It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Antarctica home to the legendary Atlantis ?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by queenannie38

I think we are pretty much in agreement.

The difference is that we are in the middle but still on the other side of the fence.
Right ?


posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:53 AM
I'd like you all to take a look at this link which will bring you to a google map.

It shows clearly what looks like a land bridge .
I think I will have to conclude that the Piri Map does NOT show Antarctica.

It shows a piece of land that is now submerged and belongs to the land bridge.
IMO Please share your thoughts ?

Google map America Antarctic landbridge

The falkland islands and Sandwich islands with a bunch of tiny islands going down in a curve to Orkney island

[edit on 6/22/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Finding the Stargate Ring then should be a cinch, so then they could
go back in time to April 21, 2010 sack the guy that made the brilliant
decision to put sea water in the Pipe to seal it. The put a Giant
TieWrap around the Blow-Out-protector.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by skeptic_al

you need to go one day further back

4/20 is the day

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:42 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

i'm not sure what you are saying - are you saying that the Piri Reis map is of the Sandwich Islands, Orkney Islands?

because there is no land bridge on the Piri Reis like between S. America and Antarctica?

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by queenannie38

I just stared at that map for quite a while and I can not discover the part where there supposed to be ocean in between. South America just seems to on forever.

If that map is showing that ridge above water it links South America all the way up to the Sandwich islands. With a lower sea level. That could be the case... Maybe.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:41 AM

i never really noticed just how shallow that area seems to be.
in times when much more water was locked up in ice, then surely it is possible that there was some human migration one way or another or both.

i think that there was a whole lot more ambulatory migration to and from places that nowadays we don't think as being possibly connected but with much more ice...a lot more land and less sea!

more foot paths for intrepid humans!

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:51 AM

Originally posted by queenannie38
I think where the Solomon Islands are there are some ruins barely underwater - left from Mu, i think.


it was Nan Madol that i was thinking of!

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:09 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

The Drake passage is quite deep. Land bridges were supposed before plate tectonics was developed. Actual land bridges that have existed are in shallow areas. The passage is thousands of meters deep.

Drake Passage profile

You'd expect that the Old World would be accurate. That was well known with Portuguese and other sailors going around Africa to India. The New World was known by 1513.

Where is Easter Island on the map? The piece that I can see shows the Atlantic, not the Pacific.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by stereologist]

[edit on 22-6-2010 by stereologist]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:11 AM
reply to post by queenannie38

No. Mu and Lemuria are not the same.

Lemuria was a land bridge hypothesized before plate tectonics was known. It was hypothesized to explain the distribution of Lemur fossils. Studies of the Indian Ocean show that Lemuria could not have existed as a land bridge.

Mu is a hypothetical continent suggested by language studies and nothing more.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:24 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

The feature you show was only known from the surface at the time that Alfred Wegener proposed his idea of continental drift. He supposed that the continents were like ships floating on a sea of the Earth's ocean bottom. They plowed through the softer rock below. He suggested that the "bend" to South America was due to the drag of this thinner part. Now we know that the continents are imbedded in plates. They are moved like objects on a conveyor belt. This is why continental drift and plate tectonics are different. They have different mechanisms for the change in position of the continents.

What you see here is the Drake passage. What I showed in the profile is that this is very deep and has been open water for at least 20Ma. It is this deep passage that isolates Antarctica thermally and allows the place to remain a cold wasteland.

Check out the following page to see what sorts of features are in the image. There are 2 subduction zones which appear as darker arcs. These are deep oceanic trenches where the plates are plunging as well as mid ocean ridges. This shows that any land bridge would have to cross zones that are opening(red) or sliding sideways (green).

Tectonic Plate Boundaries

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:12 AM
reply to post by stereologist

yes, they are

but i don't expect you to agree since you don't even consider that it might have been a true part of our history.

it doesn't matter, anyway
not really!

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by queenannie38

Lemuria and Mu are not the same. You provided no evidence for your claim. I will.


The concept's 19th century origins lie in attempts to account for discontinuities in biogeography, however, the concept of Lemuria has been rendered obsolete by modern understanding of plate tectonics.


The concept and the name were proposed by 19th century traveler and writer Augustus Le Plongeon, who claimed that several ancient civilizations, such as those of Egypt and Mesoamerica, were created by refugees from Mu — which he located in the Atlantic Ocean. This concept was popularized and expanded by James Churchward, who asserted that Mu was once located in the Pacific.

Two different places with 2 different reasons for existing. Neither exists.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by stereologist


Lemuria and Mu are interchangeable names given to a lost land believed to have been located somewhere in either the southern Pacific or Indian Oceans. This ancient continent was apparently the home of an advanced and highly spiritual culture, perhaps the mother race of all mankind, but it sank beneath the waves many thousands of years ago as the result of a geological cataclysm of some kind.

Edgar Cayce Readings:


27. Before that we find the entity was in that land now known as the American, during the periods when there were the sojourning of those from the land of Mu, or Lemuria.


21. The entity was among those that were to become the emissaries or the sojourners in what is now the Incal land, or the Peruvian land. Later from that sojourn the entity came to what is now the Central American land, aiding in the establishing of not only the tenets but the manners and the forms of worship during those sojourns. The entity was among the princesses of the land, not only of the Atlantean but of the Ohum [Aymaras] and Og lands - and later Muri [?] [Lemuria?]. [Mu?]


13. Before that we find the entity was in that land now known as the American, during those periods when there were the changes that had brought about the sinking of Mu or Lemuria, or those peoples in the periods who had changed to what is now a portion of the Rocky Mountain area; Arizona, New Mexico, portions of Nevada and Utah.


10. Before this we find the entity was in that land now known as the Egyptian, during those periods when there were the turmoils and strifes that had arisen from the rebelling forces after the banishment of the Priest and with the beginnings of the entering in of those from the isles of the sea, or those from the Atlantean land. It was when those changes came about through the activities with the correlating of those in the Indian, the Mongolian, the Caucasian, the Incan, and even in what may be called the descendants from Mu or Lemuria. These the entity aided in gathering those tenets in the various forms as to the activities and associations; and the entity's interests then were in the means of communications with those of many lands and those activities that made it not only possible for the spiritual upbuild but the mental and commercial associations.


42. There the entity was among those who were the outcome of those who had come from the land of Mu, or Lemuria.


52. Before that we find the entity was in the land now known as or called the Gobi, or that wherein the lands now called Indo-China or Siam, India or the Zulu[?] land and Mu or Lemuria, were combined with the teachings of many peoples.

there are several more but i think that will suffice. i can't link to them because the readings area of the site is members-only.

the earlier budding recollections of Lemuria are not consistent because they were just the first sparks of memory returning and were different sparks in more than one person, each with a different world view and philosophy.

this obviously led to what would seem disparate accounts of unrelated ideas or things.

but more information is surfacing all the time, as well as memories.
and nowadays, the memories of various parties, unknown to one another, are lining up very closely with one another and what's already been recorded, such as in the Cayce readings.

consistency speaks for itself.

we all have to keep in mind, at all times, that regardless of what any of us might personally believe or even feel sure to be true....actually has NO EFFECT on what actually IS.

it IS what it IS, no matter what any of us want it to be or think it is!

so what does it hurt to have any open mind?
you don't have to change your mind about anything but it is fun to explore.

i like that you've opened up with research and stuff on this thread!
its nice to see there is a real you behind all that automatic skepticism!

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by crichton13

Hmm . . .

for all that belly aching, you do not take your own advice.

The Minoans could not have been Atlanteans.


---According to Plato, Atlantis was in existence 9,000 years before Solon. That is around 9600BC. This does not jive with any Minoan time lines. The earliest time frame place the budding Minoan culture at 3000BC. That is only ~2,000 years off of Solon. Not 9,000 years.

---Furthermore, their destruction was not final and fantastical. In fact, after the sudden end of the east side of the island, the west started to prosper. The Minoan civilization continued, but was becoming more dominated by the Mycenae. If "Atlantis sank into the ocean in a single day and night of misfortune," as Plato says, how did the culture continue on? Thera might have dealt a major blow to the Minoans, but it, in no way, killed off a whole civilization in 24-48 hours.

---Finally, the destruction of Knossos happened in 1375BC . . . a mere 1,000 years before Plato.

Many geologists have argued that the Thera eruption was of a colossal scale, and the effects described by Marinatos were possible. Others have disagreed. Recent data places the bulk of the ash deposits of the volcano to the East caried by the easterly jet streems of the area, with little effect upon the island of Crete (D.M. Pyle, "New estimates for the volume of the Minoan Eruption". Thera and the Aegean World III" - Hardy, D.A., ed. Thera and the Aegean World III. London: The Thera Foundation, 1990.)

The biggest blow to this theory came in 1987 from studies conducted at the Greenland ice cap. Scientists dated frozen ash from the Thera eruption and concluded that it occurred in 1645 BC, some 150 years before the final destruction of the Minoan palaces (Source).


posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by queenannie38

Obviously Casey got this wrong.

Lemuria and Mu are not assigned to the same place on Earth. They are hypothesized for different reasons.

I'm not surprised at all to see that Casey was wrong.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by stereologist

I'm sorry I should have been more specific.

From the tip of South America as far as Sandwich island. That will cover it.
The reason for you not seeing the pacific is because it is not on the map.

I posted a link in the OP to the map where you can zoom in.
This one :

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by stereologist

Cayce got his knowledge the floaty kind of way.

I'm very much convinced there is more to this place then we can see.
Personal experience so you don't have to ask for proof. I've got none.

I have a hard time believing this Cayce was for real. It seems some of his predictions already came true. Well, that's what I've heard.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Most of the East Antarctic ice sheet has been around for 34 million years. There is some (controversial) evidence that some parts of Antarctica may have been almost temperate (though by ne means warm) during part of the Pliocene 3-4 million years ago.

Since then it's not been much different to today although coastal fringes have at times been a little colder/icier or a little warmer (relatively speaking) during the various glacial cycles.

The onset of the Neoglacial ~4,000 years ago may have led to some cooling relative to temperatures during the warmest period of the current Interglacial ~8,000 years ago. Recent warming may have reversed that trend and it's probably as warm in West Antarctica now as it has been any time in the past 100,000 years.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

---According to Plato, Atlantis was in existence 9,000 years before Solon. That is around 9600BC. This does not jive with any Minoan time lines.

Nor does it jibe with any other timelines. in 9600BC the entire Athenian army (which defeated the Atanteans according to Plato) considered of 2 cave men a goat.

Oddly, Plato describes both Athenians and Atlanteans as being Bronze Age cultures identical to his own time.

Maybe he just made up the date

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in