Cuban 'Atlantis' Cover-Up Solved?

page: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeybus

Originally posted by Byrd
The BIGGEST problem with all this is:

It doesn't match ANYTHING that Plato said about Atlantis (except perhaps that Atlantis wasn't in Greece.) Since Plato is the ONLY source for the story, in order for the information to be correct it MUST match Plato's account.

There's no large continent there made up of 10 rings of land masses, there's no large central city, and there's no evidence that a culture from Bronze Age Cuba ever ruled over the Mediterranean area.

If anything, the "channelers" are trying to cover up the original Plato story.



plato is not the only scource. i believe he got it from somewhere else, and re wrote it but i cannot remeber where it was originally written. i am inclined to say something egyption but i cannot be sure



I believe the Atlantis legend really comes from the Phoenicians. They were the ones who monopolized the Atlantic trade routes. The Phoenicians and the Mesoamericans both do one weird thing. When they want the attention of the gods they cut their hands and bleed on the ground. This is called Bloodletting. Also, it was the Phoenicians who were into horse racing, which is mentioned in the Critias. (The horse races part, not the Phoenician part.)




posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Thanks to you and cormac, but what is the the standard of measurement for that map i.e. plus and minus, timeline etc.?

Beyond that I suspect that we are looking at these maps in radically different ways. I am positing that the better part of that region was above sea level between approx. 22k and 10k and that there was, and is, tangential evidence of a natural cataclysm which caused not only flooding, but a dramtically different displacement of landmass than what is currently, and generally, accepted.

I see it like this:
" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

It is my supposition that the green areas would have been exposed until approx. 11, 000 b.c. years ago before sea rise at the end of the last Ice Age

The areas in red are where underwater ruins have been found with evidence of towns/cities and ports.


HELP!!! I'VE DONE A BAD THING! AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX IT!

[edit on 29-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Egads you broke it TWISI! Bad TWISI BAD

I'm sure a mod will be by in the next few years to fix it.




The areas in red are where underwater ruins have been found with evidence of towns/cities and ports.


Where did the data for the little red dots come from?



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 



Where did the data for the little red dots come from?


I refuse to say on the grounds that it might implicate me in the act of using 'unaccredited' sources


The primary point of the map for my purposes was to example areas of landmass that I belive were exposed at that time. As to the red dots I can certainly recognize one of them as the MEGA site, and a most of the ones off of the NE coast of Cuba SE coast of FLA as Bimini Road, Andros, etc.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
wow alot of cool resources and material here



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


Hello TWISI,

On the map Hans linked to it's measured in meters. The sea level rise is believed to have been greatest from 18,000 years ago (i.e. 16,000 BC). A difference of approximately 120 meters, or 400 feet. Is this what you were looking for?

cormac



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Thanks Hwd. -- If you feel strongly about it please S & F it as I am up against some v. formidable 'traditionalists' here (I'm looking at you Hans and cormac) and could use all the support I can get.

Cheers!
TWISI



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
We also shouldn't forget that in 10,500 BC the Earth was literally rocked on it's axis, the poles shifted and the tilt axis changed.

This completely changed where ocean basins and high mountain ranges were.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Hi TWISI,

While I'm not sure what qualifies me as "formidable", I wouldn't disagree that significant parts of the Caribbean currently below sea level were once above.

Does this help any?




Top picture is of the present coastline, bottom picture is of the coastline 120 meters/400 feet lower.

cormac



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Howdy All

Twisi

"traditionalist" - sounds rather foghorny, how about evidenced based believers instead?

Hollywood



We also shouldn't forget that in 10,500 BC the Earth was literally rocked on it's axis, the poles shifted and the tilt axis changed.


No don't think so HW. Our planet's magnetic field reverses about once every 200,000 years on average. However, the time between reversals is highly variable. The last time Earth's magnetic field flipped was 780,000 years ago, according to the geologic record of Earth's polarity. Just become some guys said doesn't make it true...needless to say.

Cormac

Well you are Formidable! Don't be modest. I keep a notebook by my computer of thing to look up, research and notes on things I didn't know, you're one of the main contributors to that list, thank you.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

No don't think so HW. Our planet's magnetic field reverses about once every 200,000 years on average. However, the time between reversals is highly variable. The last time Earth's magnetic field flipped was 780,000 years ago, according to the geologic record of Earth's polarity. Just become some guys said doesn't make it true...needless to say.



Not flipped, that's something different.

Rocked on it's axis, not flipped.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Recent work by scientists and geologists Adam Maloof of Princeton University and Galen Halverson of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse, France, indicates that Earth indeed rebalanced itself around 800 million years ago during the Precambrian time period. They tested this idea by studying magnetic minerals in sedimentary rocks in a Norwegian archipelago. Using these minerals, Maloof and Halverson found that the north pole shifted more than 50 degrees — about the current distance between Alaska and the equator — in less than 20 million years.

This reasoning is supported by a record of changes in sea level and ocean chemistry in the Norwegian sediments that could be explained by true polar wander, the team reports in the September–October 2006 issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin

As far as I can determine there has been no recent pole shift - do you have a source to back up your claim?



[edit on 29/7/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Hey cormac -

Yes it does help, thank you so much for going to the trouble to bring in a map with distinctive highlighing and clear contrast from Ice Age sea levels to current levels.



Hans: Ah no, the area of Cuba is less now than it was then.


Do you still agree with that statement Hans?

I am, hopefully, going to launch into a more data-comprehensive post tomorrow demonstrating examples in support of my postion, but for now I would like to ask all you 'traditional' 'evidenced based believers' to consider the distance bewtween cormacs currently accepted model and the question I asked a couple of posts earlier -

DON'T YOU FIND IT ANOMOULOUS THAT SEA FARING PEOPLE OF 13K DID NOT MANAGE A 10 MILE MIGRATION?



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


Whereas it was much easier to get around back then, with the lower sea levels and all, I don't know that you can really call it anomalous, per se. People go where there is a need, or desire, to go. We really can't know what their needs or desires were in this case.

Something else to consider. The earliest people, the Ciboney are only believed to have been in Cuba from about 5300 BC. Have there been more recent finds that push any peoples in Cuba further back in time, especially to the end of the Ice Age?

cormac



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Generally archaeologists aren't doing underwater excavations of the bahamas looking for underwater prehistoric artifacts that they don't want to believe are even there in the first place.

As for the pole shift of 10,500 BC, I am not sure how much modern science has discovered about it, but they do definitely know that the sea levels also rised at that time with the end of the Ice Age. The date of Plato's destruction of Atlantis, The meltwater pulses of the last ice age, and Edgar Cayce's accounts all point to that same date of 11-12,000 years ago



[edit on 30-7-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 



cormac: Have there been more recent finds that push any peoples in Cuba further back in time, especially to the end of the Ice Age?


Not above the current sea levels, which is the point I am struggling mightily to make. There have been the discoveries of the many, many anomoulous underwater structures, roads, etc. most of which have been referenced or linked to here.

Do you, or does anyone else, have an opinion about the LINK I put up about the Bimini Road data I put up yesterday. It professes to to not only disprove the 'its a natural occurance theory', but also PROVE the the SKEPTICS purpotrated a 'hoax', by falsifying thier data.

EDIT TO ADD:


Whereas it was much easier to get around back then, with the lower sea levels and all, I don't know that you can really call it anomalous, per se. People go where there is a need, or desire, to go. We really can't know what their needs or desires were in this case.


...cormac, really? That's the best you can muster? Those people were able to sail to Australia at that time, per the latest stance by the 'traditioinalists', but you are saying they could not go 10 miles? I guess they did not fish from those sea faring/capable-of-ocean-crossing boats either? Come on, please, concede a reasonable point...

[edit on 30-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Hey HWD. - I agree with you about the dire lack of published underwater expeditions by mainstream archaeologists. And let's keep in mind that 99% of the time archaeologists are in the employ of someone else who has a job specific agenda, perhaps that accounts for THE SILENCE...

In my next data-dump I will also make an effort to link to info in regards to geological timelines for pole-shifts as well.

Glad you're here!



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


The Bimini Road hasn't held much appeal for me in years. Probably because of the BS from the likes of Berlitz, von Daniken, the Cayce Foundation, et al. Each wanting to prove its part of Atlantis. If it's real, great, but one has to ask, what's the context. Even with settlements sufficiently close enough to the shoreline to have created it, they should still have left a significant trace of their presence. Where is it? It can't ALL be under water.

The other interesting thing about that article is that it says the road may have been constructed between 3000 and 5000 BC. So, even if its manmade, they aren't even saying it dates back to the end of the Ice Age.




...cormac, really? That's the best you can muster? Those people were able to sail to Australia at that time, per the latest stance by the 'traditioinalists', but you are saying they could not go 10 miles? I guess they did not fish from those sea faring/capable-of-ocean-crossing boats either? Come on, please, concede a reasonable point...


I don't know who you are calling THOSE PEOPLE. There weren't any Cuban inhabitants sailing to Australia in ancient times that I know of. And I never said they couldn't go 10 miles, you're putting words in my mouth. I said people go where there is a need or desire to go. Their need or desire to travel then, has nothing to do with what you want to find now.

cormac



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
my two cents on this piece of the debate:

when discussing low lying areas, i have to ask what might be left for us to discover. Consider:

At the end of the ice age there are two theories that are both likely to be correct:

1. there was a cometary/meteor impact on the northern ice shelf. this is evidenced by some of the microscopic traces of metals and other elements in the tusks and rocks all over N. America. A HUGE blast, sending rare elements shooting out fast enough to embed in mammoth tusk and rocks hundreds of miles away. That must have been one HECK of a blast.

2. There was a large, freshwater lake that developed north of the ice shelf, "dammed" off from teh ocean by remnant glaciation. When the dam melted, it flooded the north atlantic with hundreds of millions of gallons of freshwater.

I could image each of these events causing a substantial flood, honestly. Flood enough to wash well onto any continental shores, and wash over surrounding islands. A tsunami of unimaginable proportions. For this to happen, you would also imagine quite a bit of the daily human artifacts would be washed out to see, along with the sediment that it was laying in.

As well, consider the weight of the northern ice shelf on the continental plates. As the ice melted, has it "rocked" the plate on the other side, raising or lowering its relative level?

This thought really occurs to me as i review Titicaca. Why a seaport at that elevation? Why are the steps that go up the sides of the mountain not all farmed at once, but over a period of years? Were they farming up the mountain side as they retreated from rising sea levels in the region? Could this be caused by glaciation/deglaciation?

There is a great event in our planets somewhat recent history that is missing, i think. There are too many unanswered questions, out of place objects if you will, that just don't fit with current paradigm.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Thank you BigFurryTexan! You have done a MUCH better job at succinctly making those salient points than I would have - I was going to spend a lot of time working on a post with links - and I didn't even think about bringing Titicaca up.

Also, I suspect, you will get more traction as I've noticed lots of folks don't actually use the links I go to all that trouble to gather


HEY CORMAC - Don't get all tetchy now. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, simply pointing out that mainstream science is moving away from the Beringia theory and looking towards coastal migration:


Concerned that evidence of human settlement and migration may be lost under the sea, researchers are finding new ways of tracking ancient mariners. By combining archaeological studies on remote islands with computer simulations of founding populations and detailed examinations of seafloor topography and ancient sea level, they are amassing crucial new data on voyages from northeast Asia to the Americas 15,000 years ago
"DID HUMMANS COLONIZE THE WORLD BY BOAT"

Point being I don't think that there is any reason to believe that Coastal Inhabitants would have lost the technology to sail 10 miles from their coastline. And given the map you used the Grand Bahama Island on the eastern tip of FLA were even closer. The whole region, by dint of its geographical layout at that time, would indicate martime culture. Most of the evidence of which, I am saying, is underwater.

In summary there are two topics being put forth right now. One the idea that it is anamoulous that Cuba only has known artifatcs from 8500 b.c. given the acceopted model of sea levels.

And two, the evidence of regional cataclysm that would have submerged landmasses that are not currently considered in the accepted model (see: BFT's last post)

Also, I would just like to say that I am appreciative of how civil, thoughtful and articulate everyone is being in putting forward their opinons. I for one am learning things I did not know -- which is to me the point of ATS -- and hopeful that some kind of consensus' (however 'small') may actually be forged here.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]





new topics

top topics


active topics

 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join