Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Remnants of Atlantis Discovered!?!?

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
This is something I have been following for a little while now. Although the title of this thread does sound a little sensationalist, it does point to a discovery that relates to the time and place at which many felt Atlantis existed. It sounds very promising and interesting, if confirmed.

Although I have followed reports and investigations of Atlantis for some time, I started following this one more closely when I read the following article.

www.mysterious-america.net...



These formations, generally 10 by 45 feet or so in size, appear to number about 50, are laid out in straight, parallel lines, and are located at the edge of the 10,000 BC shoreline—the age of Atlantis.


Note how it says the 10,000 BC shoreline. Additional details made this site sound somewhat promising to me. Later on in another article they offered tantalizing hints on when it might be dated to and that it was NOT what they expected.

Then there was this more recent interview in the latest Alternate Perceptions magazine, where he states one test dated the site to 17,000 BC. Here is there reasoning on how this indicates a man-made structure (apart from the obvious appearance that it is just that). It also explains why it would be at the 10,000 BC shoreline, yet date to 17,000 BC.


Dr. Greg Little: OK, because the walls are made from carbonate, in this case limestone beachrock, we were sent a sample of it removed by another ARE-based team and we had it carbon dated by the premiere radiocarbon lab in the US. This happened about 6 months after we first saw it and made a report on the structure. The ARE sent in another team to measure it and take samples. We are allowing the ARE to release a formal statement on the discovery, but what I can say is that the stone was formed in about 17,000 BC.

Brent Raynes: Does that mean that's when the building was constructed or just when the stone itself formed?

Dr. Greg Little: It's a bit complicated for most people to understand but the short story is probably something many people can grasp. It is beachrock and all beachrock forms right at the edge of the beach, where water waves hit land over and over. The rock forms from carbonate processes where sand, pebbles, and shell material get coated in carbonate material that dries out and gradually hardens into limestone rock. As the tides go up and down the process goes on and on creating larger and larger pieces of rock. The carbon in organic material that gets solidified in the rock--like shell-- is what gets carbon dated. But the key here is to keep in mind it's beachrock and had to form on the waters edge. So where was the water's edge 19,000 years ago? The sea level then was at least 300-feet lower than today. That depth is about 2 miles from where this rock is now. It means that this particular rock was moved to where it is now. It undoubtedly had to be moved before the sea levels were rising, and of course they were slowly starting to rise about then anyway. In essence, we think this rock was moved to higher land and was used to construct a building on what was then a hill at least 300-feet above the ocean.


Source:
apmagazine.info...

Apparently, we're still waiting for the official results from ARE and the results from the second test. Although, I get the impression Greg already knows they agree with 17,000 BC, and is just waiting for the official announcement from ARE.

So, what is this structure exactly and is it Atlantis? Well, I don't think we know. But, it happens to date to a time and place where mainstream thinking says civilization shouldn't have existed. And, it coincides with the popular time and place where many think Atlantis existed.


edit on 8-8-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EthanT
 


So this is related to the Bimini area... and you are saying there are new findings that shed new light on Bimini as it relates to Atlantis?

More links from other sources, please. Nothing personal, just that other link is from a cheesy lookin page that I do not recognize.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
the photos link is tiny....

tiny



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DamaSan
reply to post by EthanT
 


So this is related to the Bimini area... and you are saying there are new findings that shed new light on Bimini as it relates to Atlantis?

More links from other sources, please. Nothing personal, just that other link is from a cheesy lookin page that I do not recognize.



It's in the same general area as Bimini but is a seperate structure from the infamous Bimini "Road", which is located some distance away.

As you probably noticed from the details of my post, this is a leak for an upcoming official announcement from the ARE. Therefore, you are unlikely to find other sources to it as of right now.

Greg Little is one of the leading Atlantis investigators out there and works heavily for Edgar Cayce's ARE. That "cheesy" magazine is where you will find the most articles by Little, and oftentimes (like now!) the latest results on any ARE sponsored/supported/funded investigations.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by EthanT
 


Thanks for the update EthanT.

Can you please give us some idea how far away the new site is from the Bimini Road?
North, South, East, or West of the Bimini Road?



edit on 9-8-2011 by lostinspace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I don't think you should rush off to believe this one. Here's why.

(from the article)

: OK, because the walls are made from carbonate, in this case limestone beachrock, we were sent a sample of it removed by another ARE-based team and we had it carbon dated by the premiere radiocarbon lab in the US. This happened about 6 months after we first saw it and made a report on the structure. The ARE sent in another team to measure it and take samples. We are allowing the ARE to release a formal statement on the discovery, but what I can say is that the stone was formed in about 17,000 BC.


You can't date limestone with radiocarbon dating.

Limestone and the problem of radiocarbon dating of land-snail shell carbonate
Glenn A. Goodfriend1 and Jerry J. Stipp2

1 Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
2 Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33124

In order to test the role of limestone in producing anomalously old radiocarbon ages in land-snail shells, 14C analyses were performed on shell carbonate of modern land snails from limestone and nonlimestone areas of Jamaica. No anomaly was found in snails from the nonlimestone area, implying that such material is suitable for radiocarbon dating. Snails from limestone areas produced variable anomalies of as much as 3,120 yr due to incorporation of 14C-free limestone into shell carbonate. All rock-scraping snails and most leaf-litter–feeding snails from limestone areas showed anomalous 14C contents. Because of the variability in 14C content even within species, no standard correction factor for limestone anomaly can be applied. However, dating error can be minimized by selecting ecologically appropriate species or by comparison of analyses of several fossil species, within a stratum, to their modern counterparts. Paper here, including PDF


In order to date, you have to have a correlation formula, and with limestone you get numbers that are all over the scale.


(to continue with the original story) It's a bit complicated for most people to understand but the short story is probably something many people can grasp. It is beachrock and all beachrock forms right at the edge of the beach, where water waves hit land over and over. The rock forms from carbonate processes where sand, pebbles, and shell material get coated in carbonate material that dries out and gradually hardens into limestone rock. As the tides go up and down the process goes on and on creating larger and larger pieces of rock. The carbon in organic material that gets solidified in the rock--like shell-- is what gets carbon dated


It's actually made from ooze at the sea bottom (not on the beach) or from coral reefs. What he doesn't say is that large sheets of limestone rock take millions of years to form. He makes it sound like it happens more or less in a few years. Not true.

In addition, you don't stand there and form limestone when you're making a building. It's quarried from somewhere, meaning it's millions of years old already.

This story resurfaces every once in awhile, and no artifacts or any other proof has come from it. Had it been Atlantis (doubtful.. it doesn't match Plato's accounts), there would have been a single consistent culture with a single art style that existed in BOTH the Americas AND in all of Europe for a time period. Everyone would have started with the same level of technology and speak a variant of the same official language, because Plato says that Atlantis dominated the Mediterranean area UNTIL Athens defeated them.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
In order to date, you have to have a correlation formula, and with limestone you get numbers that are all over the scale.

It's actually made from ooze at the sea bottom (not on the beach) or from coral reefs. What he doesn't say is that large sheets of limestone rock take millions of years to form. He makes it sound like it happens more or less in a few years. Not true.

In addition, you don't stand there and form limestone when you're making a building. It's quarried from somewhere, meaning it's millions of years old already.

This story resurfaces every once in awhile, and no artifacts or any other proof has come from it. Had it been Atlantis (doubtful.. it doesn't match Plato's accounts), there would have been a single consistent culture with a single art style that existed in BOTH the Americas AND in all of Europe for a time period. Everyone would have started with the same level of technology and speak a variant of the same official language, because Plato says that Atlantis dominated the Mediterranean area UNTIL Athens defeated them.


First, your article says you could be off by up to 3120 years. So, okay 17,000 BC +- 3120. It still puts it within the supposed time period of Atlantis and when there shouldn't have been any civilization according to mainstream thought. So, it would still be a siginifcant find (even if it's not related to Atlantis!)

We'll also take note of the fact that Greg indicated he was "dumbing down" the description. Anyhow, here is the wikipedia article on beachrock:

en.wikipedia.org...


Because beachrock is lithified within the intertidal zone and because it commonly forms in a few years, its potential as an indicator of past sea level is important.


And Greg is talking about a period of up to 7000 years from when it formed and was relocated. Sounds all okay to me, and jives up with how Greg says it forms.

I think the your last paragraph is a bunch of assumptions that may, or may not, be true. If Europe was broken up today, would the European people migrating to distant lands be bringing one language with them? No. One cultural style? No. In addition, as the story goes, Atlantis was a deteriorating and dying culture migrating out into lands that had pre-existing cultures already there. Their level of impact could have easily been insignificant, especially if you want to consider where Cayce says the different Atlantean groups migrated to:

www.edgarcayce.org...

Lastly, nobody knows what this structure is, or if it is even related to Atlantis. All we know is it may be anomolous, and it would happen to coincide with the time and place that many popular theories attribute to Atlantis.

Hopefully, will know more in the next few years, as it sounds signifcant enough that the ARE may be dumping some money into investigating it.

I'm sure it will be HIGHLY controversial either way, and accepted by mainstream thought only with the highest level of resistance.

edit on 9-8-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by EthanT
 


Thanks for the update EthanT.

Can you please give us some idea how far away the new site is from the Bimini Road?
North, South, East, or West of the Bimini Road?



Hi Lostinspace,

I can't remember the exact location as it relates to the Bimini road.

However, it seems like they cover that in this Atlantis video update from the ARE that I posted a ways back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course, if I'm wrong and they don't cover that, it could easlily be a wasted hour of your time
but, it was a pretty nice video anyhow



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Listen to Greg Little on Coast to Coast AM talk about this discovery:



Go in to about 12:00 for his part.

And, aren't all major scientific discoveries announced on Coast to Coast first?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Nice thread! Interesting! I believe that Atlantis was actually a very large landmass that may have taken up a majority of the Atlantic ocean. Thats why these little signs of very old construction keep popping up all over the place. Mostly a few miles away from modern day shore lines but i bet the Atlantic hides some magnificent sights in its depths.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I am so happy this was posted. I was listening to the C2C show the other day and I am happy with what was found. Information will be coming out soon and I can't wait for a more thorough explanation to whats going on. Greg Little has done great work. He deserves his respect.

I like the fact that G. Little pointed out the reason the discovery is taking long is because of the constant shifting sands of that area.

Can't wait for more information.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Saigon1914
 


I thought that C2C interview was pretty neat too. He mentions in there too how the structure they found is clearly a building with at least 2 rooms. There is no good reason for there to be a structure at that location according to mainstream thought. Even if this isn't related to Atlantis, I think this is just another fact that shows this find would be significant regardless, as long as it all checks out.

(Also a lot of neat Cayce info in that video too)

I always wondered that, if we found Atlantis, would we even recongnize it as such. There has been so much hype and legend built up about it over the years, maybe the actual Atlantis (if it existed) won't quite fit up to anybody's expectations.

We'll just have to wait and see.



edit on 10-8-2011 by EthanT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by EthanT
First, your article says you could be off by up to 3120 years. So, okay 17,000 BC +- 3120. It still puts it within the supposed time period of Atlantis and when there shouldn't have been any civilization according to mainstream thought. So, it would still be a siginifcant find (even if it's not related to Atlantis!)


Yes, if it is a civilization. But water rose slowly after the end of the ice age (you could walk away from the rising ocean because it was only a foot or two per year. And civilizations have a huge support network of roads, farms, mines, quarries -- and other cities. So if they got there why did they all stay and drown?


We'll also take note of the fact that Greg indicated he was "dumbing down" the description.


This is going to sound snarky, but when you dumb down things, you don't make them wrong.



Anyhow, here is the wikipedia article on beachrock:


...which is broken pieces of other rock (limestone, corals) -- and not limestone beds or limestone.



And Greg is talking about a period of up to 7000 years from when it formed and was relocated. Sounds all okay to me, and jives up with how Greg says it forms.


If I read the article correctly, he's maintaining there's structures and civilization there. I'd have to check maps to see if the sea levels were actually that low in that area during that time.


I think the your last paragraph is a bunch of assumptions that may, or may not, be true. If Europe was broken up today, would the European people migrating to distant lands be bringing one language with them?


Yes, they do. I'm not sure where you live, but I think if you look around you will find immigrants to your country speak their original language when they arrive and they keep speaking that language in their own homes. If there's a large number of them who arrive together (in diasporas, people flee in groups), they form a community which speaks its own language within the new country.


One cultural style?

Indeed, that's why we find Roman style architecture and art in Britain and Roman root words in the language.


In addition, as the story goes, Atlantis was a deteriorating and dying culture migrating out into lands that had pre-existing cultures already there.

Not according to Plato.

From Timeas:

For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot. For the ocean there was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, 'the pillars of Heracles,' there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean.


...so he's describing a culture which has, from its original base, overrun much of Europe and Asia.


(wikipedia summary) The Atlanteans had conquered the parts of Libya within the Pillars of Hercules as far as Egypt and the European continent as far as Tyrrhenia, and subjected its people to slavery. The Athenians led an alliance of resistors against the Atlantean empire, and as the alliance disintegrated, prevailed alone against the empire, liberating the occupied lands.


Rather than a scenario of people fleeing a dying culture (I haven't really heard that one before. Must be something recently "channeled" (I don't have a high opinion of channeled information)), it's a vibrant culture that was encroaching on Egypt's borders and had completely colonized western Europe. That means that these areas would be under a people with:
* the same language
* the same alphabet
* lots of documents
* the same art preferences (for "state art")
* the same architecture for state buildings and temples
* the same gods (plus appropriating local deities) with the same deity functions (Central America doesn't develop distinct deities until fairly recently (3,000 years or so), according to the iconography there. I did some investigation on this while in Costa Rica, trying to track down a deity known as "El Grande Chaman" (the Great Shaman) -- the oldest consistently identifiable deity on the continent appears to be Tlaloc and the most ancient depictions of him come from the Colorado area.)
* a lot of people with similar names not found in local languages (in ancient Egyptian kings lists, one of the signs that an outside people (Nubians) have taken control is that the names are not good Egyptian names, but "sort of Egyptianized versions of their cultural names." Same is true in other societies.)
* the same method of constructing roads
* the same method of constructing armor and weapons
* who brought or forced manufacture of goods from home, including dyed cloth, pottery, utensils
* interbred with the local populations, causing skeletal changes (the African skulls have different eyesocket shapes, etc, etc than the European skulls)
* who brought along horses (they were famed for breeding horses and having horse races, according to Plato) -- the horses would be of the same breed and the genetic lineage of the horses would be more proof of such a civilization.
* horse and wheel transport system (the same gear for these animals, domestication methods, hauling (draft) animals, etc, etc.)

Even if they fled, they'd bring their horses, dogs, pigs, cats, sheep, goats, chickens (people have to eat) and other resources. We have thousands of modern tales of people going back into devastated areas to rescue family pets and livestock -- resources important to their survival. Some will risk their own lives to do this.


Their level of impact could have easily been insignificant, especially if you want to consider where Cayce says the different Atlantean groups migrated to: www.edgarcayce.org...


This may seem tiresome, but I'm a scholar. I see the declarations of proof, etc. What I don't see are documented links to the statements by Cayce (in other words, are they EXACT claims or something so general (like "people left in a hurry and went to America") that almost anything could be made of them?) and I don't see documented links to the scientific papers or an indication of which scientists support them.

I'm sure it's out there, but I would like to see what the original works look like.

Also, if Atlantis is supposed to be in the Atlantic, the migration of the X haplogroup doesn't support a migration from the center of the Atlantic.


Lastly, nobody knows what this structure is, or if it is even related to Atlantis. All we know is it may be anomolous, and it would happen to coincide with the time and place that many popular theories attribute to Atlantis.


Absolutely! We can agree on this 100%. My bet is that it's geology and not archaeology, though.


Hopefully, will know more in the next few years, as it sounds signifcant enough that the ARE may be dumping some money into investigating it.

Having seen some questionable research from them, I would hope that they bring along independent teams.


I'm sure it will be HIGHLY controversial either way, and accepted by mainstream thought only with the highest level of resistance.


Agreed on the first, but I would argue that if they announce "Atlantis" that the mainstream is more likely to believe them than to believe skeptics.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd


This may seem tiresome, but I'm a scholar. I see the declarations of proof, etc. What I don't see are documented links to the statements by Cayce (in other words, are they EXACT claims or something so general (like "people left in a hurry and went to America") that almost anything could be made of them?) and I don't see documented links to the scientific papers or an indication of which scientists support them.

I'm sure it's out there, but I would like to see what the original works look like.




Cayce was very specific as to where Atalantean groups migrated to - the Pyrenees, Iriquois, and the Gobi Desert being some of the rather unlikely places, as well. If you're an ARE member you can search his readings and look for yourself, which is always nice.

I'll try and find more info later and post for folks who don't have that access. Seems like they had a similar article on the DNA research that also quoted the specific Cayce readings - now, to find it again.



Originally posted by Byrd

Also, if Atlantis is supposed to be in the Atlantic, the migration of the X haplogroup doesn't support a migration from the center of the Atlantic.



It doesn't NOT support it either. It really works in the other direction. We don't have a viable theory on where the X haplogroup originated - that's the problem, as it stands today. There are no known (and scientifically validated) cultural migrations that offer an explanation to its appearances.

Cayce's Atlantean story jives up very nicely and does offer an explanation on why and where and even when the X haplogroup shows up on the scene. (lets not forget Cayce talked about this well before we knew what an X haplogroup even was)

Find Atlantis, or some culture similar to what we call "Atlantis", validate it in a scientifically valid way, and both facts would then support each other.

Of course, perhaps Cayce is full of BS and we'll find another explanation for the X-haplogroup, but in the meantime we don't have a viable one for it.



Originally posted by Byrd


Lastly, nobody knows what this structure is, or if it is even related to Atlantis. All we know is it may be anomolous, and it would happen to coincide with the time and place that many popular theories attribute to Atlantis.


Absolutely! We can agree on this 100%. My bet is that it's geology and not archaeology, though.



Well, they have definitely investigated many areas in Andros and Bimini, as well as others, that they deemed were only geology, in the end. So, if this is geology, they will let us know.

(However, even if it's not geology, the mainstream may continue to call it geology regardless, like they do at Bimini. Watch the video in the seperate post I linked to above and I think you'll see they do so unreasonably at times. They actually found and dated anchors (to ~5000 BC, IIRC) at the Bimini Road that strongly resemble anchors found in early Mediterranean times, yet still refuse to acknowledge it may be an old "harbor")

My guess is that they strongly suspect this recent find is not geology, since they are apparently going to make a big announcement.

Also, if you watch the above video in this post, they are claiming the structure is clearly a building with at least two rooms.


Originally posted by Byrd


Hopefully, will know more in the next few years, as it sounds signifcant enough that the ARE may be dumping some money into investigating it.



Having seen some questionable research from them, I would hope that they bring along independent teams.


Agreed on the first, but I would argue that if they announce "Atlantis" that the mainstream is more likely to believe them than to believe skeptics.




Yep, some hard nosed folks would probably never buy into it any of this.

But, if you follow the whole Bimini story, you'll see the mainstream is offering a lot of resistance to this research.

In fact, Greg even admitted he has lost some interest/strength in the pursuit because of the unreasonably adamant nature of the mainstream. So, they try to get independent teams interested to come out and look at their evidence, but its easier said than done.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
latest news on this find can be found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ARE is starting to release some info on the find.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Although this is interesting, I still personally believe that the Atlantis myth has already been solved. All we have to go on is Plato's account in the Republic, and everything he describes can be found on the Minoan island of Santerini. This is the most likely place for Atlantis, and I believe this is the consensus among scholars at this point. Of course we can never be 100% sure, and you could be right as well.

Plato did say that it was past the pillars of Hercules, which would mean the Atlantic. If it is not Atlantis around Bimini, then it is possibly a remnant of an ancient Native American civilization.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
Plato did say that it was past the pillars of Hercules, which would mean the Atlantic.


In support of the Atlantis/Mediteranean theory, I have heard it argued that the pillars of Hercules had two meanings back in the day, and that one of them would place Atlantis in the Mediterranean, if applied to Platos story.

I don't remember the details and the argument seemed rather weak to me.


Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
If it is not Atlantis around Bimini, then it is possibly a remnant of an ancient Native American civilization.


That seems to be what the dating of approx. 5000 BC to the Bimini Road seems to be indicating. In addition, they also found anchors there that are very similar to the anchors used by (well acccepted and understood) ancient sea faring civilizations in the mediterranean. So, yeah, not Atlantis per se, but definitely indicative of an older sea faring civilization in the Bahamas region than we knew about.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
 
If it is not Atlantis around Bimini, then it is possibly a remnant of an ancient Native American civilization.
Why, it's gotta be the fountain of youth. I mean, that was somewhere in Florida, right???


-saige-



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I posted some photos on the main thread for this topic, found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Best to find out who Dr. Greg Little is.

\Then[ decide whether to believe he knows what he's talking about.

Harte





new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join