Atlantis On The Internet (in Cuba, Spartel and Antarctica) - ORIGINAL

[Bianca]

Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 04-01-2004 01:29 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, the dating is 2000 BC, being 4000 years ago, even more actually 3700 years ago but corrected for several factors to 4000 years.

It is based on a single specimen of a molar dated by a Russian labratory. Many more specimens are around 8000 years or older. And you have no idea what can go wrong with carbon dating using the old conventional method of counting residual radio-activity. Nowadays the isotope count is done by mass spectrometry and correcting techniques have been much more refined. The result is orders of magnitude more reliable. We should date that specimen again.

And no it was not a dwarf species

[Bianca]

dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 04-01-2004 01:48 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From what I know of radio carbon dating, it isn't very approximate and, after a certain date (30,000 b.c., was it?) it can't even tell how old an item is. It is really interesting that the mammoths are even more recent than originally thought. I think that a lot of the Ice Age animals just couldn't exist once the climate changed.

At the top of this string, I mentioned the "Atlantis medallion". It's one of those things that you find on the Internet when searching under Atlantis. Here is the link, if anyone is interested:

http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/atlantisproof.htm
 

[Bianca]

Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 04-01-2004 07:45 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well the flaws of carbon dating have been pretty much covered lately not in the least by calibrating it with dendrochronolgy proxies (Tree rings) and anual sediment layers of lakes (varve counting) but there are indeed several problems that -incidentely- reveal much of paleao climate too and most of it does not add up to other evidence. The limit is about 40-50,000 years indeed.

I seem to remember discussing this medaillon but there was little confirmation. Whereas every professor usually fills a page or two in Google, Professor Winwood seems to be an kind of hermit, only to be showing up with this medaillon.

Moreover:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....who claims to have unearthed a mysterious crystal-domed medallion at an undisclosed ancient archaeological site in Egypt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

archaeological sites are never undisclosed, on the contrary. Archeaologist usually announce their projects rather clearly. Also formal scientific projects need funding this means a public procedure. Furthermore exporting (smuggling) ancient artefacts out of Egypt is considered the worst possible crime nowadays.

So, you can draw your conclusions from that.

[Bianca]

dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 04-02-2004 02:06 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The medallion also looks pretty new to have been some eleven thousand years old, right..?

Something about Atlantis seems to bring out the hoaxers. I remember that back in 1911, Paul Schliemann, who claimed to be Heinrich Schliemann's nephew, also claimed to have evidence of
Atlantis discovered at Troy. There was a brief blurb in the newspapers at the time and then he was never heard from again. These days, some people are saying that Schliemann never had a nephew. Professor Winwood seems to have followed his example. The last I heard of this, he hadn't been heard of since May of last year.

Egypt is a whole other story. If there is any evidence for Atlantis in that part of the world, it might well be found there. Egyptians are very defensive about their history, though. Some have even accused Dr. Hawass, the keeper of theGiza complex, of hiding evidence of an advanced civilization.

[Bianca]

atalante
Member
Member # 1452

Member Rated:
   posted 04-17-2004 07:31 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is a link which proposes that the origin of Atlantis legends was about 9000 BC, and in the Caribbean. This is based on Andrew Collins research about the 500,000 impact craters near Carolina (dating around 9000 BC).

quote from: http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/conference/Qc00/speakers/speaker_collins2.html

I also concluded that Plato's claim that Atlantis' destruction in one single night and day through earthquakes and floods was based on catastrophe legends told to Phoenician and Carthaginian
mariners by the indigenous peoples of the Bahamas and Caribbean.

They were retold to the first Spanish explorers to reach the islands, and speak of a catastrophic
event involving a period of darkness, as well as an all-encompassing flood which engulfed a former great landmass, leaving behind the thousands of islands and cays which today make up these same archipelagos.

In my opinion, these stories relate to a cosmic event which occurred at the end of the last ice age
and involved the creation of 500,000 elliptical craters in the eastern states of the United States.

These are the so-called Carolina Bays, which are found across six states and range in size from a few hundred metres to 11 kilometres in length. The latest theories regarding their formation feature the fragmentation of a comet into literally millions of pieces which impacted a wide area, including a large part of the Atlantic Ocean off the United States, sometime between 8500 and 9000 BC.

Such an event would have caused super-tsunami waves that would have engulfed the low-lying regions of the Bahamas and Caribbean killing everything in their path. Moreover, according to Italian academic Emilio Spedicato of Bergamo University, who is with us here today, this impact event on the western Atlantic seaboard most probably catalysed the retreat of the ice sheets which had covered North America and Europe for anything up to 40,000 years.

With the disappearance of the ice, the rising meltwater would have drowned the same low lying regions, now on a more permanent basis. This was the memory preserved by the indigenous peoples
of the Bahamas and Caribbean and retold to ancient mariners prior to Plato's age.

No other theory fitted all the evidence.

Yet the response to the publication of my book GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS was a complete eye opener, for it seemed that even after presenting this evidence for the first time a large percentage of the readers refused to even consider this solution.

Since there was such a great desire to believe in Atlantis as a super continent that produced a mother civilisation of immense sophistication there was great opposition to my views. This is despite the fact that the Caribbean had been proposed as the site of Atlantis as early as 1796 by the Guatemalan scholar Dr Felix Cabrera, and had been popular though out the nineteenth century.

Indeed, it was the most popular location of Atlantis through until the publication in 1882 of American congressman Ignatius Donnelly's classic work

                                       ATLANTIS: THE ANTEDILUVIAN WORLD..."

endquote.

[Bianca]

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

Rate Member   posted 04-17-2004 08:59 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You cannot use quick frozen mammoths to prove anything. If you take the time to actually rersearch the frozen Mammoth situation you will see that these frozen behemoths did not die at the same time; but rather over a period of several thousand years.

They were quick frozen simply because of the climate and/or situation in which they died.

Most of these beasts died in a mired state or were covered in an avalanch or similar cave-in and froze in the soil.

But they died in various periods from about 30,000 years ago up until roughly 10,000 years ago and it
is strongly suspected members of the species lingered on another thousand years and a few survived on the isle of Wangel until less than 3000 years ago. 

[Bianca]

dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 04-18-2004 01:20 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Collin's books are pretty well researched, even if his conclusions are a little odd at times.

His theories aren't all that different from Rand Flem-Ath's, Ignatius Donnlley's, Lewis Spence's or any
of the other numerous researchers that place Atlantis someplace in the ocean, it is he that draws the most attention to the differences between them.

A massive cataclysm striking the western Atlantic big enough to make the craters suggested would probably have been a world event, and no matter where Atlantis had been in the Atlantic Ocean, it would have been affected by it.

He doesn't see any evidence for a "continent of Atlantis" , but since no one is sure how much of the land in and around the Atlantic was above sea level during the Ice Age, how can anyone be certain how big Atlantis was?

Despite the advancements in archaeology, very little still has been done in the way of underwater archaeology and, from what I know of, practically none at all in the Atlantic Ocean (if anyone else
has any better information, I'd like to know). 

[Bianca]

Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 04-18-2004 08:21 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You just can't every call every trace of civilisation Atlantis.

Well you can, but then the definition of Atlantis would have to be different and being not equal to the Atlantis in the narratives of Plato.

Anyway, the Carolina bays could very well have to do with the extinction of the megafauna in America but it's dating has not been narrowed down enough yet.



Compare:

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbayint.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Carolina Bays represent residual scars of a truly singular extraterrestrial event, the bays must be young--an attribute accepted by many terrestrial theorists as well. For example, Price (1968) indicated one or more periods of late Pleistocene bay development, whereas Thom (1970) indicated either a Farmdalian (28,000 - 22,000 B.P.) or a Woodfordian (22,000 - 12,500 B.P.) age.

Age is a more critical factor when an extraterrestrial mechanism is invoked. Bays formed virtually instantaneously by explosions of cometary fragments are residual features. Subsequent modifications
of such scars by normal terrestrial processes would rapidly obliterate all traces in unconsolidated sediments such as the Coastal Plain. Study of bays in Figure 2 suggests that bays remain quite distinct, essentially unaltered except for infilling; thus, the bays must be quite young--either late Wisconsinan or early Holocene.

Very few samples of buried peat in the bays have been dated.

Thom (1970) had a 6600 B.P. radiocarbon date from the basal peat in one South Carolina bay although he cited a greater than 38,000 B.P. date from the basal peat in a North Carolina bay.

It is difficult to equate the two results.

The bays may be Wisconsinan in age. On the other hand, anomalous dates do occur, so little reliance can be placed on the few dates which have been acquired. Sequential samples along a vertical profile in several bays need to be dated and at least one date from the basal organic fill in a large sample of bays should be taken. Such a dating program will permit the Carolina Bays to be more precisely defined in time, and, more particularly, may indicate the possibility of simultaneous origin.



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

So we are stuck with a dating range of several ten thousands years.

But when Collins tells us:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest theories regarding their formation feature the fragmentation of a comet into literally millions of pieces which impacted a wide area, including a large part of the Atlantic Ocean off the United States, sometime between 8500 and 9000 BC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Only a 500 years range? Moreover it's not a theory but a "hypothesis" or idea. A theory is a hypothesis that has susstaining evidence.

The idea of Carolina bays that were alleged to have caused a big elevation change in the Atlantic Ocean, literally sinking Atlantis BTW is an idea of Otto Muck way back in 1954 I believe although his book (got a Dutch version) was (re)published in 1976.


http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue6/ar6comets.html


 

[Bianca]

Tom Hebert
Member
Member # 999

  posted 04-18-2004 01:09 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Andre,

That was one of the most thoroughgoing articles I have ever read on the Carolina Bays!

I did not finish all of the material because it got too technical. The Bays are certainly a fascinating enigma and do not lend themselves to any easy explanation.

If they had any connection at all with the sinking of Atlantis, it would be hard to demonstrate.

Tom

[Bianca]

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 04-18-2004 04:11 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets face it, if we track man`s migration out of Africa, it would put Atlantis in the old world, Plato`s Atlantis.To put it back any further, it would be in the stone age. To have an advanced civlization isolated in the new world seems next to impossiable. I would really like for Cayce to be right on this one, however if we had a asteroid hit today, there world still be some remants left of our civilzations. 


http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000833;p=1