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.

 

City Older Than Mohenjodaro Unearthed (2002)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I noticed that and i believe it has to do about the tectonic plates:


As you can see the tectonic plate of India moves.
When India is in the middle of Indian ocean a civilization could have flourished (eg.Lemurians)...and this tectonic plate continues to push towards the asian tectonic plates. I believe that in 700 AC the tectonic plate was in such a position that could sustain a port city, just before sunked deep to the waters.




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonlike
I noticed that and i believe it has to do about the tectonic plates:


As you can see the tectonic plate of India moves.
When India is in the middle of Indian ocean a civilization could have flourished (eg.Lemurians)...and this tectonic plate continues to push towards the asian tectonic plates. I believe that in 700 AC the tectonic plate was in such a position that could sustain a port city, just before sunked deep to the waters.


Well, yes, cities under the sea near coasts are indication that port cities were inundated by rising sea levels. These sea levels can rise due to climatic factors (eg. since the end of the last ice-age ice melt raising sea levels), or by more local factors (eg. usually coastal erosion removing coastal defences and encroaching inland, and also changing patterns of high tides due to alterations of longshore drift depositions).

Given an inundation since around 700AD I rather suspect local factors are more likely as the cause.

Plate tectonics take place over millions of years (tens and hundreds of millions). There were no humans around when India was an island. The entire Himalaya range has formed since the continent met Asia. Which has taken quite some time.

I don't dispute more recent cities may have been lost to the sea. They occur all over the world. But this topic was about a city claimed at 7500BC!



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Given an inundation since around 700AD I rather suspect local factors are more likely as the cause.

The India has a longer way to travel while the other plates lesser, so more time needed to collide with asia



I don't dispute more recent cities may have been lost to the sea. They occur all over the world. But this topic was about a city claimed at 7500BC!

yes, that the OP (original post)



[edit on 31-1-2007 by Dragonlike]

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Dragonlike]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragonlike
 


I have been aware of this find for some time.The question I have is " How old were these two cities befor they were inundated by the waters from the glacial melt? "The 9500 year age is not the final answer to this enigma.Press on India , you are doing very well.It occurred to me that a causeway could be built to at least one of the cities.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join