Atlantis

Re: Atlantis (OFF-TOPIC reply, apols)

Don Jose', Dueno de Real e Minas de Tayopa wrote:
Speak for yourself ya would be cowboy
Click to expand...

HAY! (cheap pun intended) Objection your honor - I am only filling in until a real one comes along! :o ::) ;D :D Besides, saying "would be" indicates an inner desire to be, and I can assure you this is NOT the case! :o :'( There are a couple of things that I really would be, but........somehow I can think of easier ways to get saddle sores :'( :o ::) ;D :D :icon_jokercolor:

Apples to everyone for the off-topic reply.
Oroblanco
 

OHIO ROOM: I found this in my computer, I have no idea to whom I should thank but---

Here is an excellent example of a two ring Caldera, Atlantis type.

Black= outside ring

REd= inside ring

Yellow= island with mt in center.



Don Jose de La Mancha
 

Attachments

  • caldera swith the two rings©@.jpg
    caldera swith the two rings©@.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 511
HOLA mi amigo Don Jose', Dueno de Real e Minas de Tayopa,

That is quite a photo amigo, if I may say; what I find most curious is the odd 'triangular' shape that seems to be outlined inside the outer ring. The line on the left side is especially odd, very straight for a natural feature IMHO. It could be simply a trick of the eye, but that is quite a strange place.

I don't know if a gradual subsidence over 11,000 years would be the explanation for the great depth in parts of that area, but it would work. My problem with that part of the theory is this - if the island sank suddenly below sea level, why should we expect a gradual subsidence over a long period of time? I know of another area where over 2000 square miles of land sank below the sea in a matter of minutes (not so long ago) due to a massive earthquake, but don't have the figures on the depth of that land today, nor whether it continues to subside in a gradual fashion. Will have to see if I can find out.

Oroblanco
 

Good morning ORO: You posted -->

I don't know if a gradual subsidence over 11,000 years would be the explanation for the great depth in parts of that area, but it would work
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The main reason that I suggested a gradual submergence was in deference to Plato's description of muddy shoals for a long period. Since he was apparently correct in it's basic description, then one must allow for his other data. A gradual submergence would be suggested by a diverging, plate movement.

In the Atlantis zone we have three distinct plates in contact with a common epicenter. Each is moving independently of the other, at a different rate, a different direction, and probably with a rotational factor also, an "extremely" complex action. But using as a crude basis the model of divergence, we find that the North Atlantic continents are drifting apart at an average rate in that area of some 1.15 = .453 " - 2,15 cm. = .8460 " Using a time rate of 10,000 years we find that the continents are now approximately between .86 & 1.6 statute miles further apart today than in Atlantis' period..

This would suggest that a thinning of the crust by stretching the ocean floor in that area would lead to a gradual sinking accompanied by increasing inflow of molten materiel in the developed, weakend zones. This magma in flow would create Islands and enormous ridges, mostly on the bottom of the ocean floor. ©@

Don Jose de La Mancha (NAG)

p.s. NAG = Not a Geologist, just having fun..
 

HOLA mi amigo,
I will explain why the slow subsidence idea does not seem right to me; the time span from the destruction to the time of Plato was some 9000 years, yet after all that span of time, the sea had not sunk much further, as Plato mentioned it was still shallow and muddy in that region in his time (350 BC) ..SO...the gradual subsidence would have to be after the time of Plato or perhaps 2360 years, and yet some areas in that proposed location have depths over 5000 feet. This certainly does NOT disprove the slow subsidence idea, just seems less likely in my view. I would think that a more likely explanation would be rapid/sudden subsidences, perhaps several of them as a result of earthquakes over the centuries like the one that flooded Lisbon for one instance. Just my opinion of course...
your friend,
Oroblanco
 

afternoon mi bosom buddy ORO: You posted -->

Plato mentioned it was still shallow and muddy in that region in his time (350 BC) ..SO...the gradual subsidence would have to be after the time of Plato or perhaps 2360 years, and yet some areas in that proposed location have depths over 5000 feet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You bring up an interesting point, was he referring to the period immediately after Atlantis' submergence or in his time? this could be a critical period translation factor.

If they were sailing in the vicinity of the Former Atlantis, then they would have had the ability to access and knowledge of the American continent, but this seems to be lacking, interesting.

Also they could simply sail "around" it's perimeter, like any other obstacle.

Then again, perhaps they were sailing in the region of the Spanish swamp area believing that they were actually at Atlantis since they only knew of it's general directional location, not how far out into the Atlantic it was...

Hmmmmm, beginning to jell even more. Perhaps there was no "gradual" submergence after all.

Don Jose de La Mancha
 

HOLA mi amigo Don Jose' Dueno de Real e Minas de Tayopa,

The way it is written in Timaeus, quote "For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.


Plato uses the present tense "IS" impassable, implicating that he is speaking of his own time or at least the time of Solon 638 BC–558 BC, and not saying "WAS" impassable as if speaking about the distant past. I take it Plato was saying that in his own time, the region where Atlantis was, was still quite shallow and with a muddy bottom.

We may be splitting hairs here amigo, when we are saying "gradual subsidence" - for exactly what is gradual? If gradual means a sinking of say two feet a year, then over 2000 years, great depths could be created; if we are saying it is a tenth of an inch per year, then over the same course of time the depth would only be less than seventeen feet. Also, a gradual subsidence might not be a uniform phenomenon, it might be a tenth of an inch per year over several hundred square miles, yet increasing to a foot per year over another part, several feet a year over other parts etc. The way nature tends NOT to be uniform in geologic actions, this seems more likely than the idea of the whole island slowly sinking a uniform rate over a long period of time. We can see this variation in uplifts as well, with parts of the Rockies rising several feet per year, other parts only rising a fraction of an inch, some parts not rising at all etc. Uplifts due to earthquakes are also not gradual or uniform; some large areas of Chile rose two to 20 feet in a matter of minutes in one earthquake in our lifetimes for example.

I have a side-question for you amigo - what will it mean to you, should your location prove to BE Atlantis? (NOT a test or trick question compadre, just curious about what it means to you.) Thank you in advance,
your friend,
Oroblanco
 

OHIO my friend ORO: You posted -->

I have a side-question for you amigo - what will it mean to you, should your location prove to BE Atlantis?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Physical, financial reward? Nothing. Ego yes., even if it is correct and I never receive any possible credit.

In spite of being a Saint I am human. The succesful end of my paper search for Atlanis would be similar to the end of a gigantic cross word puzzle, or another Tayopa.

You, and the others, know exactly what I am saying - THE SEARCH !

Don Jose de La Mancha
 

Yeah I agree...I really am not sure there's such a thing as "definitive proof of the existence of atlantis" findable by people with our resources...


Now, I've maintained that I'm in possession of a map that points the way to Atlantis (you come into this stuff a lot when you work in a library), and Now maybe it's time to play a guessing game again...

my hypothesis has been the same for some time now, it's not exactly new, but people don't consider it enough...here's a hint

Just because it WAS underwater, doesn't mean it is now.
No, that doesn't mean it is in Arizona, Wyoming, Mesoamerica, or China
Try closer to Plato's home, you know, one of those places my ancestors came from...
Tayopa should be able to figure THAT one out by using my birthdate: December 10th, 1986
 

Williamthefinder wrote:
No, that doesn't mean it is in Arizona, Wyoming, Mesoamerica, or China
Click to expand...


WHAT ! ???!!?? :o :o Now you have gone and burst my bubble, and my plan for excavating most of neighboring Niobrara county this summer. :o ::) :'( :'( :'( :wink:
Oroblanco
 

Evening HIgh: I wonder how many maps to Atlantis there are ? snicker.

I wonder if any fit Plato's description beside Mine?

Your psychological profile is ready, will scan it and post later.

Don Jose de La Mancha
 

Oroblanco said:
Williamthefinder wrote:
No, that doesn't mean it is in Arizona, Wyoming, Mesoamerica, or China
Click to expand...


WHAT ! ???!!?? :o :o Now you have gone and burst my bubble, and my plan for excavating most of neighboring Niobrara county this summer. :o ::) :'( :'( :'( :wink:
Oroblanco
Click to expand...

oh, I guess it could be. Just saying my 'ole pet hypothesis is a little stranger and closer to home...

I don't know about which one fits Plato better...I got proof mine was, in fact, inhabited 9,000 years ago, is at the lower end of the size estimate, has odd bits of metal lying around it, and has mountains in just the right places (remember, those circular rings Plato talks about are just in the capital...it doesn't have to encircle the whole Island/continent)


'course, what I DON'T have is any evidence it was ever underwater during the time it was inhabited...
but since we seem to be gitn along fine on speculation that other locations were ABOVE water 9,000 years ago, I figure it still works
 

kbrocks said:
Well, I've enjoyed reading this thread so far. I've nothing really exciting to add, but I just read an interesting news article that highlights a similar Atlantis-like occurance. Ancient city found underwater, presumably sank around 8,000 years ago.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/989977.html
Click to expand...

Yeah, I had a course on Biblical Archeology that Covered Atlit-Yam. Technology, Location, and Date aren't quite right to be Atlantis itself, but you're right, this give good evidence to show just how sinkable cities can actually be
 

kbrocks said:
Exactly, just shows it's possible. Still not saying yes or no either way. Just interesting.

By the way, here's a link to another persons opinions, which I find extremely interesting. Some of them are definitely far fetched, but it's worth reading and provides a little food for thought.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=127142
Click to expand...

oh dear god,
as I've probably overstated far too many times, I'm an ardent opponent of the "we simply must tie everything in the universe to Masons, Da Vinci, or Aliens" movement. There's probably some worthwhile stuff farther down the page, but I've seen to many "Lookie what's hidden in THIS picture" threads to read past that
sorry.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

db coopers parachute possible found

⬅️ Previous Thread

Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
We Dig Metal Detectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top