I think you might want to look into the possibility of selling refrigerators and hair dryers as a career instead of........ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
anythink im saying is based on facts, the artic circle is rising the tropical region is shrinking in the U.S. and South america, just check U.S. and Canadian geological reports, and its a fact that the weight of Ice is the cause of the rising land in the north.
I don't believe anyone is arguing with you. Just offering you some other ideas for career choices, that's all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How can I believe that there is any reality to the story related by Plato, Valich? It is because so much physical evidence has been found by archaeologists and geologists that the general kind of event that Plato describes has happened many times. Islands do sink into the ocean. 9,000 years ago there were broad areas along seashores hundreds of miles wide that have since flooded, that must have been forested and able to be cultivated. After all of the evidence that has been found, I don't care how much more you need, Valich, to believe that there is "some reality" to Plato's story.
Kendall touched on another interesting topic, though his facts are way off. Niagra falls will continue its upward march along the Niagra river for many millenia to come. It is known that regions of Earth that were once glaciated with mile-high ice were depressed downwards due to that extra weight sitting there for 100s of thousands of years. Now that that ice is gone, those areas are continuing to 'rebound'. The rate of rise is on the order of a fraction of a millimeter per year, however, and this rebound has been occuring for some dozen millenia or so, and will likely continue for many more millenia. And, of course, those areas that were forced downward would have required other areas to be forced upward, but only a few meters at most, and not necessarily at the equator. The great bulk of any flooding events came from the melting of the glaciers, not the slight motions of Earth's surface due to loading/unloading of the ice. The ocean level will vary by some 250 meters between full ice-age and full melt-down. 'Currently', for the past dozen millenia or so, the Earth has been in a rather static phase half-way in between (except for that slight additional melt-down circa 10,000 years ago that caused the oceans to rise circa 15 meters). Most of the history of mankind was during the full ice-age stage, since modern peoples began spreading about on the face of the Earth, forming into various races, commencing circa 70,000 years ago. Apparently, the melt-down of the ice-age circa 18,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago coincided with the establishment of permanent settlements along the new shore-lines (with the old shore-lines now being some 125 meters below the surface of the sea), giving rise to establishment of the first civilizations for which we have records. The records of prior civilizations, if any existed (e.g. 'Atlantis'), are likely deep under sea. Also, it is interesting that the words 'atl' and 'antis' have meaning (water, copper according to prior post). It is indeed tempting to speculate that the name 'Atlantis' arose from that combination, but that remains a wild speculation, without any further evidence. Looks like we should start getting out our s.c.u.b.a. gear!
Are you saying that the first permanent settlements were fishing, rather than farming, villages? The dawn of agriculture was recently pushed back only to 9500BCE by archeological evidence of cultivated figs in the Middle East. Your figure of 16000BCE pushes the transition to the Neolithic Era back six thousand years and posits it solely on the technology of fishing. That seems like a long time for people to accumulate the surplus that comes with the economy and efficiency of staying in one place, some of which surplus is by our nature always used to subsidize curiosity, without learning enough about biology to start farming and domesticating animals. Be that as it may, villages can feed themselves by fishing but cities need grain. The earliest cities that we know of were built in good farming spots. They were close to rivers because rivers were the infrastructure for commerce. Some like Egypt were on flood-fertilized deltas where (I guess) fishing was also abundant but it was the farming that fed the population, not the fish. It's hard to believe that agriculture could have been discovered, villages built, and ultimately cities, within climatological flood range of Ice Age coastlines--an evolution that had to take at least a couple of thousand years--without this evolution also occurring in what now seem to be far more common locations further inland where we can find them.
If you look at all of the early civilizations, they all started on farmland near to the sea. Sometimes many miles (even hundreds) inland, but all within a few hundred feet elevation of the sea. That's because that's where all the prime farmland was located, in the low valleys of rivers that flooded the fields, or made for easy irrigation. Certainly, those people would also have taken advantage of the sea as an easy food source, particularly to supplement grains/figs or whatever that was being cultivated. With that as a starting premise, then it's not too hard to imagine that possibly 18,000 years ago some groups of people had settled along the seashores (as they then existed), on the flood plains of those valleys (which we can easily see with maps showing ocean depth), and made attempts at farming, etc. Then, as the ice-age ended, all such efforts would have been disrupted for some 6 millenia, until circa 12,000 years ago when the oceans stabilized at about 15-20 meters below its current level, staying there for about 2 millenia. During those 2 millenia, again it is possible that some early peoples again established farming and the starts of civilization, only to again be disrupted by the next melt, which ended circa 10,000 years ago with the rise to the current level of our oceans. There it stabilized again, and hence we now have the earliest evidences of civilization commencing circa 9,000 years ago, as per MetaKron's posts. All prior evidences are likely under the sea, either near to the shorelines as they existed circa 12,000 years ago some 20 meters under the sea, or near to the shorelines as they existed circa 18,000 years ago, some 140 meters under the sea. Of course, this is still sheer speculation, but it does provided an 'educated guess' as to where to look. Some of the California Amerindian tribes had tales passed down through the generations that spoke of the great valley that is now San Francisco Bay. Whether those were fantasy stories, or actual tales passed down through some 10,000 years, is anyone's guess. What we do know is that most of San Francisco Bay was low valley land only 10,000 years ago, and all of San Francisco Bay was high valley some 18,000 years ago. The same is true for everywhere else on the globe. Chesapeake Bay was a valley millenia ago, not a bay. The Black Sea was a below-sea-level valley millenia ago, not a sea. Etc., etc. Incidentally, many of those low valleys (e.g. central valley of California) were likely formed during periods of complete melt-down of the glaciers, and those areas were shallow undersea areas, frequently flooded by river sediment, forming relatively flat regions. As the seas receded during the ice-ages, they expose those flat valley lands, allowing a river to meander back and forth, which become excellent for farming. That's where much of the wild birds and other game would be, too, in those marshes, etc. Easiest food is where the civilizations would start.
About how many people does it take to make an industrial civilization, anyway? It can be argued that the critical mass for achieving something like our techological culture may be a lot lower if in your census you only include the actual contributors and not the cultures that seem to have opted out.
The rebound is alot more than a fraction of a millimeter from what informaton I have, I think its like 4 cm to 8 cm in certain areas, beating the rising waters in northern areas, here in Newfoundland the bays are getting smaller even though the ocean is getting higher, you can see the difference on maps from the early 70's and new maps. I think that the Niagra falls stopped flowing for 2 hours about 100 years ago, so some block of land had to rise or fall I quess! Edgar Cayce said Atlantis extended from the sargasso sea area in the west to the azores, that in 15,600 bc the mainland was divided into Islands, and around 10,000 bc three large Islands and some lesser were swalled up overnight, the final break-up centered near the Bahamas, the part near the Sargasso Sea first went into the depts. And plato's writings seem to say the same that there were Island's outside the pillar's of hercules, and through these Island's you could get to a continent. Also most native american legends say there people came frome an Island to the east from what I here. There is a small gold minature jet fighter found somewhere in south america that is said to be a couple thousand years old I think, I seen a pitcure in a book. But dont bet your house on anything I write, lol .
Kendall: I'd be interested in references to the Newfoundland area rebounding at the rate of a few cm/year. That is much higher than what I'd been aware of, but certainly plausible. Older maps compared to newer maps showing such rebound is intriguing evidence. As to Edgar Cayce's writings, they certainly are not the best source for background information. The region described is very deep ocean, with no evidence of past islands now somewhat submerged. A catastrophic sinking of large islands is not something that's ever been described in geology. The few that have 'sunk' are volcanoes that blew their top, and subsided a few score feet.
You use the word "disrupted," which denotes suddenness. The order of magnitude of the rise in sea level was inches per year or less, which meant that the shoreline took millennia to recede to its stable point. The observed rate of decay and reconstruction of excavated and studied ancient cities on top of their own ruins would have kept up with that. I find it hard to believe that an entire culture was driven out of its cities and reduced to a nomadic lifestyle by such leisurely flooding. They would have had plenty of time to figure out the obvious, find satisfactory new locations well inland, and build what we computer people call "hot sites" there. Or more likely they just built the new buildings on the inland side of the city as high tide crept too close to the decrepit old ones. The cities would have crawled across the landscape as if under their own power. Heck, if today's fashionable global warming screeds turn out to be accurate we'll do that with Los Angeles, whose buildings are a lot more difficult to reproduce than the stonemasonry of the era in question. Perhaps in 500 years Culver City will be under water and there will be skyscrapers in San Bernardino, but civilization will hardly be interrupted. Anthropology says it's a fantasy. The people who lived in San Francisco ten thousand years ago were descendants of the first wave of migration from Siberia. They were pushed out five or six thousand years ago by the second wave and moved south. Only a few tribes of that gene pool remain west of the Rockies in what is now the USA and they're over in Arizona and New Mexico. The people who have lived in California during historical times have no traditions about the region extending that far back for the very good reason that they weren't there yet.
Agree and disagree. Disagree: A rise in sea level of some 400 feet in 6,000 years is an average of about 4 feet every 60 years, or one lifetime. Certainly, any attempts to make a 'city' (which took centuries in those days) would have been defeated quickly during the melt-down phase, and people likely were engaged solely in hunter/gatherer traditions. Only once the sea relatively stabilized would the prospect of locating a town near the sea look promising. Compare this with the current rate of sea-level rise of a few cm./century. City building was not an industrious exercise like it is today. Indeed, it was not an industrious exercise even in the middle ages. Homes were slowly built, and passed down from generation to generation, improved upon, etc. I'm not saying it HAD to be that way back then; I'm just saying it might have been possible, and that any such civilization (particularly if on as island as Atlantis was described) would have been stressed tremendously by a rising sea level averaging an inch per year, with likely some years much greater than others. Large sections of fields would suddenly, in a span of just a few years, become unutilizable. Docks would be taken out at the sea shore. It would have likely been easier to just say to heck with it, and go back to hunting and gathering in other areas. Agree: As to the Amerindians, it does seem inconceivable that an oral story would be passed down for some 10,000 years in various hunter-gatherer tribes that inhabited one particular region (with the most recent ones reportedly having moved there some few millenia, displacing prior ones).
I think that there must have been several thousand years when those continental shelves were free from the ocean. All of what we think of as human history could pass during that time. A lot of people would never believe that the sea could come to inundate areas that are as large as the present day United States. Of course, it's hard to believe the global warming people when they can't show us the sea level rising. Fatal tidal waves happen every few years, wiping out large stretches of coastline. We're looking down the barrel of at least one known very nasty that, if it happened during a glacial period, could reduce an entire nation to rubble if that nation were built on a broad flat plain near the ocean. The kind of formation that exists at La Palma could build up and fall into the ocean many times in a few thousand years. There can also be Krakatoa type explosions, several of which have been witnessed in the last few hundred years. England has been quite lucky and that may account for its period of supremacy. Notice I am not in this case talking about any kind of disaster that is not common. The hunter-gatherer societies more or less deliberately kept their populations much smaller than their food supplies. It's harder to disrupt the continuity of a culture that has a large part of the world as a larder that contains a hundred times as much food as the people need. Disasters that reduced the food supply didn't necessarily more than inconvenience the people who were left. Our megacities are far more vulnerable to this. Disrupt transportation and we can't ship food into places that have millions of people who are living on what used to be good farmland. Did the earlier civilizations have developers who would not rein themselves in from covering every available space with tract housing? I'm sure that the bloodsucking SOBs were there in force. It does not seem at all inconceivable to me that an oral story could be passed down for 10,000 years. The Amerinds did in fact do this as a tradition and some called it "remembering." A large fertile valley would be remembered. They would make up a story that could be passed along without suffering greatly from the "grapevine effect." When it is like a song or poetry it will fail to scan right when facts are altered.
Ever here of the island off australia that sunk, rose and sunk again all in 30 years. The big Quake in Alaska rose the land 35 feet in places droped like 15 feet in some I think, I read that water levels droped 2-10 feet in new jersey and florida and other places just after the quake. I read somewhere that hawaii rises and falls 4 cm or inches a day due to the gravitational pull of the moon. Anyone got any ideas what caused the extinction of the sabertooths and mathoths? my guess would be the retreating of the ice must have caused it in some way the dates match awfull closely!
What's a 'Mathoth'? Sounds like a 'wooly' spelling error to mePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Lets leave textbook geological mechanisms aside for a moment and consider extracts from the "Egyptian book of the dead" where there are historical references made towards the Atlantis enigma. http://www.sevenfoldbooks.com/eden/enoch_ezekiel.htm#The Here is are excerpts from Diordorus which clearly describes the Cyprus/Atlantis location and its inhabitants. http://www.sevenfoldbooks.com/diordorus.htm
Most of my sources of information all really credible but some not, but alot is stuff I have read over the past 10 years or more and I cant remember much of the details. Dont think I believe all that I write becouse I dont, my guess is that the gold miniture aircraft was made in the 70's and is just a hoax, I find it hard to believe that atlantis had advanced technology before us, why didden't they use up the oil reserves we are now using, but then mayby we are using what was un-profitable to them, or mayby they used hydro-carbons for a few centuries and moved on to more effecient electrical energys. The lack of information from 7000-60000 years ago and the geological changes between 8000-17000 are proof to me that civilization must have a few ups and downs, My view is that civilization would start anywhere enough of a population lived and shared language.
I seriously doubt that any 'Atlantis' civilization was technologically advanced on par with modern civilization. Possibly, IF an 'Atlantis' existed, they had electro-plating batteries (as might have been the case many millenia ago in Babylon, etc.) and mechanical devices that to non-civilized people were wonders. They certainly weren't drilling for oil and mining for coal.
