Atlantis Online

Atlantis => Atlantis & the Atlantic Ocean => Topic started by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:02:08 pm



Title: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:02:08 pm
Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift



David Pratt



Contents

Introduction

Plate tectonics -- a failed revolution
        Plates in motion?
        Continental drift
        Seafloor spreading and subduction

Emergence and submergence
        Vertical tectonics
        The continents
        The oceans

Conclusion

References

Select bibliography



NB: For a more detailed critique of plate tectonics, see: Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat, Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, 2000, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

______________________________________



Introduction

That worlds (also Races) are periodically destroyed by fire (volcanoes and earthquakes) and water, in turn, and renewed, is a doctrine as old as man. . . . Twice already has the face of the globe been changed by fire, and twice by water, since man appeared on it. As land needs rest and renovation, new forces, and a change for its soil, so does water. Thence arises a periodical redistribution of land and water, change of climates, etc., all brought on by geological revolution, and ending in a final change in the axis. (H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, 2:725-6)
In the latter half of the 19th century, when the above passage was written, the idea of submerged continents was accepted by many prominent geologists. This continued to be the case well into the 20th century, though the idea gradually began to go out of fashion. In the mid-1960s came the plate-tectonics 'revolution' in the earth sciences. Plate tectonics firmly denies that large landmasses can be elevated from the ocean floor or submerged to oceanic depths.    According to plate tectonics, the earth's outer shell, or lithosphere, is divided into a number of large, rigid, moving plates that interact at their boundaries, where they converge, diverge, or slide past one another. Such interactions are believed to be responsible for most of the seismic and volcanic activity of the earth. Plates cause mountains to rise where they push together, and continents to fracture and oceans to form where they rift apart. The continents, sitting passively on the backs of the plates, drift with them, at the rate of a few centimeters a year. At the end of the Permian, some 250 million years ago,* all the present continents are said to have been gathered together in a single supercontinent, Pangaea, consisting of two major landmasses: Laurasia in the north, and Gondwanaland in the south. Pangaea is believed to have started fragmenting in the Early Jurassic -- though some 'authorities' place the event earlier, in the Triassic, or even as late as the Cretaceous -- leading to the configuration of oceans and continents observed today.


*All dates given in this article are official 'scientific' dates. For the corresponding theosophical dates, see: Geochronology: theosophy and science, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/geochron.htm.
    It has been said that 'A hypothesis that is appealing for its unity or simplicity acts as a filter, accepting reinforcement with ease but tending to reject evidence that does not seem to fit.' Some proponents of plate tectonics have admitted that in the late 1960s a bandwagon atmosphere developed, and that data that did not fit into the new plate-tectonics model were not given sufficient consideration, resulting in a disturbing dogmatism. In the words of one critic, geology has become 'a bland mixture of descriptive research and interpretive papers in which the interpretation is a facile cookbook application of plate-tectonics concepts . . . used as confidently as trigonometric functions' [1]. A modern geological textbook acknowledges that 'Geologists, like other people, are susceptible to fads' [2].
    V.A. Saull pointed out that no global tectonic model should ever be considered definitive, since geological and geophysical observations are nearly always open to alternative explanations. He also stated that even if plate tectonics were false, it would be difficult to refute and replace, for the following reasons: the processes supposed to be responsible for plate dynamics are rooted in regions of the earth so poorly known that it is hard to prove or disprove any particular model of them; the hard core of belief in plate tectonics is protected from direct assault by auxiliary hypotheses that are still being generated; and the plate model is so widely believed to be correct that it is difficult to get alternative interpretations published in the scientific literature [3].
    The plate-tectonics hypothesis has faced growing criticism as the number of observational anomalies has increased. It will shown below that plate tectonics faces some fundamental -- and in fact fatal -- problems.



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:04:35 pm
Plate tectonics -- a failed revolution

Plates in motion?

According to the classical model of plate tectonics, lithospheric plates move over a relatively plastic layer of partly molten rock known as the asthenosphere (or low-velocity zone). The lithosphere, which comprises the earth's crust and uppermost mantle, is said to average about 70 km thick beneath oceans and to be 100 to 250 km thick beneath continents. A powerful challenge to this model is posed by seismic tomography, which produces three-dimensional images of the earth's interior. It shows that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them. Seismic research shows that even under the oceans there is no continuous asthenosphere, only disconnected asthenospheric lenses.
    The crust and uppermost mantle have a highly complex, irregular structure; they are divided by faults into a mosaic of separate, jostling blocks of different shapes and sizes, and of varying internal structure and strength. N.I. Pavlenkova concludes: 'This means that the movement of lithospheric plates over long distances, as single rigid bodies, is hardly possible. Moreover, if we take into account the absence of the asthenosphere as a single continuous zone, then this movement seems utterly impossible' [1]. Although the concept of thin lithospheric plates moving thousands of kilometers over a global asthenosphere is untenable, most geological textbooks continue to propagate this simplistic model, and fail to give the slightest indication that it faces any problems.

(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig1.jpg)

Figure 1. Seismotomographic cross-section showing velocity structure across the North American craton and North Atlantic Ocean. High-velocity (colder) lithosphere, shown in dark tones, underlies the Canadian shield to depths of 250 to 500 km. (Reprinted with permission from Grand [2]. Copyright by the American Geophysical Union.)



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:05:47 pm
The driving force of plate movements was initially claimed to be mantle-deep convection currents welling up beneath midocean ridges, with downwelling occurring beneath ocean trenches. Plate tectonicists expected seismotomography to provide clear evidence of a well-organized convection-cell pattern, but it has actually provided strong evidence against the existence of large, plate-propelling convection cells in the mantle. The favored plate-driving mechanisms at present are 'ridge-push' and 'slab-pull', but their adequacy is very much in doubt.
    Thirteen major plates are currently recognized, ranging in size from about 400 by 2500 km to 10,000 by 10,000 km, together with a proliferating number of microplates (over 100 so far). Plate boundaries are identified and defined mainly on the basis of earthquake and volcanic activity. The close correspondence between plate edges and belts of earthquakes and volcanoes is therefore to be expected and can hardly be regarded as one of the 'successes' of plate tectonics! A major problem is that several 'plate boundaries' are purely theoretical and appear to be nonexistent, including the northwest Pacific boundary of the Pacific, North American, and Eurasian plates, the southern boundary of the Philippine plate, part of the southern boundary of the Pacific plate, and most of the northern and southern boundaries of the South American plate.




Continental drift

Geological field mapping provides evidence for horizontal crustal movements of up to several hundred kilometers. Plate tectonics, however, claims that continents have moved up to 7000 km or more since the alleged breakup of Pangaea. Satellite measurements of crustal movements have been hailed by some geologists as having proved plate tectonics. Such measurements provide a guide to crustal strains, but do not provide evidence for plate motions of the kind predicted by plate tectonics unless the relative motions predicted among all plates are observed. However, many of the results have shown no definite pattern, and have been confusing and contradictory, giving rise to a variety of ad-hoc hypotheses. For instance, distances from the Central South American Andes to Japan or Hawaii are more or less constant, whereas plate tectonics predicts significant separation. The practise of extrapolating present crustal movements tens or hundreds of millions of years into the past or future is clearly a hazardous exercise.
    A 'compelling' piece of evidence that all the continents were once united in one large landmass is said to be the fact that they can be fitted together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. However, although many reconstructions have been attempted, none are entirely acceptable. In the Bullard et al. computer-generated fit, for example, there are a number of glaring omissions. The whole of Central America and much of southern Mexico -- a region of some 2,100,000 km² -- has been left out because it overlaps South America. The entire West Indian archipelago has also been omitted. In fact, much of the Caribbean is underlain by ancient continental crust, and the total area involved, 300,000 km², overlaps Africa. The Cape Verde Islands-Senegal basin, too, is underlain by ancient continental crust, creating an additional overlap of 800,000 km². Several major submarine structures that appear to be of continental origin are also ignored, including the Faeroe-Iceland-Greenland Ridge, Jan Mayen Ridge, Walvis Ridge, Rio Grande Rise, and the Falkland Plateau.

(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig2.jpg)

Figure 2. The Bullard fit. Overlaps and gaps between continents are shown in black. (Reprinted with permission from Bullard et al. [3]. Copyright by The Royal Society.)


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:06:19 pm
Like the Bullard fit, the Smith & Hallam reconstruction of the Gondwanaland continents tries to fit the continents along the 500-fathom (1-km) depth contour on the continental shelves. The South Orkneys and South Georgia are omitted, as is Kerguelen Island in the Indian Ocean, and there is a large gap west of Australia. Fitting India against Australia, as in other fits, leaves a corresponding gap in the western Indian Ocean. Dietz & Holden based their fit on the 2-km depth contour, but they still have to omit the Florida-Bahamas platform, ignoring the evidence that it predates the alleged commencement of drift. In many regions the boundary between continental and oceanic crust appears to occur beneath oceanic depths of 2-4 km or more, and in some places the ocean-continent transition zone is several hundred kilometers wide. This means that any reconstructions based on arbitrarily selected depth contours are flawed. Given the liberties that drifters have had to take to obtain the desired continental matches, their computer-generated fits may well be a case of 'garbage in, garbage out'.
    The curvature of continental contours is often so similar that many shorelines can be fitted together quite well even though they can never have been in juxtaposition. For instance, eastern Australia fits well with eastern North America, and there are also remarkable geological and paleontological similarities, probably due to the similar tectonic backgrounds of the two regions. The geological resemblances of opposing Atlantic coastlines may be due to the areas having belonged to the same tectonic belt, but the differences -- which are rarely mentioned -- are sufficient to show that the areas were situated in distant parts of the belt. H.P. Blavatsky regarded the similarities in the geological structure, fossils, and marine life of the opposite coasts of the Atlantic in certain periods as evidence that 'there has been, in distant pre-historic ages, a continent which extended from the coast of Venezuela, across the Atlantic Ocean, to the Canarese Islands and North Africa, and from Newfoundland nearly to the coast of France' [4].
    One of the main props of continental drift is paleomagnetism -- the study of the magnetism of ancient rocks and sediments. For each continent a 'polar wander path' can be constructed, and these are interpreted to mean that the continents have moved vast distances over the earth's surface. However, paleomagnetism is very unreliable and frequently produces inconsistent and contradictory results. For instance, paleomagnetic data imply that during the mid-Cretaceous Azerbaijan and Japan were in the same place! When individual paleomagnetic pole positions, rather than averaged curves, are plotted on world maps, the scatter is huge, often wider than the Atlantic.
    One of the basic assumptions of paleomagnetism is that rocks retain the magnetization they acquire at the time they formed. In reality, rock magnetism is subject to modification by later magnetism, weathering, metamorphism, tectonic deformation, and chemical changes. Horizontal and vertical rotations of crustal blocks further complicate the picture. Another questionable assumption is that over long periods of time the geomagnetic field approximates a simple dipole (N-S) field oriented along the earth's rotation axis. If, in the past, there were stable magnetic anomalies of the same intensity as the present-day East Asian anomaly (or slightly more intensive), this would render the geocentric axial dipole hypothesis invalid.
    The opening of the Atlantic Ocean allegedly began in the Cretaceous by the rifting apart of the Eurasian and American plates. However, on the other side of the globe, northeastern Eurasia is joined to North America by the Bering-Chukotsk shelf, which is underlain by Precambrian continental crust that is continuous and unbroken from Alaska to Siberia. Geologically these regions constitute a single unit, and it is unrealistic to suppose that they were formerly divided by an ocean several thousand kilometers wide, which closed to compensate for the opening of the Atlantic. If a suture is absent there, one ought to be found in Eurasia or North America, but no such suture appears to exist. Similarly, geology indicates that there has been a direct tectonic connection between Europe and Africa across the zones of Gibraltar and Rif on the one hand, and Calabria and Sicily on the other, at least since the end of the Paleozoic, contradicting plate-tectonic claims of significant displacement between Europe and Africa during this period.
    India supposedly detached itself from Antarctica sometime during the Mesozoic, and then drifted northeastward up to 9000 km, over a period of up to 200 million years, until it finally collided with Asia in the mid-Tertiary, pushing up the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau. That Asia happened to have an indentation of approximately the correct shape and size and in exactly the right place for India to 'dock' into would amount to a remarkable coincidence. There is, however, overwhelming geological and paleontological evidence that India has been an integral part of Asia since Precambrian time. If the long journey of India had actually happened, it would have been an isolated island-continent for millions of years -- sufficient time to have evolved a highly distinct endemic fauna. However, the Mesozoic and Tertiary faunas show no such endemism, but indicate instead that India lay very close to Asia throughout this period, and not to Australia and Antarctica. It would appear that the supposed 'flight of India' is no more than a flight of fancy!
    It is often claimed that plate-tectonic reassemblies of the continents can help to explain climatic changes and the distribution of plants and animals in the past. However, detailed studies have shown that shifting the continents succeeds at best in explaining local or regional climatic features for a particular period, and invariably fails to explain the global climate for the same period. A.A. Meyerhoff et al. showed in a detailed study that most major biogeographical boundaries, based on floral and faunal distributions, do not coincide with the partly computer-generated plate boundaries postulated by plate tectonics. The authors comment: 'What is puzzling is that such major inconsistencies between plate tectonic postulates and field data, involving as they do boundaries that extend for thousands of kilometers, are permitted to stand unnoticed, unacknowledged, and unstudied.' Before their study was published by the Geological Society of America, a group of earth-science graduates was invited to study the manuscript. They became deeply disturbed by what they read, and commented: 'If this global study of biodiversity through time is correct, and it is very convincingly presented, then a lot of what we are being taught about plate tectonics should more aptly be called "Globaloney" ' [5].
    It is unscientific to select a few faunal identities and ignore the vastly greater number of faunal dissimilarities from different continents which were supposedly once joined [6]. The known distributions of fossil organisms are more consistent with an earth model like that of today than with continental-drift models. Some of the paleontological evidence appears to require the alternate emergence and submergence of land dispersal routes only after the supposed breakup of Pangaea. For example, mammal distribution indicates that there were no direct physical connections between Europe and North America during Late Cretaceous and Paleocene times, but suggests a temporary connection with Europe during the Eocene. A few drifters have recognized the need for intermittent land bridges after the supposed separation of the continents. Various oceanic ridges, rises, and plateaus could have served as land bridges, as many are known to have been partly above water at various times in the past. There is growing evidence that these land bridges formed part of larger former landmasses in the present oceans (see below).
    The present distribution of land and water is characterized by a number of notable regularities. First, the continents tend to be triangular, with their pointed ends to the south. Second, the northern polar ocean is almost entirely ringed by land, from which three continents project southward, while the continental landmass at the south pole is surrounded by water, with three oceans projecting northward. Third, the oceans and continents are arranged antipodally -- i.e. if there is land in one area of the globe, there tends to be water in the corresponding area on the opposite side of the globe.
    The Arctic Ocean is precisely antipodal to Antarctica; North America is exactly antipodal to the Indian Ocean; Europe and Africa are antipodal to the central area of the Pacific Ocean; Australia is antipodal to the North Atlantic; and the South Atlantic corresponds -- though less exactly -- to the eastern half of Asia.* Only 7% of the earth's surface does not obey the antipodal rule. If the continents had slowly drifted thousands of kilometers to their present positions, the antipodal arrangement of land and water would have to be regarded as purely coincidental. The antipodal arrangement of land and seas reflects the tetrahedral plan of the earth. If one corner of the tetrahedron is placed in Antarctica, at the south pole, the other three lie in three vast blocks of very ancient, Archean rocks in the northern hemisphere: the Canadian shield, the Scandinavian shield, and the Siberian shield, and the three edges correspond to the three roughly meridional lines running through the three pairs of continents: North and South America, Europe and Africa, Asia and Australia.**



*Rupert Sheldrake likens the earth to a developing organism, and says that the existence of an ocean at the north pole and a continent at the south pole may be the culmination of a morphogenetic process: 'Such a morphological polarization of a spherical body is very familiar in the realm of biology; for example, in the formation of poles in fertilized eggs' (The Rebirth of Nature, Bantam, 1991, p. 161).
**J.W. Gregory suggested that in the Upper Paleozoic the tetrahedron was the other way up, with one corner at the north pole. Instead of a continuous southern ocean-belt separating triangular points of land, there was then a southern land-belt, supported by three great equidistant cornerstones: the Archean blocks of South America, South Africa, and Australia.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:06:48 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/antipodal.jpg)

Figure 3. The antipodal arrangement of land and sea. (Reprinted with permission from Gregory [7]. Copyright by the Royal Geographical Society.)

    Another significant fact is that the triple points formed where 'plate boundaries' (i.e. seismic belts) meet coincide very closely with the vertices of an icosahedron, which, like the tetrahedron, is one of the five regular polyhedra or Platonic solids. This, too, would be a remarkable coincidence if 'plates' had really changed their shape and size to the extent postulated in plate tectonics.



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:07:38 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/icosa.jpg)


Figure 4. Major seismotectonic belts/'plate boundaries' (broken lines) compared with an icosahedron. (Reprinted with permission from Spilhaus [8]. Copyright by the American Geophysical Union.)



Seafloor spreading and subduction

According to the seafloor-spreading hypothesis, new oceanic crust is generated at midocean ridges by the upwelling of molten material from the earth's mantle, and as the magma cools it spreads away from the flanks of the ridges. The horizontally moving plates are said to plunge back into the mantle at ocean trenches or 'subduction zones'.
    The ocean floor is far from having the uniform characteristics that conveyor-type spreading would imply. The mantle is asymmetrical in relation to the midocean ridges and has a complicated mosaic structure independent of the strike of the ridge. N.C. Smoot and A.A. Meyerhoff showed that nearly all published charts of the world's ocean floors have been drawn deliberately to reflect the predictions of the plate-tectonics hypothesis, and the most accurate charts now available are widely ignored because they do not conform to plate-tectonic preconceptions [9]. Side-scanning radar images show that the midocean ridges are cut by thousands of long, linear, ridge-parallel fissures, fractures, and faults. This strongly suggests that the ridges are underlain at shallow depth by interconnected magma channels, in which semi-fluid lava moves horizontally and parallel with the ridges rather than at right-angles to them.
    The oldest known rocks from the continents are just under 4 billion years old, whereas -- according to plate tectonics -- none of the ocean crust is older than 200 million years (Jurassic). This is cited as conclusive evidence that oceanic crust is constantly being created at midocean ridges and consumed in subduction zones. There is in fact abundant evidence against the alleged youth of the ocean floor, though geological textbooks tend to pass over it in silence.
    Scientists involved in the Deep Sea Drilling Project were apparently motivated by a strong desire to confirm seafloor spreading. They have given the impression that the basalt (layer 2) found beneath the sedimentary sequences (layer 1) at the bottom of many deep-sea drillholes is basement, with no further, older sediments below it. Yet in some cases there is clear evidence that the basalt is a later intrusion into existing sediments. The ocean floor needs to be drilled to much greater depths -- up to 5 km -- to see whether there are Triassic, Paleozoic, or Precambrian sediments below the so-called basement.
    Plate tectonics predicts that the age of the oceanic crust should increase systematically with distance from the midocean ridge crests. However, the dates exhibit a very large scatter. On one seamount just west of the crest of the East Pacific Rise, the radiometric dates range from 2.4 to 96 million years. Although a general trend is discernible from younger sediments at ridge crests to older sediments away from them, this is in fact to be expected, since the crest is the highest and most active part of the ridge; older sediments are likely to be buried beneath younger volcanic rocks. The basalt layer in the ocean crust suggests that magma flooding was once ocean-wide, but volcanism was subsequently restricted to an increasingly narrow zone centered on the ridge crests. Such magma floods were accompanied by progressive crustal subsidence in large sectors of the present oceans, beginning in the Jurassic.






Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:11:29 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig5.jpg)

Figure 5. A plot of rock age vs. distance from the crest of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. (Reprinted with permission from Meyerhoff et al., 1996a, fig. 2.35. Copyright by Kluwer Academic Publishers.)

    The numerous finds in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans of rocks far older than 200 million years, many of them continental in nature, provide strong evidence against the alleged youth of the underlying crust. In the equatorial segment of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge numerous shallow-water and continental rocks, with ages up to 3.74 billion years have been found. A study of St. Peter and Paul's Rocks at the crest of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge just north of the equator, turned up an 835-million-year rock associated with other rocks giving 350-, 450-, and 2000-million-year ages, whereas according to the seafloor-spreading model the rock should have been 35 million years.
    Rocks dredged from the Bald Mountain region just west of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge crest at 45°N were found to be between 1690 to 1550 million years old. 75% of the rock samples consisted of continental-type rocks, and the scientists involved commented that this was a 'remarkable phenomenon' -- so remarkable, in fact, that they decided to classify these rocks as 'glacial erratics' and to give them no further consideration. Another way of dealing with 'anomalous' rock finds is to dismiss them as ship ballast. However, the Bald Mountain locality has an estimated volume of 80 km³, so it is hardly likely to have been rafted out to sea on an iceberg or dumped by a ship! In another attempt to explain away anomalously old rocks and anomalously shallow or emergent crust in certain parts of the ridges, some plate tectonicists have put forward the contrived notion that 'nonspreading blocks' can be left behind during rifting, and that the spreading axis and related transform faults can jump from place to place.
    Strong support for seafloor spreading is said to be provided by marine magnetic anomalies -- approximately parallel stripes of alternating high and low magnetic intensity that characterize some 70% of the world's midocean ridges. According to the plate-tectonic hypothesis, as the fluid basalt welling up along the midocean ridges spreads horizontally and cools, it is magnetized by the earth's magnetic field. Bands of high intensity are believed to have formed during periods of normal magnetic polarity, and bands of low intensity during periods of reversed polarity. However, ocean drilling has seriously undermined this simplistic model.
    Correlations have been made between linear magnetic anomalies on either side of a ridge, in different parts of the oceans, and with radiometrically-dated magnetic events on land. The results have been used to produce maps showing how the age of the ocean floor increases steadily with increasing distance from the ridge axis. As indicated above, this simple picture can be sustained only by dismissing the possibility of older sediments beneath the basalt 'basement' and by ignoring numerous 'anomalously' old rock ages. The claimed correlations have been largely qualitative and subjective, and are therefore highly suspect. More detailed, quantitative analyses have shown that the alleged correlations are very poor. A more likely explanation of the magnetic stripes is that they are caused by fault-related bands of rock of different magnetic properties, and have nothing to do with seafloor spreading.



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:12:05 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig6.jpg)

Figure 6. Two views of marine magnetic anomalies. Top: a textbook cartoon. (Reprinted with permission from McGeary & Plummer [2]. Copyright by The McGraw-Hill Companies.). Bottom: magnetic anomaly patterns of the North Atlantic (Reprinted with permission from Meyerhoff & Meyerhoff, 1972. Copyright by the American Geophysical Union.)

    A remarkable fact concerning oceanic magnetic anomalies is that they are approximately concentric with respect to Archean continental shields (i.e. continental nuclei more than 2.5 billion years old). This implies that instead of being a 'taped record' of seafloor spreading and geomagnetic field reversals during the past 200 million years, most oceanic magnetic anomalies are the sites of ancient fractures, which partly formed during the Proterozoic and have been rejuvenated since. The evidence also suggests that Archean continental nuclei have held approximately the same positions with respect to one another since their formation -- which is utterly at variance with continental drift.
    Benioff zones are distinct earthquake zones that begin at an ocean trench and slope landward and downward into the earth. In plate tectonics, these deep-rooted fault zones are interpreted as 'subduction zones' where plates descend into the mantle. They are generally depicted as 100-km-thick slabs descending into the earth either at a constant angle, or at a shallow angle near the earth's surface and gradually curving round to an angle of between 60° and 75°. Neither representation is correct. Benioff zones often consist of two separate sections: an upper zone with an average dip of 33° extending to a depth of 70-400 km, and a lower zone with an average dip of 60° extending to a depth of up to 700 km. The upper and lower segments are sometimes offset by 100-200 km, and in one case by 350 km. Furthermore, deep earthquakes are disconnected from shallow ones; very few intermediate earthquakes exist. Many studies have found transverse as well as vertical discontinuities and segmentation in Benioff zones. The evidence therefore does not favor the notion of a continuous, downgoing slab.






Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:12:44 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig7.jpg)

Figure 7. Cross-sections across the Peru-Chile trench (left) and Bonin-Honshu arc (right), showing earthquake centers. (Reprinted with permission from Benioff [10]. Copyright by the Geological Society of America.)

    Plate tectonicists insist that the volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of midocean ridges are supposedly producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add the 9000 km of 'collision zones', the figure is still only half that of the 'spreading centers'. With two minor exceptions, Benioff zones are absent from the margins of the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans. Africa is allegedly being converged on by plates spreading from the east, south, and west, yet it exhibits no evidence whatsoever for the existence of subduction zones or newly forming mountains belts. Antarctica, too, is almost entirely surrounded by alleged 'spreading' ridges without any corresponding subduction zones, but fails to show any signs of being crushed. It has been suggested that Africa and Antarctica may remain stationary while the surrounding ridge system migrates away from them, but this would require the ridge marking the 'plate boundary' between Africa and Antarctica to move in opposite directions simultaneously!
    If up to 13,000 kilometers of lithosphere had really been subducted in circum-Pacific deep-sea trenches, vast amounts of oceanic sediments should have been scraped off the ocean floor and piled up against the landward margin of the trenches. However, sediments in the trenches are generally not present in the volumes required, nor do they display the expected degree of deformation. Scholl & Marlow, who support plate tectonics, admitted to being 'genuinely perplexed as to why evidence for subduction or offscraping of trench deposits is not glaringly apparent' [11]. Plate tectonicists have had to resort to the highly dubious notion that unconsolidated deep-ocean sediments can slide smoothly into a Benioff zone without leaving any significant trace. Subduction along Pacific trenches is also refuted by the fact that the Benioff zone often lies 80 to 150 km landward from the trench; by the evidence that Precambrian continental structures continue into the ocean floor; and by the evidence for submerged continental crust under the northwestern and southeastern Pacific, where there are now deep abyssal plains and trenches.
    An alternative view of Benioff zones is that they are very ancient contraction fractures produced by the cooling of the earth. The fact that the upper part of the Benioff zones dips at less than 45° and the lower part at more than 45° suggests that the lithosphere is under compression and the lower mantle under tension. Since a contracting sphere tends to fracture along great circles, this would account for the fact that both the circum-Pacific seismotectonic belt and the Alpine-Himalayan (Tethyan) belt* lie on approximate circles.


*The Alpine-Himalayan belt stretches from the Mediterranean to the Pacific, and is also visible in Central America. Some earth scientists believe it was once global in extent. Blavatsky says that the Himalayan belt does indeed encircle the globe, either under the water or above (The Secret Doctrine, 2:401fn).





Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:13:28 pm
Emergence and submergence

Vertical tectonics

The theosophical tradition teaches that the earth's crust is constantly rising or sinking, usually slowly but at times with cataclysmic intensity. There is a constant alternation of land and water: as one portion of the dry land is submerged, new land emerges elsewhere. Blavatsky writes:


Elevation and subsidence of continents is always in progress. The whole coast of South America has been raised up 10 to 15 feet and settled down again in an hour. Huxley has shown that the British islands have been four times depressed beneath the ocean and subsequently raised again and peopled. The Alps, Himalayas and Cordilleras were all the result of depositions drifted on to sea-bottoms and upheaved by Titanic forces to their present elevation. The Sahara was the basin of a Miocene sea. Within the last five or six thousand years the shores of Sweden, Denmark and Norway have risen from 200 to 600 feet; in Scotland there are raised beaches with outlying stacks and skerries surmounting the shore now eroded by the hungry wave. The North of Europe is still rising from the sea and South America presents the phenomenon of raised beaches over 1,000 miles in length, now at a height varying from 100 to 1,300 feet above the sea-level. On the other hand, the coast of Greenland is sinking fast, so much so that the Greenlander will not build by the shore. All these phenomena are certain. Why may not a gradual change have given place to a violent cataclysm in remote epochs? -- such cataclysms occurring on a minor scale even now (e.g., the case of Sunda island with 80,000 Malays*).[1]
*A reference to the massive eruption in 1883 of the volcano on the island of Krakatoa in the Sunda Strait. It created a tsunami, or giant sea wave, that swept away more than 30,000 people on the islands of Java and Sumatra.

Blavatsky also quotes the following from a contemporary scientist:


forces are unceasingly acting, and there is no reason why an elevating force once set in action in the centre of an ocean should cease to act until a continent is formed. They have acted and lifted out from the sea, in comparatively recent geological times, the loftiest mountains on earth. . . . Sea-beds have been elevated 1,000 fathoms and islands have risen up from the depths of 3,000 fathoms . . . [2]
The existence of former continental landmasses in the present oceans may be at odds with plate-tectonic dogma but, as shown below, it is supported by mounting evidence.
    Classical plate tectonics seeks to explain all geologic structures primarily in terms of simple horizontal movements of lithospheric plates -- their rifting, extension, collision, and subduction. But random plate interactions are unable to explain the periodic character of geological processes, i.e. the geotectonic cycle, which sometimes operates on a global scale. Nor can they explain the large-scale uplifts and subsidences that have characterized the evolution of the earth's crust, especially those occurring far from 'plate boundaries' such as in continental interiors, and vertical oscillatory motions involving vast regions. The presence of marine strata thousands of meters above sea level (e.g. near the summit of Mount Everest) and the great thicknesses of shallow-water sediment in some old basins indicate that vertical crustal movements of at least 9 km above sea level and 10-15 km below sea level have taken place.
    Major vertical movements have also occurred along continental margins. For example, the Atlantic continental margin of North America has subsided by up to 12 km since the Jurassic. In Barbados, Tertiary coals representing a shallow-water, tropical environment occur beneath deep-sea oozes, indicating that during the last 12 million years, the crust sank to over 4-5 km depth for the deposition of the ooze and was then raised again. A similar situation occurs in Indonesia, where deep-sea oozes occur above sea level, sandwiched between shallow-water Tertiary sediments.
    The primary mountain-building mechanism in plate tectonics is lateral compression caused by collisions -- of continents, island arcs, oceanic plateaus, seamounts, and ridges. In this model, subduction proceeds without mountain building until collision occurs, whereas in the noncollision model subduction alone is supposed to cause mountain building. As well as being mutually contradictory, both models are inadequate, as several supporters of plate tectonics have admitted. The noncollision model fails to explain how continuous subduction can give rise to discontinuous mountain building, while the collision model is challenged by occurrences of mountain building where no continental collision can be assumed, and it fails to explain contemporary mountain-building activity along such chains as the Andes and around much of the rest of the Pacific rim.
    Asia supposedly collided with Europe in the late Paleozoic, producing the Ural mountains, but abundant geological field data demonstrate that the Siberian and East European (Russian) platforms have formed a single continent since Precambrian times. One geological textbook admits that the plate-tectonic reconstruction of the formation of the Appalachian mountains in terms of three successive collisions of North America seems 'too implausible even for a science fiction plot'. C.D. Ollier states that fanciful plate-tectonic explanations ignore all the geomorphology and much of the known geological history of the Appalachians. He also says that of all the possible mechanisms that might account for the Alps, the collision of the African and European plates is the most naive [3].
    The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau were supposedly uplifted by the collision of the Indian plate with the Asian plate. However, this fails to explain why the beds on either side of the supposed collision zone remain comparatively undisturbed and low-dipping, whereas the Himalayas have been uplifted, supposedly as a consequence, some 100 km away, along with the Kunlun mountains to the north of the Tibetan Plateau. River terraces in various parts of the Himalayas are almost perfectly horizontal and untilted, suggesting that the Himalayas were uplifted vertically, rather than as the result of horizontal compression.
    There is ample evidence that mantle heat flow and material transport can cause significant changes in crustal thickness, composition, and density, resulting in substantial uplifts and subsidences. This is emphasized in many of the alternative hypotheses to plate tectonics. Plate tectonicists, too, increasingly invoke mantle diapirism and related upwelling processes as a mechanism for vertical crustal movements.
    Plate tectonics predicts simple heat-flow patterns around the earth. There should be a broad band of high heat flow beneath the full length of the midocean rift system, and parallel bands of high and low heat flow along the Benioff zones. Intraplate regions are predicted to have low heat flow. The pattern actually observed is quite different. There are criss-crossing bands of high heat flow covering the entire surface of the earth. Intra-plate volcanism is usually attributed to 'mantle plumes' -- upwellings of hot material from deep in the mantle. The movement of plates over the plumes is said to give rise to hotspot trails (chains of volcanic islands and seamounts). Such trails should therefore show an age progression from one end to the other, but good age progressions are very rare, and a large majority show little or no age progression. H.C. Sheth has argued that the plume hypothesis is ill-founded, artificial, and invalid, and has led earth scientists up a blind alley [4].
    A major new hypothesis of geodynamics is surge tectonics, which rejects both seafloor spreading and continental drift [5]. Surge tectonics postulates that all the major features of the earth's surface, including rifts, foldbelts, metamorphic belts, and strike-slip zones, are underlain by shallow (less than 80 km) magma chambers and channels (known as 'surge channels'). Seismotomographic data suggest that surge channels form an interconnected worldwide network, which has been dubbed 'the earth's cardiovascular system'. Active surge channels are characterized by high heat flow and microearthquakes. Magma from the asthenosphere flows slowly through active channels at the rate of a few centimeters a year. This horizontal flow is demonstrated by two major surface features: linear, belt-parallel faults, fractures, and fissures; and the division of tectonic belts into fairly uniform segments. The same features characterize all lava flows and tunnels, and have also been observed on Mars, Venus, and several moons of the outer planets.
    Surge tectonics postulates that the main cause of geodynamics is lithosphere compression, generated by the cooling and contraction of the earth.* As compression increases during a geotectonic cycle, it causes the magma to move through a channel in pulsed surges and eventually to rupture it, so that the contents of the channel surge bilaterally upward and outward to initiate tectogenesis. The asthenosphere (in regions where it is present) alternately contracts during periods of tectonic activity and expands during periods of tectonic quiescence. The earth's rotation, combined with differential lag between the more rigid lithosphere above and the more fluid asthenosphere below, causes the fluid or semifluid materials to move predominantly eastward.


*Earth scientists hold widely divergent views on the changes in size that the earth has undergone since its formation. From a theosophical perspective, after its formation in an ethereal state some 2 billion years ago, the earth gradually physicalized and contracted to some extent. This downward arc of the earth's evolution came to an end a few million years ago, and the upward arc of reetherealization began. The earth may be expected to expand slightly as the forces of attraction begin to relax.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:19:20 pm
The continents

It is a striking fact that some nine tenths of all the sedimentary rocks composing the continents were laid down under the sea [6]. The continents have suffered repeated marine inundations, but because the seas were mostly shallow (less than 250 m), they are described as 'epicontinental'. Marine transgressions and regressions are usually attributed mainly to eustatic changes of sea level caused by alterations in the volume of midocean ridges. T.H. Van Andel points out that this explanation cannot account for the 100 or so briefer cycles of sea-level changes, especially since transgressions and regressions are not always simultaneous all over the globe. He proposes that large regions or whole continents must undergo slow vertical movements. He admits that such movements 'fit poorly into plate tectonics', and are therefore largely ignored [7].



(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig8.jpg)


Figure 8. Maximum degree of marine inundation for each Phanerozoic geological period for the former USSR and North America. The older the geological period, the greater the probability of the degree of inundation being underestimated due to the sediments having been eroded or deeply buried beneath younger sediments. (Reprinted with permission from Hallam [8]. Copyright by Nature.)


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:20:02 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig9.jpg)

Figure 9. Sea-level changes for six continents. For each time interval, the sea-level elevations for the various continents differ widely, highlighting the importance of vertical tectonic movements on a regional and continental scale. (Reprinted with permission from Harrison et al. [9]. Copyright by the American Geophysical Union.)

    Van Andel asserts that 'plates' rise or fall by no more than a few hundred meters -- this being the maximum depth of most 'epicontinental' seas. However, this overlooks an elementary fact: huge thicknesses of sediments were often deposited during marine incursions, often requiring vertical crustal movements of many kilometers. Sediments accumulate in regions of subsidence, and their thickness is usually close to the degree of downwarping. In the unstable, mobile belts bordering stable continental platforms, many geosynclinal troughs and circular depressions accumulated sedimentary thicknesses of 10 to 14 km, and in some cases of 20 km. Although the sediments deposited on the platforms themselves are mostly less than 1.5 km thick, here too sedimentary basins with deposits 10 km or even 20 km thick are not unknown.
    Subsidence cannot be attributed solely to the weight of the accumulating sediments because the density of sedimentary rocks is much lower than that of the subcrustal material; for instance, the deposition of 1 km of marine sediment will cause only half a kilometer or so of subsidence. Moreover, sedimentary basins require not only continual depression of the base of the basin to accommodate more sediments, but also continuous uplift of adjacent land to provide a source for the sediments. In geosynclines, subsidence has commonly been followed by uplift and folding to produce mountain ranges, and this can obviously not be accounted for by changes in surface loading. The complex history of the oscillating uplift and subsidence of the crust appears to require deep-seated changes in lithospheric composition and density, and vertical and horizontal movements of mantle material.
    In regions where all the sediments were laid down in shallow water, subsidence must somehow have kept pace with sedimentation. In eugeosynclines, on the other hand, subsidence proceeded faster than sedimentation, resulting in a deep marine basin several kilometers deep. Examples of eugeosynclines prior to the uplift stage are the Sayans in the Early Paleozoic, the eastern slope of the Urals in the Early and Middle Paleozoic, the Alps in the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous, and the Sierra Nevada in the Triassic. Although plate tectonicists often claim that geosynclines are formed solely at plate margins at the boundaries between continents and oceans, there are many examples of geosynclines having formed in intracontinental settings.



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:20:25 pm
The oceans

In the past, sediments have been transported to today's continents from the direction of the present-day oceans, where there must have been considerable areas of land that underwent erosion. For instance, the Paleozoic geosyncline along the seaboard of eastern North America, an area now occupied by the Appalachian mountains, was fed by sediments from a borderland ('Appalachia') in the adjacent Atlantic. Other submerged borderlands include the North Atlantic Continent or Scandia (west of Spitsbergen and Scotland), Cascadia (west of the Sierra Nevada), and Melanesia (southeast of Asia and east of Australia). A million cubic kilometers of Devonian sediments from Bolivia to Argentina imply an extensive continental source to the west where there is now the deep Pacific Ocean. During Paleozoic-Mesozoic-Paleogene times, the Japanese geosyncline was supplied with sediments from land areas in the Pacific.
    When trying to explain sediment sources, plate tectonicists sometimes argue that sediments were derived from the existing continents during periods when they were supposedly closer together. Where necessary, they postulate small former land areas (microcontinents or island arcs), which have since been either subducted or accreted against continental margins as 'exotic terranes'. However, mounting evidence is being uncovered that favors the foundering of sizable continental landmasses, whose remnants are still present under the ocean floor.
    Oceanic crust is regarded as much thinner and denser than continental crust: the crust beneath oceans is said to average about 7 km thick and to be composed largely of basalt and gabbro, whereas continental crust averages about 35 km thick and consists chiefly of granitic rock capped by sedimentary rocks. However, ancient continental rocks and crustal types intermediate between standard 'continental' and 'oceanic' crust are increasingly being discovered in the oceans, and this is a serious embarrassment for plate tectonics. The traditional picture of the crust beneath oceans being universally thin and graniteless may well be further undermined in the future, as seismic research and ocean drilling continue


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:21:04 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig10.jpg)
Figure 10. Worldwide distribution of oceanic plateaus (black). (Reprinted with permission from Storetvedt,1997. Copyright by Fagbokforlaget and K.M. Storetvedt.)

    There are over 100 submarine plateaus and aseismic ridges scattered throughout the oceans, many of which were once above water. They make up about 10% of the ocean floor. Many appear to be composed of modified continental crust 20-40 km thick -- far thicker than 'normal' oceanic crust. They often have an upper 10-15 km crust with seismic velocities typical of granitic rocks in continental crust. They have remained obstacles to predrift continental fits, and have therefore been interpreted as extinct spreading ridges, anomalously thickened oceanic crust, or subsided continental fragments carried along by the 'migrating' seafloor. If seafloor spreading is rejected, they cease to be anomalous and can be interpreted as submerged, in-situ continental fragments that have not been completely 'oceanized'.
    Shallow-water deposits ranging in age from mid-Jurassic to Miocene, as well as igneous rocks showing evidence of subaerial weathering, were found in 149 of the first 493 boreholes drilled in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. These shallow-water deposits are now found at depths ranging from 1 to 7 km, demonstrating that many parts of the present ocean floor were once shallow seas, shallow marshes, or land areas [10]. From a study of 402 oceanic boreholes in which shallow-water or relatively shallow-water sediments were found, E.M. Ruditch concluded that there is no systematic correlation between the age of shallow-water accumulations and their distance from the axes of the midoceanic ridges, thereby disproving the seafloor-spreading model. Some areas of the oceans appear to have undergone continuous subsidence, whereas others experienced alternating episodes of subsidence and elevation. The Pacific Ocean appears to have formed mainly from the late Jurassic to the Miocene, the Atlantic Ocean from the Late Cretaceous to the end of the Eocene, and the Indian Ocean during the Paleocene and Eocene [11]. This corresponds closely to the theosophical teachings on the submergence of Lemuria in the Late Mesozoic and early Cenozoic, and the submergence of Atlantis in the first half of the Cenozoic [12].
    Geological, geophysical, and dredging data provide strong evidence for the presence of Precambrian and younger continental crust under the deep abyssal plains of the present northwest Pacific. Most of this region was either subaerially exposed or very shallow sea during the Paleozoic to early Mesozoic, and first became deep sea about the end of the Jurassic. Paleolands apparently existed on both sides of the Japanese islands, and they were submerged during Paleogene to Miocene times. There is also evidence of paleolands in the southwest Pacific around Australia and in the southeast Pacific during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic.
    Oceanographic and geological data suggest that a large part of the Indian Ocean, especially the eastern part, was land (called by some scientists 'Lemuria') from the Jurassic until the Miocene. The evidence includes seismic and pollen data and subaerial weathering which suggest that the Broken and Ninety East Ridges were part of an extensive, now sunken landmass; extensive drilling, seismic, magnetic, and gravity data pointing to the existence an Alpine-Himalayan foldbelt in the northwestern Indian Ocean, associated with a foundered continental basement; data that continental basement underlies the Scott, Exmouth, and Naturaliste plateaus west of Australia; and thick Triassic and Jurassic sedimentation on the western and northwestern shelves of the Australian continent with characteristics pointing to a western source.






Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:21:36 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig12.jpg)

Figure 11. Former land areas in the present Pacific and Indian Oceans. Only those areas for which substantial evidence already exists are shown. Their exact outlines and full extent are as yet unknown. G1 -- Seychelles area; G2 -- Great Oyashio Paleoland; G3 -- Obruchev Rise; G4 -- Lemuria; S1 -- area of Ontong-Java Plateau, Magellan Sea Mounts, and Mid-Pacific Mountains; S2 -- Northeast Pacific; S3 -- Southeast Pacific including Chatham Rise and Campbell Plateau; S4 -- Southwest Pacific; S5 -- area including South Tasman Rise; S6 -- East Tasman Rise and Lord Howe Rise; S7 -- Northeast Indian Ocean; S8 -- Northwest Indian Ocean. (Reprinted with permission from Dickins [13]. Copyright by J.M. Dickins.)

    In the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, modified continental crust (mostly 10-20 km thick) underlies not only ridges and plateaus but most of the ocean floor; only in deep-water depressions is typical oceanic crust found. Since deep-sea drilling has shown that large areas of the North Atlantic were previously covered with shallow seas, it is possible that much of the North Atlantic was continental crust before its rapid subsidence. Lower Paleozoic continental rocks with trilobite fossils have been dredged from seamounts scattered over a large area northeast of the Azores, and the presence of continental cobbles suggests that the area concerned was a submerged continental zone. Bald Mountain, from which a variety of ancient continental material has been dredged, could certainly be a foundered continental fragment. In the equatorial Atlantic, continental and shallow-water rocks are ubiquitous.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:22:22 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/fig11.jpg)

Figure 12. Areas in the Atlantic Ocean for which past subsidence has been established. Subsided areas are shaded. (Reprinted with permission from Dillon [14]. Copyright by the AAPG, whose permission is required for further use.)

    Subaerial deposits have been found in many parts of the midocean ridge system, indicating that it was shallow or partially emergent in Cretaceous to Early Tertiary time. Blavatsky says that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge formed part of an Atlantic continent. She writes:


    Lemuria, which served as the cradle of the Third Root-Race, not only embraced a vast area in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, but extended in the shape of a horse-shoe past Madagascar, round 'South Africa' (then a mere fragment in process of formation), through the Atlantic up to Norway. The great English fresh water deposit called the Wealden -- which every geologist regards as the mouth of a former great river -- is the bed of the main stream which drained northern Lemuria in the Secondary Age. The former reality of this river is a fact of science -- will its votaries acknowledge the necessity of accepting the Secondary-age Northern Lemuria, which their data demand? Professor Berthold Seeman not only accepted the reality of such a mighty continent, but regarded Australia and Europe as formerly portions of one continent -- thus corroborating the whole 'horse-shoe' doctrine already enunciated. No more striking confirmation of our position could be given, than the fact that the ELEVATED RIDGE in the Atlantic basin, 9,000 feet in height, which runs for some two or three thousand miles southwards from a point near the British Islands, first slopes towards South America, then shifts almost at right angles to proceed in a SOUTH-EASTERLY line toward the African coast, whence it runs on southward to Tristan d'Acunha [da Cunha]. This ridge is a remnant of an Atlantic continent, and, could it be traced further, would establish the reality of a submarine horse-shoed junction with a former continent in the Indian Ocean.[15]
Since this was written (in 1888), ocean exploration has confirmed that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge does indeed continue around South Africa and into the Indian Ocean.
    Blavatsky reported that in the ocean depths around the Azores the ribs of a once massive piece of land had been discovered, and quoted the following from Scientific American: 'The inequalities, the mountains and valleys of its surface could never have been produced in accordance with any known laws from the deposition of sediment or by submarine elevation; but, on the contrary, must have been carved by agencies acting above the water-level.' She adds that at one time necks of land probably existed knitting Atlantis to South America somewhere above the mouth of the Amazon, to Africa near Cape Verde, and to Spain [16].
    After surveying the extensive evidence for large continental land areas in the present oceans in the distant past, J.M. Dickins, D.R. Choi and A.N. Yeates concluded:


We are surprised and concerned for the objectivity and honesty of science that such data can be overlooked or ignored. . . . There is a vast need for future Ocean Drilling Program initiatives to drill below the base of the basaltic ocean floor crust to confirm the real composition of what is currently designated oceanic crust.[17]




Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:22:43 pm
As stated in theosophical literature, 'hidden deep in the unfathomed ocean beds' there may be 'other, far older continents whose strata have never been geologically explored' [18].
    Some islands have apparently sunk as recently as late Pleistocene time. For instance, M. Ewing reported prehistoric beach sand in two deep-sea core samples brought up from depths of 3 and 5.5 km on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, over 1000 km from the coast. In one core there were two layers of sand which were dated, on the basis of sedimentation rates, at 20,000-100,000 years and 225,000-325,000 years [19]. R.W. Kolbe reported finds of numerous freshwater diatoms in several cores on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, over 900 km from the coast of Equatorial West Africa. He stated that one possible explanation is that the areas concerned were islands 10-12,000 years ago, and the diatoms were deposited in lake sediments which later sank beneath 3 km of seawater. He argued that this was far more plausible than the theory that turbidity currents had carried the diatoms 930 km along the sea bottom then upwards more than 1000 km to deposit them on top of a submarine hill [20]. The Atlantis seamount, located at 37°N on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, has a flat top at a depth of about 180 fathoms, covered with cobbles or current-rippled sand. About a ton of limestone cobbles was dredged from its summit, one of which gave a radiocarbon age of 12,000 +/- 900 years. According to B.C. Heezen and his colleagues, the limestone was probably lithified above water, and the seamount may therefore have been an island within the past 12,000 years [21].
    According to modern theosophy, Poseidonis -- Plato's 'Atlantis' -- was an island about the size of Ireland, situated in the Atlantic Ocean opposite the strait of Gibraltar, and sank in a major cataclysm in 9565 BC [22]. Former exploration geologist Christian O'Brien believes that Poseidonis was a large mid-Atlantic ridge island centred on the Azores [23]. By contouring the seabed, he found that the Azores were separated and surrounded by a net of submarine valleys that had all the hallmarks of having once been river valleys on the surface. He concluded that the island had originally measured 720 km across from east to west, and 480 km from north to south, with high mountain ranges rising over 3660 metres above sea level. Before or during its submergence, it tilted by about 0.4° with the result that the south coast sank about 3355 metres but the north coast only some 1830 metres. Only the mountain peaks remained above the waters, and now form the ten islands of the Azores. O'Brien thinks the island could have sunk within a period of a few years or even months, and points out that six areas of hot spring fields (associated with volcanic disturbances) are known in the mid-Atlantic ridge area, and four of them lie in the Kane-Atlantis area close to the Azores. Further surveys and core samples are required to test O'Brien's hypothesis.



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:23:34 pm
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/obrien.jpg)

Figure 13. Christian O'Brien's reconstruction of Poseidonis.



Conclusion

When plate tectonics -- the reigning paradigm in the earth sciences -- was first elaborated in the 1960s, less than 0.0001% of the deep ocean had been explored and less than 20% of the land area had been mapped in meaningful detail. Even by the mid-1990s, only about 3 to 5% of the deep ocean basins had been explored in any kind of detail, and not much more than 25 to 30% of the land area could be said to be truly known. Scientific understanding of the earth's surface features is clearly still in its infancy, to say nothing of the earth's interior.
    V.V. Beloussov held that plate tectonics was a premature generalization of still very inadequate data on the structure of the ocean floor, and had proven to be far removed from geological reality. He wrote:


It is . . . quite understandable that attempts to employ this conception to explain concrete structural situations in a local rather than a global scale lead to increasingly complicated schemes in which it is suggested that local axes of spreading develop here and there, that they shift their position, die out, and reappear, that the rate of spreading alters repeatedly and often ceases altogether, and that lithospheric plates are broken up into an even greater number of secondary and tertiary plates. All these schemes are characterised by a complete absence of logic, and of patterns of any kind. The impression is given that certain rules of the game have been invented, and that the aim is to fit reality into these rules somehow or other. (Beloussov, 1980, p. 303)
    Plate tectonics certainly faces some overwhelming problems. Far from being a simple, elegant, all-embracing global theory, it is confronted with a multitude of observational anomalies, and has had to be patched up with a complex variety of ad-hoc modifications and auxiliary hypotheses. The existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a continuous, global asthenosphere to 'lubricate' plate motions, have rendered the classical model of plate movements untenable. There is no consensus on the thickness of the 'plates' and no certainty as to the forces responsible for their supposed movement. The hypotheses of large-scale continental drift, seafloor spreading and subduction, and the relative youth of the oceanic crust are contradicted by a considerable volume of data. Evidence for substantial vertical crustal movements and for significant amounts of submerged continental crust in the present-day oceans poses another major challenge to plate tectonics. Such evidence provides increasing confirmation of the periodic alternation of land and sea taught by theosophy.



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:24:10 pm
References
Introduction

[1] Paul D. Lowman, in: Chatterjee & Hotton, 1992, p. 3.
[2] D. McGeary & C.C. Plummer, Physical Geology: earth revealed, WCB, McGraw-Hill, 3rd ed, 1998, p. 97.
[3] V.A. Saull, 'Wanted: alternatives to plate tectonics', Geology, vol. 14, 1986, p. 536.

Plate tectonics -- a failed revolution
[1] N.I. Pavlenkova, in: Barto-Kyriakidis, 1990, vol. 1, p. 78.
[2] S.P. Grand, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 92, 1987, pp. 14065-14090.
[3] E.C. Bullard et al., Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions, Series A, vol. 258, 1965, pp. 41-51.
[4] H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Theos. Univ. Press, 1977 (1888), 2:791.
[5] Meyerhoff et al., 1996b, p. 3.
[6] C.J. Smiley, 'Paleofloras, faunas, and continental drift: some problem areas', in: Chatterjee & Hotton, 1992, pp. 241-257.
[7] J.W. Gregory, 'The plan of the earth and its causes', The Geographical Journal, vol. 13, 1899, pp. 225-250.
[8] A. Spilhaus, 'Geo-art: plate tectonics and Platonic solids', American Geophysical Union Transactions, vol. 56, 1975, pp. 52-57.
[9] N.C. Smoot & A.A. Meyerhoff, 'Tectonic fabric of the Atlantic Ocean floor: speculation vs. reality', Journal of Petroleum Geology, vol. 18, 1995, pp. 207-222.
[10] H. Benioff, 'Orogenesis and deep crustal structure -- additional evidence from seismology', Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 65, 1954, pp. 385-400.
[11] D.W. Scholl & M.S. Marlow, in: Kahle, 1974, p. 268.

Emergence and submergence
[1] The Secret Doctrine, 2:787fn.
[2] Ibid., 2:783.
[3] C.D. Ollier, 'Mountains', in: Barto-Kyriakidis, 1990, vol. 2, pp. 211-236.
[4] H.C. Sheth, 'Flood basalts and large igneous provinces from deep mantle plumes: fact, fiction, and fallacy', Tectonophysics, vol. 311, 1999, pp. 1-29.
[5] See Meyerhoff et al., 1996a.
[6] The Secret Doctrine, 2:252.
[7] T.H. Van Andel, New Views on an Old Planet: a history of global change (2nd ed.), Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994, p. 170.
[8] A. Hallam, 'Secular changes in marine inundation of USSR and North America through the Phanerozoic', Nature, vol. 269, 1977, pp. 769-772.
[9] C.G.A. Harrison et al., 'Continental hypsography', Tectonics, vol. 2, 1983, pp. 357-377.
[10] V.V. Orlenok, 'The evolution of ocean basins during Cenozoic time', Journal of Petroleum Geology, vol. 9, 1986, pp. 207-216.
[11] E.M. Ruditch, 'The world ocean without spreading', in: Barto-Kyriakidis, 1990, vol. 2, pp. 343-395.
[12] See Theosophy and the Seven Continents, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/continents.htm.
[13] J.M. Dickins, 'What is Pangaea?', in: A.F. Embry, B. Beauchamp & D.G. Glass, Pangea: Global environments and resources, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 17, 1994, pp. 67-80.
[14] L.S. Dillon, 'Neovolcanism: a proposed replacement for the concepts of plate tectonics and continental drift', in: Kahle, 1974, pp. 167-239.
[15] The Secret Doctrine, 2:333.
[16] Ibid., 2:793.
[17] J.M. Dickins, D.R. Choi & A.N. Yeates, 'Past distribution of oceans and continents', in: Chatterjee & Hotton, 1992, pp. 193-199 (p. 198).
[18] A.T. Barker (comp.), The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, Theos. Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1926, p. 151; The Secret Doctrine, 2:332-3.
[19] M. Ewing, 'New discoveries on the mid-Atlantic ridge', National Geographic Magazine, vol. xcvi (Nov.), 1949, pp. 611-640; Corliss, 1990, p. 245.
[20] R.W. Kolbe, 'Fresh-water diatoms from Atlantic deep-sea sediments', Science, vol. 126, 1957, pp. 1053-1056; R.W. Kolbe, 'Turbidity currents and displaced fresh-water diatoms', Science, vol. 127, 1958, pp. 1504-1505; Corliss, 1989, pp. 32-33.
[21] B.C. Heezen, M. Ewing, D.B. Ericson & C.R. Bentley, 'Flat-topped Atlantis, Cruiser, and Great Meteor Seamounts' (Abstract), Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 65, 1954, p. 1261; Corliss, 1988, p. 88.
[22] The Mahatma Letters, pp. 151, 155.
[23] Christian & Barbara Joy O'Brien, The Shining Ones, Kemble, Cirencester: Dianthus Publishing, 2001, pp. 435-42; 'Survey of Atlantis', http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/survey.html.



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 28, 2008, 11:24:54 pm
Select bibliography
Barto-Kyriakidis, A. (Ed.), 1990. Critical Aspects of the Plate Tectonics Theory. Athens: Theophrastus Publications. (Especially articles by: Ahmad, Beloussov, Cebull & Shurbet, Chekunov et al., Choi et al., Kiskyras, Luts, Ollier, Pavlenkova, Ruditch, Saxena & Gupta, Shapiro, Udintsev et al.)

Beloussov, V.V., 1980. Geotectonics. Moscow: Mir.

Chatterjee, S. & Hotton, N., III (eds.), 1992. New Concepts in Global Tectonics. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press. (Especially articles by: Anfiloff, Agocs et al., Beloussov, Cebull & Shurbet, Choi et al., Dickins et al., Grant, Kashfi, Lowman, Meyerhoff et al., Smiley.)

Corliss, W.R. (comp.), 1988. Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons & Other Topographical Phenomena. Glen Arm, MD: Sourcebook Project.

Corliss, W.R. (comp.), 1989. Anomalies in Geology: physical, chemical, biological. Glen Arm, MD: Sourcebook Project.

Corliss, W.R. (comp.), 1990. Neglected Geological Anomalies. Glen Arm, MD: Sourcebook Project.

Dickins, J.M. & Choi, D.R. (Eds.). New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter.

Jeffreys, H., 1976. The Earth: its origin, history and physical constitution (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kahle, C.F. (Ed.), 1974. Plate Tectonics -- Assessments and Reassessments (Memoir 23). Tulsa, OK: American Association of Petroleum Geologists. (Especially articles by Beloussov, Dillon, A.A. & H.A. Meyerhoff, Jeffreys, Khudoley, Maxwell, Smiley, Teichert.)

Meyerhoff, A.A. & Meyerhoff, H.A., 1974. Tests of plate tectonics. In: Kahle, 1974, pp. 43-145.

Meyerhoff, A.A., Taner, I., Morris, A.E.L., Agocs, W.B., Kaymen-Kaye, M., Bhat, M.I., Smoot, N.C. & Choi, D.R., 1996a. Surge Tectonics: a new hypothesis of global geodynamics (D. Meyerhoff Hull, Ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Meyerhoff, A.A., Boucot, A.J., Meyerhoff Hull, D. & Dickins, J.M., 1996b. Phanerozoic Faunal & Floral Realms of the Earth (Memoir 189). Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.

Storetvedt, K.M., 1997. Our Evolving Planet: earth history in new perspective. Bergen, Norway: Alma Mater.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 2000



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sunken.htm#pl


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on July 29, 2008, 03:40:57 pm
Dear Carolyn Silver,



I have read "en passant" your huge posts, good job. There lies a terrific amount of evidence of Atlantis "sinking". Since i don't believe Continents can Sink i will solely stick with Continental drift.

Can you deny that there is a clear Continental occlusion between Africa and America, Europe and the Island of Greenland?

http://lh6.ggpht.com/sofiakovsky/R_qXkvDFtwI/AAAAAAAAANU/kIIX8iUDGY0/AAAA%20oclusion.jpg?imgmax=400

The majority of the maps i saw relating to this subject ought to be wrong! because there is a piece missing in the puzzle and that is Greenland. It usually is portrayed far up North when actually it started down South as the image above attests.

The Island is not as small as we can depict in normal maps, because due to the roundness of the Earth, Greenland apparently changes its size and becomes a very small Island, but in fact has 2 Million km2 and was even bigger as its Continental plate undoubtedly shows.

And that is why there is always a gap in the Atlantic when it comes to "join" Continental pieces together, like in a map you previously have shown.

keep up the good work

with regards,

Mario Dantas


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on July 29, 2008, 04:57:11 pm



(http://lh4.ggpht.com/dantaz/RwgCtPdjQ4I/AAAAAAAAAQk/-l-wPtLD_yc/s144/8-5.png)




Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on July 30, 2008, 09:40:28 pm
Tanks!, Mario! 

There IS a piece missing between Europe and North America and everytime they do that jigsaw where they try and put the continents together, it is pretty clear!

Atlantis DIDN'T have to be a continent!

So either it was a piece that slid north like Greenland, or it was a piece that just plain SUNK.  During the 1950s, they discovered a sunken block of continent in the Mid Atlantic, so my money would be put on "sunk."

Carolyn


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on July 31, 2008, 06:24:25 pm
Dear Carolyn Silver,

Quote

So either it was a piece that slid north like Greenland, or it was a piece that just plain SUNK.  During the 1950s, they discovered a sunken block of continent in the Mid Atlantic, so my money would be put on "sunk."

One of the main questions is where did the equivalent amount of magma go? If a cup is full and you throw a stone in it, the stone will sink but some of the liquid will drop out of the cup, likewise in the case of Atlantis i again ask where would the exceeding matter go? There would have to be quite substantial evidences , as a matter of fact equally substantial to the Volume of the large Island proving that!

On the contrary it is "contra natura" that such thing ever happened.

Regards,
M


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Qoais on July 31, 2008, 08:54:41 pm
If you place a cup full of water, into a basin partially filled with water, and then drop a rock into the cup, where does the overflow go?  Into the basin beneath it of course.  How much of a rise in the water level of the basin occurred when the rock was dropped into the cup?  Was it even noticeable?

Considering the size of the world ocean, it wouldn't effect the water level to any noticeable degree if a smallish continent sunk into it.  Say for instance, Australia sunk into the ocean.  Would we notice a major increase in water levels of the world ocean?  Not likely because of it's size.  Some scientist that makes a habit of measuring water levels could likely tell us just how much of an increase was caused, but it wouldn't be anything major.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Tom Hebert on July 31, 2008, 09:44:27 pm
I agree Qoais.  It would be more like dropping a pearl in a glass of water.  You probably wouldn't notice any difference at all.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: dhill757 on July 31, 2008, 09:45:06 pm
If a cup is full and you throw a stone in it, the stone will sink but some of the liquid will drop out of the cup, likewise in the case of Atlantis i again ask where would the exceeding matter go?

That's a good question, however, it is not exactly what we should be talking about.  Imagine, the stone not being thrown at the cup but exploding out of it!

The clues are all around us when we talk about the Mid Atlantic Ridge, which is, in essence, a mountain ridge exploding up towards the surface throught the build up of undersea magma, from underwater volcanoes. Point is, Atlantis was probably created, and destroyed through the complimentary processes of tectonic uplift and tectonic depression.

Lava covers the floor of the Atlantic and there have been many instances of the ocean spitting up and swallowing islands again and again.  If something actually struck the MAR at some point (as Otto Muck theorized), it wouldn't just smash the substance, it would set off a chain reaction of volcanic reactions that the land actually would sink.  All anyone has to do is investigate the craters of Santorini and Krakatoa to see how a volcanic reaction can blow out the center of an island.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Qoais on July 31, 2008, 09:59:56 pm
So - the matter blows out and falls back into the ocean as particles of what it once was.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Arcturus on August 01, 2008, 12:12:57 am
That's a great way to put it, Qoas, and it would also explain what we have been seeing in the ocean - such as the Russia pictures of the Ampere Seamounts, fragments of what look to be shattered walls and steps lying over the ocean floor.  We wouldn't have a "neat" looking array of Greek temples like you see in Jules Verne, only fragments.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Qoais on August 01, 2008, 05:19:21 pm
Well where else would it go, considering it would have to fall back down due to gravity.  It would have to be one hell of a "thrust" factor to send any debris into orbit.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on August 03, 2008, 10:48:58 am


Dear Qoais, Arcturus, dhill757, and Tom Hebert,

You are right in assuming that in fact something else could have happened, but i forgot to mention one important detail when speaking to  Carolyn Silver, although i have talked about it before here at AO. 

The Crust is less dense than the magma, and therefore the "buoyancy" would inevitably avoid any landmass to sink.


(http://lh6.ggpht.com/rabelados/R3j_iPmFXTI/AAAAAAAAABk/JkQkTqiYhQs/Fig3_3_1_1.jpg)


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Tom Hebert on August 03, 2008, 11:51:23 am
Hi Mario,

I would need to see proof about the buoyancy of land masses, but I don't think it necessarily negates the sinking of Atlantis.  Why do people sink in quicksand?  My point is that there could be other factors at work.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on August 03, 2008, 07:15:35 pm
Dear Tom,

I think quicksands are an exception to the rule...

Quote
Rotational stability is of great importance to floating vessels. Given a small angular displacement, the vessel may return to its original position (stable), move away from its original position (unstable), or remain where it is (neutral).

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

Quote

The addition of these denser materials raises the average specific gravity for continental material to around 2.7. SiMa (from Silicon/Magnesium - its principal elements) is the material of the Earth's mantle - the 'fluid' in which continents are floating. To all appearances, this material is solid rock, but under the extreme pressure and temperature to which it is subjected, it actually flows like a liquid, albeit very slowly. Its specific gravity of 3.3 is high enough to insure that continents cannot sink.


http://webspinners.com/dlblanc/tectonic/floating.php


with regards,
M


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Tom Hebert on August 03, 2008, 07:47:10 pm
Okay, there are many theories, but no one can prove that Atlantis didn't sink in the Atlantic Ocean.  In my opinion, there could be a few mountain peaks poking through the water's surface, but by and large it is at the bottom of the ocean or had been totally disintegrated.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on August 04, 2008, 05:11:54 am
Mario, Tom, dhill757, Qoais & Arcturus,

I think before we begin arguing against the idea of a sunken island or continent, we first have to decide how much of Plato's Atlantis actually sunk in the first place!  We could be looking for a sunken continent in the ocean or we could be looking for part of one, or we could be looking for simply the capital city.

Check this out, the coordinates for a former sunken block of continent lie along the line of the Vema offset fault, a long east-west fracture zone lying between Africa and South America close to latitude 11øN:


Quote
Evidence from the floor of the ocean
In a 1954 issue of Geological Society of America, Bulletin, Bruce Heezen and others reported on a seamount - an underwater mountain - that has been named Atlantis by geologists and is in the Atlantic Ocean. It has been found to have been an island about 12,000 years ago - exactly the time specified by Plato! This abstract is given:
The Atlantis, Cruiser, and Great Meteor seamounts rise from a broad ridge or plateau which extends from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to 37°N. 32°W. southeast to Great Sea mount at 30°N. 28°W. The Atlantis Sea mount, briefly explored 1947 and 1948, was found by echo sounding and submarine photography to have a fairly flat bedrock summit area at about 180 fathoms covered in some cases by current-rippled sand. Its slopes are covered with sand or ooze symmetrically rippled at 400 fathoms and marked by slump features in 570 fathoms. A small piece of volcanic agglomerate was dredged from 400 fathoms on the north slope. About a ton of flat pteropod limestone cobbles was dredged from the summit area. One of the cobbles gave an apparent radiocarbon age of 12,000 years ±900 (J.L. Kulp). The state of lithification of the limestone suggests that it may have been lithified under subaerial [i.e. above water, on land surface] conditions and that the sea mount may have been an island within the past 12,000 years. (Heezen, Bruce C., et al, "Flat-Topped Atlantis, Cruiser, And Great Meteor Sea Mounts" in Geological Society of America, Bulletin, 65:1261, 1954 (Protogonos issue 9))

In later studies, evidence was found for the remnants of a "sunken block of continent" in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. An articlein New Scientist 1975 summarizes the result. (Anonymous, New Scientist,66:540, 1975)

Although they make no such fanciful claim from their results as to have discovered the mythical mid-Atlantic landmass, an international group of oceanographers has now convincingly confirmed preliminary findings that a sunken block of continent lies in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The discovery comes from analysing dredge samples taken along the line of the Vema offset fault, a long east-west fracture zone lying between Africa and South America close to latitude 11øN.

The article describes the first report of "shallow-water limestone fragments" from the Vema Fracture in the Atlantic:

Four years ago two University of Miami workers, J. Honnorez and E. Bonatti, first reported the recovery of shallow-water limestone fragments from the Vema fracture zone. This limestone contained minerals indicative of a nearby granitic source unlikely to occur on the ocean floor. Neither water currents, nor more esoteric transport systems, could explain the presence of these rocks so far from the modern boundaries of the continents. The two researchers believed that, instead, the granitic grains must have been deposited close to their source.

Then the recent researchers are noted:

Now, with C. Emiliani of Miami, Paul Bronniman of the University of Geneva, M.A. Furrer of Esso Production Research, Begles, and A.A. Meyerhof, a consulting geologist from Tulsa, USA, they have carried out a more searching analysis of the dredge samples (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol. 26, p.8)

Finally he notes the evidence for activity in less than 30 meters ofwater, and even some evidence for activity in soil.

The Limestones include traces of shallow-water fossils - foraminifera, green algae, bits of gastropods, and crab coprolites - implying formation in water, in one instance, less than 30 m deep. Furthermore, the limestones have been recrystallized from a high to low-magnesium form of calcite. Oxygen and carbon-isotope ratios prove conclusively that this process must have taken place subaerially [on land surface] "through the action of meteoric water enriched in light carbon while passing through a soil zone ..." A pitted limestone sample bears evidence of tidal action. Some 50 km east of the dredge site along the Vema fracture the team also recovered a thick-shelled, shallow-water, bivalve fossil from a depth of over 2000 m.

The coprolites in the sample indicate a Mesozoic age for the limestone which may well be the sedimentary capping on a residual continental block left behind as the [??] spread out into an ocean. The granitic minerals could thus have come from the bordering continents while the ocean was still in its infancy. Vertical movements made by the block appear to have raised it above sea level at some period during its history.

(from Unknown Earth: A Handbook of Geological Enigmas by William R. Corliss.)


http://www.atlantissource.com/home/forgotten_article.htm


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on August 04, 2008, 09:22:23 am
Dear Carolyn Silver,

Quote
I think before we begin arguing against the idea of a sunken island or continent, we first have to decide how much of Plato's Atlantis actually sunk in the first place!

I am very sorry if i gave the wrong impression, it is difficult to explain things sometimes...

I will tell you my honest opinion! Plato was right when he said that the Island sunk... but only slightly!

Greenlandīs peripheral Continental Plate was slightly submerged when it moved North. The reason was that while the Ocean floor became "Bouyant" it floated as i stated earlier:

Quote
Rotational stability is of great importance to floating vessels. Given a small angular displacement, the vessel may return to its original position (stable), move away from its original position (unstable), or remain where it is (neutral).

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

When the floating media hardened and impeached further said "bouyancy", the island wasn't able to return to its original leveled position. Therefore the island was "trapped" between a sunken and afloat situation. This is very difficult to prove but i hope one day everything will be confirmed. I am not an expert, please keep that in mind!

I understand that Science could be at the brink of a discovery, but i can tell you this much: they will not find Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean floor. But i am listening, seriously!

with regards
M


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on August 05, 2008, 03:23:32 am
Hey Mario!

Of course, it's in the Atlantic Ocean! 

(Or was)

Not only was a sunken block of continental material discovered there, but (in the same area), a HOLE in the ocean's crust has been discovered:

Check out this article and MAP:

Quote
(http://geology.rockbandit.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/03//exposedmantle.jpg)

Scientists to study ďholeĒ in the Atlantic Oceanís floor.

Posted on Tuesday 6 March 2007 by Dave Schumaker
Iíve seen a few articles popping up about this research trip lately. Yesterday, a team of 12 British scientists left the Canary Islands on a maiden voyage of a new research vessel, the RRS James Cook, to study an area near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where a 7 kilometer thick section of the Earthís crust is missing. In place of the missing crustal material is a 7 kilometer thick section of mantle material (the article doesnít specifically say it, but itís safe to say itís peridotite), which scientists consider a geophysical anomaly.

Scientists suspect there are also two other spots in the area that have similar characteristics. The anomalous areas sit underneath 3,500 meters of ocean, obviously making it fairly difficult to study. This mantle material is irregularly shaped and encompasses an area of nearly 50 x 50 kilometers.

The study aims to accomplish a number of objectives, such as providing deeper insights into the chemistry of the Earthís oceans, how the crustal material behaves under so much water, as well as supporting theories of how this mantle material came to exist in the spot in the first place.
http://geology.rockbandit.net/2007/03/06/scientists-to-study-hole-in-the-atlantic-oceans-floor/


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on August 05, 2008, 03:46:57 am
The problem with most Atlantologists is that they haven't put two and two together! 

Anyway, so we have a HOLE in the ocean in the same vicinity as we have a sunken block of continent.

To the east, the Soviets also found some lava encrusted walls and steps in 1978, and, in the north, in the Azores, there were also some findings reported in 2001.



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on August 05, 2008, 06:13:59 am

(http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/foundations/gravity_surveys/ggm01_americas_220.jpg)


Dear Carolyn Silver,

Yes the map is quite illustrative of the weakest link that existed in the ancient Atlantic Island. If, in fact, it moved up North, it should have left something like the hole you mention. A 7.000 m gap in the Atlantic floor that was pulled out like a tooth extraction at the dentist. The Geoid imagery is clear with regards as to where it started.

http://www.hal.ca/height/images/figure2.jpg

What i can tell you, and i have been following RSS James Cook since March 2007 when they started this Research trip, they went all the way up to Greenland also. I even tried to contact them with no Success...

Anyway, that hole was the Southerner tip of Greenland, or if you prefer Kircher's "Insula Atlantis". I am sure!

Notice how close it is from Cape Verde Plateau, another important element in the Atlantic floor.

They can't be that coincidental, and i mean the fact that they are in the same Geographical Parallel. Something huge happened there and Science is just not aware of it.


regards,

M


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on August 05, 2008, 09:25:38 am
Okay, there are many theories, but no one can prove that Atlantis didn't sink in the Atlantic Ocean.  In my opinion, there could be a few mountain peaks poking through the water's surface, but by and large it is at the bottom of the ocean or had been totally disintegrated.



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on August 05, 2008, 10:00:35 am
Tanks!, Mario! 

There IS a piece missing between Europe and North America and everytime they do that jigsaw where they try and put the continents together, it is pretty clear!

Atlantis DIDN'T have to be a continent!Carolyn
.

I believe we haven't met, before

FROM a ' dissident ' Atlantologist.


What you don't knoe is that most of Plato's references were corrupted by LATIN translators.

Forinstance:

Atlantis as an Island in the Atlantic is FAKE
Plato originally wrote GREEK

GREEK ATHETA-Land became" Atlantis "

GREEK location in PELAGOUS(= Midway in a BAY(= Golf-)became PELAGUS(= ISLAND Realm.)

Atlantis was at a territorial Gulf(= Sae of Atlas>)which separated Atlantis from the Real Ocean
THUS Atlantis was never IN the Atlantic-Ocean.

This Midway- SEA was the Surrounding Sea or ( Known-)World Sea.IMMIGRANTS in Europe changed it into the MEDIA- Terra Nea."

Latin compilers aggranded Plato's measurements of Liquid, Size /distance and even Time with TEN
because of an error reading of x + X as TIMES TEN instead of Plus Ten.! x= multiply X is TEN.

Plato wrote his SYMPOSION- TREATISE as a SATYRE on the current political crises in Athens.NOT to promote his POLITEIA
But to critisize ATHENS' War HYBRIS in the FAILED. . . RAID on SYRACUSE ( 413-bc)
No Atlantologist spotted that ALL the NARRATORS were former Greek GENERALS executed in SYRACUSE( except Socrates, he was poisioned.)

THE. . MOON hit the Equator TWICE
in 1055 and 855 bc the GREEKS called this the TITANO-Machia( Hit on Antartica & GiGANTO=- Machia(= Hit on Hawaii.)
The First Hit may have triggered the Atlantic MountainRIFT, the Second Hit has caused the Hymalaians and indian Ocean Rift, overnight
Since nobody believes this I am dubbed the " Dissident Atlantologist"

The oceanographic institutions should have Maps about those TWO BOUNCE IMPACTS from the Moon.
Right Opposite the Atrartica region must be the American Mountains abnd opposite Hawai must have been the Hymalaians
BUT rather at an angle of 90% because Earth moved during both impacts
so that the THRUST outcome is today not directly opposite the Pacific IMPACT SITES anymore!

This Earth encompassing or WORLD encycling SEA is not th Atlantic
 but Should be called the TETHYS SEA.

The saying goes that the TiTAN(= egyptian King/ Queen.)TETHYS " married" OCEANUS and produced an OFF Spring
or OFF Shoot , that is some SORT of OUTLETT that was called PONTUS, or Greek PONTOON.

In My opinion:
 TETHYS was Queen TETI-CHERI and OKEANOS, King SEKEN en-RE Thot-2  TetiCheri is self evident sOKEAN(-os.) may be King Seken.

Dr Velikovsky was a " dissident paleo-geologist " turned biblical historian he REVISED the Egyptian TIME Line
which contained 500 yeras TOO  MUCH.
 So the GREEKS didn't enter GREECE i 1650 bc as Minoan/ Myceaners but around 1.000 bc.

CONCLUSION:

 Due to translation failures Atlantis as a VOLCANO KINGDOM in Ras ADEN crater
inbetween the " CONTINENTS "(= French RIVAGES">) of ASIA(= Major= Araby & LYBIA"= THEN Erytraea.)
unwittingly became a FAKE Island in MID Atlantic Ocean whereas it should be located near the INDIAN Ocean separated by a SEA- ARM.

It's Inhabitants were the HYKSOS/ Hittites and Punicians(= Canaanites) Living under egyptian Suzereinity in HADRAMAUT/ ADEN

Have a nice evening ! :'( :o :'(
 Sincerely'
" BlueHue " ( A dissident Atlantologist.) dd 5 Aug 2008







Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Qoais on August 05, 2008, 07:31:55 pm
Blue Hue, discoveries of ancient cities, towns and even little villages, show that Greek was populated before 1000 BC.  Their Bronze age started at about 2800BC. 

Quote
The Greek Bronze Age or the Early Helladic Era started around 2800 BC and lasted till 1050 BC in Crete while in the Aegean islands it started in 3000 BC. The Bronze Age in Greece is divided into periods such as Helladic I, II. The information that is available today on the Bronze Age in Greece is from the architecture, burial styles and lifestyle. The colonies were made of 300 to 1000 people.
The Bronze Age is known as so because of the invention and introduction of the metal bronze. This metal made its entry into Greece in 3000 BC, but it did not make its impact as soon as it arrived. The people from Dimini from the Neolithic era that had settled in Greece slowly started the use of Bronze. Knives and swords were carved from the metal. This metal was more easy to use than stone, bone or wood. Metals such as gold, silver and lead arrived at the same time as bronze.

http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/Earlybronze/


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Arcturus on August 08, 2008, 12:40:09 am
Anyone see this?

Prehistoric land under the sea 


(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44875000/jpg/_44875405_ec2d9ddc-50df-4fb6-b5aa-9c050f69dc4e.jpg)
 
Huge cliffs and vast basins were revealed in the survey


By Mike McKimm
Science Correspondent, BBC Northern Ireland 



It's a landscape no human has even seen. And those who live right beside it had no idea it even existed.

Deep below the sea, off the north coast of Northern Ireland, a dramatic geological mystery has been discovered.

Huge cliffs, vast basins and plateaus, a lake and even rivers have been found. But so far no-one is certain what caused them to end up like this deep under the sea.

The discovery was made when the seabed was being surveyed to update old Admiralty charts, drawn up in the mid-1800s.

Funded by the European Union and backed by the UK's Maritime and Coastguard Agency, a survey vessel has been scanning the seabed along most of the north coast of Ireland, including the seabed north of Rathlin Island. 

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44875000/jpg/_44875426_5bd5a6b8-7fd9-4da5-aed5-a7de787ba67d.jpg)


Marine biologists have been surveying the sea bed

Most of the bottom was largely flat and unremarkable, but as the survey headed east it suddenly came across an unexpected landscape.

For the first time marine biologists could understand what was down there and the scale of it all.

"I'm always very envious of my terrestrial biologist colleagues", said Joe Breen, Head of Aquatic Science with Northern Ireland's new Environment Agency, who has dived the area for years.

"They can go out on land and see where their habitats are. Underwater we've never had that luxury.

"On a dive you can only see about 15 metres so it's like operating in fog. Now, with this survey, we can report on the true extent of the features.

"For the European Habitat Directive, we have to report the extent of our reefs and sandbanks. This will help with the whole concept of marine spatial planning.

"So, if someone wants to put in renewable energy or extract aggregate, we now have a blueprint and can see how they're going to interact and if it's sustainable."


(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44875000/jpg/_44875434_44875427.jpg)
 
The survey is to update old Admiralty charts of the area

One of the most striking details is a large lake or crater on what was once the top of huge cliffs towering above the plateau below.

The streams and rivers that fed it are still clearly defined.

And that raises one of the mysteries. Why did coastal erosion not obliterate all that detail as the sea slow rose over the land?

Could it mean that some cataclysmic event took place that allowed the sea to overwhelm the land before erosion could begin?

But already the marine scientists are excited about what they've found.

"We can now get a true idea of the true extent of the rare and endangered species and habitats", said Mr Breen.

"We can now see that we have got more of certain features which we weren't aware of - like sandbanks and reefs. The sandbank features in particular are stunning."

The survey is part of a 2m euro cross-border collaboration with the Marine Institute of Ireland. The area covered is a three nautical mile strip ranging from Tory Island off Donegal to Torr Head near Ballycastle.

 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7532771.stm


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on August 08, 2008, 06:36:46 am
Dear Arcturus,


Quote
One of the most striking details is a large lake or crater on what was once the top of huge cliffs towering above the plateau below.The streams and rivers that fed it are still clearly defined.

And that raises one of the mysteries. Why did coastal erosion not obliterate all that detail as the sea slow rose over the land?

Could it mean that some cataclysmic event took place that allowed the sea to overwhelm the land before erosion could begin?

(http://www.ife.uni-hannover.de/forschung/bilder/egg97.jpg)

In this Geoid there are clear signs that something existed before not only at the spot mentioned by your article but in several other places too.

Although it could be argued that those were remnants of Atlantis, i am inclined to think that actually those were other Islands (as Critias states) or even that a greater UK existed in pre Historic times.

My theory of Atlantis in Greenland predicts that a sudden movement of the whole Island of Greenland took place in the Atlantic and slightly "crunched" the peripheral Continental plates of Africa, Europe and America while dislocating towards the North.

Anyway, it is a very interesting finding regarding our ancient Continental configuration. One way or the other it will inevitably lead to Greenland and Iceland, as the Geological "trailing" engine that changed the face of the Atlantic.

Regards,

M



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on August 11, 2008, 01:48:44 am

(http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/foundations/gravity_surveys/ggm01_americas_220.jpg)


Dear Carolyn Silver,

Yes the map is quite illustrative of the weakest link that existed in the ancient Atlantic Island. If, in fact, it moved up North, it should have left something like the hole you mention. A 7.000 m gap in the Atlantic floor that was pulled out like a tooth extraction at the dentist. The Geoid imagery is clear with regards as to where it started.

http://www.hal.ca/height/images/figure2.jpg

What i can tell you, and i have been following RSS James Cook since March 2007 when they started this Research trip, they went all the way up to Greenland also. I even tried to contact them with no Success...

Anyway, that hole was the Southerner tip of Greenland, or if you prefer Kircher's "Insula Atlantis". I am sure!

Notice how close it is from Cape Verde Plateau, another important element in the Atlantic floor.

They can't be that coincidental, and i mean the fact that they are in the same Geographical Parallel. Something huge happened there and Science is just not aware of it.


regards,

M


Hi Mario!

Here is the hole in the Atlantic Ocean:

(http://geology.rockbandit.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/03//exposedmantle.jpg)

Do you know how FAR the hole would have to tear to go to reach all the way up to Greenland? Sorry!  Looks to me like a massive eruption happened there, the material SPILLED OUT, and that block of sunken CONTINENTAL MATERIAL was part of it.

The evidence fits perfectly to be Plato's Atlantis, it was just always LOWER in the Atlantic than people thought it was.

As I said, Atlantologists need to start putting two and two together, then they will see that this is the scenario that MOST fits Plato's description!


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on August 11, 2008, 01:51:16 am
Tanks!, Mario! 

There IS a piece missing between Europe and North America and everytime they do that jigsaw where they try and put the continents together, it is pretty clear!

Atlantis DIDN'T have to be a continent!Carolyn
.

I believe we haven't met, before

FROM a ' dissident ' Atlantologist.


What you don't knoe is that most of Plato's references were corrupted by LATIN translators.

Forinstance:

Atlantis as an Island in the Atlantic is FAKE
Plato originally wrote GREEK

GREEK ATHETA-Land became" Atlantis "

GREEK location in PELAGOUS(= Midway in a BAY(= Golf-)became PELAGUS(= ISLAND Realm.)

Atlantis was at a territorial Gulf(= Sae of Atlas>)which separated Atlantis from the Real Ocean
THUS Atlantis was never IN the Atlantic-Ocean.

This Midway- SEA was the Surrounding Sea or ( Known-)World Sea.IMMIGRANTS in Europe changed it into the MEDIA- Terra Nea."

Latin compilers aggranded Plato's measurements of Liquid, Size /distance and even Time with TEN
because of an error reading of x + X as TIMES TEN instead of Plus Ten.! x= multiply X is TEN.

Plato wrote his SYMPOSION- TREATISE as a SATYRE on the current political crises in Athens.NOT to promote his POLITEIA
But to critisize ATHENS' War HYBRIS in the FAILED. . . RAID on SYRACUSE ( 413-bc)
No Atlantologist spotted that ALL the NARRATORS were former Greek GENERALS executed in SYRACUSE( except Socrates, he was poisioned.)

THE. . MOON hit the Equator TWICE
in 1055 and 855 bc the GREEKS called this the TITANO-Machia( Hit on Antartica & GiGANTO=- Machia(= Hit on Hawaii.)
The First Hit may have triggered the Atlantic MountainRIFT, the Second Hit has caused the Hymalaians and indian Ocean Rift, overnight
Since nobody believes this I am dubbed the " Dissident Atlantologist"

The oceanographic institutions should have Maps about those TWO BOUNCE IMPACTS from the Moon.
Right Opposite the Atrartica region must be the American Mountains abnd opposite Hawai must have been the Hymalaians
BUT rather at an angle of 90% because Earth moved during both impacts
so that the THRUST outcome is today not directly opposite the Pacific IMPACT SITES anymore!

This Earth encompassing or WORLD encycling SEA is not th Atlantic
 but Should be called the TETHYS SEA.

The saying goes that the TiTAN(= egyptian King/ Queen.)TETHYS " married" OCEANUS and produced an OFF Spring
or OFF Shoot , that is some SORT of OUTLETT that was called PONTUS, or Greek PONTOON.

In My opinion:
 TETHYS was Queen TETI-CHERI and OKEANOS, King SEKEN en-RE Thot-2  TetiCheri is self evident sOKEAN(-os.) may be King Seken.

Dr Velikovsky was a " dissident paleo-geologist " turned biblical historian he REVISED the Egyptian TIME Line
which contained 500 yeras TOO  MUCH.
 So the GREEKS didn't enter GREECE i 1650 bc as Minoan/ Myceaners but around 1.000 bc.

CONCLUSION:

 Due to translation failures Atlantis as a VOLCANO KINGDOM in Ras ADEN crater
inbetween the " CONTINENTS "(= French RIVAGES">) of ASIA(= Major= Araby & LYBIA"= THEN Erytraea.)
unwittingly became a FAKE Island in MID Atlantic Ocean whereas it should be located near the INDIAN Ocean separated by a SEA- ARM.

It's Inhabitants were the HYKSOS/ Hittites and Punicians(= Canaanites) Living under egyptian Suzereinity in HADRAMAUT/ ADEN

Have a nice evening ! :'( :o :'(
 Sincerely'
" BlueHue " ( A dissident Atlantologist.) dd 5 Aug 2008







Nahhhhh!  The Greek translations all place it in the Atantic Ocean, too!  You are forgetting, many times Plato mentions the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pilars of Hercules, so he isn't just fixing it into place with ONE geographic reference point, but several! 


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on August 11, 2008, 02:16:55 pm
Hi again Carolyn Silver,

Quote
Do you know how FAR the hole would have to tear to go to reach all the way up to Greenland? Sorry!  Looks to me like a massive eruption happened there, the material SPILLED OUT, and that block of sunken CONTINENTAL MATERIAL was part of it.

What i meant is that the Island was down South (as its occlusion demonstrates) and that when the Earthquake happened, the terrible "shake down"  liberated the Island from its Continental ties and Greenland started its movement by "whip cracking" East towards the Sahara Desert (The Cape Verde Islands and Canary Islands, near Guelb er Richat, Mauritania, are situated in the beginning of this Geological phenomena).

(http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/grace/results/grav/g005_eigen-gl04c_files/g005_diff_north_atl_CG03C.jpg)



M


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on August 12, 2008, 08:18:54 am
Dear. . .  Mrs. . . . CAROLYN - SILVER,

(' BlueHue' is a dissident atlantologist: placing Atlantis in the arabian Desert of ADEN.)
I apollogize for some spelling mistakes ( I forgot the'Spelling Check')(!)

ABOUT:
ATLANTIS, NOT in the ATLANTIC ",  :o :o :o
Has an Atlantis SYNDROME caught us >?

To answer your Reply
 about Atlantis situated in middle of the Atlantic('Ocean')THAT IS A FALLACY.
All Atlantologists disregard that Plato originally wrote in Greek Oh sure, " they KNEW that "!

BUT still can't get over leaving Atlantis by it's LATIN name and have a disregard for the GREEK original-name
Which- obviously- was NOT " Atlantis" nor ' Atlantide' !( Herodotus" Atlantis" is a Latin-Word too!)
HOW could that Happen:" The Atlantis- Syndrome " ?

Before 1600 this Atlantic was called the SPANISH - SEA or even briefly GERMAN - SEA.
After 1649 it became officially the Atlantic Ocean due to a DUTCH- Spanish PEACE treaty of Munster.

Many socalled Atlantologists have built their wild theories around ONE stable Point
But none have discovered the overal FALLACIES due to WRONG - Translations !

Especially the Americans think that THEY were the ancient Atlantis
( But BACON regarded as a NEW-Atlantis.
(Yet whishfull thinking made America,  into a possible A.)
( Only because King Ferdinand-1, of SPAIN said so in 1500
( which neccessitated COLUMBUS to falsify his own search -Ships'LOG,
for Atlantis into a search for  " INDIA " instead.)

The FALSE  Notion of Atlantis as an ISLAND in MID - Atlantic
originated from an( Accidentally-) FAKED latin translation: PELAGOUS - INTO ;" PELAGUS ".

ABOUT every Atlantologist forgets irobnically that PLATO used to write in GREEK,
and that he subsequently did not translate his text into Latin by his own hand.
Never the less the english translations cover the original meaning with an indication of probable errors
Most Atlantologists considder the" Original " Latin text sacred and thus fell into amateur- historian traps !

CONSIDDER the REAL Translation Faults:

Of fifty" Atlantologists" participating in the PAST " Melos-2005" Conference, by that Publishinghhouse" Helio- Topos",
ALL Atlantologists were not in CONCENSUS about the VERY-same-TEXT !
They each preffered a DIFFERENT Location, employing ONLY ONE of the prescribed" REFERENCES".

The same atlantologists are making the same Fault repeating their THEORIES next in ATHENS-2008.
ESPEDICATO or whatever his Name is spelled rephrased his LECTURE
from Atlantis demise caused by THYPHON & TYPHONEUS now into: caused by: PHAETHON !

Dr Rehnhard KUHNE, Thorwald, SCHOPPE and others Situeted Atlantis in SPAIN,  Siccilly and IERELAND
For an annecdote: in the Waltdisney-Filam " Atlantis" it was situated in ICELAND because of a WRITING - ERROR !


PLATO's ATLANTIS is a FAKE because of -indeed- a WRITING - ERROR !

IF you profess not to believe this from my previous message, the EVIDENCE is simple:

PLATO's original name for Atlantis( a Latin mistranslation !) was: ATHETA- Land
( ancient-) ATHE-LAND was ADEN which the locals call: "  RAS - ADEN - Crater.
Your self- invented Explanation of POSEIDON stinks, because earlier, in Linear-B Script
 
POSEIDON was written differend: POSATON, this is not a personal but a City-Name
a word-corruption of Ras- ADEN. ( The 'etymological/ Toponym' Sequence: is
 RAS( slighted to: POS.)and AITON,( slighted to: ADEN/ ADON.) RAS in Punician meant:" HARBOUR".

Thus GADERA ( CADIZ-)originally read GADEIRAS, the HARBOUR of GAD( or GHAD !)( GHAD= ADEN.)
Atlantis was also called AD- LAND in the Koran,( Surat 89.)but this too is a Latin- corruption !)


The general FALLACY started with the FALSE notion of
Atlantis as an ISLAND in the ATLANTIC !
it was not !

PLATO's original read 'ATHE-PELAGOUS' meaning the BAY or SEA- ARM of ATHE !
Latin transcription read:ATLANTIDIS - PELAGUS depending of the context.
But this is a wrong translation because it does not read: " SEA - ARM " anymore !
NOW it means: " ISLAND - Realm " See the difference ? Do you believe me now ?( Rhetorical - Question "!)

INSTEAD of the LATIN: " ATLANTIS in  MID- OCEAN "
PLATO wrote: ATHE- LAND on the TETHYS- SEA
This ATLANTIS- SEA was inbetween Atlantis- Metropolis and the OCEAN !

I KEEP TELLING, each incredulent individual of 50 Forum members here,
that Plato himself placed a SEA - ARM inbetween(= KETA de MESON.)Atlantis and the Ocean !
BUT not unlike your taking this warning-Error-Message for granted,( Even COLUMBUS called Atlantis"on a  BRAZILLE- de-Mer ")
Yet, ALL Atlantologists keep thinking that Atlantis was somewhere IN the Atlantic OCEAN !( or DOGGERLAND in the North- Sea.)

CONCLUSION:

 :PAtlantis is NOT an ISLAND and it is NOT in the ATLANTIC as Mario DANTAS quoted me last month
Hoping to get more legallity from my quotation ! But then all island theories are fallacies too !

Are ALL Atlantologists stupid or Biased or WHAT ?( Sorry I mean no offence !)
I am just wasting my time here, pointing stubborne Atlantologist on their main mistake!
( Atlantide/ Atlantis was ATHETA!)( also called: ACHAD-Dan, in Hebrew and:( E-)SCHERIA by Odysseus.)
Jaime MANUSCHEVICH came-up with ISRAEL but refused to acknowledge an OLDER" Israel " from ADEN(= EDEN ! ! ! )

For Error-correcting an obvious mistake commited by a common oversight, by others,
 I am called a correcting thus " Dissident " Atlantologist !
I rest my Case.

Sincerely,  :'( :o :'(  dd 12 Aug. 2008

" BlueHue "

PS-1 so far none of the Forummembers understood a Hoot about my Nutshell-Subscript can you make it's essence clear ? or aren't you intrested in the REAL' Atlantis' only the succulent Myth ?

PS-2
MARIO,

THANK - You for posting this SPOUT- Hole in your last post to Carolyn - Silver !
Maybe now I can with aid of this island depression, explain what " Planetary" collosions can do to Earth's surface !
Recently Scientists at NASA have discovered that a MOON-Like object hit Mars and carried away one Third of it!
In my " BlueHue"-SCENARIO the MOON fell TWICE into the Pacific 1055 bc 855 bc
The Greeks( and ofcourse their masters the Egyptians Recorded this !
The Greeks called it the" Titanomachia in 1055 ". THIS extrusion-HOLE in Greenland
Would be the result if a" Meteorite" (= the MOON.)hit Earth from the opposite site ! Thus the Pacific!
   ;D


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on August 13, 2008, 01:32:19 am
Bluehue,

The reason why Georgeos isn't around here is simple:

He's a quack!!!

Do you have any actual physical evidence to support your conclusions or is it all linguistic wordplay of one type or another?

You canm twist those dialogues to place Atlantis on the moon if you want!  But ALL the major translators AGREE that it was in the ATLANTIC!  That is all the best ancient Greek ones and all the best Latin ones!

So the problem with you non-conformists is you never have any EVIDENCE to support your conclusions!

At it's core, Atlantis was an island with a Bronze Age civilizatio that SANK.

I have evidence for some of that in the Atlantic!  Do you have any in Saudi Arabia or wherever the heck you place yours?  Nope!  Just the same old Georgeos/Maria/Jose gibberish without any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support it.  Sheesh!!  ???


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Carolyn Silver on August 13, 2008, 01:36:08 am
Hi again Carolyn Silver,

Quote
Do you know how FAR the hole would have to tear to go to reach all the way up to Greenland? Sorry!  Looks to me like a massive eruption happened there, the material SPILLED OUT, and that block of sunken CONTINENTAL MATERIAL was part of it.

What i meant is that the Island was down South (as its occlusion demonstrates) and that when the Earthquake happened, the terrible "shake down"  liberated the Island from its Continental ties and Greenland started its movement by "whip cracking" East towards the Sahara Desert (The Cape Verde Islands and Canary Islands, near Guelb er Richat, Mauritania, are situated in the beginning of this Geological phenomena).

(http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/grace/results/grav/g005_eigen-gl04c_files/g005_diff_north_atl_CG03C.jpg)



M

Hi Mario!

Do you know how long it takes for landmasses the size of Greenland to move great distances?  Millions of years!  Much easier to say it "sunk" instead.  We HAVE evidence of islands being blown all to hell in a day or so in Krakatoa and Santorini.  We DON"T have evidence of islands travelling fast across the globe!


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Morrison on August 15, 2008, 02:05:48 am
That's true.  One of the biggest fallbacks of the Mid-Atlantic Ocean theory is, that if a cataclysm actually happened in recent years (say the last 12,000) to sink so vast a land as Atlantis was (even if it was an object from space striking the Mid-Atlantic Ridge), chances are, we wouldn't be here right now.  It would have wiped out everything.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Mario Dantas on August 15, 2008, 04:22:22 am
Dear Carolyn Silver,

Quote
Do you know how long it takes for landmasses the size of Greenland to move great distances?  Millions of years!  Much easier to say it "sunk" instead.  We HAVE evidence of islands being blown all to hell in a day or so in Krakatoa and Santorini.  We DON"T have evidence of islands travelling fast across the globe!

How should those Geological evidences look like? I mean what does it take for Science conclude that in fact there was a fast dislocation? It is all in our mind (the Scientific impossibility). Geologically Greenland was further South in remote Times. The question of whether the Island performed a 60 degrees latitudinal distance in a short period (24h) or not, depends only in the velocity with which it traveled. This may sound stupid but it is the very truth. Science knows only parts of the inner workings of our Planet, and never did they have the opportunity to study such vast Geological change "in loco", so to deny such possibility is just plain prejudice. We know South America is likely to have been "thorned out"  from Africa but its shape remained the same. For those who don't believe that such large landmasses could travel intact, there is the proof. It is only a question of scaling and mother Nature does the rest. If you assume that of such thing indeed happened, you have to throw away all dating systems for they aren't realistic, they just can't be.

Let's be sensible! Does it seem logic that the dating (absolute or relative) would remain the same if large amounts of energy did in fact influence ALL Geological data in our Planet? The Atlantic is spreading apart, and that is due to the Inertia from that period, like a remnant of the said movement.



Dear Morrison,

I am glad to hear from you again! It's been a long time...

Quote
One of the biggest fallbacks of the Mid-Atlantic Ocean theory is, that if a cataclysm actually happened in recent years (say the last 12,000) to sink so vast a land as Atlantis was (even if it was an object from space striking the Mid-Atlantic Ridge), chances are, we wouldn't be here right now.  It would have wiped out everything.

I couldn't agree more and i surely never said the contrary! The Mid Atlantic Ridge wasn't stricken by the Meteoric(?) event, nor did Atlantis sink. Your assertions are very wise, the "almost collision" occurred in the other side of the Planet starting from South Argentina and going all way to the Himalayas. This change happened in a "smooth" way, and by smooth i mean to be able to bear Life, Ice and fire fought a terrible battle against each other, and Ice won.

Regarding the fact that such event "would have wiped out everything" as you stated, all i can say is that it almost did...

With Regards,

M


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Tom Hebert on August 15, 2008, 05:09:26 am
That's true.  One of the biggest fallbacks of the Mid-Atlantic Ocean theory is, that if a cataclysm actually happened in recent years (say the last 12,000) to sink so vast a land as Atlantis was (even if it was an object from space striking the Mid-Atlantic Ridge), chances are, we wouldn't be here right now.  It would have wiped out everything.

Hi Morrison,

Well, it did pretty much wipe out everything.  Even Plato acknowledges that civilization has been destroyed many times during the course of man's existence on earth.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on August 23, 2008, 02:56:31 pm
Bluehue,

The reason why Georgeos isn't around here is simple:

He's a quack!!!

Do you have any actual physical evidence to support your conclusions or is it all linguistic wordplay of one type or another?

You can twist those dialogues to place Atlantis on the moon if you want!  But ALL the major translators AGREE that it was in the ATLANTIC!  That is all the best ancient Greek ones and all the best Latin ones!


So the problem with you non-conformists is you never have any EVIDENCE to support your conclusions!

At it's core, Atlantis was an island with a Bronze Age civilizatio that SANK.

I have evidence for some of that in the Atlantic!  Do you have any in Saudi Arabia or wherever the heck you place yours?  Nope!  Just the same old Georgeos/Maria/Jose gibberish without any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support it.  Sheesh!!  ???

I have a great respect of GEORGEOS handling a dull subject like Atlantis in Spain with Oeuthousiastic optimism
He know that he is a Quack but it is obviously a Hoax to sneer at Scientific atlantologists who never have found Atlantis proper !

You may sneer at my ETYMOLOGY approach but let me telly that
this is my basic dissident attack at mainstream Atlantologists!

AGAIN but now listen more carefully

PLATO said that Atlantis(= Ad-Land) was surrounding a TERRITORIAL SEA(-of Atlas.)
that separated it from the real Ocean so Atlantis was never in PLAIN VIEW of the 'real' Ocean!

Plato used the WORD  PELAGOUS ( which in context means a BAY WATER or BRIDGE Water thus a PONTOS- Sea.)
The latin translators used Pelagous as a single alonestanding word and translated it into PELAGUS meaning ISLAND

CONCLUSION:

Atlantis was no island and NOT IN the Atlantic
Consequence every island theory on Atlantis is Bogus :'( :o :'(
And I don't need Physical evidence, Why did NO mainstream Atlantologist Spot that ?


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Qoais on August 23, 2008, 04:29:21 pm
Blue Hue, you must have some sort of reference for some of this stuff don't you?  Like, how do you know what Plato wrote in ancient Greek, when we don't have his original papers to work with?

I've asked Mr. R. Cedric Leonard, who can translate ancient Greek, if it was possible to mistake the word for combined/together for the word for "between".  He said that to try to interpret the word as between, the syntax of the whole sentence would have to be changed. 

So for instance;

This power was larger than Libya and Asia "combined/together".    OR

This power was larger than Libya and Asia "between".

The syntax would not be correct.

He could also have been talking about the "might" of this land and not the size of it.  Mighty because they were wealthy, had control of the trade routes and goods, and probably held stations of high office.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on August 25, 2008, 11:09:05 am
Blue Hue, you must have some sort of reference for some of this stuff don't you?  Like, how do you know what Plato wrote in ancient Greek, when we don't have his original papers to work with?

I've asked Mr. R. Cedric Leonard, who can translate ancient Greek, if it was possible to mistake the word for combined/together for the word for "between".  He said that to try to interpret the word as between, the syntax of the whole sentence would have to be changed. 

So for instance;

This power was larger than Libya and Asia "combined/together".    OR

This power was larger than Libya and Asia "between".

The syntax would not be correct.

He could also have been talking about the "might" of this land and not the size of it.  Mighty because they were wealthy, had control of the trade routes and goods, and probably held stations of high office.

Dear QOAIS,

Would you, Please re-Phrase
your confusion of words Question to Dr LEONARD in the way that I try to indicate below:

The whole issue of Atlantis location depents on the above Translation ERROR
I apologize for replacing the stand-alone word " Largerthan for 'between " ofcourse that is impossible to be mistaken,

I meant to replace the word
 in english " Larger-than(= MEZO-n two words!)
by: MESO-s(= " Situated, midway-inbetween " Three words!)
in THIS way the confusion between MEZO-MESO does make sence!  :'( :o :'(  dd 25 Aug 2008


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Tom Hebert on August 25, 2008, 11:14:03 am
Hi BlueHue,

I disagree.  "Larger than" makes very good sense.  In fact, in context it's the only thing that does make sense.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on August 25, 2008, 11:23:35 am
Nahhhhh!  The Greek translations all place it in the Atantic Ocean, too!
 You forget,  Plato mentions the Atlantic,  Mediterranean and Pillars of Hercules,
so he doesn't fix it into place with ONE geographic reference point, but several!

 
FROM " BlueHue  " a ' dissident ' Atlantologist,

All Plato's Atlantis-location references were corrupted by latin translators:
Geo-Names as:" Asia minor " and " Africa"  did not exist( yet) in Plato's time
 nor did the term" you HELLENES".)Plato would have named the Greeks Achaeans in his time..


What you don't know, is that most of Plato's references were corrupted by LATIN translators.
Forinstance:

Atlantis as an Island in the Atlantic is FAKE
Plato originally wrote GREEK

GREEK ATHETA-Land became" Atlantis "

GREEK location in PELAGOUS(= Midway in a BAY(= Golf-)became PELAGUS(= ISLAND Realm.)

Atlantis was at a territorial Gulf(= Sae of Atlas>)which separated Atlantis from the Real Ocean
THUS Atlantis was never IN the Atlantic-Ocean.

This Midway- SEA was the Surrounding Sea or ( Known-)World Sea.IMMIGRANTS in Europe changed it into the MEDIA- Terra Nea."

Latin compilers aggranded Plato's measurements of Liquid, Size /distance and even Time with TEN
because of an error reading of x + X as TIMES TEN instead of Plus Ten.! x= multiply X is TEN.

Plato wrote his SYMPOSION- TREATISE as a SATYRE on the current political crises in Athens.NOT to promote his POLITEIA
But to critisize ATHENS' War HYBRIS in the FAILED. . . RAID on SYRACUSE ( 413-bc)
No Atlantologist spotted that ALL the NARRATORS were former Greek GENERALS executed in SYRACUSE( except Socrates, he was poisioned.)

THE. . MOON hit the Equator TWICE
in 1055 and 855 bc the GREEKS called this the TITANO-Machia( Hit on Antartica & GiGANTO=- Machia(= Hit on Hawaii.)
The First Hit may have triggered the Atlantic MountainRIFT, the Second Hit has caused the Hymalaians and indian Ocean Rift, overnight
Since nobody believes this I am dubbed the " Dissident Atlantologist"

The oceanographic institutions should have Maps about those TWO BOUNCE IMPACTS from the Moon.
Right Opposite the Atrartica region must be the American Mountains abnd opposite Hawai must have been the Hymalaians
BUT rather at an angle of 90% because Earth moved during both impacts
so that the THRUST outcome is today not directly opposite the Pacific IMPACT SITES anymore!

This Earth encompassing or WORLD encycling SEA is not th Atlantic
 but Should be called the TETHYS SEA.

The saying goes that the TiTAN(= egyptian King/ Queen.)TETHYS " married" OCEANUS and produced an OFF Spring
or OFF Shoot , that is some SORT of OUTLETT that was called PONTUS, or Greek PONTOON.

In My opinion:
 TETHYS was Queen TETI-CHERI and OKEANOS, King SEKEN en-RE Thot-2  TetiCheri is self evident sOKEAN(-os.) may be King Seken.

Dr Velikovsky was a " dissident paleo-geologist " turned biblical historian he REVISED the Egyptian TIME Line
which contained 500 yeras TOO  MUCH.
 So the GREEKS didn't enter GREECE i 1650 bc as Minoan/ Myceaners but around 1.000 bc.

CONCLUSION:

 Due to translation failures Atlantis as a VOLCANO KINGDOM in Ras ADEN crater
inbetween the " CONTINENTS "(= French RIVAGES">) of ASIA(= Major= Araby & LYBIA"= THEN Erytraea.)
unwittingly became a FAKE Island in MID Atlantic Ocean whereas it should be located near the INDIAN Ocean separated by a SEA- ARM.

It's Inhabitants were the HYKSOS/ Hittites and Punicians(= Canaanites) Living under egyptian Suzereinity in HADRAMAUT/ ADEN

Have a nice evening ! :'( :o :'(
 Sincerely'
" BlueHue " ( A dissident Atlantologist.) dd 5 Aug 2008[/quote]



Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: Tom Hebert on August 25, 2008, 11:41:39 am
We'll just have to disagree on this one, BlueHue.  I don't want to offend you.


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on August 25, 2008, 11:43:32 am
Hi BlueHue,
I disagree.  "Larger than" makes very good sense.  In fact, in context it's the only thing that does make sense.

Dear..........TOM HEBERT,

in my " BlueHue's dissident theory,

" Larger Than " in Greek is: " MEZO-n."
My theory is that Manuscripts were copied
 by a Lector and his scribe-Audience, who
could have well mistaken MEZO- for MESO !

RESULT:
 MEZO- comes out as" Larger/more extended than" two continents . . . but
 MESO- would mean " Situated midway inbetween "2 continents !

CONCLUSION,
Mainstream Atlantologists go by an ISLAND(= pelagus")called Atlantis in LATIN but Ad-land in greek
whilst in Greek Plato actually wrote:
Atlantis was Situated midway in a Sea-Arm(= pelagous.)called Atheta-land, inbetween two Sea- SHORES( 'Continent' means Shore!)

In Plato's time the latin denomination Africa and ASIA-Minor did not exist(yet)
PLATO's 'Lybia' is today called Ethiopia and Plato's Asia MINOR(= Latin .)is today ARABY
( Araby, was than called 'Asia' aswell but with addition of " MAJOR'.)
the average atlantologist ignores the different Geo names that ( Saudi-)Araby has carried over the past  centuries!
All mainstream Atlantologists have fallen in that' historical tourist trap"
you too, are not deviating from the mainstream !

My theory is that ' Atlantis was not an island and was not IN the Atlantic but near the indian Ocean.

Sincerely, :'( :o :'(
 " Bluehue " dd 25-th Aug. 2008


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on September 25, 2008, 08:17:07 am
We'll just have to disagree on this one, BlueHue.  I don't want to offend you.


Dear . . . . TOM. . HEBERT,

CONTINENTAL DRIFT/
Seafloor-Spreading and the Andes & Himalays-mountain Uplift are not different events they happened simultaneously
Mountain-uplifts were caused by the seismic- waves that travelled through Earth's Crust by ( 2 )Moon-bounces
I already told in my Subscript that these Cataclysms occurred in 1055 & 855 bc called" MACHIA" by the greek Astronomers!

Mainstream-Atlantologists use the sacred Textus- receptus of plato in the Latin VERSION.
THUS they are UNAWARE that Atlantis is a LATIN VERSION of a GREEK origin:" ATHETA"-Land.

ATHETA- Land is no FIB it DOES- EXIST as the Province of ADEN capital ADEN- Crater.

The FACT" that ALL ancient writers UTOPIAN/ Blessed Islands, on Atlantis call it Atlantis "is a FAKED FACT also,
because most if not ALL ancient greek Writers have come to the grand Public by LATIN VERSIONS.

THUS by not-admitting that ALL Atlantologists Views and Theories are based on Plato's coruptive Text
They are wittingly barking -up the wrong tree of teh original Story as elsewhere than in ADEN.

In the Koran Chapter Surat-89 quoted by" JULIA" earlier THIS year,
the last demise of Atlantis is described( in [ slightly-]corruptive Version ofcourse.)

But since You will just have to disagree on the above, You may offend me as you like,
that reply will be a " Time-Piece" on people's opinion of my dissident Discovery of Atlantis in Aden"!

Sincerely " BlueHue" dd 25-sept-2008
 :'(  :o  :'(


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on October 02, 2008, 02:59:22 pm
Bluehue,

The reason why Georgeos isn't around here is simple:

He's afraid of riddicule or  shy!!!

Do you have any actual physical evidence to support your conclusions or is it all linguistic wordplay of one type or another?

 ALL the major translators AGREE that it was in the ATLANTIC! 

So the problem with dissident view, is you never have any EVIDENCE to support your conclusions!

At it's core, Atlantis was an island that SANK.

 Do you have any in Saudi Arabia or wherever the heck you place yours?  SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support it.  Sheesh!!  ???

Would You care to comment on my " EVIDENCE"-Subscript ?
no I think not You'll say that you don't undersstand it !


Title: Re: Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift
Post by: BlueHue on October 15, 2008, 10:23:07 am
That's true.  One of the biggest fallbacks of the Mid-Atlantic Ocean theory is, that if a cataclysm actually happened in recent years (say the last 12,000) to sink so vast a land as Atlantis was (even if it was an object from space striking the Mid-Atlantic Ridge), chances are, we wouldn't be here right now.  It would have wiped out everything.

Dear . . . .  MORRISON , . . .  Carolyne, . . . and. . . TOM,

Atlantis did not SINK it was SPLIT-UP ( Plato said. )as it subsided ! ;D

The Continental- Drift is a wrong-expression,  wordimg for what actually happened: SEA- Floor Spreading !
As is the POLE- SHIFT, for the oblique angle of the Earth's axis and ZODIC-reversal ! )
But that's too complicated for the average " Atlantologist "! to remember yet included in: " BlueHue's "-dissident-theory

Many  non -greek or latin knowledgable-atlantologists want to keep the basics simple : a sunken isle !
Moon Bounches, Hybris punishments by cataclysms & Mountain-raising are too complicated for them,
to be included in PLATO's Atlantis with too foreign names for Atlas-kings as: Epi-and Prometheus !

and "WHO the Hell was Dame PANDORA "? ( But the Pan-doric-City) of the failed RAID on Syracuse ?
Most Atlantologists just ignore ( inter-pollated)Dame PANDORA as the substitude cause of the sinking of "Atlantis"

DORIANs could be the last Pelgaskian string of Atlantes from Arabia FoELIX that went to colonize Greece in 855 bc.
They were actually East-Punicians fleeing from the in"vasion of Atlantis/Punt by "GOD"-King Salmanasser-3 who'demonized "Atlantis

THE OTHER DAY, " GEORGEOS"
mentioned in AR that Plato never used the GEO-Word " Atlantic Ocean" but Sea of Atlas "
I did not believe him then, but on closer scrutiny of the text of TIMAEUS 21-E quoted by

ATALANTE it seems that Atlantis-Capital never faced the Atlantic Ocean BECAUSE
there was a BRIDGE- WATER inbetween called the PONTOON- SEA that all overlooked !

NESOS is not ISLE and PELAGOUS, is  not ISLE- Empire:
PLATO even mentions that the 'ISLE 'of Atlantis was a PROMOTORY, with a Volcano Centre
and an ISTHMUS" Connecting it to the " MAINLAND" ( Jargon: TOMBOLO &coastal- ATOL)

PLATO's topography completely overlooked ?
How come people look for Atlantis in the Atlantic or on ANY ISLE in the Mediaterranean-Sea ? ?
when PLATO clearly states that the SEA surrounding Atlantis is but a harbour with a narrow entrance ?
This SEA of ATLAS is NOT the Atlantic Ocean but a PONTOON SEA bridging the TRUE- SEA(= Red- Sea.)
with the REAL- SEA(= INDIAN- Ocean.)

LAND of Ad(= ADEN) became " Atlant-is"
The World Sea that surrounded the WORLD is a mis-quotation for KNOWN" World
KNOWN World, is Plato's jargon for ARABY only, KNOWN beiing a substitute Word for" friendly/ familiar
thus not depending on Helenistic Earth driving range knowledge or American Punic-connections.
So Plato & THE ANCIENTS WERE NEVER IN DOUBT OF THE precise LOCATION OF "ATLANTIS"

THIS LEFT BOTTOM CORNER OF Araby
CALLED Aden or HADRAMAUT WAS A BONE OF CONTENTION
BETWEEN Assyria and EGYPT BECAUSE OF THE Marib- DAM FRANCKINCENSE-Hesperid-garden-connection.

ATALANTE has quoted TIMAEUS-21-e
 where Plato mentions that when approching " Atlantis capital from any direction
one is travelling the bridgewater or PONTOON SEA which connects the RED- Sea
(= True-Sea)with the INDIAN Ocean(= REAL- Sea.)

QOAIS has quoted that General Hasdrubal
in 220 bc, FIRST mentions the Gibraltar Strait as the " PILLARS of Hercules"
and that before 220 bc the same Pillars were situated at Bab-el-Mandab.
or at Melos( but that is a Fib.)

Atlantis is a FAKED name by the Latin compilers
Anyone with a knowledge of latin should recognize it as a LATIN word
so in any ( Greek-)Text the word "ATLANTIS / Atlantide is an ANACHRONISM !

Atlantis versus" Land of Ad "
I have not got any commentary yet from my fellow Atlantologists who dared to  admit that
Plato's Atlantis, would be named ATHE(TA-) Land a name that still exists on maps of ADEN !
ATHENS or NEW- ATHE was ( re-named)and founded by King DANAOS & ADANA by Dardanus
THESE 2 seemingly different kings are one and the same KING'called 'ATHAMAS in a well known version.'

ATLANTIS was the KNOWN- World,
This Known World was ASIA Majoris or ARABY FoELIX(= White Elephant- Land".)
PLATO himself says that Atlantis was the KNOWN- World of OIKUMENE the capital was called: ORCHOMENE
the CITY of ORICALCUM- FIRE " but Atlantologists have even trouble imagining Atlantis capital as POSEIDONIS
so now remembering it as ORCHOMENE would be too much to ask of their Atlantis fixed mind thus the THEORY
of "BlueHue "is too difficult for the Atlantologists or they fear ridicule chasing after a NON existing ISLE !

OSIRIS or ANHUR and MEHIT or MAAT-RE
 Brynwys mentioned them as, the Playing-caracters in the Atlantis- Drama Thety are reffered to as: Planet MARS & Planet MOON.
MARS/ Osiris was once a Water Planet called Poseidonis when it was hit by the MOON the Mars/Poseidonis fragments
skidded as Meteorites over the Hymalays and ARABY leaving straight lined impactCraters around 855 bc when MOON hit Hawaii Isles
By the seismic collision wave, wich travelled through Earth's centre the Hymalays were raised not prior to 855 bc but in late Quarternary Lake burst time!

OKEANOS or SEA of DAN
 married the THETYS- SEA and their offspring was the PONTOON Sea(= JAPEnTUS- SEA who begat POSEIDON
Poseidon is not a Person nor sea but a corruption of the Geo-Name for RAS- AIDON "( Which knows 5 derivative names eg.Ahodhiya Etc.)
 When the Hyksos or Punicians left ADEN to colonioze Europa, ther renamed the egyptian BLUE- SEA
as the NEW- WORLD-SEA(= Media Terran Nean-SEA.)after the original Mid- Earth Sea or Known-World-SEA.

CONCLUSION:

As MARIO quoted me so brilliantly the other day:
: Atlantis is NO ISLE and it is NOT in the Atlantic Ocean but in the Gulf of ADEN.
BECAUSE this GULF of ADEN used to be named PONTOON- SEA the surrounding Continents"(= Pelagous)
were also named PUNT or BUTHO(= today Djibuti./ Punta-Land Etc.)Egyptian:Retenue or PTAH/ Punt)

COMMON  OVERLOOK: Atlantis- Capital, was a Volcano Caldeiras
It is a mystery that any true atlantologist could overlook large essential portions of Plato's text and claim the opposite
Some Atlantologists at MELOS have come to their sences and declared 9.000 before Solon a derivation of 900 bc !
The other measurements whether in Time or landsurvey were exaggerated by mistake too but each time by only a decimal
not by misreading an egyptian sign for 100 as 1.000 but by simply misreding the latin transl;ation of :" X  +  X " as: " X  x  X " !
Some Atlantologists even ignore that Atlantis-Capital was called "Poseidonis(-Polis)( which is a corruption from: RAS- Aidon.)SIDON & ( Ely-)SION

DISCLAIMER of DAMMAGES
" BlueHue's "dissident Theory of Atlantis in Aden"
may severely dammage the Intrest of other( more clever-thinking )Atlantologists
Who have not spotted, or just ignored,  that Plato's textus-receptus,  is corrupted by latin translators !
They cannot help but translate " Land -of Ad " ( in: Surat-89.)as Atlantis"/Atlantide/Atlantidis

ACCOMODATIONS for the Next ( 3-rd.)Atlantis Conference!
I am not in a hurry to make others as Mister Thorwald Franke,  Schoppe,  Dr Reinhard Kuhne, a laughingstock !
But I would, propose to the very clever Publisher " HELIOTOPOS " that the 3-rd Atlantis Conference
would be held at home town of it's true-discoverer: " BlueHue  ", at  the Delft-University in Holland !("City of Vermeer ")
There is a WMCA-rated hostel nearby or otherwise one could camp-out at the City's Park campingZone !

Sincerely,  " BlueHue " dd . 15- Oct. 2008   :'( :o :'(    PS  my appologies for this large Spinning Yarn !