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 7
stevemagegod

Atlantis

2,243 posts in this topic

I already searched the pdfs for several hours, lol.

Can't you just copy and paste something?

,

5.1. Construction of the Azores Plateau

The Azores platform is a shallow domain

bounded by bathymetric steps, more than 1.5 km

high, especially well marked on the America plate,

and has an oldest age of 20 Myr (chron 6). The

platform extends to ~42N to the north and to

~35 50N to the south. The step in the northern

part of the platform is located on oceanic crust

dated at about 10 Ma (chron 5), and in the southern

part at about 4 Ma (chron 3) (Figure 3a).

And

Both ridges are associated with MBA

lows (Figure 3b) and therefore probably underlain

by a thick crust (Figure 4c). The lowest MBA values,

and thus the thickest crust, are located within the

Azores archipelago itself, with a maximum MBA

contrast of about 100 mGal between the ridges and

adjacent seafloor at the latitudes of Princess Alice

Bank [Cannat et al., 1999; Escartin et al., 2001] or

Pico and Faial islands [Luis et al., 1998]. The MBA

contrast on the western major ridges reaches

80 mGal. Luis et al. [1998] and Cannat et al.

[1999] consider that these values in MBA correspond

to a crustal thickness of 10–14 km, to be

compared to the 6–7 km of the ‘‘normal’’ oceanic

crust. Their results are confirmed by this study

(Figure 4c). Along the MAR axis section which cuts

across the Azores platform, Detrick et al. [1995]

have observed a maximum crustal thickness of 9–

10 km for the longest segment centered on 39N.

http://www.kharsag.n.../GenteG3_03.pdf

Just one example of many things that stand out as not supporting Atlantis in the Azores is the above, which shows a minimum crustal age of 4 million years with the crust around the Azores Plateau approximately 50% thicker (or more) than regular oceanic crust and all in a geologically active area that has been so for most of the last 85 - 90 million years. This doesn't support the belief that an area the size of Atlantis (which according to Plato was approximately the size of the Aegean Sea) either existed above sea level or was submerged, both within the timeframe of modern humans.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the age and thickness of the crust in the Azores area contradict the process as described by Rod Martin?

It could still be as thick and old, even when it sunk deeper to eventually end up where it is now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain it more clearly. Glaciers form only on land. When they recede, the rebound occurs where they were, and a subsequent sinking results in areas attached to that landmass (so England goes down when Scotland goes up, Southern Scandinavia goes down when Northern Scandinavia goes up, U.S. goes down when Canada goes up, etc.). Atlantis, as an island, was not attached to any glaciated landmasses, and so would experience no effect. The North Atlantic would have had floating ice, but this would have had no effect on the underlying oceanic crust, and thus no rebound would occur.

"U.S. goes down when Canada goes up"

"Atlantis, as an island, was not attached to any glaciated landmasses, and so would experience no effect."

The Azores plateau, or better, the area Rod Martin suggested could once have been Atlantis, wasn't an isolated piece of continental shelf (I think it's called a 'craton'??), it was stretched out over part of the North American plate, the European plate, and the African plate, so whatever happened in both North America and Northern Europe could have an effect on that area.

And the plateau is on the same latitude as the US:

natl_topography_600.jpg

Martin's argument is that it would have felt the effect of both plates when the area was already unstable.

The problem with his conception was that he didn't picture the break up of Pangaea properly. If you look at my link, you'll note that the reconstruction has Iberia and North Africa kinda stuck together--initially these would be part of the same plate, but the Mid-Atlantic ridge then started in the South, causing eastward forces on Africa, while a ridge between Africa and Antarctica started pushing Africa northward. This causes a sort of rotation of Africa and the shrinking of the Tethys sea, which eventually becomes the Mediterranean. And after tens of millions of years the Mid-Atlantic Ridge split northward and started to divide Europe from North America, which would have caused the faulting between Europe and Africa. So basically there isn't a collision of the African and Eurasian plates in the western portion, which means there's no compression to create his Atlantis.

Sorry, I haven't found your link.

But I have seen a number of only slightly different representations of the split-up of Pangea, several of them having Iberia and North Africa separated from very early on, or beter: touching eachother, but not part of the same plate. And first you see Africa rotating anti-clockwise, and then pushing northward.

Maybe you could repost that link?

This animation - don't know if it's according to the latest findings - appears to contradict you:

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was about ROD Martin's theory, not Carl Martin's.

Abramelin,

Maybe they are twins? or even a "look-alike" perhaps? This is becoming ridi(culous)!

Rod Martin

http://www.missionat...-martin-bio.php

Carl Martin

http://www.carlmartin.net/

You should always think first, before you move (talk). Thanks for trying to make me look like a fool, and ignoring the obvious...

I hope there is the opportunity to openly discuss this subject in equal conditions as everyone here. I respect everybody, at all times. Why do you often try to diminish others?

“I don't think..." then you shouldn't talk, said the Hatter.”

Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to make you look like a fool, I just thought you had made a mistake.

OK, so the guy changed his first name, lol.

But even though Martin's theory will be/is proven wrong, it is still a quite sane theory. Anyway,better than I have read before, and one that tries to explain Plato's story using his description of Atlantis without changing it.

You, on the other hand, still need to explain how Greenland could 'plow through' the Mid-Atlantic Ridge without changing shape.

I imagine if a tectonic event like you describe ever happened, we wouldn't be here discussing it.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question , if there ever was a big land mass of the Azores and the Canary islands together, connected to the continets of Europe and Africa, would`nt there be hommid primate bones or even elephants bones found there in a migation? I believe none have ever been found on these islands, or am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question , if there ever was a big land mass of the Azores and the Canary islands together, connected to the continets of Europe and Africa, would`nt there be hommid primate bones or even elephants bones found there in a migation? I believe none have ever been found on these islands, or am I wrong?

Theoretically speaking, those islands would have been the former mountain tops of the continent. Elephants and apes and so on would be living on the plains, so any elephant and human or primate bones would be covered in sediment and a mile or more down in the deep sea.

And if a giant tsunami was indeed the result of the sinking of this island-continent, then anything on it, including soil, would be washed into the sea. Just like Plato described for Greece/Athens.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretically speaking, those islands would have been the former mountain tops of the continent. Elephants and apes and so on would be living on the plains, so any elephant and human or primate bones would be covered in sediment and a mile or more down in the deep sea.

And if a giant tsunami was indeed the result of the sinking of this island-continent, then anything on it, including soil, would be washed into the sea. Just like Plato described for Greece/Athens.

.

Highly unlikey :) another excuse for any evidence, just wash it away:):):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly unlikey :) another excuse for any evidence, just wash it away:) :) :)

Highly unlikely? But it's ok when Plato applies the scenario to Athens/Greece?

Just remember the tsunami(s) that hit the countries at the coasts of the Indian Ocean and Japan, and then multiply the height and force of the waves with a factor 10. Add to that the duration of that ancient tsunami, and not much will be left of the soil in the countries it must have hit.

The tsunamis that hit Japan in 2011 and Sumatra in 2004 lasted for hours, the tsunami that was caused by the Storegga Slide in 6150 BCE lasted for several days and flushed Doggerland (North Sea) down the drain (ie: the Channel)!! A submarine area of sediment the size of Iceland and a mile thick, west of Norway, started moving; just imagine the gigantic displacement of mass....

IF the Atlantis event indeed happened, then it must have had a much larger impact than the Storegga Saide had 8125 years ago in the North Sea.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the Atlantis event indeed happened, then it must have had a much larger impact than the Storegga Saide had 8125 years ago in the North Sea..

Unless Doggerland was the basis for the Atlantis story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless Doggerland was the basis for the Atlantis story.

Not very likely if you take the geography of Doggerland and it's location into account. But if you read the Doggerland thread here in this forum, you'll see I have tried to use a vise and squeeze the origin of the Hades/Hell/Underworld story out of the area, lol.

Stories and legends could have traveled from the North Sea area to the Black Sea area by just following the rivers Rhine or Elbe and then to the Danube. But I have always had serious doubts about some legend having survived for many thousands of years, although I won't say it is a 100% impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the age and thickness of the crust in the Azores area contradict the process as described by Rod Martin?

It could still be as thick and old, even when it sunk deeper to eventually end up where it is now?

There would still be evidence that it sank. And as Plato claims "in a day and a night". And we're not talking about some little island like Bermuda.

post-74391-0-63574300-1360606008_thumb.j

The red cross-hair in the picture is the approximate size of Atlantis as described by Plato and remember the majority of its size was a plain. All of which was, again according to Plato, submerged. And with most of the crustal area (white) at a depth of 6000+ feet below sea level it couldn't have created shoals of mud that would have blocked the entrance to the Straits of Gibraltar, which is over 1000 miles away.

It should also show a significant variance in crustal age/thickness between the Azores Plateau area, on the one hand, and the area to the south as well as the one to the west of the MAR. But from what is published there isn't such a variance.

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would still be evidence that it sank. And as Plato claims "in a day and a night". And we're not talking about some little island like Bermuda.

post-74391-0-63574300-1360606008_thumb.j

The red cross-hair in the picture is the approximate size of Atlantis as described by Plato and remember the majority of its size was a plain. All of which was, again according to Plato, submerged. And with most of the crustal area (white) at a depth of 6000+ feet below sea level it couldn't have created shoals of mud that would have blocked the entrance to the Straits of Gibraltar, which is over 1000 miles away.

It should also show a significant variance in crustal age/thickness between the Azores Plateau area, on the one hand, and the area to the south as well as the one to the west of the MAR. But from what is published there isn't such a variance.

cormac

The plain could initially have (??) sunk just below sea level and thus create shoals of mud, plus a very large area with floating debris. But the sinking could have continued for the following 12,000 years with an ever decreasing speed and the plain eventually ended up at the depth it is now, leaving behind the Azores, its former mountains, as islands.

But I can't argue with your second point.

OK, Puzzler, Docyabut2, Mario Dantas, Proclus and others: I tried.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plain could initially have (??) sunk just below sea level and thus create shoals of mud, plus a very large area with floating debris. But the sinking could have continued for the following 12,000 years with an ever decreasing speed and the plain eventually ended up at the depth it is now, leaving behind the Azores, its former mountains, as islands.

But I can't argue with your second point.

OK, Puzzler, Docyabut2, Mario Dantas, Proclus and others: I tried.

;)

Which again couldn't have blocked the Straits of Gibraltar, which is what Plato says Atlantis destruction did. And even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has said the same thing*, that there was never a significant submergence of any part of the Azores Plateau at any point in human history.

But then that's not what Plato said since, both in Timaeus and Critias, he says that the island sunk. Not parts of it, but the island as a whole. Which means nothing remained above the surface.

The whole "Azores is Atlantis" idea defeats itself at every turn.

* - I know, because I asked them several years ago.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the age and thickness of the crust in the Azores area contradict the process as described by Rod Martin?

It could still be as thick and old, even when it sunk deeper to eventually end up where it is now?

Martin has the Atlantis area being formed by a blockage of subduction c. 50-60 mya. The Azores plateau dates to around 8 mya.

"U.S. goes down when Canada goes up"

"Atlantis, as an island, was not attached to any glaciated landmasses, and so would experience no effect."

The Azores plateau, or better, the area Rod Martin suggested could once have been Atlantis, wasn't an isolated piece of continental shelf (I think it's called a 'craton'??), it was stretched out over part of the North American plate, the European plate, and the African plate, so whatever happened in both North America and Northern Europe could have an effect on that area.

And the plateau is on the same latitude as the US:

natl_topography_600.jpg

Martin's argument is that it would have felt the effect of both plates when the area was already unstable.

Let's step back and consider the basics of plate tectonics. The plates of the Earth's crust are floating on a layer of molten rock called the mantle. This floating follows principles of isostasy, so more voluminous portions of the crust sink further into the mantle (e.g. the crust beneath a mountain goes down further than the crust of a valley). The crust comes in two forms, continental and oceanic. Continental crust is less dense and thus far more voluminous than oceanic crust, hence why it protrudes above the water. Glaciers, then, can only form on continental crust since oceanic crust is well below the water. This means that continental crust will receive additional volume and mass from the presence of glaciers, causing them to extend further into the mantle, and then adjust upwards once the glaciers retreat. This has no effect on the isostasy of the adjacent oceanic crust, even if the oceanic crust is on the same plate. Therefore there is no way for Atlantis to be affected by this phenomenon. The phenomenon is solely applicable to contiguous continental masses. Hence England goes down when Scotland goes up because they are part of a single contiguous mass.

Sorry, I haven't found your link.

But I have seen a number of only slightly different representations of the split-up of Pangea, several of them having Iberia and North Africa separated from very early on, or beter: touching eachother, but not part of the same plate. And first you see Africa rotating anti-clockwise, and then pushing northward.

Maybe you could repost that link?

This animation - don't know if it's according to the latest findings - appears to contradict you:

[media=]

[/media]

.

Here's my link: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html

Though I imagine the video you posted is probably more up to date, not to mention more detailed.

However it should be noted that the video starts c. 120 mya while the picture series starts c. 250 mya, and also that when watching the video the light blue represents submerged continental crust, whereas the picture series doesn't distinguish between submerged and exposed continental crust.

Now, according to the video, my description wasn't entirely correct, but still relatively correct. At the time of the break up of Pangaea (starting with the initial formation of the Atlantic c. 240 mya) they were the same plate, and later split before the point at which the video starts. But more importantly notice that there remained very little distance between them, and when the northward movement of Africa becomes more pronounced, it's still slanted eastward. So there is some minimal compression where Morocco and Iberia are meeting, but none where the western extent of the oceanic crust of the plates are meeting (and indeed we don't have geological formations to evidence any compression there, as we know that the Azore plateau is much later and formed by uplift due to heating rather than compression).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go with the literal interruptation of Platos Atlantis then a thousand miles opposite the straights of Gibralter used to exist a large island populated by the Atlantis civilization.

What do we find a thousand miles opposite the straights of Gibralter? A geologically very interesting part of the world. Its a place where three tectonic plates meet, where theres huge magma chambers large enough to fill super volcanos under the sea bed and where theres a lot of seismic activity. I propose the island of Atlantis was above water when the magma chambers were full and when they emptied it rapidly sunk several thousand feet.

All plausable.

Possible is not Plausible. Plausible means likely, I believe... and likely means a good chance. Which emptying magma chambers thousands of feet thick, causing a giant island to sink seems not to be a good chance. Possible, but not very likely.

I think the discussion should go back to Cadiz.

That is basically an island just up the coast from the entrance to the Med. It belonged to Carthage, from what I have read, when Plato was writing about Atlantis. Did Plato have a grudge against Carthage? From what I have read, the city was not wiped out till After Plato wrote about Atlantis, in the time of the Visigoth kingdoms. If Cadiz never was wiped out wince the time of its founding by Phenicians in the 11th century BCE, then why would Plato suggest it was totally submerged?

Apparently it was not named Gades till after the Romans conquored in the 3rd century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys but Rod Martin`s theory does not make sense.

Plato

Moreover, there were a great number of elephants in the island; for as there was provision for all other sorts of animals, both for those which live in lakes and marshes and rivers, and also for those which live in mountains and on plains, so there was for the animal which is the largest and most voracious of all.

Plus there was a horse track all around the island for horses.

So how did these horses, elephants and bulls get to this island continent. He said there was once a land bridge from Europe and Africa, where these animals walked there, but theres no evidence of these animals ever originating from these islands in the Atlantic ocean.

Just like the American claimers of Atlantis, Atlantis had a army of ten thousand chariots, yet there were no chariots in the Americas.

It just gets me when some say ,well they were all wash away in the great flood. Give me a break:):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys but Rod Martin`s theory does not make sense.

Plato

Moreover, there were a great number of elephants in the island; for as there was provision for all other sorts of animals, both for those which live in lakes and marshes and rivers, and also for those which live in mountains and on plains, so there was for the animal which is the largest and most voracious of all.

Plus there was a horse track all around the island for horses.

So how did these horses, elephants and bulls get to this island continent. He said there was once a land bridge from Europe and Africa, where these animals walked there, but theres no evidence of these animals ever originating from these islands in the Atlantic ocean.

Just like the American claimers of Atlantis, Atlantis had a army of ten thousand chariots, yet there were no chariots in the Americas.

It just gets me when some say ,well they were all wash away in the great flood. Give me a break:) :)

Everdred in his last post and Cormac have stronger geological/tectonical arguments against Martin's theory than you, Docyabut.

For instance, Martin never said horses and elephants 'originated' on the island. You yourself even noted they, according to Martin's theory, could have walked from Africa and Europe, across the landbridge, to the island. Meaning: they did NOT originate there.

And yes, 'washed' away. Read what I posted about what happened to Doggerland, 8150 BP. And if an Atlantis did exist once - Everdred and Cormac already made it clear it couldn't - and if it sunk the way it is supposed to have done, then the disaster must have been many times worse than what happened with Doggerland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everdred, I found a video that shows the continental drift from much earlier times than the one I posted before:

[media=]

[/media]

Btw, first it goes in fast forward, after that the animation restarts in a much slower pace.

(I can watch these videos forever, lol).

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everdred in his last post and Cormac have stronger geological/tectonical arguments against Martin's theory than you, Docyabut.

For instance, Martin never said horses and elephants 'originated' on the island. You yourself even noted they, according to Martin's theory, could have walked from Africa and Europe, across the landbridge, to the island. Meaning: they did NOT originate there.

And yes, 'washed' away. Read what I posted about what happened to Doggerland, 8150 BP. And if an Atlantis did exist once - Everdred and Cormac already made it clear it couldn't - and if it sunk the way it is supposed to have done, then the disaster must have been many times worse than what happened with Doggerland.

In other words there are no fossil bones found of any of these animals on these islands lelf of the island continent Atlantis, so they could`nt have walked there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words there are no fossil bones found of any of these animals on these islands lelf of the island continent Atlantis, so they could`nt have walked there.

I fail to follow your reasoning.

Are you saying that because the bones have washed away and cannot be found, that they could not have lived there??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M21.gif

Hello again,

I will vent some of my "darkest" fears, regarding what i think occurred in the Azores/Gibraltar region:

Please notice that at the very beginning of the breakup of Pangaea, continents weren't exactly a closed kernel because there is a gap in the north Atlantic, right? We could almost say that there is a gap in front of Gibraltar, where Plato posits the large island of Atlantis. Well, it must be there for a simple reason, there was something in between northern African and northern American continental regions...

The next image concerns ocean floor age and it is obvious that, in the same spot where there lack a continental fit, is located the oldest continental intra-plate rock (in blue color), in the image below (ocean crustal age):

20120529-Atlantic_Oceanic-Crust.jpg

Before Atlantis disappearance, continents were probably considerably closer to each under (if it ever existed), creating a very large "river-like" formation (Oceanus, the world encircling river?):

Oceanus (pron.: /ˈsənəs/; Ancient Greek: Ὠκεανός (Ōkeanós);[2] pronounced [ɔːkeanós]) was a pseudo-geographical feature in classical antiquity, believed by the ancient Greeks and Romans to be the divine personification of the World Ocean, an enormous river encircling the world.

Strictly speaking, Oceanus was the ocean-stream at the Equator in which floated the habitable hemisphere (οἰκουμένη, oikoumene).[3]

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

Atlantis_1.jpg

azores2.jpg

Why is the largest gravitational anomaly on the planet, where Plato said Atlantis to be located? The length of the anomaly is equal to Greenland. The length of the old intra-plate on both sides of the north Atlantic is equal to Greenland, which are, in turn, exactly equal to the distance from Cape Verde to the Azores and from there to Greenland. The Azores, with all due respect, is probably, nothing more than a region where huge eruptive activity occurred, when the island moved from that spot, 10.000 years ago. Continental Plates cannot sink into the Aesthenosphere, sorry... rather they can move across molten media, and the fact that many people think we wouldn't be here to tell the story, think again!

Untitledkikuj.png

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mario:) I do respect anyone like you that has put so much worked into their theory. You claim that Atlantis is Greenland and once was right up to the island of Gades in a continental drift, however does`nt that take million of years and how could Green land have drifted where it is today after only 12,000 years ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mario:) I do respect anyone like you that has put so much worked into their theory. You claim that Atlantis is Greenland and once was right up to the island of Gades in a continental drift, however does`nt that take million of years and how could Green land have drifted where it is today after only 12,000 years ?

Docyabut,

Thanks for the support!

I am not sure of anything, but i think geologic dating must be wrong, at some point. If we think that the disappearance of the large island of Atlantis had to have provoked a huge cataclysm on earth, 10.000 years ago, then the dating is to be wrong, in the sense that neither gradualism nor uniformitarianism laws admit the possibility of sudden tectonic shift, 10.000 BC.

Having said that, i think the enormity of the event, corrupted the geologic data and confounded our understanding of what existed before that time (Holocene). Nevertheless, if we abstain from dating events, there is a whole new set of possibilities...

Greenland could have traveled at an average speed of 200 Km/h, thus, nearly the take-off speed of a Boeing 747, go figure...Floating on hot magma coming from below, when liquefaction took place, as a consequence of an impact, as Plato told us.

There cannot be room for a peaceful Atlantis solution, nor was it a slow transformation event, as acknowledged by extensive Quaternary (Pleistocene, Holocene) scientific publications...

According to the "main stream" scientific understanding, a continental plate cannot move fast, otherwise we wouldn't be talking here, nor was there any life on the planet.

I ask on what grounds can one affirm categorically that all possible life would be extinct? Having considered the possibility of Atlantis being a true story, one cannot deny that there are a vast amount of "coincidences", The north Atlantic geologic "scenery", and some of the Arctic, is the best way to portrait the "twist" or drift taken by certain continental plates. Since the north pole is around 300 km distant from the MAR, and having been under Greenland once in the geological past, i believe it was the "engine" behind the move, fueled by the meteoric magnetic attraction. The north pole is the real "terminus" of the MAR, the longest mountain ridge in the world!

All this is supposed to be pure speculation, and although i am searching still for a definite truth, i can't believe it myself, at times...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

http://classics.mit..../timaeus.1b.txt

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.