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.

 

Hard Evidence of Sudden Rise of Ocean Levels in Antiquity

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
In Velikovsky's book, we have a theory which IMO is to be considered closely, because it may be a real problem in the next years :

A huge and thick slice of ice (more than 3,000 meters) was covering North America.
When the ice began to melt, the ice converted to water, creating a great sea in the middle of the glacier.

As this sea was getting bigger and bigger, the borders retaining the sea became thiner and thiner.
And one day, one of these borders broke, probably where we have now the Saint Laurent estuary.
This provoked an enormous, gigantic and instantaneous rush of water which consequences were felt all around the world.

The remains of this sea are nowadays what are called the "great lakes" of North America.

The same scenario is maybe occuring nowadays in Antartica.




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
In Himalaya also :

Himalaya melting glacial lakes


The rapid melting and recession of the Imja Glacier, and the simultaneous growth of Imja Tsho, have alarmed national park staff and the Sherpas who grow potatoes and run trekking lodges in scattered villages down valley. Glaciologists are concerned too, for they are seeing glacial lakes forming and filling faster than they can identify and catalog them. Ultimately, they fear, many will simply grow too large and burst through their moraines of unstable ice and rubble--as happened in northern Bhutan in 1994. That year, a mile-long glacial lake named Luggye Tsho, near Bhutan's border with Tibet, ruptured catastrophically. Over a period of several hours, the entire lake--more than a billion cubic feet of water--emptied out, sending a rampaging torrent down valley that swept away an artisans' colony near the town of Punakha, killing 23 people. Along Bhutan's border with India, 125 miles away, a hydrograph that measures the level of the nearby Sankosh River broke when the water rose to eight feet above normal. Now two nearby lakes, Thorthormi and Raphstreng, are also poised to overflow.


Velikovsky was right ! ...



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by orkson
 


It has happend before in the past too. There is a lot of strong evidence supporting the cyclic cataclysmic theory: civilisations arise, then they are destroyed, then they arise again, and they are destroyed again. I strongly doubt given this evidence that we are the first. More likely, one of many.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by infolurker
 


Hallelujah, hosanna and amen! What is more interesting is how hard it is for current geologists and archaeologists to accept that things are not how they were 'taught'. Data like thus has tendency to get conveniently ignored, because it challenges everything they think they know.

This data was published in 2005, it was a rigourous study done by a reputable Marine biologist who works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He stumbled on this suddenly buried forest in 2002 while taking core samples around the Great Barrier Reef. He was astonished with what the samples were showing, and went back with a larger team in 2005.

This is peer reviewed data and no one is challenging what he found or his conclusions.... Just ignoring the implcations. :shk:





They never challenge data like his.
They just never acknowledge it at all and hope no one else will read it. (IE the public)
If they challenged this there would be other researchers that would check to get there own findings and then 'out' the critics that challenged the original research.
That would be a story that would draw more research on the data and make it a bigger story.


The full account is available as a .pdf download at Science Direct I don't understand what 'data like this' you are referring to? The discovery of the mangrove trees beneath the Barrier Reef and it's dating to between
8,550 and 8,740 years of age is not being challenged or denied. It's been accepted. Core samples taken and evidence accepted. No panic at all.

The article is more a commentary on the causes and outcomes of global warming. Again, this is an area very much caught in a debate. 'They' have myriad interpretations of what the causes may be and what the outcomes are likely to be. There is no consensus regarding global warming, no establishment view to protect.

Sudden sea rises or sudden submersion of land can be caused by localized floods, tsunamis, earthquakes etc. The existence of these mangrove trees needn't mean that OMG! the seas will rise and cover us. Sudden cataclysms in certain areas are not denied by scientists. Pompeii? Bad ideas are dismissed by science, the rest are discussed and the best are accepted under conditions.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
@Hans & Merka -
Plesantries aside, please note that neither I, nor BFFT in our previous thread, have ever speculated about Atlantis. I know you guys like to use that foot-stool to get on you high-horse and then (to mix metaphors) wave your smear brush around, but would appreciate it if you would refrain doing so here as it is not appropriate or germane.

I will now get coffee and read the rest of the thread. Glad to 'see' you all. Ttyl.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by infolurker
 


Hallelujah, hosanna and amen! What is more interesting is how hard it is for current geologists and archaeologists to accept that things are not how they were 'taught'. Data like thus has tendency to get conveniently ignored, because it challenges everything they think they know.

What a load of bull.

It was geologists that pointed this out.

The Indo-Australian plate goes up and down throughout the last several million years. The Australian portion is right now passing over an old subduction zone.

The wild fluctuations in this part of that plate have been known for scores of years.

The "astonishing" thing to a biologist is that coral could form so quickly over buried plant matter.

No one is "ignoring" any "implications." There are no implications.

A meter every ten years?
Good lord! Run for your life! Hurry up or drown. The water will reach your hut in another two years, better start packing!

Harte



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 



You guys and 'slow inundation and your run for your lives routine'
Perhaps you amuse yourselves, but it does get old for the rest of the audience.

Hello Harte, it was NOT geologists that discovered this, but Marine Biologists. It is unclear, by dint of the fact that it is not implied, that this rise was due to landmass distirubution. You are welcome to -- awww, its like old times -- USE THE LINK and inform yourself though.


Is your position that you do not believe there is any possibility of sudden and massive coastal floodings and leading to sudden loss of landmass at the end of the last ice age? That the flooding can only have been so gradual that everyone should have been able to just 'walk away from it'?

@HANS - Thanks for the links to the on going research that is proving mine and BFFT's cometary impact theory/thread out. I have learned that when you say 'we will know for sure in 10-15 years', it means you realize you may have been wrong and, in this instance, it looks like that makes BFFT and I right!



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Hello Harte, it was NOT geologists that discovered this, but Marine Biologists. It is unclear, by dint of the fact that it is not implied, that this rise was due to landmass distirubution. You are welcome to -- awww, its like old times -- USE THE LINK and inform yourself though.
]
No need. I read it in 2005.

You're running a little behind.

No, geologists discovered the wild (and rapid - in geological terms) changes (positive and negative) in the shorelines of Australia decades ago. What I said stands, and if you read what the biologist actually says about it, the astonishing part is the coral growth, not the 3 meters in thirty years shoreline change (which was not due to seal level rise.)


Originally posted by TheWayISeeItIs your position that you do not believe there is any possibility of sudden and massive coastal floodings and leading to sudden loss of landmass at the end of the last ice age?

Certainly not. No question that ice dams were breaking occasionally. Large chunks of glacial ice falling into the sea could cause localized tsunami-like effects as well. Both emphaisze the local effect, and neither result in any lasting massive increase in sea level.

It is my position, and that of science, that all shoreline changes are not caused by sea level changes though. The multiple changes seen throughout the Indo Austalian plate (this includes "sunken temples" in India, BTW) have been caused by subduction, not by sea level increase.

Harte



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 





No question that ice dams were breaking occasionally. Large chunks of glacial ice falling into the sea could cause localized tsunami-like effects as well. Both emphaisze the local effect, and neither result in any lasting massive increase in sea level.


I don't agree with you.

If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...

It's NOT the chunk of ice which causes the catastrophy.
It's the fact that BEHIND this ice barrier, there was a SEA : a glacial sea, resulting from the melting of the glacier.

Just figure this out, and you will understand that the end of the glacial age was accompanied with tremendous and striking floods which swept out quite ALL the costal civilizations, which means quite ALL the civilizations at that time.

Please, read my upper links which are talking of such events occuring NOWADAYS, at a smaller scale, near the Himalaya.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   


I don't agree with you.

If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...

It's NOT the chunk of ice which causes the catastrophy.
It's the fact that BEHIND this ice barrier, there was a SEA : a glacial sea, resulting from the melting of the glacier.

Just figure this out, and you will understand that the end of the glacial age was accompanied with tremendous and striking floods which swept out quite ALL the costal civilizations, which means quite ALL the civilizations at that time.

Please, read my upper links which are talking of such events occuring NOWADAYS, at a smaller scale, near the Himalaya.




I would like to add to this, in order to quell concerns brought up over this subject before.

If we are talking about massive coastal flooding, it would also likely push up the river deltas, and flood the delta regions profoundly (perhaps there may be some extinction that could be attributed to this in the estuaries and mangroves of this era, as the increased salinity may have killed off some life forms in the delta estuaries).

Hanslune, i believe, asserts that civlization at this time was confined mostly to river banks (even though sea faring civilization is highly plausible, as well). Massive coastal flooding would equate to massive river flooding as well. We have all heard the story of the Mississippi flowing backwards due to an earthquake...it is a mechanism that we have precedent for.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
A few years ago a friend of mine gave me a book to read that had something like this in it.
It talked about the global flood of ancient myth, and how it was an actual event.
The gist of the theory was that several meteors struck the earths oceans and the force of the impacts caused massive tsunamis that flooded nearly every continent. The time frame for this event was around 9000-10,000 years ago.

The author also pointed out that there has been fine ocean sand found deep inland in several countries in Europe and around the world, the remains of oceanic life in mountainous areas throughout the world and the remains of land dwelling mammals in currently submerged areas that were flooded and remain flooded to this day. And the remains of the animals were all dated to about 9000-10,000 years old, as were the sediment samples of earth found with the fine ocean sand.

I cannot remember what the book is called, but it struck me as a credible theory.
I skimmed through that book because I had a lot on my plate at the time, sorry if the info I am contributing is not detailed enough or lacking a source. I will look around and see if I have it in my garage or in my old boxes and give it a read again. If I can find it I will post its title and author as a source so we can see if it was credible or just a work of imagination and some alternate history fiction.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
It floors me to no end that there are so many legends of the flood, and civilizations that had to relearn everthing, like children, and a reset button. While discoveries are made under the water, archeologists funded by the establishment don't rock the boat or do anything to allow us, the people, to learn the true history and inherit the natural evidence of the world as we should, but they keep the knowledge privliged and hidden in certain groups who have probably pilfered and stolen the most valuable secrets and auctioned them off privately, in hidden circles. They can see everything probably via their satellites, and know where it all is.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I used to read books and magazines, as a kid, that joined the dots of ancient civilizations. Mysterious Pyramid builders, vrimanas, Baghdad batteries, alien marbles, Semites in S America and wonderful flying machines...









There was always a sense of awe and mystery about who came before us and where did they go? A mysterious and powerful race of advanced people that spanned four continents and then vanished. Religious texts and mythology were data mined for common accounts of a global flood...Noah's Flood.

Sadly, the authors exploit their readers by mendacity and misleading interpretations. The images above aren't extraordinary. Flood myths are just myths, they aren't some ancient artifact concealed by linguistics. They aren't a race memory. There isn't a stratum with consistent characteristics indicating a Great Flood dating to 10 000/12 000ya. It isn't there.

The flood myths are more likely to be accounts of regional catastrophes. If an event like the 2004 ocean earthquake happened to a coastal or river basin stone age culture...



...they'd interpret it as they experienced it. Their 'world view' would be limited to the region they occupied. It would represent a 'global flood' to them and any subsequent myths would loosely reflect the event. Given the absence of evidence outside of religious tracts or mythologies, isn't it more reasonable to accept theories of regional flood events?

Regional flood events like in India have been demonstrated to occur. Global flood events aren't evidenced in the geological record. An ET impact has been discussed for some years, but again there's no evidence for the time period preferred by Flood fans. That an impact event IS being discussed shows that science is the way to go.

I fail to see why people have such an investment in the 'Great Flood' or 'ancient lost civilizations.' Why can't they let it go? All that evidence that there wasn't a civilization or great flood is summarily dismissed, just tossed out and replaced with 'possibilities.' Claims of vindictive or deluded scientists? Status quo and establishment's 'fears' of what exactly? If, by some freak of nature, an older culture is discovered it will be stone age. Stone tools, hand axes etc. No Hall of Records will reveal blueprints for aircraft and transcripts of conversations with aliens.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by orkson
I don't agree with you.

If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...

Resulting in an incease of sea level of, what, one millimeter or so?

You don't see this?

Also, pleae provide evidence of this release before you go on about how it would flood the entire Earth's shorelines.

And the "chunk of ice" I'm talking about would be a mega-iceberg, not the ice dam I mentioned.

An ice dam can break well inland and cause an inland flood, like what happened in the Scablands of the Dakotas in the U. S.


Originally posted by orkson
Just figure this out, and you will understand that the end of the glacial age was accompanied with tremendous and striking floods which swept out quite ALL the costal civilizations, which means quite ALL the civilizations at that time.

There were no civilizations in existence at the end of the last ice age, and there were no major worldwide flood events then either. At least, not in the geological record.

On the other hand, we have tons of evidence for human habitation in many different areas from that time, none of which have been "swept out" by any flood event.
Ask yourself.
Why should this be?
Just "figure this out and will understand."

Harte



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte


Originally posted by orkson
I don't agree with you.

If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...



Resulting in an incease of sea level of, what, one millimeter or so?

You don't see this?

Also, pleae provide evidence of this release before you go on about how it would flood the entire Earth's shorelines.


Harte : I have some mathematical knowledge ...

3,000 km x 4,000 km x 3,000 m of water makes

36,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water.

So, which is the height of this quantity of water on 75% of the surface of a sphere of 6,380 km of radius ?

The answer is : 94 meters.

Figure this out ! ( Not mentioning the tsunami effect, before the equlibrium at the new level of the sea ...)

You estimation ( thus, your theory ) was false.
And this is an understatement.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by orkson
If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...

Here you have created a fantasy lake the size of North America, all of it melting, except the very edge and then all of it released at once.

It is your fantasy, not reality.

Here's reality, and I think you might be referring to the Missoula floods (I know I am, anyway), which are well known and documented and none of which resulted in a volume of 36 million cubic kilometers of water in a single flood.

In fact, I don't think the ice sheet these floods came from contained as much water as you're claiming was released all at once, and the sheet, by the way, is still there (part of it.)

So.
Please provide evidence of any overnight 94 meter increse in sea level world wide in any epoch in the entire history of the Earth.

Harte



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 





Regional flood events like in India have been demonstrated to occur. Global flood events aren't evidenced in the geological record. An ET impact has been discussed for some years, but again there's no evidence for the time period preferred by Flood fans. That an impact event IS being discussed shows that science is the way to go.


There is serious and mounting evidence of an ET impact in exactly the time period the 'global flood fans' prefer. Here you go. There is also a link to the full PDF on mine and BFFT's "Science Proving 'Global' Flood Myth True..." thread.

The nanodiamonds that are showing up all over NA, and now in Greenland, evidence that there was indeed were massive cometary impacts/implosions which occurred at 10,800 BCE which could tie very neatly with the type of event that orkson is putting forth, and certainly give creedence to cometary impact specialst James Marusek's 'global' flood theory.

It is important when considering the 'global' flood to take into consideration where the world's most habitable areas would have been during the last ice age and that whatever civilizations were in those regions would have been coastal. I know Hans thinks everyone lived on rivers (
) and to that I say to each his own, but we are finding evermore evidence that was not the case by seeing mega-structures underwater off various coasts that are extant today and are now considered the 'earliest' known civs (i.e. Malta).

The ramifications of this ET impact event cannot be understated nor, to my mind, fully comprehended in terms of the kind of environmental devastation that would have occurred until certain segments of the academic community accepts that everything they thought they knew was wrong about the onset of the YD era and NA extinctions.

When that happens we are going to see more physicists/geologists/biologists etc. getting serious about modeling the environemntal impacts of this catastrophe that occurred in our very recent past. From there it will be like pennies dropping, and so many anomolous 'mysteries' (Gobekli Tepi, Mammoth extinctions, etc.) are going to start making a lot of sense.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Missoula : 18,500 years ago ...

Come closer :

Agassiz Lake


Lake Agassiz was the largest glacial lake in North America. It was formed 11 500 years ago in front of the northeastwardly retreating Laurentide Ice Sheet, which acted as a dam. The lake covered much of Manitoba, northwestern Ontario, parts of eastern Saskatchewan and North Dakota, and northwestern Minnesota. At its largest, Lake Agassiz was about 1500 km long, over 1100 km wide and about 210 m deep


You've got a point : the entire glacial sheet of North America didn't slip into the sea overnight.

But two things :

- The phenomenon I describe has occured several times in the history, and is NOWADAYS occuring in some places. This phenomenon explains why the melting of the ice sheet doesn't result in a slow uprising of the sea level, but in the contrary, in sudden and striking floods.

- The glacial ice sheet didn't exist only on North America, but covered also quite all Europe and South Africa. You must realize that the water volume of the glacial ice sheet is tremendous and results in changes of the sea level which exeed 300 meters.

What has to be admitted by the current "scientific" establishment ( and not only- by some "exotic" but courageous researchers ), is that catastrophic events changing the map of the world occured in very recent times ( 9,000 years ago ). You must imagine what would be the fate of our actual world if such events occured to-day?

Notice that I haven't spoken of OTHER catastrophic events occuring (may be in the mean time), such as volcanism roaring worldwide, earthquakes striping continents, asteroids hiting oceans and cities, etc ...

One thing is evident : so far, no one has an answer to these questions :
- WHY did the glacial age end ?
- WHY did he end so quickly (relatively to geological phenomenons).




[edit on 7-4-2009 by orkson]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by orkson
 





Harte : I have some mathematical knowledge ...

3,000 km x 4,000 km x 3,000 m of water makes

36,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water.

So, which is the height of this quantity of water on 75% of the surface of a sphere of 6,380 km of radius ?

The answer is : 94 meters.

Figure this out ! ( Not mentioning the tsunami effect, before the equlibrium at the new level of the sea ...)

You estimation ( thus, your theory ) was false.
And this is an understatement.


Your math is still off. Leaving aside the depth for a minute, the dimensions you give, 3000 km X 4000 km only equal 12,000,000 sq. km. The combined surface of all 5 oceans together is @ 383,539,000 km2. Your original dimensions, therefore, are only 0.031% of that, making your 93 (not 94) meter calculation only applicable to the 12 million figure.

It should be asked how one floods 12 million sq. km. to a depth of 93 meters, separating it from the other 99.969% of the ocean?

cormac



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Sorry to bore the thread with maths ...

We're speaking of VOLUMES.
A volume of 3000Km x 4000Kmx x 3000 meters makes 36 quadrillions cubic METERS. (36.000.000.000.000.000 cubic meters)

The formula in order to find the VOLUME of a sphera is 4/3*PI*R^3
If the RADIUS changes by H meters (which is the upheaval of the sea level), you have R which becomes R+H.
So you may calculate the VOLUME corresponding to H (sea rise) by making the difference :
(4/3*PI*(R+H)^3) - (4/3*PI*R^3)

If you know the value of this difference (36.000.000.000.000.000 cubic meters) it's easy to find H ( with a correction : sea surfaces are 3/4 of the Earth surface)

I confirm : H is 94 meters.


[edit on 7-4-2009 by orkson]

[edit on 7-4-2009 by orkson]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join