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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac,

I have read your reply and the first thing that comes to my mind is to quit this thread at once. I thought i could discuss and learn something from you, but i sense there will not be any such thing...

I cannot stress enough how inteligent people can be prejudicial and really dumb regarding the unknown. You speak as if you had all figured out, too bad for you.

I admit that i can be wrong, do you?

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac,

I have read your reply and the first thing that comes to my mind is to quit this thread at once. I thought i could discuss and learn something from you, but i sense there will not be any such thing...

I cannot stress enough how inteligent people can be prejudicial and really dumb regarding the unknown. You speak as if you had all figured out, too bad for you.

I admit that i can be wrong, do you?

Regards,

Mario Dantas

The only thing you've done so far is make up a story, ignoring the entire geological/chronological timeframe both for Greenland as well as humans, and thinking that that should replace actual history. It doesn't. If you have a problem with the known geological/chronological timeframes for both then prove them wrong. So far you haven't even put a scratch in either.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

So, you would put forward that the Human end of the timeline is correct? That there basically was no humans, or homonids, in Europe past several million years ago?

And would also put forward that it is the Greenland timeline that is incorrect? That perhaps the Greenland migration happened on the order of tens of thousands, instead of hundreds of millions of years ago???

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? That model might be used to explain the greatly accellerated movement of Greenland, at least in part.

I'm not a geologist, but I think that altering a timeline by an order of 10000 would be something modern science would have noticed. We also know that the ice on greenland has been there from before humans walked on Earth. That is due to ice core sampling and various isotope dating and other methods, which show clearly that Greenland has been where it is for several million years.

I think we all need to look for Atlantis elsewhere. Mark Greenland off the list as a NO, and move on.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

If you are going to use Plato as a reference for Atlantis, then remember, Atlantis was more than a location, it was a civilization. For your theory to work, humans had to exist on the Earth millions of years before conventional research indicates. You must provide evidence for humans existing on this planet that far back else the concept of Greenland being Atlantis fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to use Plato as a reference for Atlantis, then remember, Atlantis was more than a location, it was a civilization. For your theory to work, humans had to exist on the Earth millions of years before conventional research indicates. You must provide evidence for humans existing on this planet that far back else the concept of Greenland being Atlantis fails.

If he uses Plato? Is there any other source? Not that I know about.... :w00t:

Agree that without evidence of Greenland having moved less then a hundred thousand years ago, or of humans existing hundreds of millions of years ago, that the idea is a Fail.

Plus, Plato, the only source, said right off it was 10,000 years ago.

The Egyptians, Plato asserted, described Atlantis as an island comprising mostly mountains in the northern portions and along the shore, and encompassing a great plain of an oblong shape in the south "extending in one direction three thousand stadia [about 555 km; 345 mi], but across the center inland it was two thousand stadia [about 370 km; 230 mi]." Fifty stadia [9 km; 6 mi] from the coast was a mountain that was low on all sides...broke it off all round about... the central island itself was five stades in diameter [about 0.92 km; 0.57 mi].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

Mario.... Iceland would be a much better fit, don't you think? The plain of Atlantis would have been around 60,000 sq miles. And iceland is about 40,000 sq miles. And Iceland is volcanic, which could have led to a tsunami that wiped out its own coastline civilizations. Or, even dropped off much of the southern part of a larger island thousands of years ago. This is entirely made up, but still hundreds of times more likely, IMHO, then Greenland being Atlantis. Especially trying to say that Greenland was off the Spainish coast 10,000 years ago.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing you've done so far is make up a story, ignoring the entire geological/chronological timeframe both for Greenland as well as humans, and thinking that that should replace actual history. It doesn't. If you have a problem with the known geological/chronological timeframes for both then prove them wrong. So far you haven't even put a scratch in either.

cormac

Thought experiments aren't limited by anything, that is why they are "thought experiments", remember? An experiment not attainable in the "real" world, under normal conditions can be replicated, analysed and registered in a thought experiment.

I ask:

Are you not aware (or do you not agree) that, eventually, if a seizable enough outer body had impacted our crust, 10.000 years ago, to the point of modifying previous continental “arrangement”, the chronology would have to be necessarily, inaccurate and therefore wrong?

There is still no definite proof that something this big happened. But that doesn’t mean it did not. Actually, my experiment says it did!

There is this subject that comes to my mind which is Darwin’s views on the Santiago island (Cape Verde) regarding a strange sedimentary ribbon (in The Voyage of the Beagle

Chapter 1 - St. Jago -- Cape de Verd Islands

by CHARLES DARWIN):

“The geology of this island is the most interesting part of its natural history. On entering the harbour, a perfectly horizontal white band, in the face of the sea cliff, may be seen running for some miles along the coast, and at the height of about forty-five feet above the water. Upon examination this white stratum is found to consist of calcareous matter with numerous shells embedded, most or all of which now exist on the neighbouring coast. It rests on ancient volcanic rocks, and has been covered by a stream of basalt, which must have entered the sea when the white shelly bed was lying at the bottom. It is interesting to trace the changes produced by the heat of the overlying lava, on the friable mass, which in parts has been converted into a crystalline limestone, and in other parts into a compact spotted stone Where the lime has been caught up by the scoriaceous fragments of the lower surface of the stream, it is converted into groups of beautifully radiated fibres resembling arragonite.”

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle/chapter-01.html

There are other similar sedimentary deposits in Santiago, Maio, Boavista, Sal and S. Nicolau islands, and one (Maio island) is considered to have the oldest sediments in the Macaronesia group (Azores, Canary islands, Cape Verde and Madeira). I have studied some of these deposits in different islands, but especially in Santiago:

Porto%2520Praya%2520Charles%2520Darwin%2520110.jpg

Santiago

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

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

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

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

Maio

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

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

What does this have to do with Greenland, you might ask?

The geological profile is pretty much the same between Greenland and the Macaronesia: Meta volcanic and sedimentary deposits in coastal areas...

Greenland’s subsequent geological development was dominated by the formation of sedimentary basins along the margins of the Precambrian shield, where 5-10 kilometre thick successions of sediments were deposited. These deposits are preserved today in coastal areas, with the thickest successions offshore on Greenland’s continental shelf.

http://www.geus.dk/viden_om/voii/ilulissat-uk/voii05-uk.html

The fact that both (Greenland and Macaronesia) share a same geology should be considered itself suspicious and might even be the reason why there is a lack of continental fit (between north Africa and north America) and the two continents chronology don’t match either, exactly in the region where Greenland appears to have been in the north Atlantic:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cIbBYYO1vsI/SrQFyX7FDOI/AAAAAAAACa8/tRN5TGM1ZS4/s720/kirchersimulation.jpg

A recent thick layer of highly dense basalt rapidly covered numerous Cretaceous limestone in many spots in the Cape Verde islands and elsewhere (in the Macaronesia, e.g. in the Canary islands). Moreover, the Cretaceous period, as we know, probably ended with some violent cometary or meteoric extinction event.

Darwin visited the island of Santiago and was particularly intrigued by the extent of the white limestone layer that cross the entire island of Santiago (about 50 Km long). I will post some new albums with pictures of the phenomena:

Quail Island

https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/QuailIslandAndCharlesDarwinCapeVerde18322012

Plateau (Praya)

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

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

Monte Branco

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

Sal

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought experiments aren't limited by anything, that is why they are "thought experiments", remember? An experiment not attainable in the "real" world, under normal conditions can be replicated, analysed and registered in a thought experiment.

I ask:

Are you not aware (or do you not agree) that, eventually, if a seizable enough outer body had impacted our crust, 10.000 years ago, to the point of modifying previous continental “arrangement”, the chronology would have to be necessarily, inaccurate and therefore wrong?

There is still no definite proof that something this big happened. But that doesn’t mean it did not. Actually, my experiment says it did!

Regards,

Mario Dantas

~SNIP~

In other words you like to play "lets pretend". Gotcha! :tu:

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I uploaded new albums just to show you what i have been investigating and that is what you have to say about it? I really feel like there is no point in continuing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Greenland was off the coast of Europe about 10,000 years ago, we'd find evidence of the seafloor there being only 10,000 years old. But, what we see there is sedimentation that corrisponds to hundreds of millions of years of seafloor, and not new volcanic plains/mountains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I uploaded new albums just to show you what i have been investigating and that is what you have to say about it? I really feel like there is no point in continuing...

We're not talking about "eventually". We're not even talking about "if". We're talking about what evidence exists now. And the evidence that exists now does not support the contention that the tectonic plates moved drastically at any point within the last 200,000 years (for Homo sapiens) or the last 12,000 years (for Plato's Atlantis). Trying to get around it with a hypothetical impact that only moves the crust (as a whole) over the mantle without so much as leaving evidence of having done so is not an answer. It's wishful thinking.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crustal structure and origin of the Cape Verde Rise

"...geological observations suggest that these rocks have been tilted and uplifted about 4 km from the ocean floor"

"The Cape Verde rise is one of the largest swells in the world's oceans, rising some 2.2 km above the expected depth of the cretaceous seafloor according to depth-age relationships"

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:T42oRjO8XtUJ:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi%3D10.1.1.173.3539%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf+Cape+Verde+Rise&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiXb6Gm3k1tx_malrQeQdR2WR4dJ-GHCZ2jyNoEWbh5lZmgX8DmSjMfm17xafgiFAmFWGP2TCNHOZPEjkDwf2KR9hr18myLR3UZsHOz6CO2kDnx1xMffWIwulvXqK0hlNmauVkX&sig=AHIEtbRvXlGAwPXthkQ_mzBnvc4FQwYABg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you would put forward that the Human end of the timeline is correct? That there basically was no humans, or homonids, in Europe past several million years ago?

And would also put forward that it is the Greenland timeline that is incorrect? That perhaps the Greenland migration happened on the order of tens of thousands, instead of hundreds of millions of years ago???

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? That model might be used to explain the greatly accellerated movement of Greenland, at least in part.

I'm not a geologist, but I think that altering a timeline by an order of 10000 would be something modern science would have noticed. We also know that the ice on greenland has been there from before humans walked on Earth. That is due to ice core sampling and various isotope dating and other methods, which show clearly that Greenland has been where it is for several million years.

I think we all need to look for Atlantis elsewhere. Mark Greenland off the list as a NO, and move on.

DieChecker,

Sorry, but what do you mean by "Human end of the timeline"?

I am not a "young Earth Creationist"!

Firstly, i should stress that it is just an experiment (for lack of a better word).

Greenland's ice is not that old, actually it is considerable younger than Antarctica's...

You all are speaking as if scientific knowledge is not flawed, science needs to be flawed to move on...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to use Plato as a reference for Atlantis, then remember, Atlantis was more than a location, it was a civilization. For your theory to work, humans had to exist on the Earth millions of years before conventional research indicates. You must provide evidence for humans existing on this planet that far back else the concept of Greenland being Atlantis fails.

I disagree, Atlantis is to be readily found when proper geologic evidence is forwarded. Until then it can only be considered a wishful thinking. No one knows how far back did Atlantis exist, if it exited at all. Plato told the story of a large island existing in the north Atlantic, that suddenly disappeared into the depths of the sea with a tremendous earthquake. In my opinion, these are the most important information given to us. I do not have to show anything!

That is maybe the least problem for Atlantis being true or not...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he uses Plato? Is there any other source? Not that I know about.... :w00t:

Agree that without evidence of Greenland having moved less then a hundred thousand years ago, or of humans existing hundreds of millions of years ago, that the idea is a Fail.

Plus, Plato, the only source, said right off it was 10,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

Mario.... Iceland would be a much better fit, don't you think? The plain of Atlantis would have been around 60,000 sq miles. And iceland is about 40,000 sq miles. And Iceland is volcanic, which could have led to a tsunami that wiped out its own coastline civilizations. Or, even dropped off much of the southern part of a larger island thousands of years ago. This is entirely made up, but still hundreds of times more likely, IMHO, then Greenland being Atlantis. Especially trying to say that Greenland was off the Spainish coast 10,000 years ago.

Greenland.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Greenland was off the coast of Europe about 10,000 years ago, we'd find evidence of the seafloor there being only 10,000 years old. But, what we see there is sedimentation that corrisponds to hundreds of millions of years of seafloor, and not new volcanic plains/mountains.

The timing you are speaking, is not allowed in this experiment, sorry. I ask what kind of changes would want to be seen in the north Atlantic or in the world? There are several evidences that point to severe geologic disruption, albeit during millions of years back in time. What if you stop the geologic clock? I personally get to think that the most important periods of our dear life on this planet are somehow connected to this specific event, the demise of Atlantis. Mythologies have an important role in this whole story, in the sense that they are based on oral information of an ancient past, that we could be ignoring altogether. The reason why the earth's plain is tilted, or why is the largest gravitational anomaly on earth situated in the north Atlantic, in front of Gibraltar, is one of other similar interconnected elements that seem to form an unquestionably coherent pattern, in my opinion.

Geoids_sm.jpg

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DieChecker,

Sorry, but what do you mean by "Human end of the timeline"?

I mean do you subscribe/follow the accepted "humans out of Africa" timelines? Because your post read to me like you did follow that timeline, with humans coming out of Africa and replacing the neanderthals in Europe.

I am not a "young Earth Creationist"!

Firstly, i should stress that it is just an experiment (for lack of a better word).

As a thought experiment, I totally agree that Greenland fits up against Africa/Europe at the Straights of Gibralter, and that it could be described in a manner that corrisponds with the description of Atlantis. Yet... I also must say that Greenland could not be Atlantis because there are many more marks in the negatives column, then in the positives column. Many, many more reasons/facts.

Greenland's ice is not that old, actually it is considerable younger than Antarctica's...

That may be true, but if Greenlands ice is even a million years old, that is way, way too long ago for Atlantis to be there. You can't say a turtle is a Fast Land Creature, even though it is way faster then a snail.

You all are speaking as if scientific knowledge is not flawed, science needs to be flawed to move on...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

I disagree. Science does not need to be flawed or wrong in order to be have data and knowledge Added to it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DieChecker,

Sorry, but what do you mean by "Human end of the timeline"?

I am not a "young Earth Creationist"!

Firstly, i should stress that it is just an experiment (for lack of a better word).

Greenland's ice is not that old, actually it is considerable younger than Antarctica's...

You all are speaking as if scientific knowledge is not flawed, science needs to be flawed to move on...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

A better phrase would be "thought exercise" as it is not a true experiment.

Greenland's ice is alot older than anatomically modern human's migration out of Africa/Arabia and much more-so our ancestors migration into Eurasia, since the ice dates to c.115,000 - 330,000 BP.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/231-expedition-strikes-ancient-bedrock-beneath-greenland-ice.html

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not talking about "eventually". We're not even talking about "if". We're talking about what evidence exists now. And the evidence that exists now does not support the contention that the tectonic plates moved drastically at any point within the last 200,000 years (for Homo sapiens) or the last 12,000 years (for Plato's Atlantis). Trying to get around it with a hypothetical impact that only moves the crust (as a whole) over the mantle without so much as leaving evidence of having done so is not an answer. It's wishful thinking.

cormac

I beg you to at least try to understand what is being forwarded. Yes, i agree that it is absurd!

Plato's story is first in my experiment, then everything had to be "re-engineered", geologically speaking. I believe that the time scale is not correct because there is a continental fit, in front of Gibraltar and a massive gravitational anomaly in the north Atlantic, not to mention that the Sahara desert appears at roughly the same time, etc, etc, etc.

I again ask, what would you expect to see? Orogenies, submerged ridges, young sea floors, hot-spots?

C71_geoid_smooth4.jpg

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, Atlantis is to be readily found when proper geologic evidence is forwarded. Until then it can only be considered a wishful thinking. No one knows how far back did Atlantis exist, if it exited at all. Plato told the story of a large island existing in the north Atlantic, that suddenly disappeared into the depths of the sea with a tremendous earthquake. In my opinion, these are the most important information given to us. I do not have to show anything!

That is maybe the least problem for Atlantis being true or not...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

We don't have to wait for "proper geologic evidence" to poke holes in Plato's story. The following facts pretty much sink it as a valid historical place/event.

  • The Egyptians have no accounts of Atlantis
  • The Greeks (Save Plato) have no accounts of Atlantis including a war with Atlantis
  • None of the countries supposedly conquered by Atlantis have any accounts detailing it.
  • None of the cultural artifacts of Atlantis can be found though cultural artifacts of those countries supposedly occupied by Atlantis can be
  • Events described by Plato, such as the mud shoals, are not documented by any sea faring nation that existed at the time.
  • etc...

Likewise, your hypothesis about Greenland being Atlantis can be refuted.

  • There is no evidence anywhere in the world to support humans existing millions of years before the accepted time frame.
  • There is no evidence to support Greenland's move from west of Africa/Europe to it's current location in a short time frame.
  • A large object striking the Earth that could affect the movement of the tectonic plates would, when you look at where it would have to be to get Greenland to move in the right direction, have caused the African plate to move East, not North East as it is presently moving with the result that Africa would not be in it's current position but farther East.
  • There is no accounting anywhere in Africa or Europe of such an object striking the Earth in that vicinity which would exist if such an impact had occurred.
  • Greenland does not in any way match any of the tale of Atlantis as told by Plato.
  • Most of the reasons I used for refuting Plato's account as historical can also be used in refuting your hypothesis.

The reason know one knows how far back Atlantis existed is the same reason no one can find Santa's workshop.

You're right, you don't have to show anything though that puts you in the same category as Plato. Telling an interesting story with no substance.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crustal structure and origin of the Cape Verde Rise

"...geological observations suggest that these rocks have been tilted and uplifted about 4 km from the ocean floor"

"The Cape Verde rise is one of the largest swells in the world's oceans, rising some 2.2 km above the expected depth of the cretaceous seafloor according to depth-age relationships"

https://docs.google...._mzBnvc4FQwYABg

Oniomancer,

Thanks for the article, i had already read it! The Cape Verde islands also bear the strongest positive gravitational anomaly in the world...

This island's (S. Antão) volcano is rising more than 6.000 m above the ocean floor:

23.jpg

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.