Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Egyptian-Illuminati

Could Atlantis be under Greenland's Ice?

1,167 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Zkircher_topography.jpeg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.googleusercontent.com/-TYJ9882rC14/Tueb6JTezJI/AAAAAAAAHHk/gFy39hZHigA/s956/Atlantis20012.jpg

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

http://www.geodynamics.no/Web/Content/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.usc.edu/~becker/visualizations/mullerage.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

pl17.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.googleusercontent.com/-_IyJceW0_VA/TY4bwoGEeNI/AAAAAAAAFM8/H0e_OGP36HU/s1024/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.googleusercontent.com/-UXSZ3z17Ea4/Txof1p9qzaI/AAAAAAAAHL4/F4mmzq2z15A/s1024/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.google.com/106047243612755133722/SVicenteSAntaoWashingtonSHeadCaboVerde#5587626323333681522

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/SVicenteSAntaoWashingtonSHeadCaboVerde#5587626311526576914

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/SVicenteSAntaoWashingtonSHeadCaboVerde#5587626297149277266

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/SVicenteSAntaoWashingtonSHeadCaboVerde#5587626363809678738

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

150moll.jpg

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

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/File:Cratons_West_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/program-areas/raw-materials-greenl-map/greenland/gr-map/anhstart-uk.htm

http://www.geus.dk/program-areas/raw-materials-greenl-map/greenland/gr-map/nh01_1s-uk.htm

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

http://www.earthmoves.co.uk/pdfs/NW_AfricaDavison.pdf

And more on the formation of the Canary Islands:

http://www.mantleplumes.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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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.

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.

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.org/wiki/File:Cratons_West_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/program-areas/raw-materials-greenl-map/greenland/gr-map/anhstart-uk.htm

http://www.geus.dk/program-areas/raw-materials-greenl-map/greenland/gr-map/nh01_1s-uk.htm

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

http://www.earthmoves.co.uk/pdfs/NW_AfricaDavison.pdf

And more on the formation of the Canary Islands:

http://www.mantleplumes.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:

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/publications/boeger/geol_hist_greenland-uk.htm

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

geol_hist_greenland_kort.jpg

http://www.geus.dk/publications/boeger/geol_hist_greenland_kort.jpg

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquatus,

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all,

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

Stay tuned!

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/viden_om/voii/ilulissat-uk/voii03_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.

voii03_kort002.jpg

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:

Atlantis%2520Iberia.jpg

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.

Atlantis6.jpg

voii03_kort002.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.