477 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

The_Spartan, on 16 March 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

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???

To take the bolded portion above one step further, it's irrelevant whether or not it appears to fit, as both the geology and chronology of Greenland and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge area are two separate items. Separate from each other and greatly predating the existance of even the earliest humans by MILLIONS of years. Mario's playing mix-n-match with the globe to find a 'fit' doesn't change the facts.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 16 March 2012 - 09:14 PM.

[The_Spartan]

Mario has a website, to be precise a blog on the subject.
Was Atlantis in Greenland?

he could have given us a link to the blog so that we could have read his theory without such  a long winding discussion in which he has been not providing any useful information.

The major basis of his assertion is the similar shapes of Greenland and Atlantis.
from his blog (sorry Mario , for linking the picture from your blog...after all its for the sake of discussion only)




well..this sounds just like another poster claiming that Nicobar islands in the Indian Ocean could be Atlantis.

[Mario Dantas]

The_Spartan, on 16 March 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

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???

Dear Spartan, everybody,

As you might be aware, in my "timeless" experiment, time is not taken into account (nevertheless, it observes the hierarquy of events).

I think there was a post Pangaean structure, very narowly separated from each other for a long time, later the said structure evolved "in a day and night of misfortune" to become the modern continental structure that we know today. In this sense the river Oceanus, the "world ocean", was in fact a giant river that encircled the world:

https://lh3.googleus...lantis20012.jpg

You have to forget about the timing and stick solely to continental motions:

http://www.geodynami...ntent/Animated/

Notice how, at the start of the animation, there is a central space in the northern Atlantic with the same angles and proportions as the island of Greenland, and how continents drifted as if been impacted and moved in a “radial trajectory”, that is a way from each other in a straight line, as with dots in an inflating balloon:

http://geodynamics.u...lerage.mov2.gif

Many of the continental evolution shown above (especially the last motions) could represent a 24h period "continental drift". The radial movement of continents is also one more clue as to how did continents "drifted" in the Atlantis demise. It would explain, at last, how a "continental" bridge existed, after all. After Pangaea breakup, Oceanus started flowing a continued to flow, probably until recently. This huge river Oceanus was the father of Eridanus (referenced before), perhaps where a huge impact occurred, on the other half of the world.

Plain and simple, a post Pangaea breakup “narrow” continental “set” might have existed for a longer time than we assume today. I hope i made you understand my point of view...

Regards,
Mario dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 16 March 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[Mario Dantas]

Spartan,

Forget about Kircher's map for a minute, there are far more important things on the table...

I could not help to notice how they match perfectly, and that is the sole reason why i did these images. My caims are not connected in any shape or form with Athanasius Kircher's Atlantis chart. I read somewhere that he had made the map based on several ancient shreds of maps. Nevertheless, i must tell you that there far more "coincidences" than is apparent to the eye.

Edited by Mario Dantas, 16 March 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[Abramelin]

Mario Dantas, on 16 March 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

Spartan,

Forget about Kircher's map for a minute, there are far more important things on the table...

I could not help to notice how they match perfectly, and that is the sole reason why i did these images. My caims are not connected in any shape or form with Athanasius Kircher's Atlantis chart. I read somewhere that he had made the map based on several ancient shreds of maps.

Another map by Kircher:



He was fantasizing about how the pre-Flood world could have looked like.

In a millenium or so people will use Tolkien's maps, and your great-great-great-great-great-grandson will start something  - a book, a website, or what will we have have then? - about what he 'found out'.


Let's hope stupidity is not hereditary.

.
.

Edited by Abramelin, 16 March 2012 - 10:34 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

Notice how, at the start of the animation, there is a central space in the northern Atlantic with the same angles and proportions as the island of Greenland, and how continents drifted as if been impacted and moved in a “radial trajectory”, that is a way from each other in a straight line, as with dots in an inflating balloon:

Irrelevant, as the animation clearly shows that Greenland hasn't significantly moved from its position between North America and Northern Europe. And nothing there suggests it moved to a position in front of the Straits of Gibraltar, and then back. Even these animations are working against you.

cormac

[Mario Dantas]

socrates.junior, on 16 March 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

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.

Socrates. junior,

You will have to do a genuine effort in order to understand my meaning. There is really no need to be as agressive as you sound, really. Interdisciplinarity regarding Atlantis was vital to achieve a better idea of the whole phenomena. The web is full of evidences that in fact Greenland was situated further down south, in front of Gibraltar. What could i do? Because i am no expert means i should not think of these "higher" matters? I hope you are not emplying in some way that i would not be capable of producing a "valid" theory.

https://lh5.googleus...24/Atlantis.jpg

The above image shows another fit regarding the Cape Verde's Leeward group (Boavista, Sal, S. Nicolau, S. Vicente, S. Antão)  and Greenland's southeastern tip. I have shown you before the Windward group (Maio, Santiago, Fogo, Brava):

https://lh3.googleus.../Agreenland.jpg

The northerner island of the Leeward group is an ancient volcano (Tope de Coroa, S.Antão) which measures 6.000 m since the oceanic floor, and was probably witness of extreme geologic tensioning convulsions (in this sense, Poseidon indeed was the shaker of the earth, while at the same time being the ancient god of the sea), and maybe also of huge Tsunamies?

https://picasaweb.go...626323333681522
https://picasaweb.go...626311526576914
https://picasaweb.go...626297149277266
https://picasaweb.go...626363809678738


Regards,
Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 17 March 2012 - 01:00 AM.

[Mario Dantas]

https://lh4.googleus...simulation3.jpg

[cormac mac airt]

cormac mac airt, on 16 March 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Irrelevant, as the animation clearly shows that Greenland hasn't significantly moved from its position between North America and Northern Europe. And nothing there suggests it moved to a position in front of the Straits of Gibraltar, and then back. Even these animations are working against you.

Edit to add the following:



The space in the North Atlantic DOES NOT have the "same angles and proportions as the island of Greenland", as claimed.

cormac

[Swede]

Mario Dantas, on 17 March 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

Socrates. junior,

You will have to do a genuine effort in order to understand my meaning. There is really no need to be as agressive as you sound, really. Interdisciplinarity regarding Atlantis was vital to achieve a better idea of the whole phenomena. The web is full of evidences that in fact Greenland was situated further down south, in front of Gibraltar. What could i do? Because i am no expert means i should not think of these "higher" matters? I hope you are not emplying in some way that i would not be capable of producing a "valid" theory.

https://lh5.googleus...24/Atlantis.jpg

The above image shows another fit regarding the Cape Verde's Leeward group (Boavista, Sal, S. Nicolau, S. Vicente, S. Antão)  and Greenland's southeastern tip. I have shown you before the Windward group (Maio, Santiago, Fogo, Brava):

https://lh3.googleus.../Agreenland.jpg

The northerner island of the Leeward group is an ancient volcano (Tope de Coroa, S.Antão) which measures 6.000 m since the oceanic floor, and was probably witness of extreme geologic tensioning convulsions (in this sense, Poseidon indeed was the shaker of the earth, while at the same time being the ancient god of the sea), and maybe also of huge Tsunamies?

Regards,
Mario Dantas

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

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.

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.

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.

.

[Mario Dantas]

Tope de coroa, S. Antão (1,979 m):

https://lh5.googleus...eI/s1024/12.jpg
https://lh5.googleus...TY/s1024/23.jpg
https://picasaweb.go...626311526576914
https://lh6.googleus...7U/s1024/15.jpg
https://lh6.googleus...k4/s1024/16.jpg
https://lh5.googleus...fQ/s1024/18.jpg
https://lh4.googleus...upA/s1024/7.jpg
https://lh5.googleus...6mE/s1024/1.jpg

Edited by Mario Dantas, 17 March 2012 - 01:22 AM.

[KainFall]

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.

So, now that most of us (atleast me) are familiar with seasonal global warming, is it possible that at one time greenland actually got submerged from global warming? And then a cold snap, the ice age which brought sea levels back down, revealing the island's land? And maybe man actually settled on this island at the turn of the ice age, since we found human remains in north america dating well over 6 million years.

Maybe, just maybe man made a city on this island named Atlantis, and when the ice age receeded, it got swallowed up by the atlantic ocean, and the people had to abandon this place and settle in africa and north america.

Is it possible Greenland would have moved its position within 6 million years? Or was the weather very different then?

I just want researchers out there to develope some kind of 3D radar and to get foot long increments of the surface.

What do you think? Could it be under all that cold stuff?

As far as my recollection goes. Atlantis was located in/ near/ around A Ice Volcano. And it had already been found sometime in the 70-80-90's. And with the little amount of people found within, it was believed that the people of Atlantis were taken out from an eruption of the volcano, but the "kings" body was found and brain was placed into a specific childs head in being born or whatever. And within a few weeks was ranting on  bout his memory and his words were beginning to slur into a old age state of advanced speaking.. Now Im not saying this is necessarily true.. or happened. Im just saying I know its true and happened ;P lol

[Harte]

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.

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.

Perhaps he means that the web is "full of evidences" because he has (several times over) placed his own "evidences" on the web.

In any case, "evidences" is not the only thing the web is full of!

Harte

[The_Spartan]

Mario Dantas, on 16 March 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

Dear Spartan, everybody,

As you might be aware, in my "timeless" experiment, time is not taken into account (nevertheless, it observes the hierarquy of events).

I think there was a post Pangaean structure, very narowly separated from each other for a long time, later the said structure evolved "in a day and night of misfortune" to become the modern continental structure that we know today. In this sense the river Oceanus, the "world ocean", was in fact a giant river that encircled the world:

NO. NO. NO.

If there is nothing related to Ancient History in terms of Human Habitation of Greenland in the time periods of your geological movement, then why the hell do you put ATLANTIS as the center-point of discussion in your op and in your blog??


its because you don't have any answer to the question. that you cant answer the question. that's why you are skirting the question.

my questions :

1. how long has the ice sheet covered Greenland?
2. Did the ice sheet cover the entire Greenland or did it leave the coastal areas aside?
3. or did the ice sheet cover the entire island and later due to the gradual warming of the earth's atmosphere, the ice in the coastal areas melted away?
4. As said by you

as per information available, the present ice sheet on Greenland is 110,000 years old.

the oldest habitation of Greenland starts from 4500 BP .

There are no large structures known found along the coastal Greenland. The only known archaeological finds are of the Paleo-Eskimo cultures and the Vikings.
Unless you can prove that there was anything else, your entire " thought/thought-less" experiment could have been little more believable.
But, even to the geological movements, Swede and Cormac have provided data that it is not possible.

what say?

[Swede]

Harte, on 17 March 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

Perhaps he means that the web is "full of evidences" because he has (several times over) placed his own "evidences" on the web.

In any case, "evidences" is not the only thing the web is full of!

Harte

Harte - As to the first, the same suspicion also crossed my mind. Nothing like referencing one's self!

As to the second...Ohh, so very true.

.