98 replies to this topic

[Genesis Veracity]

Check-out http://www.maltadisc...arch/index.html for an account about a megalithic complex, 2 kilometers from the northwest shoreline of Malta, on a now-submerged peninsula/promontory.

[Diego]

Again, thanks for the link. But as we tend to be quite cautious and somewhat skeptical, the news should read "an account about a structure that resemble a megalithic complex" (underlined are the original words by the discoverer).

To be honest, we hadn't heard of this underwater structure before, but it is curious - to say the least - that 6 years after its discovery nobody - not the archaeologists, nor the Maltese government - have a clue of this alleged prehistoric complex. Maybe it's just the old "conspiracy" theory which prevented the "common people" to know the real story of Atlantis?  

In fact, we must warn our visitors that the "honourable doctor Hubert Zeitmair" (as you can read on his website) would let you follow him to "...a journey into the past, to discover the fingerprints of that the globe encompassing in the darkness of time lost high culture of the Atlanteans and its former spiritual and leading center Atlan.tris". That's enough for us - thanks very much dr. Zeitmair.  

In any case, we'd really like to see some more info/photos/excavations reports of the alleged temples Of Gebel Gol-bahar. And - as reported by one of the users of the vivamalta.org forum: "If this was true BBC, Discovery, and National Geographic would have swarmed us filming it. Despite all nothing ever stirred accept the odd article."

[Genesis Veracity]

Those conventional entities have also not bothered to investigate the megaliths at the mouth of the Guadalquivir River, just west of Gibraltar, nor those off Lebanon (Yarmuta and Sidon), nor those off Egypt (Kinessa and Sidi Gabr), not those off Elafonisi (21 acres of megalithic walls), nor those in the Gulfs of Cambay and Kutch (northwest India), nor those of ancient Kumari Kandam (off southern India), nor those off Yonaguni and Okinawa (of the Jomon culture), so it seems that National Geographic, Discovery, etc. have a collective blind-spot about submerged megaliths.  So why it this?  It is because the implication is that the Ice Age ended much later than the conventional scientists insist.

[Nigel]

Genesis Veracity, on 30 September 2005, 17:10, said:

Those conventional entities have also not bothered to investigate .........  So why it this?  It is because the implication is that the Ice Age ended much later than the conventional scientists insist.

I would have thought that lasting academic fame and fortune would await anyone who could prove that.

[Genesis Veracity]

Prove what?  And I asked another "what" of you on another thread, to which you have yet to respond, just to let you know.

[Nigel]

Genesis Veracity, on 30 September 2005, 21:16, said:

Prove what?

The implication that the Ice Age ended much later than the conventional scientists insist.

[Genesis Veracity]

The point is that those submerged megaliths and those nearby onshore look little different, and so, were they built circa 10000 B.C., or circa 2500 B.C.?

[BuckyE]

I vote for somewhere in between. There's a heck of a lot of archaeology that doesn't get done underwater because it's just way too expensive and dangerous. And that's just the stuff that's mainstream. Archaeology is the poor stepchild of the sciences. It's dull to most people, who don't care about history the way we do, and getting more dull all the time.

It took Mellaart a few seasons to "dig" dozens of houses at Catal Huyouk. The current team has been working longer and has dug only, what, three? Plus their deep sounding. Archaeology is SO painstaking, so precise, these days, that nobody can wait around long enough to admire the results. In the old days of Schliemann at Troy, or Howard Carter in the Valley or Arthur Evans at Knossos they were dynamiting up treasure and grand palaces and unearthing myth. Today they scrape up teaspoons of sand and sift it for seeds. Nobody cares and nobody wants to pay for it.

I've seen pictures of the "Jomon" site off Japan. It's intriguing, but, as an example, the currents are swift and deadly and few trained divers are willing to spend any time there. It would be about impossible to do any kind of responsible archaeology under those conditions.

It just comes down to money. Of which there is a sad dearth. Look at Mel Fischer. He spent years finding the Atocha (OK, I know this is a bit off the stones theme, but it's apropos), got laughed at, was despised, etc. and it was FULL OF GOLD. And he still never actually made any true profit from digging it. (But we know a lady who got to wear the big necklace, modeling it for photographs.) Who the heck is going to pay some "kooks" to dive for old stones? It's like the drunk on the night time dark street crawling around under the lamppost looking for his wallet. "Buddy, " says a guy who can see there's obviously no wallet there. "Where'd you lose it?" "Over there summere," slurs the drunk. "Well, why don't you look over there?" "Cuz the lights better here."

Its so much easier to get the paltry available funds if one offers to dig places where it's more or less known something might turn up, where contacts have already been established, where the weather and other conditions don't demand as much expense. It's not curious we haven't heard of these things. I've heard of some of them. (I read sites like www.science-frontiers.com and www.forteantimes.com.) It's a matter of one's interests. If you search the Web, and read the right blogs and so on these places will turn up.

[Genesis Veracity]

Hundreds of photographic dives have occurred at and near Yonaguni, there the problem was not money.  The submerged sites worldwide are always no more than a short boat ride from shore, and are almost always in scuba-reachable depths, so money is not the problem.

Therefore, the conventionals steer clear of these sites because they fear the implications of these submerged megaliths which were engulfed when the Ice Age ended.

When do you think the Ice Age ended?

[Robert Henvell]

It is generally accepted that the last glacial maximum lasted from 23000-16000bce.However there are many regional anomalies,which do not conform to this generalization.Then there is the Younger Dryas [ca 10800-9600bce],when the icesheets in some parts of the world advanced,[ie;NW Europe].There was a major rise in sea level during the seventh millennium bce,when a number of glacial lakes were breeched in North America.More definative data may come available,when the Antarctic ice cores are fully analyzed.World wide there were substantial variations during the last ice age and the Younger Dryas,[ie,there were relatively few glaciers in northern Asia by comparison to NW Europe,because there was not enough snow to feed mega size glaciers.This above contributes to many debates.The seperation of THe UK from Europe most probably occurred circa 6500bce.There are some people,who strongly oppose this data.Glacial rebound and tectonic movement complicate the issue.

[Genesis Veracity]

The geological evidence indicates that Ice Age ended rapidly (massive flooding meltwater runoff), and ancient legends describe kingdoms disappearing by a limited sea level rise (of a few hundred feet), so this melting a little bit here, and then a little bit there, just doesn't hold water.

[BuckyE]

I don't see anyone in all the pages I've looked at saying anything about a "massive flooding meltwater runoff." I have read in several places that the change in average temperature from the Pleistocene to the Holocene took place in a short span: perhaps less than a hundred years. This information (still being debated) comes from the Greenland cores, right?

But every graph or chart I can find shows a fairly consistent sea level rise from about 20K BCE to about 7K BCE, with a tapering off since then. Some people favor a consistent rise, some favor a punctuated one, but no one I can see says there was an initial sudden rise. The estimates I've just been reading range from a low low of 150 m below present levels to a high low of 80 m for the amount of rise. And everyone agrees that any individual place has to be studied on its own. Isostatic rebound, siltation, undersea erosion, terraces, a mess of stuff I don't recognise make estimating the age of a site based on its current depth impossible. Oh well.

And with this I sign off the GenVer debate.

[Genesis Veracity]

If the melting of the Ice Age continental icepacks did not occur rapidly, then all of the Artcic ocean would be open sea today, because with the slow melt which you propone, the meltwater would have mixed with the saltwater, to never freeze on the surface, but when the rapid meltwater runoff surged out into the Arctic ocean and "floated" upon the saltwater (which is more dense than freshwater), the freshwater froze on the surface of the Arctic Ocean.

With your scenario, there would be no freshwater icepack in the North Pole region, it woud all be open saltwater.

[Jimit]

Good grief, this is getting ridiculous. Are you saying that salt water doesen't freeze? Of course it does, it just needs lower temperatures which are achieved easily in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
I remember during the very cold winter of 1963 slushy ice forming off Brighton in the English Channel which sure aint fresh water.


Like BuckyE, I too am signing off from this increasingly futile debate.

[Genesis Veracity]

The north polar icepack is of freshwater, not saltwater, and the Arctic is now a desert (but during the Ice Age, it snowed there alot), so from where did all that freshwater, to freeze, come?