Atlantis

[Real of Tayopa]

EU,

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real of Tayopa]

-Au, an armature's idea as to what happened in there
,

 

[sdcfia]

Well, wouldn't it be nice if someone, somewhere discovered some ancient document or artifact that added to the discussion? Not Atlantean of course, and at only a scant young age of 2,000 years, a find like this Chinese beauty keeps hopes alive.

 

[Real of Tayopa]

You are, of course, correct SDC. I was responding to a remark by/of AU.

There s no known evidence of writing in the period of which we are referring to, so we must utilize " deductive reasoning" of crudely established occurrences, such as the ice age, unexplained folklore occurrences such as the disappearance of Atlantis, still unexplainable kill off of the Mastodon, certain celestial happenings of biblical times, ,etc.

By putting these in a basic selective order, we can crudely guesstimate Planet X's existence - the causative factor - and orbit, which is the only thing that is capable of such things. Astromanists need even fewer bits of data , they have calculated some thousands of years., and it is on it's return trip.

 

[Eu_citzen]

EU,

View attachment 1472417

View attachment 1472418

View attachment 1472420

View attachment 1472421

View attachment 1472422

Tayopa, using that reference I wouldn't be able to tell you anything useful. Especially not being familiar with the region.
I'm more a "boots on the ground" kinda guy myself.

There is no "circular faulting", I assume you mean "folding".
The highest point in your drawing could be (remains) an anticline (fancy word for "upwards fold") that's been weathered away.
Your map is pretty neat, starting point of a structural geology map.
My tip: Ignore all the fancy stuff, focus on folds, faults, beds (geology beds, not the others!).
Ignore relative movement of faults at first to, to get a general sense of the areas main fault systems and the likes.

Later on the faults together with the beds and/or folds might help tell if it's been "compressed" (= Reverse fault) or "extended". (= Normal fault)

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Good morning AU, by circular faulting I am referring to the circular faults at the bottom of photographs in figure # 2 and the entire No # 3.. As you can see they are circular, geologically speaking, what would you call them ? I should be correct in my description of them. Gracias.

I assume that the rings were caused by the upthrusting of San Miguel - visible in photo no, I and the primary ring that surrounds it,

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Good morning AU, by circular faulting I am referring to the circular faults at the bottom of photographs in figure # 2 and the entire No # 3.. As you can see they are circular, geologically speaking, what would you call them ? I should be correct in my description of them. Gracias.

I assume that the rings were caused by the upthrusting of San Miguel - visible in photo no, I and the primary ring that surrounds it.

In the last picture you can see the eastern side of what I called the parallel faulting caused by the uplifting of the ridge,, notice the deep multiple faulting as shown in photo no.2.

One side is in Chihuahua, the other is in Sonora.

again thanks for correcting me AU.

 

[Eu_citzen]

Good morning AU, by circular faulting I am referring to the circular faults at the bottom of photographs in figure # 2 and the entire No # 3.. As you can see they are circular, geologically speaking, what would you call them ? I should be correct in my description of them. Gracias.

I assume that the rings were caused by the upthrusting of San Miguel - visible in photo no, I and the primary ring that surrounds it.

In the last picture you can see the eastern side of what I called the parallel faulting caused by the uplifting of the ridge,, notice the deep multiple faulting as shown in photo no.2.

One side is in Chihuahua, the other is in Sonora.

again thanks for correcting me AU.

Like I said, those pics aint good enough for me to tell you anything useful. I don't even see what you're talking about.
On the other hand, I don't typically interpret geology from a aerial photographs either and have limited experience in that.
A magnetic map however is something I'm used to. Geological survey of Mexico might have something like those, check it out.

Try satellite images instead. There are some decent ones you can get for free from NASA.
I believe LandSat 7 is free. Choose a time-frame where the vegetation is at a minimum of green. It helps greatly!

 

[Bum Luck]

Ladies & gent. To put things in prospective, if 2 lakes some some hundreds of miles ( kilometers ) square by an average depth of 100 ft. were suddenly added to the worlds oceans, just how much would it actually raise the worlds oceans level ?

Let's say 400 miles by 400 miles 100 feet deep for the sake of getting numbers. It would amount to 16 million square miles 1 foot deep. It's easy to get the surface area of the oceans, about 127 million square miles, so 127 into 16 equals .126 feet, or about 1.5 inches.

Of course, that doesn't account for any surface disturbance of the water getting there, like a tsunami, which would depend on the circumstances to a great degree.

My apologies if my use of mathematics offends someone or breaks a rule.

 

[Real of Tayopa]

Thanks AU & Bum luck. I see that they are getting close to confirming Planet X, so my crude postulation of deductive reasoning may be correct after all

l.https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blog...Archaeology+News+Network)#Kx4DAfFb2VEmjvDK.97

 

[Eu_citzen]

Let's say 400 miles by 400 miles 100 feet deep for the sake of getting numbers. It would amount to 16 million square miles 1 foot deep. It's easy to get the surface area of the oceans, about 127 million square miles, so 127 into 16 equals .126 feet, or about 1.5 inches.

Of course, that doesn't account for any surface disturbance of the water getting there, like a tsunami, which would depend on the circumstances to a great degree.

My apologies if my use of mathematics offends someone or breaks a rule.

I'd be interested in where you got that ocean area from, since the time we're discussing at about 11,000-10,000 years ago the ocean was lower then current water levels. On a quick google I found no numbers of that time period.

 

[marticus]

Thanks AU & Bum luck. I see that they are getting close to confirming Planet X, so my crude postulation of deductive reasoning may be correct after all

l.https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blog...Archaeology+News+Network)#Kx4DAfFb2VEmjvDK.97

http://www.sciencealert.com/we-now-have-more-evidence-for-the-existence-of-planet-nine

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Bum Luck]

I'd be interested in where you got that ocean area from, since the time we're discussing at about 11,000-10,000 years ago the ocean was lower then current water levels. On a quick google I found no numbers of that time period.

Googled the present ocean, yes. All I could easily find.

If the ice age ocean would have been half the present area, unlikely, it would have been a whopping 3 inches.

Note that i just grabbed a number for the hypothetical lake area and depth. One of the characteristics of multiplication is that the multiplicand has the same numerical effect as the multiplier. In simpler terms, 2x4 is the same as 4x2.

 

[Oroblanco]

I see that some are trying to work out the exact size of a single theoretical lake, to then work out the depth from a flood etc. This is not only not necessary, it is a backwards approach to the issue. We already have at least one source on the amount of sea level rise in the great flood that is likely the same flood that destroyed Atlantis, twenty cubits. How much is a cubit? Eighteen to twenty inches. Now it would also be a great mistake to then attribute every gallon of that water to a meltwater ice lake flood or pulse, since the same ancient sources also mention terrific rains that also appeared at the same time. How much water falls in rain? Now figure that for weeks, like monsoon season in southern Asia for instance. It could be an inch, it could be 400 inches. We can also presume that the rain did not fall EVERY where and for the same amount everywhere, but I would point out that worldwide 'flooding' does not mean the same thing as a flood that simply drowns everything in deep water. If it were, then Arizona would be a lake.

Also, it would be unwise to think of this as the result of a single ice dam failure, for surely an ice dam remembered in Wales, can not be the same ice dam remembered in Utah or SE Asia. Plus science has already found evidence of quite a few large ice dam type lakes, which were massive at the end of the last Ice Age. That Atlantis was destroyed in a single day points to a single event, not what was happening over the entire world on that exact day, but the evidence does support the idea that in a fairly short period of time, a massive amount of flooding occurred when the ice dam reservoirs failed, releasing huge amounts of ice cold fresh water into the seas, even to the point of stopping the Atlantic gyre (current). In fact if you think about it, that 'forty days' of rains, now compare it to the length of a spring ice break up in the North country, it is often around that length of time, when the winter snow and ice accumulation suddenly melts off in a few weeks time. Rains accelerate this melting and flooding.

Please do continue;

 

[Eu_citzen]

Googled the present ocean, yes. All I could easily find.

If the ice age ocean would have been half the present area, unlikely, it would have been a whopping 3 inches.

Note that i just grabbed a number for the hypothetical lake area and depth. One of the characteristics of multiplication is that the multiplicand has the same numerical effect as the multiplier. In simpler terms, 2x4 is the same as 4x2.

Nah, it's all in fun. Just need to use the correct variables. If you like to crunch numbers, let's use an approximate of the baltic ice lake.
The area it had was approx: 421201.41 km[SUP]2
During one of the floods it's expected to have lost about 55 meters of depth. 421201.41x0.055 ~ 23166 Km^3 would have been released into the ocean.

(the actual volume in the lake would have been close to twice that, according to my estimates)
[/SUP]

 

[Eu_citzen]

I see that some are trying to work out the exact size of a single theoretical lake, to then work out the depth from a flood etc. This is not only not necessary, it is a backwards approach to the issue. We already have at least one source on the amount of sea level rise in the great flood that is likely the same flood that destroyed Atlantis, twenty cubits. How much is a cubit? Eighteen to twenty inches. Now it would also be a great mistake to then attribute every gallon of that water to a meltwater ice lake flood or pulse, since the same ancient sources also mention terrific rains that also appeared at the same time. How much water falls in rain? Now figure that for weeks, like monsoon season in southern Asia for instance. It could be an inch, it could be 400 inches. We can also presume that the rain did not fall EVERY where and for the same amount everywhere, but I would point out that worldwide 'flooding' does not mean the same thing as a flood that simply drowns everything in deep water. If it were, then Arizona would be a lake.

Also, it would be unwise to think of this as the result of a single ice dam failure, for surely an ice dam remembered in Wales, can not be the same ice dam remembered in Utah or SE Asia. Plus science has already found evidence of quite a few large ice dam type lakes, which were massive at the end of the last Ice Age. That Atlantis was destroyed in a single day points to a single event, not what was happening over the entire world on that exact day, but the evidence does support the idea that in a fairly short period of time, a massive amount of flooding occurred when the ice dam reservoirs failed, releasing huge amounts of ice cold fresh water into the seas, even to the point of stopping the Atlantic gyre (current). In fact if you think about it, that 'forty days' of rains, now compare it to the length of a spring ice break up in the North country, it is often around that length of time, when the winter snow and ice accumulation suddenly melts off in a few weeks time. Rains accelerate this melting and flooding.

Please do continue;

I agree. Math may not be the answer. But it can be entertaining to consider!

Do the historic sources mention if the water retreated after the 'flood'?

As you say, there are likely one or more causes for the event. Not a single one.
I'm betting the possible "heinrich" event near that epoch is somehow related. Basically it means the ice is "calving", or having ice breaking off.
They are known for making large waves, but tsunamis? I'm not sure yet. If a large enough chunk broke off, perhaps.

Either way, the sediment studies in Spain I've been reading on do indeed provide proof of several tsunamis.
Sometimes a couple of kilometers in land, this excludes storm deposits as a possible source. Not been able to date these so far though.

 

[Eu_citzen]

/../
Either way, the sediment studies in Spain I've been reading on do indeed provide proof of several tsunamis.
Sometimes a couple of kilometers in land, this excludes storm deposits as a possible source. Not been able to date these so far though.

Update: We have 2 possible turbidite beds in sediments that were dated and might be off interest to us.
The authors call them E12 & E11. E11 was only found in one sampled core, so take with a grain of salt.
E12 seems likely and plausible to have been a widespread event IMHO.

E11 dates to 10345 BP (~8395 years ago, slightly late, but none the less..)
E12 dates to 13385 BP (~11435 years ago)

The paper is called:
Integrated observations from NEAR shore sources of Tsunamis. 2006.
Towards an early warning system

 

[Oroblanco]

I agree. Math may not be the answer. But it can be entertaining to consider!

Do the historic sources mention if the water retreated after the 'flood'?

As you say, there are likely one or more causes for the event. Not a single one.
I'm betting the possible "heinrich" event near that epoch is somehow related. Basically it means the ice is "calving", or having ice breaking off.
They are known for making large waves, but tsunamis? I'm not sure yet. If a large enough chunk broke off, perhaps.

Either way, the sediment studies in Spain I've been reading on do indeed provide proof of several tsunamis.
Sometimes a couple of kilometers in land, this excludes storm deposits as a possible source. Not been able to date these so far though.

The ancient sources only obliquely refer to the waters "receding", as with the biblical flood. On that topic, ran across something that MAY be a biblical reference to Atlantis itself!

"[SUP]8 [/SUP]Art thou better than populous No, that was situate among the rivers, that had the waters round about it, whose rampart was the sea, and her wall was from the sea?
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Ethiopia and Egypt were her strength, and it was infinite; Put and Lubim were thy helpers.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]Yet was she carried away, she went into captivity: her young children also were dashed in pieces at the top of all the streets: and they cast lots for her honourable men, and all her great men were bound in chains."

<Nahum 3:8-10, KJV>

Was the biblical city and state of NO, Atlantis? Biblical scholars usually try to place No as a city in Egypt, yet this hardly will fit the other aspects of the descriptions, as this seems to be describing an island power, a city literally surrounded by waters and protected by the seas.

Please do continue, and I look forward to hearing more on the sediment study!

 

[marticus]

The ancient sources only obliquely refer to the waters "receding", as with the biblical flood. On that topic, ran across something that MAY be a biblical reference to Atlantis itself!

<Nahum 3:8-10, KJV>

Was the biblical city and state of NO, Atlantis? Biblical scholars usually try to place No as a city in Egypt, yet this hardly will fit the other aspects of the descriptions, as this seems to be describing an island power, a city literally surrounded by waters and protected by the seas.

Please do continue, and I look forward to hearing more on the sediment study!

Excellent post Oro and Eu. This city of No. I wonder if we can find any other refferences to it. Perhaps even some of the books that never made the bible. Like enoch. The flood was his time period. We may be able yo find a better description of the city

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Eu_citzen]

The sediment study is currently on hold. Busy with other projects. Once it calms down, we'll see if I make it back to the sediment study!