any evidence, i think is what you meant...



Greenland being Atlantis, as i am proposing  is not supported by a variety of sciences. Greenland is perhaps a tectonic plate itself, although i have to agree that the majority of scientific data indicate something else.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

The depths of the ocean have always meant the deep parts of the ocean below the surface.  They knew the difference between underwater and beyond the horizon so even the Timaeus doesn't support Greenland moving away past the horizon.

If the Egyptians told Solon, they would also have told other visitors so there should be other accounts.  It is highly unlikely they would have told but one person nor is it likely that all written references to Atlantis would be missing.

Your hypothesis has not received support here because the evidence does not support it.  If evidence does come to light that supports it, then the skeptics will re-evaluate the concept.

For a hypothesis to be valid it must take into account evidence that exists as well as any new evidence that comes to light

[Archimedes]

I want to know where Atlantis isn't.

It's been identified on these forums as being located in Greenland, Antarctica, North Africa, South America, North Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, etc.

[Quaentum]

Archimedes, on 07 December 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

I want to know where Atlantis isn't.

It's been identified on these forums as being located in Greenland, Antarctica, North Africa, South America, North Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, etc.

It's not in my back yard

[Abramelin]

Archimedes, on 07 December 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

I want to know where Atlantis isn't.

It's been identified on these forums as being located in Greenland, Antarctica, North Africa, South America, North Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, etc.

You forget Mexico, the Caribbean, Scandinavia, south-west Spain, the North Pole (really!) and the North Sea.

It's like God: He's everywhere, but no one can see Him and hides in mysterious ways.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 07 December 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[Mario Dantas]

Quaentum, on 07 December 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

The depths of the ocean have always meant the deep parts of the ocean below the surface.  They knew the difference between underwater and beyond the horizon so even the Timaeus doesn't support Greenland moving away past the horizon.

Quaentum,

It could have been a metaphor perhaps? As "Phaeton's fall" metaphor?

If there was, in fact, a large island in the Atlantic, in front of Gibraltar, then, under the
modern geographical circumstances, it is not visible anymore, correct? I ask, where could the supposed island go?

Since the crust does not “sink” into the Asthenosphere, it (the island) could only have moved “horizontally” and not “vertically”, as many fiercely believe. The sole possible explanation (in my opinion) is that, hypothetically, Atlantis island crust traveled through a momentarily molten ocean floor, horizontally to the plane of the planet’s surface. One should ask under which conditions does liquefaction of the crust occurs. Plato nearly describes an impacting event, at least a very strong earthquake.

It is not possible for a less dense body (island)  to sink into a more dense medium, however, it can, if applied a force, move through space, changing its location in time...

When you said:

Quote

If the Egyptians told Solon, they would also have told other visitors so there should be other accounts.  It is highly unlikely they would have told but one person nor is it likely that all written references to Atlantis would be missing.

I agree that it is odd that there is no other reference to the island of Atlantis, it is even very unlikely, as you put it. Nevertheless, i have my own opinion about it. I believe Plato was entirely correct, except fot the scaling of the whole Atlantean empire.

Quote

Your hypothesis has not received support here because the evidence does not support it.  If evidence does come to light that supports it, then the skeptics will re-evaluate the concept.

For a hypothesis to be valid it must take into account evidence that exists as well as any new evidence that comes to light

Neither have i been supported here nor anywhere else...

It is already satisfactory to know someone is reading whatever i post here, believe me.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 07 December 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[kmt_sesh]

Quaentum, on 07 December 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

It's not in my back yard

Are you sure? Have you dug there?

[the L]

Herodotus, Pliny, Pindar, Cicero and Virgil said that Hyperboreans lived thousand years. Hecataeus of Abdera wrote a book about Hyperborea which is now lost. Some connect Hyperborans with Indo Europeans. Some suggests that was Atlantis far on north. That was ice kingdom. What if is that true? Could they built houses from snow and ice like Eskimos? Maybe there was ice castle as fairy tales told us.

[kmt_sesh]

the L, on 08 December 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Herodotus, Pliny, Pindar, Cicero and Virgil said that Hyperboreans lived thousand years. Hecataeus of Abdera wrote a book about Hyperborea which is now lost. Some connect Hyperborans with Indo Europeans. Some suggests that was Atlantis far on north. That was ice kingdom. What if is that true? Could they built houses from snow and ice like Eskimos? Maybe there was ice castle as fairy tales told us.

"Hyperbprean" was a Greek mytho-historical construct. It's never clearly defined who exactly they were, other than vaguely defined peoples living north of Thrace. For all we know it could describe the original regions from which the Greeks and others came, before they migrated to the south in prehistoric times. That Hyperbpreans might have been Indo-European is a safe bet, as it describes the original homelands of Indo-Europeans. Beyond that, there's no certainty who these people were or if they were even real. Still, no connection with Atlantis need be considered.