Cuban 'Atlantis' Cover-Up Solved?

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Another question i have deals with flooding.

If you wash large amounts of ocean water onto the continental shelf, what does the additional weight do to the landmass?




posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I don't know what happens to the landmass when water goes over it. No one can really know for sure, scientists can only guess.

But I do know that Atlantis did break up into 3 parts prior to it's complete sinking.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



If you wash large amounts of ocean water onto the continental shelf, what does the additional weight do to the landmass?


Hmmm... I would think that a lot of that would depend on the shape of the water when it washes on ot land, and the speed it is moving.
If you look at the footage from the '04 tsunami, it was a relatively slow moving, low to the ground wave that surged onto the shore.

In the conext of a 'massive' tsunami i.e. great height and speed you are obviously looking at more damage to the surface of the land, as you pointed out, but I would not think any significant geological impact would be made i.e. landmass being 'broken' apart. That seems to be more commonly associated with earthquakes and volcanos. But this is all conjecture on my part, as I am far from a geologist and not quite sure how to research that.

HEY HWD. - Not to be a drag, but can we stay away from Atlantis? I am only asking as it has been debated and stated througout the thread that the word was used metapohorically and is not the point of the discussion. I'm also afraid of it as it is a thread derailer that no one will ever agree on anyway. Thanks!


[edit on 30-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

HEY HWD. - Not to be a drag, but can we stay away from Atlantis? I am only asking as it has been debated and stated througout the thread that the word was used metapohorically and is not the point of the discussion. I'm also afraid of it as it is a thread derailer that no one will ever agree on anyway. Thanks!




right. better not use the word "atlantis" to avoid the thought-police denouncing it.


You guys are having an excellent debate here, btw. Very enjoyable, from both sides.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 




There weren't any Cuban inhabitants sailing to Australia in ancient times that I know of.

cormac - I was just rereading your post, where we were going back and forth about sailing 10 mi., and realized that you were misunderstanding why I was saying what I was saying.

I am referring to the artifacts that shows human habitation in FLA at 13, 000 b.c. but no artifacts show up in Cuba until around 8000 b.c. . Hans and I were postiing about this just before, so I assumed you understood.

I am saying that it is anomoulous, given the Ice Age map, that these coastal peoples did not go to Cuba given its proximity. I do not think it is possible there was not settlements there during the Ice Age, and the reason for the current artifacts dating to 8k is because any other evidence would be below water.

And SKY - Glad you like it, I'm really enjoying this thread too.

edit: to add quote



[edit on 30-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


my thoughts are more to the effect that the weight of the water, surely, must have some effect on the underlying land mass.

What i would imagine would be that as the water rushed ashore, it would "weigh down" the continental mass. This would obviously push it down to some degree. On the far side of the landmass, it would rise in response. Like a "fulcrum effect".

Obviously, the compression of underlying magma would cause bulging and distorting of other landmasses, and would likely result in great numbers of tribulations and such (like earthquaks, volcanic activity, and any associated weather phenomenon arising therein).

As well, it would seem to relate to musings done by some geographers that posit that fault lines along mountains can, from time to time, "give" and cause one side to rapidly dip down. This would, in effect, lower mountain ranges by large volumes quickly. It is not hard to imagine that in the US, if the Rocky's "slipped" and dropped several feet, the result could be a suddent INCREASE in altitude in the region of Appalachia.

Perhaps i am misconstruing the geology. However, i don't think that enough thought is given to the effects of things like meteor impacts (outside of resultant sun blockage or ELE type scenario's) or tsunami's. We tend to think of the firmament as actually being "firm".



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


That is a fantastic question. I will happily dig around and see if I can find anything conclusive, or that is even indicative, to answer.

It would be great if there was a geologist somewhere on this site. I'm realitively new so I am not up to speed about Mods and their fortes.

Does anyone know if there is a 'go to' person for geological questions?



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
i]reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 





I am saying that it is anomoulous, given the Ice Age map, that these coastal peoples did not go to Cuba given its proximity. I do not think it is possible there was not settlements there during the Ice Age, and the reason for the current artifacts dating to 8k is because any other evidence would be below water.


And considering that ancient Florida and the Yucatan Peninsula were alot closer, it's entirely possible that there was travel. One thing that would still be true then as now, though, would be that there were still storms back then that would have affected the coastlines. Maybe not all, but some people would have moved further inland, I would think, as a precaution. I don't go with the idea that "all the evidence is underwater". There should be some evidence on land.

cormac



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


I have reqeusted a geologist to swing by and chime in. Not sure if he will make it today or not....but there you have it.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

Okay, found a paper which supports BFT's theory. It was wrtten by James A. Maruske


A comet/asteroid impact on a large glacier mass could cause the following effects:
Release vast quantities of heat.
Produce massive earthquakes.
Produce trapped superheated steam that would exert force to uplift and move a large glacier mass.
Fracture glacial sheets.
Eject water, steam and ice high into the atmosphere.
Release stored potential energy.
Produce a partial glacial ice melt.
Produce an almost immediate rise in sea level.
Produce great rainfall.
Slowly driving the ocean crust deeper.
Slowly raising the continental crust higher.
Produce volcanoes and lava flows.
The impact of a large comet/asteroid (~2 mile diameter) with an Ice Age glacial sheet could produce the following chain of events:

The impactor penetrates through miles of thick ice, like a bullet. Below the surface, the impact releases the energy of a million nuclear bombs. A gas bubble of trapped superheated steam forms. The steam causes a general uplifting of the glacier ice sheet. The ice sheet rises like a steam boiler about to burst. The gas bubble exerts tremendous force on the ice flow. The impact triggers the release of potential energy locked in ice flow allowing million of tons to break loose and begins to move on the frictionless fluid bed toward the oceans. Some of the steam escapes like an erupting geyser or volcano. The glacier sheet fractures, opening up fissions for the steam to escape. Boiling water and steam further lubricate the surface boundary layer of the ice flow. The explosion hurls large masses of ice fragments into the air with great force. Ice and water flowing off the continents cause an immediate rise in sea level in conformance with the Displacement Theory. TThe released superheated steam falls back to Earth, generating very violent storms. Heavy rain falls for several days and weeks. The atmosphere heats up.

Large earthquakes combined with the Earth’s crustal rebound from the movement of large ice sheets exert significant strain on the tectonic plates. The strain is relieved by the eruption of volcanoes, and lava flows throughout the world. Underwater earthquakes expose frozen methane hydrate beds. The heat generated at the impact point and the heat from underwater volcanoes and lava flows elevate the temperature of the ocean bottoms and melt the exposed methane hydrate. The released methane bubbles to the surface, where in time it is ignited by lightning strikes, which further raises atmospheric temperatures. The methane burn releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In the end, the global temperature rises significantly, breaking the back of the Ice Age.

LINK HERE

This is great reading, and before everyone starts moaning about him being a Nuclear Physicist and out of his field, please note that he attended the 2nd International Planetary Defense Conference at George Washington University in D.C on 5-8 March 2007 and presented 3 papers. All of which where centered around Comet and Asteriod Impact analysis.

Also please note his Final Thoughts on the paper I linked to:



Final Thoughts: Remnants of the Ice Age civilizations exist but they are buried under many feet of silt and sand, four hundred feet below sea level, far too deep for most divers. I predict that some of the greatest archeological discoveries in the 21st century will be uncovered off the coastlines, buried hundreds of feet underwater.


edit: to put up celebratory...whatever these things are:


[edit on 30-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
See...my thoughts are overly simplistic. The energy release has not been part of my musings yet (mostly due to my complete lack of a point of reference).

What is being described sounds very similar to the flood myth.

So here is a question:

Since we know that something like a cometary impact likely happened towards the end of the last ice age (but we don't know the scale/size), could this be the cause of the whole base of the "atrium theory"? That is, that the Earth was surrounded by very dense, thick cloud cover that rained down and flooded the lands?

The reason i ask is because if you are talking about people living many, many years longer in our antiquity, it is a good fit to consider dense cloud cover (and the known radiation shielding properties of water).

What effects do this water have if it reaches the ionosphere? This could possibly put a whole new spin on the concepts of Wallace Thornhill as they relate to the musings of ancient man and giant sparks in the sky. I could easily imagine that if we perturbed the ionosphere with something like water vapor, we could end up seeing some EXTREME storm systems.

Sorry for the off topic...but you have really touched on some good points and i wanted to get my thoughts on "paper" before i left work (i will forget it on the drive home, otherwise).



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


No worries, and glad you laid it down. I would be happy to research that with/for you in a different thread. I just learned about that theory two days ago while I was looking for stuff to back this up. One can see how it there is an implication in support of that in Marusek's paper.

What I would really like to do now is see what our skeptical 'evidenced based believers' have to say about it.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   


Since we know that something like a cometary impact likely happened towards the end of the last ice age (but we don't know the scale/size),
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Ahh, but we do it was 4km which is, I believe, about the exact size that Marusek was working with.


New scientific findings suggest that a large comet may have exploded over North America 12,900 years ago, explaining riddles that scientists have wrestled with for decades, including an abrupt cooling of much of the planet and the extinction of large mammals....

According to the scientists, the comet before fragmentation must have been about four kilometers across, and either exploded in the atmosphere or had fragments hit the Laurentide ice sheet in northeastern North America.

LINK


edit(s): to add link and for correction

[edit on 30-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 30-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


this thread is going to touch on so much, i think. we really need to get some of the troops in here to help with the cross referencing.

Zorgon mentions frequently how odd it is to him to see people clothed the way they are in some ancient carvings. He generally refers to people who would be overdressed by modern standards. Really...who would wear such heavy clothing in the Sahara?

I have some "churchy" friends in another forum. this forum also has several engineers, and a meteorologist turned storm chaser. I am going to present your finding to them to see if we can drum up any additional input. These guys are just like you and i, except they are from my area, and spend copious amounts of time in study of various other disciplines. I will report back anything worthwhile (especially from the engineers and the meteorologist).



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
From the quote from James A. Maruske.



Ice and water flowing off the continents cause an immediate rise in sea level in conformance with the Displacement Theory.


This map would indicate otherwise and the explanation below it may answer some of BFFT's questions.




I calculated from the timeframe of 12,900 years ago per the pervious link:

www.nsf.gov...

Calculating from a date of c. 12,900 years ago, which indicates sea level was 60 meters/75 feet lower than today the previous map would look slightly different. However, the indication here would be 60 meter rise in roughly 4000 years. That would come out to an average of .015 meters/.59055 inches per year. Definitely slow enough for people to have excaped from.

This is not to say a comet or asteroid didn't impact or the glaciers didn't melt, just that there is no evidence of it causing a quick rise in sea level.

cormac



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Where have all the debunking 'evidenced based skeptics' gone? Hellooooo....helloooo... (echoing in the empty space)

Is that how it works? You guys just ditch in the face of a pardigm-shifting theory? Really? I can't believe it.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Andrew Collins just e-mailed me a few minutes ago!
It was very kind of him to explain the situation to me.
This is what he said.


"Hi,

There is no conspiracy, simply human necessities. Paulina Zelitsky and Paul Weinzweig held out as long as possible for the best possible deal on world rights to release pictures and video footage of what had been found. I know, I was involved with the deal from Random House, and was to have ghost written the accompanying book, which would have been accredited to them (I was chosen since the agent working on the project was working with me also, and I had just released GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS, which pinpointed Cuba as the site of the main island of Atlantis). The figure on offer was six figures in pounds sterling (based on a sliding scale of what had been discovered), but Paulina Zelitsky and Paul Weinzweig refused the offer, wanting even more to fund their future expeditions. They hoped that NatGeo would top the offer. However, when finally the pair released video footage of what they had found it was deemed both of poor quality and not what was hoped, and since Zelitsky and Weinzweig had run out of money, a stalemate ensued. No further footage could be got, so the Random House offer (which they could have taken) was withdrawn. I have no idea what offer NatGeo made, but I suspect it was afterwards withdrawn also.
Zelitsky and Weinzweig had to go back to what they know best – treasure hunting and vessel salvage, and no one has heard from them since. They have simply vanished off the map.
Story ends.
This said, I firmly believe that prehistoric archaeology does await discovery off Cuba, and hopefully within the next year I will take part in a major expedition to identity suspected structures off both the north and south coasts of the island.
Cuba is by far the best candidate for Atlantis’s flag ship, and one day hopefully we will be in a position to prove that.
What exactly Zelitsky and Weinzweig discovered remains a mystery. Whether artificial structures, ballast from Russian submarines or natural features, we might never know. All theories are possible.

Regards,

Andrew Collins"

It looks like Paulina Zelitsky and Paul Weinzweig lost their chance at some funding for more exploration at the MEGA site. Too bad they didn't take the first offer. They may have found some good evidence if they went with Random House. If anyone is going to find undeniable facts about a sunken city near Cuba, in the near future, it will be Andrew Collins.


TWISI,

It looks like you can add two more red dots to your picture.



-lostinspace



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


hey cormac - sorry about lumping you into the last post, it was going up at the same time as your response. So, congrats you are the on debunker who showed up and I'm glad for it!

Now onto your post. What is the source for the graph? Is there accompanying text? It would be nice to be able to do something comparitive between the two data sets.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

alculating from a date of c. 12,900 years ago, which indicates sea level was 60 meters/75 feet lower than today the previous map would look slightly different. However, the indication here would be 60 meter rise in roughly 4000 years. That would come out to an average of .015 meters/.59055 inches per year. Definitely slow enough for people to have excaped from.

This is not to say a comet or asteroid didn't impact or the glaciers didn't melt, just that there is no evidence of it causing a quick rise in sea level.

cormac





Ice Age civilizations destroyed
www.youtube.com...

Earth changes, we know the exact dates
www.grahamhancock.com...
www.giss.nasa.gov...
www.agiweb.org...

The rate of sea level rise slowed between 14,000 and 12,000 years ago during the Younger Dryas cold period and was succeeded by another surge, "meltwater pulse 1B", 11,500-11,000 years ago, when sea level may have jumped by 28 m according to Fairbanks,



ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET KEY TO SUDDEN SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE PAST
eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov...

"This event happened near the end of the last Ice Age, a period of de-glaciation that lasted from about 21,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago," Clark said. "The average sea level rise during that period was about eight millimeters per year. But during this meltwater pulse there was an extremely rapid disintegration of an ice sheet and sea levels rose much faster than average."

The amount of sea level rise that occurred during a single year of that period, Clark said, is more than the total sea level rise that has occurred in the past 100 years.



and-
www.sciencedaily.com...

The cause of this event, called the "global meltwater pulse 1A" since it was first identified in 1989, has until now been unknown. This study not only pinpoints the source of the meltwater pulse, but it also makes clear that significant climatic events can occur very rapidly and unpredictably.

This type of melting event thousands of years ago is different from the more recent events in Antarctica, researchers say, such as the breakup of a large percentage of the Larsen ice shelf earlier this month. But the dramatic melting illustrates the pressing need for a better understanding of Antarctica's huge ice sheets and their stability.

"We can't say at this point whether the recent breakup of part of an ice shelf in Antarctica has any relevance to this type of huge meltwater event that originated from Antarctica thousands of years ago," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU and one of the world's leading experts on glaciers. "We don't know yet how important these ice shelves are to stabilizing the larger ice sheets of the continent."

What is very clear, however, is the importance of Antarctica's huge ice sheets remaining stable. The West Antarctic ice sheet is thought to be potentially unstable, and if it collapsed sea levels around the world would rise almost 20 feet. The melting of the larger and more stable East Antarctic ice sheet would raise Earth's sea levels another 200 feet.

And during this comparatively short period thousands of years ago, it is now known that these two huge ice sheets were anything but stable. One or the other, or some combination of the two, melted at a surprisingly rapid rate and caused a 70-foot surge in sea levels in just a few hundred years.

"This event happened near the end of the last Ice Age, a period of de-glaciation that lasted from about 21,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago," Clark said. "The average sea level rise during that period was about eight millimeters per year. But during this meltwater pulse there was an extremely rapid disintegration of an ice sheet and sea levels rose much faster than average."


The reality is that sea levels rose quite rapidly.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


I choose to believe Collins. So way to go lostinspace! Now the thread reads like a mystery solved, but with a cliffhanger! I love it!

It's too bad that it sounds like AC did not see the footage. It would be interesting to know what someone who actually watched it saw. If I can find anyone at Random House who viewed it I will come back and share.

As to the (OP expanded) topic at hand, I would like to keep the conversation about geological timelines for the MEGA region, and evidence of cataclysm wiping out prehistorical cultures open and running as we have all put so much work -- and data -- into the dialogue.

MODS, or anyone, is there a process or way for moving part of a thread and retitling it? As the last few pages have dealt exclusively with those subjects.

Or is it appropriate to stay here, even though we have ACTUALLY, DEFINITIVELY, RESOLVED TITLE OF THE THREAD!

This feels rare!

Stars for lostinspace everybody! And though my 'applause' brings with it no points, you have it nevertheless.

PS - It is, IMO, always more satisfying to learn something and change your position, than to pointlessly defend a habitual stance that only serves the purpose of keeping you ignorant of facts other than your own.



edit: for clarification and PS


[edit on 30-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 31-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]





top topics
 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join