Originally posted by FallenOne
They're finding underwater ruins all the time that would only have been out of the water around 12,000-9,000 years ago.
Fallen,
I decided to copy here what you said previously that I objected to.
Here's what you posted for my edification:
Originally posted by FallenOne
www.india-atlantis.org...
A website about Graham Hancock's hyperbolic statements concerning underwater ruins in Mahabalipuram.
Originally posted by FallenOne
www.lauralee.com...
Another website about Mahabalipuram with the same accompanying statements from Hancock.
BTW, Here's a quote from this website:
The possible date of the ruins may be 1500-1200 years BP. (BP means before the present ) Pallava dynasty, ruling the area during the period, has
constructed many such rock cut and structural temples in Mahabalipuram and Kanchipuram...
The last claim is questioned by Hancock, who says a scientist has told him it could be 6,000 years old.
Apparently, even if Hancock is right (and that would be a rare thing,) the site is not nearly as old as you claim it to be, Fallenone.
Originally posted by FallenOne
www.morien-institute.org...
A website primarily concerned with the "ruins" found in the Gulf of Mexico (which have not only never been dated, but also have never been confirmed
to be ruins) and the natural formation known as the Yonaguni Monument, near Okinawa Japan. There are other stories at this site, but they all concern
ruins of the historic period (Alexandria) or found on lake bottoms or the well-known finds near the former shoreline of the Black Sea.
Originally posted by FallenOne
www.atlantisrising.com...
Another website about the natural underwater structure known as the "Yonaguni Monument."
Originally posted by FallenOne
www.link-mail.com...
A website about Mahabalipuram, Yonaguni, and the Gulf of Mexico "ruins."
Originally posted by FallenOne
I could go ON AND ON AND ON!!!
Yes, I'm sure you could. But, given the repetition (five weblinks concerning essentially 3 sites) you've already exhibited, why should you?
You have given me three examples here that I've researched before and found wanting. The best suspect for antiquity that you have claimed here
(9,000 - 12,000 years ago, remember?) is the "ruins" located off Cuba in the Gulf of Mexico, assuming of course that they exist. The reason I think
this site is unlikely to have a date that even approaches the outlandish age you claim for it is that the area it's found in is subject to
subsumtion, that is, a localized downward "sinking" movement of the Earth's crust. Though you may not be aware of this, the crust of the Earth
actually does move up and down, up in some spots, down in others. How would you explain part of the city of Alexandria being submerged in the
Mediterreanean Sea? Will you postulate that Alexandria's history dates back to the end of the last Ice Age?
Originally posted by FallenOne
What's preposturous is the incapability of some poeple to LEARN. This information is VERY OLD. If you don't know it by now, you should'n be on the
Ancient & Lost Civilazations Forum. Good Day.
Fallen One
Right back at you. I guess the archaeologists and geologists involved also exhibit "the incapability of some poeple to LEARN."
Throwing around ages like 12,000 years or 9,000 years is the same as dismissing entire archaeological careers with the wave of a hand. This sort of
thing is seldom done, except by people who have very little idea of what they are talking about, and have no real concept at all of what we
know was occuring on this planet 12,000 years ago.
Again, I say:
Please provide further information about these ancient ruins being found "all the time."
You have not provided any such thing here. Of course, I know that you cannot, because no such information exists.
But, I will not go as far as to say that such ignorance as yours doesn't belong on this particular thread of the forum. After all, close association
with a few folks that use their brains just may result in some of that activity rubbing off on you.
Harte