SimplyGenius
Registered Member
Just imagine it. With all that ice, you might think that there must be something of archaeological significance to discover down there. With up to two-mile thick ice in someplces, one might wonder what the effects could be to anything under there.
But what if we stripped all of that away? I mean really, Greenland is massively unexplored (in archaeolgical terms) with the knowledge that it is 85% covered with ice. So there's all this land that has been completely untapped, and may hold something valueble, but that's just my opinion.
My goal here is not to discuss Science, as I wasn't quite sure which category I should put this thread. I may put this prompt in the Science section as well, but for now, I want to see who responds to this on the basis of History, Science, Literature, and/or geographical theorem.
You see, my real purpose is to seriously discuss something that I have found to be interesting to a high Degree. I will present evidences that I hope you will fairly interpret and present your opinion. I will present mine. Because my personal theory is that Greenland (the largest island in the world, thought to be unimportant, and insigicant to the human race) is actually the lost continant of Atlantis.
I will now present my evidences (continue reading if you consider yourself a fair disputent):
Evidence Factor 1- Location
Kircher's 1665 map (just google it, I'm not giving you links) shows Atlantis between europeand america, exactly. Literally, it's right in the of the atlantic. Now you might say well greenland is too far north. But compared to other theories, it's very accurate. Thus, I consider this evidence for my little theory.
Evidence Factor 2 - Shape/North-South Orientation
if you look at Greenland, and then you look at Kircher's Atlantis, and then you look at Greenland, and then at Kircher's Atlatis, you find that they are basicly the same shape: elongated from north to south; bulk of land in the north, penisula in the south. You can find this with any map of greenland, and Kircher's Atlatis.
It's hilarious how people have founded their entire theories on the fact that Antarctica is (in a small way) similiarly shaped like Kircher's atlantis, and yet, it's nowhere near where Kircher suggests it to be, and it's upside down, and greenland (the most likely candidate if the general location of Kircher's Atlatis is assumed to be true) fits the description of Atlantis way better.
These are some of my evidences. I don't have time to explain the rest, so if you're up to "dissecting" all of this, pease do so with the upmost solemnity.
Also, feel free to suggest your own theories about Atlantis, just don't veer off into the blue yonder of irrelavence.
But what if we stripped all of that away? I mean really, Greenland is massively unexplored (in archaeolgical terms) with the knowledge that it is 85% covered with ice. So there's all this land that has been completely untapped, and may hold something valueble, but that's just my opinion.
My goal here is not to discuss Science, as I wasn't quite sure which category I should put this thread. I may put this prompt in the Science section as well, but for now, I want to see who responds to this on the basis of History, Science, Literature, and/or geographical theorem.
You see, my real purpose is to seriously discuss something that I have found to be interesting to a high Degree. I will present evidences that I hope you will fairly interpret and present your opinion. I will present mine. Because my personal theory is that Greenland (the largest island in the world, thought to be unimportant, and insigicant to the human race) is actually the lost continant of Atlantis.
I will now present my evidences (continue reading if you consider yourself a fair disputent):
Evidence Factor 1- Location
Kircher's 1665 map (just google it, I'm not giving you links) shows Atlantis between europeand america, exactly. Literally, it's right in the of the atlantic. Now you might say well greenland is too far north. But compared to other theories, it's very accurate. Thus, I consider this evidence for my little theory.
Evidence Factor 2 - Shape/North-South Orientation
if you look at Greenland, and then you look at Kircher's Atlantis, and then you look at Greenland, and then at Kircher's Atlatis, you find that they are basicly the same shape: elongated from north to south; bulk of land in the north, penisula in the south. You can find this with any map of greenland, and Kircher's Atlatis.
It's hilarious how people have founded their entire theories on the fact that Antarctica is (in a small way) similiarly shaped like Kircher's atlantis, and yet, it's nowhere near where Kircher suggests it to be, and it's upside down, and greenland (the most likely candidate if the general location of Kircher's Atlatis is assumed to be true) fits the description of Atlantis way better.
These are some of my evidences. I don't have time to explain the rest, so if you're up to "dissecting" all of this, pease do so with the upmost solemnity.
Also, feel free to suggest your own theories about Atlantis, just don't veer off into the blue yonder of irrelavence.