Atlantis has been discovered?!

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: Guyfriday

This was why I pointed out the Cruiser Tablemount in the other thread on Atlantis. It fits the location, shape, and best of all it's fully under water.

The Cruiser Tablemount makes sense. If Kircher’s Vatican Egyptian map is the Great Meteor Seamount, as it sure looks to be, then Cruiser should have been above water at the same time too. As would be the 2 mounts between them, Irving and Hyeres. And north of them, the seamounts of Plato, Tyro and Atlantis would also been above water. This gives an island chain running a hundred miles north to the Azroes.

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Seewarte3d.svg

“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 - 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))”

Please provide a source for the claim that the Atlantis seamount was above water 12,000 years ago.
Your stated source doesn't contain the indicated article and the wiki link says nothing about this - even in the only reference listed there.
Geological Society of America, Bulletin, 65:1261, 1954

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

Please provide a source for the claim that the Atlantis seamount was above water 12,000 years ago.

Well I do not have a link back to it in my history. For some reason Chrome does not save links like Explorer does.

But you would have LOVED IT! Just kidding. You would have hated it because it came from a website that had something to do with that chick who wrote Isis Unveiled. Blavatsky? Just something i ran across while looking for the Horseshoe seamount.

I tried looking for it again but to no avail. I found it through the images associated with the Horseshoe seamount on Google. You know, where there are a hundred pictures and you click on one and it takes you somewhere else. Some cool stuff there though.

www.google.com... w=1132&bih=511#imgrc=-QyI6rQyrpFqRM:

a reply to: Harte

"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."

Oh heck, I just copied that line and there it is!

www.blavatsky.net...

a reply to: Harte

The only online references to the work are contemporary "atlantis" websites.
Having read several versions of what is supposd to be said in the paper, I call BS.
This paper paper puts the seamount exposures during the Miocene, thats more than 5 million years ago.

Come on people, try harder than that

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: Harte

The only online references to the work are contemporary "atlantis" websites.
Having read several versions of what is supposd to be said in the paper, I call BS.
This paper paper puts the seamount exposures during the Miocene, thats more than 5 million years ago.

Come on people, try harder than that

"Blavatsky.net?" LOL.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

"Blavatsky.net?" LOL.

Harte

Egads, how to react when something un-expected is plopped down in front of you....

80 pages and Just as many flags later... No, Atlantis has not been found .

80 pages and Just as many flags later... No, Atlantis has not been found .

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Come on people, try harder than that

"Blavatsky.net?" LOL.

Flat-Topped Atlantis, Cruiser, And Great Meteor Seamounts

Bruce C. Heezen, Maurice Ewing, D.B. Ericson, and C.R. Bentley
Lamount Geological Observatory (Columbia University), Palisades, N.Y.

“The Atlantis Seamount, briefly explored in 1947… apparent radiocarbon age of 12,000 years +/- 900… the limestone suggest that it may have been lithified under subaerial conditions and that the seamount may have been an island within the past 12,000 years."

The quote above ~ and the paperwork it comes from ~ shown on Blavatsky.net is an actual, factual document.

I received the actual 1954 abstract in PDF form from The Geological Society of America in ONE DAY! Too bad the Freedom of Information Act does not respond that fast.

[email protected]

You too can receive the same 1954 transcript by writing to Jennifer at the above address.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: punkinworks10
Come on people, try harder than that

"Blavatsky.net?" LOL.

Flat-Topped Atlantis, Cruiser, And Great Meteor Seamounts

Bruce C. Heezen, Maurice Ewing, D.B. Ericson, and C.R. Bentley
Lamount Geological Observatory (Columbia University), Palisades, N.Y.

“The Atlantis Seamount, briefly explored in 1947… apparent radiocarbon age of 12,000 years +/- 900… the limestone suggest that it may have been lithified under subaerial conditions and that the seamount may have been an island within the past 12,000 years."

The quote above ~ and the paperwork it comes from ~ shown on Blavatsky.net is an actual, factual document.

I received the actual 1954 abstract in PDF form from The Geological Society of America in ONE DAY! Too bad the Freedom of Information Act does not respond that fast.

[email protected]

You too can receive the same 1954 transcript by writing to Jennifer at the above address.

Did you not see that the journal this was supposed to be in actually has archives online? I linked it.
No such paper appeared in that journal in that year. IIRC (and all you need to do is go to the link I gave to check,) Heezen didn't author a paper in that journal in that entire year.

Not that it matters. A guyot is often considered to formerly be an island, or, at least, near enough to the surface to be sculpted by surf. In fact, Hawaii is a seamount (guyot.)

I found where that was pasted from by the way:
here
It's about 20% down the page.
Again, here's a link to the papers published in volume 65, Feb. 1954 (the volume where it's claimed this paper appeared.) Take a look around the archive and see if you can find this paper in perhaps a different volume. I tried that before I posted the link the first time.

This apparent discrepancy would need to be cleared up. I'm not taking "Blavatsky.net" at their word.
Blavatsky herself was exposed as a fraud multiple times.

Harte

Hey Harte, did you notice the quote just after the one you linked to from Heezen - from that great scientist and man burden by plentiful common sense Charles Hapgood..........and it talks about the Piri Reis. Oh my


....

originally posted by: Hanslune
Hey Harte, did you notice the quote just after the one you linked to from Heezen - from that great scientist and man burden by plentiful common sense Charles Hapgood..........and it talks about the Piri Reis. Oh my


....

Yeah, the web page is titled "SCIENTIFIC PAPERS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF A FORMER LANDMASS IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN."
As such, there's plenty of hooie on the site.
But Heezen, at least, is a real Geologist and actually has published papers about the ocean floor.

I suspect the paper in question is real, just published in a different journal.
Whether or not Heezen makes the claim about the seamounts being above the surface 12,000 years ago in the paper is a different story.

But, even if he did, the paper (if real) is hopelessly out of date today, assuming its 1954 publication.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

This apparent discrepancy would need to be cleared up.

You're timing is amazing Harte! As soon as I read your post I got an email from the Geological Society!
I suggest you email or phone Jennifer with your concern.

Blavatsky is just the messenger here (which is ironic since she was a medium).


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GSA Bulletin
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Is the following accurate?

You're welcome,

This abstract was presented at a GSA meeting. That much is legitimate. However, so it's probably worthwhile to mention that meetings abstracts aren't peer-reviewed the way journal articles are.

Jennifer

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GSA Bulletin
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Is the following accurate?


Thank you for your email. The abstract you reference is for an abstract presented at the 1954 GSA Annual Meeting in Los Angeles. For a few decades in the mid-twentieth century, GSA "housed" the meeting abstracts in with GSA Bulletin. Sorry for any confusion. I've attached a scan (pdf) of the abstract as it appears in our records.

Please let me know if you there is anything else I can do.

Best,

Jennifer
Editorial Assistant


Cary Cosper and/or Jennifer Olivarez
GSA Bulletin
The Geological Society of America
3300 Penrose Place | P.O. Box 9140 | Boulder, CO, 80301
+1-303-357-1000

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: Harte

This apparent discrepancy would need to be cleared up.

You're timing is amazing Harte! As soon as I read your post I got an email from the Geological Society!
I suggest you email or phone Jennifer with your concern.

Blavatsky is just the messenger here (which is ironic since she was a medium).


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GSA Bulletin
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Is the following accurate?

You're welcome,

This abstract was presented at a GSA meeting. That much is legitimate. However, so it's probably worthwhile to mention that meetings abstracts aren't peer-reviewed the way journal articles are.

Jennifer

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of GSA Bulletin
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Is the following accurate?


Thank you for your email. The abstract you reference is for an abstract presented at the 1954 GSA Annual Meeting in Los Angeles. For a few decades in the mid-twentieth century, GSA "housed" the meeting abstracts in with GSA Bulletin. Sorry for any confusion. I've attached a scan (pdf) of the abstract as it appears in our records.

Please let me know if you there is anything else I can do.

Best,

Jennifer
Editorial Assistant


Cary Cosper and/or Jennifer Olivarez
GSA Bulletin
The Geological Society of America
3300 Penrose Place | P.O. Box 9140 | Boulder, CO, 80301
+1-303-357-1000

That clears it up. It wasn't a "paper," it wasn't peer-reviewed, so it wasn't an official publication of GSA.
And Blavatsky gets caught in a lie again, over a century after she died.

I couldn't find any follow-up on the dating it was all behind paywalls. I'm sure it's out there somewhere.
That is, radiocarbon dating only became a thing 5 years before that presentation was given. Lots has changed since then.

Harte

Glad we cleared that up (thanks to all involved) but that same quote will be shown 10,000 more times because the debunk will never be connected to the false claim...

ATS doesn't allow new users to post pics, looks like. Which makes this response unnecessarily complicated to make:

Greek Facepalm @ African Atlantis

originally posted by: R2019
ATS doesn't allow new users to post pics, looks like. Which makes this response unnecessarily complicated to make:

Greek Facepalm @ African Atlantis

Using an ad blocker means they won't let you post pics too, so I feel ya.

Harte

While going over some of these "Post/ Villages", I noticed some of them have a symbol, a 5 pointed star in a circle. By the way, there are multiple walls sectioning off large areas. Some split and lead off north. There are some villages out in the middle of nowhere. It is obvious that someone had cataloged many of these ancient ruins as they left the catalog numbers in large lettering that is observable from the air, as too, are these symbols. If I didn't know better I thought I was looking at the National symbol on the wings of the USAF Aircraft.












Make me wonder if the United States really is, the new Atlantis...

While going over some of these "Post/ Villages", I noticed some of them have a symbol, a 5 pointed star in a circle. By the way, there are multiple walls sectioning off large areas. Some split and lead off north. There are some villages out in the middle of nowhere. It is obvious that someone had cataloged many of these ancient ruins as they left the catalog numbers in large lettering that is observable from the air, as too, are these symbols. If I didn't know better I thought I was looking at the National symbol on the wings of the USAF Aircraft.












Make me wonder if the United States really is, the new Atlantis...

originally posted by: R2019
ATS doesn't allow new users to post pics, looks like. Which makes this response unnecessarily complicated to make:

Greek Facepalm @ African Atlantis

here you go
Classic Facepalm