East of Eden

[Abramelin]

I am not defending Mario, I am only trying to understand his tenacity.

 

[Swede]

10 hours ago, Polar said:

This can't be the way to treat a guest.

I just wanted to discuss about Atlantis.

but you did not care to stop for a second and see it from my perspective. 

I am making an honest effort to understand how things could have been different.

1) After all these years, you are hardly a "guest" Disingenuous at best.

2) No, by your own admission you are purportedly working on a "book" that would support your misguided fantasy. Disingenuous at best.

3) Quite the contrary. Your "perspective" has been evaluated and technically disproven on relatively innumerable occasions. Disingenuous at best

4) No, you are not. If you had a genuine interest in studying the topic, you would have paid very close attention to the reams of credible data that have been presented. Disingenuous at best.

Yes, quite a number of the more experienced readers have become a bit short in patience in regards to your "practices". Playing "special snowflake" for the n^th time is hardly impressive. You may wish to attempt to actually engage in worthwhile and valid study.

.

[Swede]

2 hours ago, Polar said:

Maybe i should give up what i believe in, its just that i have tons of information saying otherwise, or not. How long have you been investigating about Doggerland? Its been thirteen years now since i started my research, and evidence keeps piling up...

Although folks here are continuously claiming that i post evidence against my own idea, it simply is not true. The existing evidence is sort of disguised within hundreds or maybe thousands of publications on various earth science subjects.

1) No, you do not.

2) No, it is not. Such "presumptions" are a product of your confused mind and your inability to accurately interpret the data. "Sort of disguised" geological data? Why, of course...

.

.

[onlookerofmayhem]

 

[Hanslune]

8 hours ago, Polar said:

Same goes to you Hans, thanks for your direct approach. This must be as far as one can continue, isn't it?

I thank you wholeheartedly for all the good inputs...

You've say this before and yet every time you  come back and go on an on about Greenland and Atlantis. 

 

[Hanslune]

8 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Eleven years.

Yeah, I've been looking at the Eeemian  for an emergence of 'advanced' HG groups since 1973. Join the club!

[Hanslune]

7 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I am not defending Mario, I am only trying to understand his tenacity.

 

Zealotry and obsession.

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

What if Greenland is actually a Barsoomian  hybrid synthetic man/refrigerator?

[Polar]

On 1/16/2021 at 8:20 PM, jaylemurph said:

You lack basic, fundamental knowledge of science. Because of this, you incorrectly interpret data others produce and make a large variety of false statements about their work. You also grossly overestimate the legitimacy of your own statements, like when you say there are definitive patterns in the data that people who are trained in recognizing data and interpreting it actively refuse to endorse.

This is called Dunning-Kruger syndrome. It is real. You are literally a textbook example of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

This is quite a different thing from your tiresome martyr complex or your inability to acknowledge reality at times. See below.

It is true. There are literally hundreds of examples in this forum. That you cannot accept this as fact is another refusal to accept basic reality.

Again, you refuse basic reality over the fantasy you’ve built up over the years. You do not have the basic scientific training to read and interpret this information yourself and it leads you to make basic errors and self-evidently ridiculous claims with no basis in reality. 

You are too arrogant to admit your ignorance. You seem to hold onto to the idea you are the only human to correctly put this info together and will not entertain even the idea is wrong, which makes you grossly irresponsible. 

—Jaylemurph 

I can understand you but i don't, in any way shape or form, review myself in the above categories you are trying to frame me in (although i know someone who does).

In a certain way i am that first person (stated by you) to correctly put it together. You say am an arrogant b....., but maybe i was pushed to level with equally arrogant people.

No basis in reality?

Continental fit (AFRICA/IBERIA/GREENLAND)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/4sHeb9dtCAjzKoXK6

https://photos.app.goo.gl/fFHag2tCDZMwfEZG6

 

Continental fit (CABO VERDE /GREENLAND)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PuJZ1owcuH5qLEVn8

https://photos.app.goo.gl/AHy3bfxB5YoqVYAP8

https://photos.app.goo.gl/HTtYwYAKqYhHG8k1A

https://photos.app.goo.gl/uArzgzNdp17ByTNt9

 

This coincidental facts about continental fit (AFRICA/IBERIA/GREENLAND), and the similar geology (Cabo Verde/Greenland/Canary) alone should be considered as something worth investigating. There is a fit, its undeniable. And although i might be wrong geologically, geo chronologically, etc, does not change the fact that the above landmasses fit and have a similar geology. IT IS A FACT...

My theory could be wrong. But it would be difficult to ignore what i have shown you so far. The most logical thing to have happened is for geochronology to be altered by means of several reheatings of the oceanic crust, generated in the process (impact/tectonics).

You say i am too arrogant to admit my ignorance. Well Sir, i likewise find you too ignorant to admit your arrogance.

 

[Nobu]

@Polar can you sum up your hypothesis in a concise manner? I re-read this thread and it ,seems to me, is all over the place. What exactly is your assertion? I would like a friend to read it. 
Please keep it to the point. I don’t need links to pictures and your evidence. I’ve read and seen all of that twice now.

just the working hypothesis

 

if you can,TIA

[cormac mac airt]

29 minutes ago, Polar said:

I can understand you but i don't, in any way shape or form, review myself in the above categories you are trying to frame me in (although i know someone who does).

In a certain way i am that first person (stated by you) to correctly put it together. You say am an arrogant b....., but maybe i was pushed to level with equally arrogant people.

No basis in reality?

Continental fit (AFRICA/IBERIA/GREENLAND)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/4sHeb9dtCAjzKoXK6

https://photos.app.goo.gl/fFHag2tCDZMwfEZG6

 

Continental fit (CABO VERDE /GREENLAND)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PuJZ1owcuH5qLEVn8

https://photos.app.goo.gl/AHy3bfxB5YoqVYAP8

https://photos.app.goo.gl/HTtYwYAKqYhHG8k1A

https://photos.app.goo.gl/uArzgzNdp17ByTNt9

 

This coincidental facts about continental fit (AFRICA/IBERIA/GREENLAND), and the similar geology (Cabo Verde/Greenland/Canary) alone should be considered as something worth investigating. There is a fit, its undeniable. And although i might be wrong geologically, geo chronologically, etc, does not change the fact that the above landmasses fit and have a similar geology. IT IS A FACT...

My theory could be wrong. But it would be difficult to ignore what i have shown you so far. The most logical thing to have happened is for geochronology to be altered by means of several reheatings of the oceanic crust, generated in the process (impact/tectonics).

You say i am too arrogant to admit my ignorance. Well Sir, i likewise find you too ignorant to admit your arrogance.

 

That’s not a continental fit based on geology alone. Different geological origins DO NOT make your alleged “fit” true. You suffer, at a minimum, from confirmation bias and that will continue to get you nowhere. 
 

cormac

[Nobu]

@Polar I’m the last guy here that will insult you. I’m a molecular biologist that has worked for the dod off and on for the last 25 years. Seriously looking for a complete concise hypothesis to share with a friend that’s a geologist. Open mind and all of that. Personally think your timelines are off and some of the science but wanted to bounce off someone else. Don’t worry about the others. If something hurts their core dogma, they attack. It’s who they are.

[jaylemurph]

11 hours ago, Nobu said:

@Polar I’m the last guy here that will insult you. I’m a molecular biologist that has worked for the dod off and on for the last 25 years. Seriously looking for a complete concise hypothesis to share with a friend that’s a geologist. Open mind and all of that. Personally think your timelines are off and some of the science but wanted to bounce off someone else. Don’t worry about the others. If something hurts their core dogma, they attack. It’s who they are.

You might revisit this opinion in a decade, particularly once, having shared your expertise with Mario, he throws it back in your face.

—Jaylemurph 

[The_Spartan]

On 1/19/2021 at 1:18 AM, Nobu said:

@Polar can you sum up your hypothesis in a concise manner? I re-read this thread and it ,seems to me, is all over the place. What exactly is your assertion? I would like a friend to read it. 
Please keep it to the point. I don’t need links to pictures and your evidence. I’ve read and seen all of that twice now.

just the working hypothesis

 

if you can,TIA

His hypothesis is that Greenland was actually somewhere close to Africa or attached to the hip of Africa. sometime in the past, it got bored of Africa's closeness and took a long swim to its current position, put of a ice blanket and promptly went to sleep. and oh yea, Atlantis is somewhere on Greenland.

[cormac mac airt]

14 hours ago, Nobu said:

@Polar I’m the last guy here that will insult you. I’m a molecular biologist that has worked for the dod off and on for the last 25 years. Seriously looking for a complete concise hypothesis to share with a friend that’s a geologist. Open mind and all of that. Personally think your timelines are off and some of the science but wanted to bounce off someone else. Don’t worry about the others. If something hurts their core dogma, they attack. It’s who they are.

Except that’s NOT what is happening. Multiple disciplines of science have shown that Greenland had been both attached to Norway and within close tectonic proximity of same for the last circa 425 MILLION years and has NEVER been directly in front of the PoH/SoG AT ANY TIME within human history, meaning the last 2.8 million years. I’m pretty confident your geologist friend will tell you the same. 
 

cormac

[Abramelin]

15 hours ago, Nobu said:

@Polar I’m the last guy here that will insult you. I’m a molecular biologist that has worked for the dod off and on for the last 25 years. Seriously looking for a complete concise hypothesis to share with a friend that’s a geologist. Open mind and all of that. Personally think your timelines are off and some of the science but wanted to bounce off someone else. Don’t worry about the others. If something hurts their core dogma, they attack. It’s who they are.

First: Mario/Polar is not a geologist.

Second: an open mind, you say, heh. But an open mind is not equal to an open bin: my lid is up, just throw it in!

Third: we do not feel hurt. Personally I feel sorry for Mario that he tenaciously sticks to something he's unable to explain using at least some sort of scientific/geological explanation.

Fourth: when are you going to Peru and find that fkng skull I told you about?

 

[Polar]

On 1/18/2021 at 6:48 PM, Nobu said:

@Polar can you sum up your hypothesis in a concise manner? I re-read this thread and it ,seems to me, is all over the place. What exactly is your assertion? I would like a friend to read it. 
Please keep it to the point. I don’t need links to pictures and your evidence. I’ve read and seen all of that twice now.

just the working hypothesis

 

if you can,TIA

Sorry for taking this long to answer... I tried to segment the different aspects of what i now think might have happened around 10.000 years ago, but i wasn't successful at all. It was really stupid of me to do that, in the first place. But now its too late. Brace yourself for impact!

In a catastrophic impacting event, like the one i propose, oceanic floor geochronological dating would most definitely be corrupted by means of the several reheatings from the magmatic turmoil activity underneath the crust, as the planet slightly expanded, as a consequence of said impact. The ocean floor dating, would then be in reality, much younger than it appears. Instead of million of years old, these specific geologic features (ocean floor) would have been created much recently, that is around ten/twelve thousands of years ago. The rate at which ocean floor was created, would have been staggering.

I propose that a different planet existed then (between 10 and 12.000 years ago), with a slightly smaller diameter than at present, with the north pole facing the sun and performing a similar rotation as Uranus with a rotation axe of about 98 degrees. With such planetary configuration as rotating on its side, planet earth would have gained an unthinkable amount of ice on its dark side, again as in the icy planet Uranus. 

Pangaea, as the last continental kernel that existed, was initially probably carved by the gigantic flows of water from the icy region (e.g. Greek myth of a world encircling river, Oceanus) before the breakup actually took place (originated by said hypothetical impact). The inhabitable continental earth would have been a large part of the planet, but confined to the enlightened hemisphere, surrounded by ice. Kilometers thick ice would exist in great quantities, feeding this very large "river" Oceanus, continuously.

After the above impact, the sea would have become salty as the result of the ocean floor volcanic activity and water (it is important to remember that sea levels rose more than 100 meters in the Pleistocene/Holocene.)

I propose that the impact changed the face of the planet forever. An impact within the Indian ocean (e.g. the river Eridanus, in the Phaethon Greek myth) lead to several large tectonic shifts (e.g. tectonic movement of the Indian continent, the himalayan orogeny) and would have occurred in a brief period of time, as a consequence of the impact several meltings/hardenings of the north MAR ocean floor crust, while expanding (after absorbing the mass of the impactor, would have likewise permitted Greenland to move from the Gibraltar region, to where it is now physiographically located in the north American continent. Nearly all coastal orogenies in the north Atlantic would have been a byproduct of said tectonic shifts (e.g. Variscan orogeny). For that reason the Azores triple junction exist, and would have been the center "piece" where the great island would have been situated, dividing three continents in front of the Gibraltar region. Needless to say that geodetic data is crucial to unravel this "hidden" recent activity at the upper mantle level and crust. the MAR in North Atlantic (more or les in front of Gibraltar) has an area identical to Greenland.

The north Atlantic igneous province (Greenland and Iceland) and mid ocean basalts must be also proof that something took place there. The Sahara, according to my reasoning, bear witness to the astronomical amount of sand, sediment that existed (in the ancient eastern margins of said oceanus) and covered most of northern Africa

All the above is to be sustained by the fact that a clear and undeniable evidence of continental fit exists at several levels of magnitude (e.g. in the case of small islands (Cabo Verde, Canary islands and Greenland), or in the case of the fit of Greenland and two more landmasses (Iberian peninsula, northwest Africa).

Last but not least, there is the Greenland bedrock and the existing river system throughout the whole island. They are definitely the most astonishing on earth. Coincidental or not, the features of central Greenland bedrock (the main rivers and canyons) already discovered are in concordance with Plato descriptions, in every detail. 

PS: The two small impact craters in Greenland are also important elements to the equation, although since the whole event was supposed to have been deeply disturbing, Greenland craters could have been provoked by some of the debris that followed the main impactor itself.

In this brief elucidation, i hope to have made myself clear enough. 

Thanks for asking. 

 

[cormac mac airt]

48 minutes ago, Polar said:

Sorry for taking this long to answer... I tried to segment the different aspects of what i now think might have happened around 10.000 years ago, but i wasn't successful at all. It was really stupid of me to do that, in the first place. But now its too late. Brace yourself for impact!

In a catastrophic impacting event, like the one i propose, oceanic floor geochronological dating would most definitely be corrupted by means of the several reheatings from the magmatic turmoil activity underneath the crust, as the planet slightly expanded, as a consequence of said impact. The ocean floor dating, would then be in reality, much younger than it appears. Instead of million of years old, these specific geologic features (ocean floor) would have been created much recently, that is around ten/twelve thousands of years ago. The rate at which ocean floor was created, would have been staggering.

I propose that a different planet existed then (between 10 and 12.000 years ago), with a slightly smaller diameter than at present, with the north pole facing the sun and performing a similar rotation as Uranus with a rotation axe of about 98 degrees. With such planetary configuration as rotating on its side, planet earth would have gained an unthinkable amount of ice on its dark side, again as in the icy planet Uranus. 

Pangaea, as the last continental kernel that existed, was initially probably carved by the gigantic flows of water from the icy region (e.g. Greek myth of a world encircling river, Oceanus) before the breakup actually took place (originated by said hypothetical impact). The inhabitable continental earth would have been a large part of the planet, but confined to the enlightened hemisphere, surrounded by ice. Kilometers thick ice would exist in great quantities, feeding this very large "river" Oceanus, continuously.

After the above impact, the sea would have become salty as the result of the ocean floor volcanic activity and water (it is important to remember that sea levels rose more than 100 meters in the Pleistocene/Holocene.)

I propose that the impact changed the face of the planet forever. An impact within the Indian ocean (e.g. the river Eridanus, in the Phaethon Greek myth) lead to several large tectonic shifts (e.g. tectonic movement of the Indian continent, the himalayan orogeny) and would have occurred in a brief period of time, as a consequence of the impact several meltings/hardenings of the north MAR ocean floor crust, while expanding (after absorbing the mass of the impactor, would have likewise permitted Greenland to move from the Gibraltar region, to where it is now physiographically located in the north American continent. Nearly all coastal orogenies in the north Atlantic would have been a byproduct of said tectonic shifts (e.g. Variscan orogeny). For that reason the Azores triple junction exist, and would have been the center "piece" where the great island would have been situated, dividing three continents in front of the Gibraltar region. Needless to say that geodetic data is crucial to unravel this "hidden" recent activity at the upper mantle level and crust. the MAR in North Atlantic (more or les in front of Gibraltar) has an area identical to Greenland.

The north Atlantic igneous province (Greenland and Iceland) and mid ocean basalts must be also proof that something took place there. The Sahara, according to my reasoning, bear witness to the astronomical amount of sand, sediment that existed (in the ancient eastern margins of said oceanus) and covered most of northern Africa

All the above is to be sustained by the fact that a clear and undeniable evidence of continental fit exists at several levels of magnitude (e.g. in the case of small islands (Cabo Verde, Canary islands and Greenland), or in the case of the fit of Greenland and two more landmasses (Iberian peninsula, northwest Africa).

Last but not least, there is the Greenland bedrock and the existing river system throughout the whole island. They are definitely the most astonishing on earth. Coincidental or not, the features of central Greenland bedrock (the main rivers and canyons) already discovered are in concordance with Plato descriptions, in every detail. 

PS: The two small impact craters in Greenland are also important elements to the equation, although since the whole event was supposed to have been deeply disturbing, Greenland craters could have been provoked by some of the debris that followed the main impactor itself.

In this brief elucidation, i hope to have made myself clear enough. 

Thanks for asking. 

 

And absolutely NONE of that is in evidence as having happened, at ANY point in earth’s history. The Writer’s forum is several levels down, your fantasy belongs there. 
 

cormac

[Hanslune]

18 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And absolutely NONE of that is in evidence as having happened, at ANY point in earth’s history. The Writer’s forum is several levels down, your fantasy belongs there. 
 

cormac

Edited January 21, 2021 by Hanslune

[Trelane]

9 hours ago, The_Spartan said:

His hypothesis is that Greenland was actually somewhere close to Africa or attached to the hip of Africa. sometime in the past, it got bored of Africa's closeness and took a long swim to its current position, put of a ice blanket and promptly went to sleep. and oh yea, Atlantis is somewhere on Greenland.

I think the point of contention is if it minced or singlefooted its way to the current location.

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I think the point of contention is if it minced or singlefooted its way to the current location.

Maybe it hot-footed its way there. 

cormac

[Nobu]

1 hour ago, Polar said:

Sorry for taking this long to answer... I tried to segment the different aspects of what i now think might have happened around 10.000 years ago, but i wasn't successful at all. It was really stupid of me to do that, in the first place. But now its too late. Brace yourself for impact!

In a catastrophic impacting event, like the one i propose, oceanic floor geochronological dating would most definitely be corrupted by means of the several reheatings from the magmatic turmoil activity underneath the crust, as the planet slightly expanded, as a consequence of said impact. The ocean floor dating, would then be in reality, much younger than it appears. Instead of million of years old, these specific geologic features (ocean floor) would have been created much recently, that is around ten/twelve thousands of years ago. The rate at which ocean floor was created, would have been staggering.

I propose that a different planet existed then (between 10 and 12.000 years ago), with a slightly smaller diameter than at present, with the north pole facing the sun and performing a similar rotation as Uranus with a rotation axe of about 98 degrees. With such planetary configuration as rotating on its side, planet earth would have gained an unthinkable amount of ice on its dark side, again as in the icy planet Uranus. 

Pangaea, as the last continental kernel that existed, was initially probably carved by the gigantic flows of water from the icy region (e.g. Greek myth of a world encircling river, Oceanus) before the breakup actually took place (originated by said hypothetical impact). The inhabitable continental earth would have been a large part of the planet, but confined to the enlightened hemisphere, surrounded by ice. Kilometers thick ice would exist in great quantities, feeding this very large "river" Oceanus, continuously.

After the above impact, the sea would have become salty as the result of the ocean floor volcanic activity and water (it is important to remember that sea levels rose more than 100 meters in the Pleistocene/Holocene.)

I propose that the impact changed the face of the planet forever. An impact within the Indian ocean (e.g. the river Eridanus, in the Phaethon Greek myth) lead to several large tectonic shifts (e.g. tectonic movement of the Indian continent, the himalayan orogeny) and would have occurred in a brief period of time, as a consequence of the impact several meltings/hardenings of the north MAR ocean floor crust, while expanding (after absorbing the mass of the impactor, would have likewise permitted Greenland to move from the Gibraltar region, to where it is now physiographically located in the north American continent. Nearly all coastal orogenies in the north Atlantic would have been a byproduct of said tectonic shifts (e.g. Variscan orogeny). For that reason the Azores triple junction exist, and would have been the center "piece" where the great island would have been situated, dividing three continents in front of the Gibraltar region. Needless to say that geodetic data is crucial to unravel this "hidden" recent activity at the upper mantle level and crust. the MAR in North Atlantic (more or les in front of Gibraltar) has an area identical to Greenland.

The north Atlantic igneous province (Greenland and Iceland) and mid ocean basalts must be also proof that something took place there. The Sahara, according to my reasoning, bear witness to the astronomical amount of sand, sediment that existed (in the ancient eastern margins of said oceanus) and covered most of northern Africa

All the above is to be sustained by the fact that a clear and undeniable evidence of continental fit exists at several levels of magnitude (e.g. in the case of small islands (Cabo Verde, Canary islands and Greenland), or in the case of the fit of Greenland and two more landmasses (Iberian peninsula, northwest Africa).

Last but not least, there is the Greenland bedrock and the existing river system throughout the whole island. They are definitely the most astonishing on earth. Coincidental or not, the features of central Greenland bedrock (the main rivers and canyons) already discovered are in concordance with Plato descriptions, in every detail. 

PS: The two small impact craters in Greenland are also important elements to the equation, although since the whole event was supposed to have been deeply disturbing, Greenland craters could have been provoked by some of the debris that followed the main impactor itself.

In this brief elucidation, i hope to have made myself clear enough. 

Thanks for asking. 

 

Thanks man. Personally, I see some things that are an issue. But I just wanted this to popcorn off of a friend or two.

 

no matter what.... I see how much stuff (crap) you take here  just to post your ideas and to defend them and I appreciate it. Diverse ideas are what actually makes our civilization pretty good so far. Even if 99 percent of what you typed is  wrong... who knows... that 1 percent could be something that elicits a chain reaction in re-working what is currently known. 
 

I would advise ignoring the insults. I don’t even read them.

[jaylemurph]

Please don’t feed his fantasies with the idea he might be right. He isn’t. He can’t be.

If he won’t abandon his fool’s quest for Atlantis, he could take a junior college class on basic geology or oceanography and stop embarrassing himself. But he won’t do that suffering from the delusion he knows better than every academic on Earth, and that’s the lie you’re telling him. You’re offering car keys to a stumbling drunk.

—Jaylemurph 

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Maybe it hot-footed its way there. 

cormac

I vote for, 'it slug-crawled hither forth upon copious discharges of rancorous and malodorous streams of slime'.

[Hanslune]

This is image is vastly important to understanding the Atlantis-Japan-Greenland connection.

If you don't understand why ask Swede to repost his study of Harte's Geographical study of Kentucky Fried Chicken locations.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Hanslune