Hi Dhill ,
This is some of the best posting about Atlantis I have ever seen. Especially since it's about 'scientific' evidence for Atlantis in the ATLANTIC.
I want to use this thread to comment on the 'Original Atlantis in the Atlantic' thread from AR.
In keeping with the theme of a large island in the Atlantic as suggested by the O'briens. I quote Desiree from the 'original' thread:
"The problem with this rationale, Jamie, is that you act that, just because something hasn't been found in the Atlantic yet, you act like it will never be found. Well, we don't know that. There are several different possibilities for Atlantis in the Atlantic as I listed above. One of the main criteria about Atlantis is that it "sunk," so obviously it's not still above water. If we look at this scientifically, it's pretty clear that a huge land mass can't sink, so we have to be looking for something smaller, an island or city perhaps and that's what sunk. There are many candidates in the Atlantic. " Reply 455
http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,5655.450.htmlI take issue with this comment because it does appear to contradict itself or be hypocritical.. Firstly Desiree basically says that you can't say Atlantis doesn't exist in the Atlantic just because it hasn't been found there yet. I agree with that ,but then she says that a huge landmass can't sink. Why can't a huge landmass sink ? Just because we haven't found out it happens yet ??
I suggest that large landmasses can sink ,landmasses about the size of O'Briens Azorean-Atlantis.
I know that Desiree's response was to Jaime's theory that Atlantis is within the Mediterranean. So, while Desiree seriously considers an Atlantic Atlantis ,I feel that she is unnecessarily limiting herself to an Atlantis that doesn't match Plato's account ,since Plato spoke of a
large island.
I wanna take this moment to say that Desiree is one of the best at this forum.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the compliment! I think I should rephrase what I said earlier to Jaime, though. First, I never said Atlantis didn't sink in the Atlantic, I said, just because there hasn't been any evidence found that it DID sink in the Atlantis doesn't mean it won't be found eventually.
As for whether a large land mass can sink, we not only have to look at the size that Plato makes Atlantis but the time frame it was supposed to have sunk in. There are examples of little islands sinking all the time in relatively short perods. If we look at geological history, that is pretty acceptable to the scientific community (and any Atlantis theory has to, by definition, contain some credible science in it in order for it to be accepted). But even though Plato calls Atlantis an "island," he makes it "larger than Libya and Asia combined."
So either:
1. He's talking about only the capital city sinking, which actually was an island.
2. Atlantis itself wasn't really as big as Libya and Asia combined, but rather it's island empire was.
If we take Plato literally and imagine that the territory itself was the size of Libya and Asia combined, then we would be looking for something under the sea that, at minimum, would be the size of Australia or Greenland. How could something that big sink as quickly as Plato says it did:
"in a single day and night." That, to me, goes against the laws of physics! At least the ones we know of right now.
Of course, maybe the inference is that line from Plato only refers to the combatants in the war and Atlantis sunk more gradually (like Riven believes). That is a problem, too, because most of the Atlantic is very deep and we would see more evidence of undeewater forests, former river systems (even underwater canals) like we see in the O'Brien's work in the Azores.
That's why the Bahamas and Azores regions make the most sense to me. You have evidence of sunken areas there already, and all that remains is to find some of the details that Plato talked about.
