Atlantis Discovered In Brazil

Hello ATS.

I found this article today after browsing the web and would like some of the ancient & lost civilizations experts to chime in and see what they think of it.

I am no expert on this kind of thing, but it seems like it could have some merit to it.

It seems that the world has more cities of Atlantis than previously believed. After finding a sunken continent in the Indian Ocean earlier this year, scientists recently discovered another possible Atlantis off the coast of Brazil.

The waters surrounding Brazil are some of the least explored in the world, so it makes sense that something so large could have gone undiscovered there for so long. Discovered 600 miles from Rio de Janeiro, and deeper than 3,000 feet underwater, it would seem that another sunken continent has been waiting for centuries to be discovered at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

Link

What do we think here ATS?

-SAP-

reply to post by SloAnPainful

What do we think here ATS?

I think that's a mighty grand headline

On a serious note though, they probably have discovered Atlantis as in an old sunken forgotten continent. My thoughts are:

can they find out what size it once was and where does it fit in with when the world broke up?

If you look at the world map it's amazing how it all fits together except for a few missing pieces here and there so if they look they are bound to find missing landmasses and maybe better understand the puzzle as a whole.
What I have never got though is why does the jigsaw puzzle fit so well? wouldn't millions of years of erosion and different sea levels make the fit not quite as good?

I'd love for us to find Atlantis the city some day though I believe man has had a longer relationship with civilization than we admit.

Star and Flagged

reply to post by RAY1990


Thanks for your comments RAY . Your right it would seem everything would fit nicely together except around the Europe area. The map they added with the link shows that it might fit somewhere but it kind of looks strange and possibly out of place. But it is hard to tell.



-SAP-

Hi OP,

I'm new here but I think that the sunken continent recently found in the Indian ocean was the presumed fabled lost city of 'Mu', as it was I believe thought to be quite close to India, where their Hindu God Lord Vishnu famously protected in the epic Bhagavad Gita legends. Vishnu apparently defended the city from an aggressive close encounter with another space faring race. I think that the land of Mu was destroyed and/or sunk into the sea near India many believed, it was in the pacific ocean but the connection with Vishnu may have placed it in the Indian Ocean.

Atlantis is suppose to be in the Atlantic ocean hence 'Atlantis' which existed 9600 BC as described by Plato.

EDIT:

Nearly as famous as Atlantis is the legendary lost world of Mu, sometimes call Lemuria. According to tradition among many Pacific islands, Mu was an Eden-like tropical paradise located somewhere in the Pacific that sunk, along with all of its beautiful inhabitants, thousands of years ago. Like Atlantis, there is ongoing debate as to whether it really existed and, if so, where.

Link to Source

What does this do to the Pangea theory? Do these continents discredit it or do they fit into the theory?

reply to post by Rumblingspite


Hello Rumblings and welcome to Above Top Secret.

According to the map and the geographical coordinates it would be pretty much be right in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Pretty sure it would be south of the equator because it was found closer to Brasil.

-SAP-

reply to post by onequestion


According to the article this is what it says,

One theory is that the sunken continent was once part of the super-continent Pangaea, which broke apart 200 million years ago, apparently due to seismic activity. This sunken piece of land could be a piece of what once was a single chunk of the Earth puzzle. Who knows what more mysteries await at the bottom of Brazil’s ocean floor?

So I am guessing they assume it will fit with the theory.

-SAP-

reply to post by SloAnPainful


Seems like they are willing to make a stretch or change to the theory so it can fit whatever model they want.

Thanks for pointing out what i overlooked skimming through.

reply to post by onequestion


No worries. I often miss thing when I skim articles are well.

-SAP-

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by RAY1990

 

Thanks for your comments RAY

. Your right it would seem everything would fit nicely together except around the Europe area. The map they added with the link shows that it might fit somewhere but it kind of looks strange and possibly out of place. But it is hard to tell.

-SAP-

My theory would be that the rate of expansion was greater at at least 2 points on the Earth, one in the North Atlantic and one in the South West Pacific or maybe Indian Ocean, these expansion points also created massive dips and rises of land. That is why these areas look messier if you look at a world map, just a theory ofcourse.

Also that world map just looks off don't you think? minus the drawn on Atlantis. Some bits of it look detailed and others badly drawn, including missing islands and what not... could have used a better map I guess

reply to post by RAY1990


I agree with you the map doesn't really do any justice to the article, but I guess they made it look like that to give it the "old" or "ancient" feeling...

-SAP-

Wasn't this discussed HERE?

reply to post by ChuckNasty


Hey Chuck. I was not aware of the thread and I searched it but they have different titles and links. :/

But thanks for pointing it out.

-SAP-

Here's the thing:

Where the island is in that map....there are multiple stories of islands in that area, near the Azores. The Portuguese, I believe, even claim to have settled an island in that area, building a monastary. One time, when they were going to be restocked, the island could not be found.

Islands in that region were regular stopping points for sailors.

Stories of the north atlantic are that it was very rough, impassible. I can imagine that if the landmass of something that large sunk beneath the waves, the disruptions to ocean currents, as well as the general destabilization, might be a causative factor in waters that were extremely rough.

I am not a proponent of Atlantis. I am not sure we would identify it as such were we to find it. But I am a believer that there is a landmass missing from the Atlantic ocean.

reply to post by ChuckNasty



That wasn't the only thread on this topic, either. But it seems as though this particular thread interested me enough to get a response, where the others didn't. For whatever that is worth.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Hmm interesting. Like I said am no expert on this sort of thing. I was more or less seeing what other members knew about this subject. Because it has to be more than I know.

-SAP-

I am no expert matter either but I think (just my opinion), that Atlantis as well as Lumeria before them were [maybe] not a sigle city. They were civilizations just like we are although they were way more advanced (I think), isnt it possible that they had expanded to other areas and built multiple cities?

Originally posted by Teye22
I am no expert matter either but I think (just my opinion), that Atlantis as well as Lumeria before them were [maybe] not a sigle city. They were civilizations just like we are although they were way more advanced (I think), isnt it possible that they had expanded to other areas and built multiple cities?

Lemuria is a made-up place name that dates to the late 19th century. It never existed. It was hypothesized as a land bridge from Madagascar to Asia to account for the presence of lemur fossils on the mainland. This was before plate tectonics was proven, which explains the fossils.

Atlantis never existed either.

This is a largish slab of granite about one-fifth of the way between Brasil and Africa. Likely an old piece of the South American plate.

Harte

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by onequestion

 

According to the article this is what it says,

One theory is that the sunken continent was once part of the super-continent Pangaea, which broke apart 200 million years ago, apparently due to seismic activity. This sunken piece of land could be a piece of what once was a single chunk of the Earth puzzle. Who knows what more mysteries await at the bottom of Brazil’s ocean floor?

So I am guessing they assume it will fit with the theory.

-SAP-

Ugh.

I know you didn't write it, but that has to be one of the Dumbest Things Ever Written By People Who Won't Look Things UP.

The continents were in very different positions when Pangaea was formed (the whole breakup sequence can be seen here) There was no Atlantic Ocean. Pangaea didn't break up due to earthquakes.

I'm going to quit typing now, because the rest of what I have to say on this is quite snarky and unkind.

reply to post by Byrd


I am not as educated as you when it comes to this subject (obviously ). I didn't write that and I was merely passing off what the article stated and just looking for the logical explanations of this story. I thought, at first, it could have held merit. After reading the replies and your comment I can conclude that the theory of "Atlantis" is total bunk, with relation to this article at least.

Thank you for the comment though Byrd.

-SAP-