Ancient Cities found under the ocean in India

Originally posted by Unity_99
If antartica and greenland should melt, 230 feet is the conservative estimate for the amount of raise in ocean level can be expected. I have read 200 meters, though that must have been a typo.

The thickness of the ice in Antartica and Greenland (on the land) is known. The square mile area of both is know.

Multiply those two figures and you get volume... divide it by the amount volume is reduced from ice to water... then get the square miles of ocean

That will give you a better idea.

Besides I am not worried... ice age is over due

reply to post by zorgon

Multiply those two figures and you get volume... divide it by the amount volume is reduced from ice to water... then get the square miles of ocean

Not quite..You'd have to also allow for what land masses would be covered as they would obviously take up some of the water, so it's a bit more complicated that you say..

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

While it is possible that the site could have been exposed 9,500 years ago it is not certain. But let's assume it was. Let's also assume there actually was a city on the site and the inhabitants had to move as sea levels gradually rose. Why is there no other evidence of even village life until 6,000 years later and 200 miles away? If a migration was forced by rising sea levels why would it take 6,000 years? Why would the gradual rise in sea level (a global average of something like 1cm/year) have caused them to disappear completely?

k lets look at it that way if the world was flooded and everyone was killed and only a handful of humans survived it would take generations to regain what was lost!

also if these cities are as old as they say can we then agree that mankind hasn't been alone and that we ARE apes genetically manipulated to speed up our evolution!

see the thing with you one track minded people "evolitionists" and "creationists" i'm assuming you belong to one group or the other right?

well the universe created everything that exists within it! "CREATED" there for when life began it was only a matter of time before something evolved into intelligence..."EVOLVED"

we all know that we are very similiar to apes so therefore our ancestors did indeed evolve from that particular earth life form BUT we also know that something isnt right in our evolution thats why its still a THEORY but when we connect creationism with evolution we get the picture ahh yes!

the universe created everything our ancestors evolved to a point aliens created modern man through genetic manipulation! so everyone is right but only 1/3 right in what they believe one sidedly!

good day!

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Does anybody have a link or reference to total polar collapse in earths past?

years ago I had some reports of work done in samples taken from Aboriginal fire pits that showed polarity reversals. I will have to see if I can dig that up again

Flood, R.D., Piper, D.J.W., Klaus, A., and Peterson, L.C. (Eds.), 1997.
Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, Vol. 155 231
12. AN EXAMINATION OF THE PALEOINTENSITY RECORD AND GEOMAGNETIC EXCURSIONS RECORDED IN LEG 155 CORES
Stanley M. Cisowski and Frank R. Hall
ABSTRACT

The normalization of the natural remanent magnetism to laboratory-induced remanence for discrete samples from the top 54 m of Hole 932A produces a pattern similar to the apparent variation of the geomagnetic dipole intensity for the period 10-80 ka. Similar patterns in the shipboard archive-half intensity measurements for several other holes suggest that a paleointensity stratigraphy can be employed to date Leg 155 fan sediments. Two short intervals of anomalous field directions, or excursions of the geomagnetic field, have been identified in Hole 932A, at ages of ~32 ka and ~43 ka, as determined from their positions within the intensity pattern. The younger excursion, which has been identified in nine Leg 155 holes, is best defined by discrete samples from Hole 930B. This excursion, which may correspond to the Lake Mungo Excursion, as recorded in aboriginal firepits in Australia, and sediment cores from the Gulf of Mexico, is characterized by short-lived (~40 yr) synchronous peaks in inclination and intensity. The older Hole 932A excursion probably represents the Laschamp Excursion. Discrete sample analyses for Holes 942C and 946A revealed two other anomalous polarity intervals within interglacial Stage 5. The younger excursion is associated with an interglacial carbonate layer representing Substage 5c. The older interval includes several short periods during which the field was nearly reversed, and may represent the Blake polarity event within Substage 5e.

www.huttoncommentaries.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

While it is possible that the site could have been exposed 9,500 years ago it is not certain. But let's assume it was. Let's also assume there actually was a city on the site and the inhabitants had to move as sea levels gradually rose. Why is there no other evidence of even village life until 6,000 years later and 200 miles away? If a migration was forced by rising sea levels why would it take 6,000 years? Why would the gradual rise in sea level (a global average of something like 1cm/year) have caused them to disappear completely?

You go on about facts. Why do you think the rise in sea level was gradual. What if as the glaciers melted it formed dams holding back the water and when the walls broke the result could mean pretty much a rise overnight. I remember seeing a program on the badlands where this has happened many times.

I know you cannot date when a stone structure was built but you can date the creatures left in the soil so if a sample of soil was taken from imediately below the foundations and the ground level of the time a fairly good guess could be made of an aproximate date of construction.

ok so y is it that all these ancient cities were on the coast? y isn't there other pre cataclysmic cities inland up rivers or other water ways? we haven't found one or have we? did the ancients only build megalithic cities by the coast?

Originally posted by 11azerus11
ok so y is it that all these ancient cities were on the coast? y isn't there other pre cataclysmic cities inland up rivers or other water ways? we haven't found one or have we? did the ancients only build megalithic cities by the coast?

Yonaguni, beneath the Sea near Japan





Terraces and steps: prehistoric rock-hewn structures at Sacsayhuaman and nearby Qenko in the high Andes mountains of Peru





Both sites look remarkably similar, even to the giant 'staircase' that seems to have no logical purpose

Those megalithic structures didnt go unnoticed by this archeaologist. Yes it is true, there is more than one megalithic structure under water, there were several temple-like buildings that were flooded when the earth's oceans began to rise. Some of them are now covered by sand and silt and forgotten by time and by man. Those structures are probably alot older than 8,000 years, since 8,000 years ago was around the same time period as the Sumerian civilization. In Sumerian times the ocean was about 300 feet shallower, and some of those strucutures are far deeper than 300 feet, so they had to have been built around the last ice age or the end of it, between 20k and 12k years ago. This time period would have been around the same time that the bahamas were apart of the north american continent when they werent islands, and when cuba was connected to mexico, and when the british isles were also connected to europe.

At some point in time the earths oceans began to rise, some theorize this was caused by the antarctican ice sheet sliding into the ocean, (The Great Flood) which caused a massive near world wide tsunami that was 2 or 3 miles high and spread across the globe flooding the mediteranean which was then just a large lake and creating the "pillars of heracles" a.k.a. the straight of gibralter, which when the mediteranean flooded and rose the floodwaters also rose and flooded into the bosphorous river leading the to black sea which at that time was also just a large lake. We know the black sea was just a lake because the top half of the water is salt water, and the lower half is freshwater, and because underwater archeaologists have discovered foundations of buildings on the bottom of the blacksea so at one point it was just a large lake, probably the size of one of the lochs in scottland.

We also now know that the great flood had to have been real, because all across the world in many areas like the english channel, near the bahamas at bimini road, and in the persian gulf there have been pre-historic settlements and structures discovered under the sea so people lived in these areas before the oceans rose. Most or all of these settlements are about the same elevation and ancient babylonian texts talk of a great flood, which even they remembered and passed down over the generations. Theres always a grain or more of truth in any myth or legend, and many more grains of truth when catastrphic events happen on biblical scale, because something so horrendous and terrifying happens to engrain it into peoples memories for all time, the loss of loved ones and family in these events ensure that it will be forever remembered and passed down through the generations.