'Lost continent' found off Africa

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:51 PM

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Sure. The Tamils are a large ethnic group native to South India and northern Sri Lanka. They have a vigorous and vibrant culture of which they are very proud. One of my great-grandmothers was Tamil.

The historical origins of the Tamil people are obscure because of the lack of any historical record in South India going back even as far as the beginning of the Christian era. However, the Tamils and their forebears have certainly been there a very long time, and the language they speak is regarded by linguists as one of a very ancient family of tongues known as the Dravidian. It is thought by some scholars (though as far as I know there is little real evidence for this) that the language spoken by the inhabitants of Harappa was a form of proto-Dravidian. This would suggest that the Tamils are descended from an older people who were much more widely distributed in India. According to traditional views, these were the people conquered by the 'Aryans', the marauding tribes that poured into India from Central Asia in the early second millennium BC.

Much has been made of the speculative Harappan connexion by those who promote the notion that an ancient, lost civilisation once existed, partly in India and partly on a submerged landmass in what is now the northern Indian Ocean basin. The originator of this idea was Madame Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy (a mumbo-jumbo Victorian religion/philosophy that did much social damage in my country during the late 1800s and which underlies most of what we now call New Age 'philosophy' today). Blavatsky the pothead prophetess came up with the idea of a 'lost continent' called Mu, which she located in this area. Mu was a place where, according to Blavatsky, humans kept dinosaurs as pets and walked them on leashes. She learned about it, she said, in visions sent by her 'spirit masters'.

Proponents of this nonsense were recently excited by news reports of ancient buildings uncovered by the 2004 tsunami off the coast of Tamil Nadu, the Indian state that is home to most Tamil people today. As far as I know, these ruins (the site is known as Mahabalipuram) are still being explored and studied; however, there is nothing to suggest that they are of greater vintage than we might expect; archaeologists have dated them to the seventh or eight centuries AD. For purposes of comparison, let us recall that Harappan civilisation collapsed around the beginning of the second millennium BC.

Concerning the dating of Mahabalipuram, the following notes by Sundaresh, Gaur, Tripati and Vora of the Indian National Institute of Oceanography are, I think, authoritative. You can download their whole paper as a PDF file here.

The local tradition does not mention how old the city is but associates it with the demon Mahabali, imparting the name, Mahabalipuram to this site. Since the early Tamil literature does not mention the name Mahabalipuram, it is reasonable to infer that the submergence of these structures is not earlier than 1000 years or so. If the Shore Temple (about 1200 years old) is the last surviving structure, then it is reasonable to believe that other submerged temples in the sea are also of the same age.

The archaeology of Mahabalipuram commences from the early centuries of the Christian era, as a few Roman and Chinese coins were found (here). Two Pallava coins bearing legends read as Srihari and Srinidhi have been reported in and around Mahabalipuram. One of the inscriptions of Narasimha I mentions that he (Narasimha I) is the first person to introduce the construction of caves and temples in granite stones. The zenith of human habitation around Mahabalipuram was during the Pallava dynasty, therefore, and arguably, these temples may not be older than 1500 years BP

For those unfamiliar with archaeological terminology, '1500 years BP' is roughly 500AD.
edit on 25/2/13 by Astyanax because: Slayer wanted to know who the Tamils are.

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by roblot

Here's some text from the article:

"Under the law of the sea, If you can demonstrate you have a piece of continental crust on which you can put your flag, you can immediately claim 200 nautical miles around it. And that's yours under the law of the sea to do what you like with it economically"

"So there's some degree of economic significance to something that might be purely scientific in terms of it's discovery."

As I mentioned in a previous post, this is about mining precious minerals. Zircon is not just a type of sand, it is one of the primary materials used in the manufacture of all ceramics. And there is more than just zircon.

Follow the money. Look for hydraulic dredging to begin.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:12 AM


This topic and thread has been chosen to possibly be discussed by the ATS LIVE crew this Saturday night between 6-9pm pst (9-12 est) as part of this weeks exciting "Turbo Topics" segment. We appreciate your time, research and effort in the posting of this topic/subject.

We are running 256kbps through the ATS Player but we now run a 32kbps stream for those of you with slower connections and there are also options to listen via other players on our relay site at Illustrial Website. You can also connect to the low bandwidth stream by clicking here to listen to the ATSLive Radio Show on ShoutCast

For more information and past shows, be sure to check out the ATSLive Show Threads Here.

Hope you'll listen in to the show!

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:37 AM
I will listen and hope this topic comes up.

Here's connecting the dots a bit better on the mineralogy and metallurgy (all can be validated using Wiki):

They sampled the mineral sands (silica, SiO2) and found zircon (ZrSO4). Old, okay fine. So it is now a heavy mineral sand ore deposit basically. Heavy mineral sands are a class of ore deposit which is an important source of zirconium (Zr), titanium, thorium, tungsten, rare earth elements (i.e. cerium, lanthanum), the industrial minerals diamond, sapphire, garnet, and occasionally precious metals or gemstones.

The economic value in the ore lies in the percentage and purity of the heavy mineral concentrate in addition to any precious metals or minerals that may exist. Generally Zircon is the most valuable ore concentrate, followed by ilmenite (crystalline iron titanium oxide, FeTiO3), rutile (titanium oxide, TiO2), and trace others. What else is possible? Especially if the source was metamorphic rock, precious metals, garnet, diamonds, sapphires all could be present.

If there is something to be learned from the planet's geographic history, I'm all for it. If I had a couple million, I would invest.

Anybody want to?

This opportunity is in Nasanje in Malawi, but I expect more opportunities in the near future.

edit on 26-2-2013 by ibiubu because: Clarification

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:38 AM
Oil exploration is likely part of this. One of the principal researchers, Hans E.F. Amundsen, is apparently quite knowledgeable in this area. He has his own consulting firm, EPX, and works with the Carnegie Institute and NASA as well...


posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:02 AM
Quote "In a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, scientists analysed beach sand on Mauritius that contained ancient zircons between 660 million and about two billion years old."


I had thought inorganic material could not be analyzed like carbon 14 dating?

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:28 AM
reply to post by Plotus

They used uranium-lead_dating which is considered to be a proven method. It uses a two uranium-lead decay series with vastly different half-lifes.

Wiki: Uranium-lead dating

Uranium–lead (U–Pb) dating is one of the oldest[1] and most refined of the radiometric dating schemes, with a routine age range of about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years, and with routine precisions in the 0.1–1 percent range.[2] The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years. These decay routes occur via a series of alpha (and beta) decays, in which 238U with daughter nuclides undergo eight total alpha and six beta decays whereas 235U with daughters only experience seven alpha and four beta decays.[3]

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey

Originally posted by hp1229
Interesting news. Once again, this one seems to tie into the Lemuria and ancient continent of Tamil (India). S&F

My understanding through research is that Atlantis was between Europe and the America's and there is much evidence of this below Bimini.

Lemuria was said to be in the Pacific, whereas this find would more likely be the lost civilisation of 'Mu'!

Very interesting and I look forward to further info!

Good find Slayer

Below ATS thread from 2011 discusses about the lost continent. It has plenty of contributions from ATS members along with some good images.

edit on 26-2-2013 by hp1229 because: edit content
edit on 26-2-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Just Wiki Lemuria. Supposedly Lemurs were common in that region. What they are calling the "Lost Continent" is the Kerguelen Plateau. It's submerged because the water is higher than it used to be. And, It was first "re-discovered" in 1999 as reported by the BBC:


As for the entire theory of plate tectonics, please read the following links that are congruent with my understanding of what is happening. Please consider his discourse of the subject before judging him by any credentials. I just know he is a scientist that makes logical sense. Continents are not being moved apart. The continents are rising, and sea level changes up and down affecting what is the current shoreline. It's really that simple I believe. That coupled with the fact that they have found vast underground oceans below our surface oceans in 2007. Simple google on that one.

Here's the links:


edit on 26-2-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:07 AM

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by SLAYER69
A little more here...______beforeitsnews/international/2013/02/lost-continent-found-beneath-pacific-ocean-say-scientists-2452696.html

Nice grab! S&F

Ack! Beforeitsnews is a landmine of malware!!!

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:29 AM
Yet another update with image and information.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by ibiubu

More on Hans Amundsen. He's quite involved with NASA, and meteorites in particular. What are meteorites rich in? Rare Earth Metals. Kinda funny he recently commented on the russian meteor:

China controls the supply of rare earth metals at the moment. And starting in 2010, experts in the field started to explore new, viable economic alternatives to obtain it. A company named Medallion Resources has determined that the most viable method is heavy mineral sands containing monazite - a phosphate mineral that contains the economically most significant rare earth metals - cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, and samarium. Monazite ore can be refined to yield thorium and lanthanum. It is likely that there is monazite in the mineral sands due to the alluvial bed and metamorphic rock present. And it's easier to metallurgically extract rare earth metals from monazite than from land-based ore.

Links to Medallion:



These are some smart guys.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by eriktheawful

Basically, Rodinia was a 'supercontinent' that existed around a billion years ago. It subsequently broke up and various parts of it became new, smaller continents which later merged (in a different configuration) to form Pangea - which in turn then broke up around 250 million years ago leading to the spread of continents we see today.

Just as parts of Pangea exist in all modern continents, so do parts of Rodinia, athough being much older, such traces are not so obvious.

During all this breaking up and merging, a lot of the original rock was lost through subduction, or because newer rocks was laid down on top of it. So not a lot of Rodinia exists today.

What has been found is another one of the little remnant parts of Rodinia - or, at rather, sand from rocks that formed from rocks that eroded when Rodinia existed.

(apologies for using links to wikipedia - but on issues like this the information it provides tends to be fairly accurate and uncontroversial and a good 'primer' for the subject)

btw, when Rodinia existed, life as we know it did not exist - even the first fishes only appeared much later.

edit: and how refreshing to see someone admit they don't know about a subject
(and I admit I'm no expert - just an interested amateur who may not be entirely right!)
edit on 26-2-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by AndyMayhew

If you dig a hole deep enough anywhere on the planet, you will reach Cambrian strata. Doesn't mean it correlates to where the continents are if they didn't move. Plate Tectonics, Rodinia and Pangea have been questioned ever since they were proposed. From 1900-1950, the idea was completely dismissed. Around the '50's it just became the mainstream thinking. A bit like global warming. Take a look at my links. There are many other serious scientific impossibilities associated with continents moving and subduction.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Aleister

Originally posted by onequestion
Its Atlantis.


Im jk, but in all seriousness could there be a connection? I have to ask because im a huge edgar casey fan and a fan of the atlantis.
edit on 24-2-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

From how I'm reading this it sounds like it "went under" way before humans, or even big mammals, roamed the Earth. Nothing wrong with a little Edgar Cayce, and ATS should have more active threads on him, but this was long before what he was talking about in his ancient-earth material.

Something to consider: for years I have had folks (some on ATS) snicker and laugh when it is suggested that sunken land masses exist on the ocean floor. Their presumption is that if it is there, we would have seen it. That is it. No discussion, no supposition....the conversation is shouted down and squashed.

With that knowledge, how much faith do you continue to have in scientists? While they may not be the exact folks who snickered and ridiculed folks to suggesting EXACTLY what this article says (that there are sunken land masses on the ocean floor), many ARE those people (we do have scientists on ATS).

No, I will take the story at face value. And know that I have very little faith in much of what we consider "fact". Including our dating methods.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:53 PM
I may be wrong here, but it seems to me they are detailing when this sunken land mass formed. Not when it sank.

Why are arguments shouted down in regards to stationary continents? I dunno. But I do remember as a grade school kid realizing that if you moved the continents back together, they fit like a jigsaw puzzle. Combine that with the fact we can now MEASURE continental drift with GPS and it seems pretty cut and dry. I mean, look at the Hawaiian Islands for instance. That chain of islands?? Formed because the crust is MOVING in a North Westerly direction.

ETA: Heck. Some of the finer and more intricate points of the discipline of land surveying and geodecy actually includes equations to account for continental drift. All derived from stationary GPS monitoring stations. The math involved there is beyond me, but suffice to say, the continents DO move.
edit on 26-2-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-2-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 07:54 PM
Good thread, Slayer!

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

ETA: Also, people should leave moderating to moderators. Especially if they aren't contributing themselves.

Don't be a tool.
edit on 26-2-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by JayinAR

I may be wrong here, but it seems to me they are detailing when this sunken land mass formed. Not when it sank.

In my first post on this thread I stated that the landmass in question 'sank between the waves at least 65 million years ago.' My reason for saying so is that the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge, parts of which form the Maldive and Laccadive island chains, is known to have begun forming at about that time. The sunken landmass on which it stands must, obviously, be older than the ridge itself.

In fact, that sunken landmass, Rodinia, was formed about a billion years ago. The following is from the abstract of the academic paper on which Slayer's news is based:

The Laccadive–Chagos Ridge and Southern Mascarene Plateau... are thought to be volcanic chains formed above the Réunion mantle plume over the past 65.5 million years. (Using) U–Pb dating to analyse the ages of zircon xenocrysts found within young lavas on the island of Mauritius, part of the Southern Mascarene Plateau, we find that the zircons are either Palaeoproterozoic (more than 1,971 million years old) or Neoproterozoic (between 660 and 840 million years old).

We propose that the zircons were assimilated from ancient fragments of continental lithosphere beneath Mauritius, and were brought to the surface by plume-related lavas... On the basis of reinterpretation of marine geophysical data, we propose that Mauritia was separated from Madagascar and fragmented into a ribbon-like configuration by a series of mid-ocean ridge jumps during the opening of the Mascarene ocean basin between 83.5 and 61 million years ago. We suggest that the plume-related magmatic deposits have since covered Mauritia and potentially other continental fragments. Link Again

That is to say, this 'sunken supercontinent' is between 660 million and two billion years old. The sliver of it known as Mauritia has been submerged since the Indian Ocean basin was formed.

edit on 26/2/13 by Astyanax because: of tortuosity.

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by AndyMayhew
There are many other serious scientific impossibilities associated with continents moving and subduction.
The word 'subduction' prompted this question in general. How much evidence of past civilizations has been lost to subductions/eqs/volcanos?

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in