|
Termyn8or -> RE: Atlantis, is this it ? (2/23/2009 8:04:02 AM)
|
fr
I think I will withold the cigar for now. The hypothesis I have accepted as a valid theory is that Atlantis was on the continent of Antarctica. Supportive facts will be given later, I'll deal with these marking first.
Many of us have no doubt heard of crop circles. These are patterns on the land that are too large to be seen by the naked eye, and are only viewable for high up in the air. There is no valid explanation for them at this time, but plenty of speculation going on. The subject actually made it to talk radio on XM. While they want to talk aliens, and this is like a landing strip or something like that brings me to the question, well then why haven't they landed ?
The ordered fashion of these markings are similar, in that it infers a plan, but in all the world, this cannot be counted on. This happens, but just how vast is the surface of the Earth ? I think the conclusion is premature. Although we might not yet understand the mechenism of nature that produced these ordered patterns, we cannot assume that it does not exist. I think the sanest position is to accept it as a possibility, and seek more knowledge if possible. If possible yeah.
Anyway, a hypothesis came out a few years ago about lost civilisation on Antarctica and is supported by two main incontrovertable facts. They have a bit more evidence but not so strong as those two facts.
They assert that about every 15,000 years or so, the Earth's crust shifts. It does this because we live on basically a thin film of soil etc., which is riding on liquid magma. When the polar ice caps gain in mass, the centripetal force causes this. You are aware that there is a declination they call it, between true north and magnetic north. Magnetic north is caused by the core of the planet, and this declinatiion not only varies according to what line of longitude, but also varies slightly over time.
Well they spoke of a drastic shift, and of course talked for an hour, but two facts stand out in my head which impel me to accept this theory as being quite plausible.
The first fact is that when lodestones are formed, they take on the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field, but they have found lodestones that do not follow this rule. Their magnetic orientation suggests that at one time Anarctica was not at the South Pole, and that life could've existed there because they would be at a more habitable latitude. This supports other theory, that of Pangea the supercontinent and possibly why it broke up. Supporting this is the fact that the eastern shoreline of the Americas strangely matches up to the western shoreline of Eurasia.
Also, although somewhat anecdotal in nature, in the time of Christopher Columbus, they had a map of the actual land mass of Antarctica. It is said that even back then, in the 1500s nobody actually knew where this map cam from, but it was one of the maps they used. How did they get it ? With modern science, using ultrasound or whatever, we now have such a map, but it is hard to believe that way back, damn near in Biblical times that someone went there and started digging. It would take decades at least. However the map does exist, so it is not totally anecdotal.
So that is the theory I have accepted as being "most likely correct". Nothing more, really it is still a mystery, as none of us were there at the time.
Anyway, I have to file these lines on the ocean floor along with the crop circles, and other patterns in vast areas of land which defy explanaition. I am open to any theory on the subject.
Interesting topis, keepum coming because I am sick of politics :-)
T
|
|
|
|
