There is abundant evidence on the ocean floor that suggests this may be the case
The current paradigm has suggested that during the ice ages,sea levels only fell approximately 130 meters.I however believe there is abundant evidence sea levels in fact fall 1000 meters or more.I would like to suggest that perhaps past civilizations,including Atlantis,were developed on lands that were exposed during this period.
Any time a hypothesis is stated,it needs to be based on at least some evidence that indicates it may be correct.That evidence does exist.There are four important pieces of evidence to support the hypothesis that the ice ages are far more severe and trap far more ice than is currently stated.And there is,in the case of Greenland and the lost squadron,evidence directly from these modern times that strongly suggests that when it comes to the theories surrounding the ice age,something is seriously wrong.
The four pieces of evidence that strongly indicate ice ages draw ocean levels down thousands of feet are:
1.Deeply submerged coral reefs.There are dead coral reefs that have been discovered around the world at depths of 2 kilometers.The conventional explanation is that massive sea floor changes dropped them to those depths.I would like to suggest that instead,when ocean levels drop during ice ages,reefs form at the new ocean levels,which can be entire kilometers lower than where they are now.Ocean levels subsequently rise too quickly during melt periods and too continuously for reefs to keep up and be formed at all levels in between.
2.The well known fact that the Mediterranean basin was recently a desert,and only filled up in recent times.Due to the fact that the strait of Gibraltar is only 900 feet deep,if the ocean fell 1000 meters it would leave the mediterranian high and dry,to turn into a bed of salt until the ice age was over.Once glacial melting occurred,the Mediterranean would fill relatively gently,rather than the"massive waterfall"scenario currently accepted.
3.A proven Aztec style city is submerged at 750 meters depth(over 2,000 feet down)off the western tip of Cuba.There's no evidence of a recent massive earthquake that could have dropped it that far down.Everything has been done to discredit this discovery,but sonar scans do indeed prove in spectacular detail it is there,and it is identical to the most famous sites in Mexico.
4.Greenland's ice pack averages 2000 meters thick and is up to 3,000 meters thick,TODAY,with no ice age.I would like to therefore hypothesize that it is foolish to claim that during an ice age the ice,on average everywhere in the freeze zone,is not at least that thick.And that's all the thickness it would need to drop all the earth's oceans far more than a full kilometer in depth.Additionally,the lost squadron that was finally found in Greenland,was first found at a depth of 265 feet,which is far deeper than climatologists ever stated was possible when ice age theory was developed by a factor of about 10X.This proves they did not know what they were talking about in any way at all when the theories surrounding the ice ages were made up.And the error strongly indicates that the ice ages are far more severe,with far thicker ice and far more profound sea level drops than anyone ever imagined.
And now the facts,which strongly support my hypothesis statements above:
Sunken reefs are found throughout the world 2,000 meters down.Here is a key quote from"Submerged reefs are reefs formed during periods of lower sea level,which currently have little or no modern upwardcoral framework accretion.These reefs are found in water depths ranging from 25 to 2,000m depending on their tectonic setting,but most commonly between 40 and 120m on passive continental margins.They are thought to have drowned as a result of inimical environmental conditions associated with sea level rise during the last deglaciation.This source:
My comment:I'd bet a fair number of the reefs found 2 kilometers down were the"result of inimical environmental conditions associated with sea level rise during the last deglaciation"and not simply tectonic shifts.
The deeply sunken city off the coast of Cuba is another major indicator that the current theories are wrong.
Let's take a look at this city.It is far better imaged than I thought it was.When compared to other cities of this type in Mexico,(even the one surrounding the Tula Giants,which is much smaller than this)the squares are sports arenas that have a center larger than a football field,and can accomodate well over 10,000 people.The pyramids therefore have to be absolutely huge.Aztec type civilizations built pyramids on par with those at Giza(though not as tall),and this is probably an example.The largest and third largest pyramids in the world are in Mexico.
There is no explanation for the existence of this city where it is with the current model and there is no evidence whatsoever that a tectonic shift caused it to sink 2000 feet below the Caribbean.However,there is something the existence of this city DOES explain,and that is the legend of Atlantis.
So let's take a look at the Atlantic seafloor in graphic elevation relief.Sure enough,if enough water is removed to expose this sunken Aztec city,a prime location for Atlantis is suddenly well above sea level.And as a bonus,pottery has been recovered from this area,from over a thousand feet below the surface.Conventional explanation:It was a dumping ground,in the ocean,500 miles from shore where sailing vessels would pleasure cruise to dispose of garbage.YEP.They'd sail all the way out there to throw garbage overboard.What a GREAT explanation!Don't waste your time out there with a deep sea submersible looking for a lost crystal ball.THANK YOU.
Low and behold,there's dual confirmation of another flooding in recent times that can explain both Atlantis AND the submerged"Aztec"style city-the sudden filling of the Mediterranean basin.This was already explained above.If the Aztec city was at one time on dry land,there is no option whatsoever for the Mediterranean to exist at that time.It would have been a land locked salt bed.They know it recently flooded.Current estimates as to when that happened are probably wrong,and should instead be pegged directly to the time frame when Atlantis and the sunken aztec city were submerged.
Technically,they were not Aztecs because of the time frame,but they were the same people,the way the city is built proves it.And they probably got knocked off their feet badly and took millenia to recover elsewhere,at higher elevations.But their technology and building style obviously survived.
So let's go over the numbers and do a little math to see how severe an ice age would really need to be to cause this.
Do the numbers add up?YOU BET!They certainly do.
The first thing we need to debunk is the myth that the ice age glaciers displaced so much seawater that they offset the amount of sea level drop.This sea depth map shows the reality of this-that the arctic ocean is so shallow there is no significant water there to be displaced.Most of it is much shallower than the depths of both the sunken aztec city and where I think Atlantis was.
There are some places in the arctic sea that approach a mile deep,but only in trenches,the average is very shallow.And if Greenland has an ice pack that in places is already three kilometers thick,any ice age glacier sitting on top of the arctic ocean is going to be anchored solidly to the ocean floor and extend miles above sea level.So you can for the most part scratch the arctic ocean off any account of sea level rising due to the presence of glaciers.Now add to the arctic ocean ALL of Canada,much of the United States,Europe,and Russia,and cover all of that in ice 3 kilometers thick,which Greenland has,even today.Then add Antarctica,with an equal amount of ice.How much would sea level drop,from those factors?
First,take a look at this ice age map,I'll give the stats on that,and then do the math.
During the last ice age,between 30 percent and 33 percent of the world was covered in ice.
When there is no ice age,the earth is approximately 71 percent covered by oceans The maps make it perfectly clear ice ages will very disproportionately drop sea levels in comparison to how much water they take from the ocean,because both north and south polar regions have a lot of land and shallow waters.The ice will mostly not be floating on water.
How thick would the ice caps need to be,to drop ocean levels more than a thousand meters?This is obviously going to be an estimate.The oceans cover approximately 71 percent of the earth's surface,and the arctic ocean is so shallow that it can simply be called land during an ice age.We'll give it a little credit for existing prior and not subtract the entire amount of it's percentage in total water volume.During an ice age approximately 67 percent of the world is ocean and dry land,and 33 percent is ice,with much of that ice covering what was previously land.That's a fairly close estimate.Of the amount of the world left not covered by ice(because there is disproportionately more land covered in ice than water,)probably around 80 percent is ocean rather than 71 percent,even after we omit the arctic ocean from the equation.So take the previous remaining balance of the earth that does not freeze(67 percent)and subtract 20 percent from 67 percent to get how much of the remaining not frozen world is ocean.That leaves 53.6 percent surface area(water)to offset ice thickness on 33 percent of the earth.
To drop ocean levels by 1,000 meters with those numbers,the ice sheets during the ice age only had to average 1.624 kilometers thick.If they were 3.5 kilometers thick,that would explain coral reefs occurring at 2 kilometers depth.Both numbers are well within rational limits for the thickness of the glaciers during ice ages considering the ice pack on greenland already has zones 3 kilometers thick,with an overall average thickness of 2 kilometers.
There will probably be a few who will claim that because there's no evidence of glacial scouring in some regions,that the glaciers were not there.That's a foolish assumption,because if there is no elevation differences in those areas to cause a glacier to flow,there won't be any scouring,and what about that big arctic ocean basin that would act as an anchoring point?To say that did not freeze over would be myopic to say the least.Everything in the freeze zone was under miles of ice,obviously.
Obviously,the entire polar region was totally frozen,just like Greenland is today.Therefore:
It is not at all far fetched to think that during an ice age,the average could indeed have been enough to push ocean depths down by well over a kilometer.
The now dead coral reefs,at up to 2 kilometers depth are"all explained away as"tectonic shifting","but if so,how did the Caribbean end up with a city 750 meters under the water,built at a time when it was known that the Mediterranean was a dry basin?You can't blame that coincidence on tectonics,I'll hedge my bets that the ice ages have a far greater impact on ocean levels than believed,the corals indicate this,the Greenland ice pack indicates this,a deeply submerged city off the coast of Cuba indicates this,the story of Atlantis indicates this,a sunken civilization in the English channel indicates this,the stories of a"great flood"indicate this,and what would cause it?A regularly occurring micro nova on the sun that happens at the absolute peak heat the sun produces,followed by a sharp drop in solar output.The micro nova only lasts a few days.The repercussions last thousands of years.
Greenland can tell us all about how fast an ice age can move with the story of the lost squadron-
During world war 2,a squadron of aircraft got lost in a storm over Greenland and was forced to land on the ice pack.Though all of the plane's crews survived and were taken back to the U.S.,search and recovery crews were sent to get the planes soon after only to find nothing.Where they went to was a complete mystery and attempts to recover them ceased.At that time(world war 2)which was long after"ice age theory"was too well established to change,they expected Greenland to only be getting a foot or so of additional ice per year,but that estimate was WAY off.In reality,Greenland gets so much additional snow pack and ice per year that it buried the lost squadron before anyone could go back to get it.The first airplane from the lost squadron was found 50 years later in 1992 by a ground penetrating radar 265 feet under the ice.That is,no doubt,a minimum marker for how fast an ice age can happen-the entire area it will put under hundreds of feet of will be buried beyond oblivion in a LOT less than a lifetime.Greenland is a prime example of the conditions that will happen and how fast it will happen when the next ice age strikes.
We don't know it all.How much does modern science know about a cycle tens of thousands of years long from a sample period of only 400 years or so?Approximately as much as you'd know about a Wal Mart after being put in it blindfolded and allowed to feel the merchandise on a single aisle.
I am therefore going to state my own hypothesis,which I think is far closer to reality than the current paradigm states:
I believe earth has enormous cycles that destroy advanced civilizations.These cycles happen too rapidly for civilizations to adapt to,and follow micro novas that change reality overnight.Greenland's ice pack data makes it clear that virtually overnight the United States can be buried under 10 feet of ice and snow,followed by 10 more feet the next year,and 10 more feet the next,with it never melting.At the end of the great freeze,the reverse happens-water returns to the world's most productive regions,where civilizations are most likely to bloom,and they get destroyed all over again by the reverse process.
Someone burned the library of Alexandria for a reason.Let me make a guess:
I'll make a bet that the library was burned so someone,a certain tribe,could falsify history and make it whatever they wanted.They erased Atlantis,and made it a"conspiracy theory"just like they are trying to erase Western civilization now,with gaydom freak shows and"common core"coupled with a massive eugenics program to stupefy entire generations with shots they claim are"vaccines".
I'd bet the library of Alexandria talked ALL ABOUT the end of the ice age and massive sea level rise,and the submerging of major civilizations with the most famous being Atlantis,but there were probably many more.I'd bet the library of Alexandria had records of technology that at the time it was burned,no one understood but today,the technologies would be understood clearly and someone did not want any future advanced civilization that could understand it to have it.
The library of Alexandria probably had an accurate world map and full record of America,but as we see now already happening online,got replaced with"flat earth".You may think the flat earth crowd is just a bunch of loonies,but I see it as the next attempt to get people totally ignorant of everything,-a second burning of history.What about that old old folklore about"the man on the moon"?Maybe it was not just a pattern we see-maybe there is more to that story-a reason for the"cities on the moon"to be there-and people are already being fooled into denying our civilization ever went there.The destruction of the new Atlantis is well underway.
The Urim and Thummim were a GPS.The magical oracle was an Ipad.What about the mechanical bird?What about the"Black Knight"satellite that was still functioning and is now reported destroyed?How about things like the Palladin,which could have simply been genetic experiments that are seeing resistance now?How is it that all that magic crap from the past,which was written off as"magic"and"folklore"exists again?WE HAVE ALL THAT.Everything that was spoken of in folklore is here now,right down to an unfettered ability to create freak life forms.And it is clear and obvious with the overt attempts to destroy the United States and Europe,that someone wants those items to return to the realm of folklore,just like the unicorn,the dragon(which is genetically very possible,just combine an electric eel with something that can spit oil and use the electricity to ignite it)what if ALL THAT existed?
I no longer believe current ice age theory.There is too much against it.It is obviously debunked.And if we can't even have a real knowledge of that,what else was taken?