It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: stormcell
I don't see how a meteor strike in Greenland would cause a tsunami in the middle east region.
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: stormcell
I don't see how a meteor strike in Greenland would cause a tsunami in the middle east region.
originally posted by: MindBodySpiritComplex
a reply to: CajunMetal
It is a fascinating discovery leading to many interesting rabbit holes. I also made a thread just before I went to sleep last night (Europe):
Only 12,000 Years Ago A Meteor Impact Created A 19 Miles Wide Crater In Greenland
originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
So it just seems to me that the evidence is mounting that earth was more populated than thought in the past, that cities and cultures were advanced beyond what has traditionally been accepted in science.
originally posted by: Lightdhype
a reply to: stormcell
It would have effectively flooded all coastal lying areas.
Which happen to be, where humans settle, for the most part in fact.
originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
It seems to be that the huge die off in earths creatures around 11-13K years ago was caused by something and the YD impact theory certainly seems plausible.
So it just seems to me that the evidence is mounting that earth was more populated than thought in the past, that cities and cultures were advanced beyond what has traditionally been accepted in science. It seems like some of the "myths" from different cultures about worldwide destruction destroying a sophisticated cultures is highly probable even as it has been highly romanticized.
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: Lightdhype
a reply to: stormcell
It would have effectively flooded all coastal lying areas.
No, it struck on land. It wouldn’t have flooded anything beyond local ice melt.
Which happen to be, where humans settle, for the most part in fact.
Not really a fact at all. Humans like to drink fresh water. Inland rivers like Sumerian in the Fertile Crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates. Indus Valley civ NW India/SW Pakistan, earlier PPN sites like Catalhoyuk and Gobleki Tepe (tepe means hill) are all a fair way inland and not coastal. The closest you can get to coastal in the major early civs is Egypt and that’s only because the Nile empties into the Mediterranean so they would be the most susceptible of the early sites, to flooding from a Tsunami.
Even during the late Pleistocene, the vast majority of sites are well inland where there was plenty of fresh water and bountiful Forrest’s for hunting.
Unfortunately for the hypothesis you propose, there’s nothing in the geological data supporting it. The magnitude of what you are implying would leave unmistakable evidence in the geologic record and Egypt is one of the most widely dug and studied areas of the world. Even at 12ka, 20ka or 20ma, the evidence of the degree of flooding being postulated in a vacuum of evidence would be very clearly evident.
It’s great to come up with all variety of possibilities. In science though, the currency of the day is facts, not conjecture or supposition. There aren’t any facts to support what you believe. Yes, there are many coastal sites and cultures who relied on fishing and collecting mollusks from the ocean. I don’t dispute that. But your claim that most human settlements are coastal is not accurate.