Is the Caribbean Hell on Earth? One Writer Says It's the Real Underworld of Myth

3/31/2017

In this day and age, some 135 years after Ignatius Donnelly wrote Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, it is strange to see someone actually accepting Donnelly’s claims as factual, much less working from Donnelly’s book to propose a research program to find Hell. Yes, you read that right: Brad Yoon of Ancient Origins actually claims that using insights from Donnelly’s Atlantis, we can find the real-life inspiration for Hell, which he places in the Caribbean Sea. The argument is one of the odder ones I’ve heard in a while. “I shall extend Donnelly’s thesis and undertake an in-depth analysis of the underworld and where it may have been, and how a real and physical place might have become transformed into the final resting place of souls departed both in the physical and the mythological planes.”

To understand Yoon’s argument requires a little background, which I will try to simplify as much as possible. The Christian concept of heaven and hell is a bit of a latecomer in cosmological terms, sitting atop the earlier Hebrew conception of the shadowy underworld of Sheol and the divine heaven of Yahweh, and the Greek underworld of Hades and the gods’ home on Olympus. In Hebrew myth, there was once an earthly paradise called Eden, and this has long been compared to the vaguely defined earthly paradise that developed in Greek mythology. The Greek paradise began as three separate entities: the Fortune Isles, which were warm and fertile Atlantic islands; the Islands of Blessed, which were conflated with the Fortunate Islands and originated as the land of the blessed dead in the farthest western reaches of the Ocean; and the Elysian Fields, identified with both as early as Hesiod but which originally seems to have been conceived of as the vast opposite land on the western side of Ocean, a gigantic plain where the noble dead live. All of these concepts appear to be influenced by the Mesopotamian paradise where the righteous Utnapishtim lives in immortal splendor in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a land often incorrectly identified with the ancient kingdom of Dilmun.

Such claims are not terribly controversial and have been widely discussed in academic literature. Ignatius Donnelly, however, took all of this and identified all of these lands with Atlantis because a majority of them were islands in the Atlantic. Yoon, consequently, believes the revers: Because he assumes Atlantis is real, it therefore follows that these imaginary (or at least exaggerated) paradises must have been the very real Atlantis. Consequently, he believes he can use the same methodology to find the Underworld’s real-life counterpart.

Yoon chooses to follow the Greeks when looking for the Underworld, even though theirs is not the oldest on record. While Mesopotamian cultures placed the entrance to the Underworld at the mountain gate in the East where the Sun emerged from his nightly judgment of the dead, the Greeks envisioned the Underworld as being all over the place. Hesiod places a single bronze entrance in the farthest west, on the edge of the Ocean. Homer places entrances in several places. Odysseus travels to the farthest west, but there is evidence that this is an inversion of an earlier story in the oral Argonautic corpus of an eastern entrance. (For example, Homer himself describes several eastern lands in terms borrowed from a voyage to the Underworld.) Homer also has Heracles defeat Hades at Pylos, which many scholars interpret as a corruption of an older story featuring the gates (pyloi) of the Underworld. In other myths, characters like Orpheus and Theseus descend to the Underworld from various locations.

Yoon elects to locate the Greek Underworld in the farthest west, and he consequently wants to find a dry, habitable basin below sea level that the Greeks would have interpreted as an underworld. He thinks the Caribbean is this location. But before we deal with that, we must first deal with Yoon’s misconceptions, born of his desire to mix and match terminology as convenient:

In the Odyssey, a myth dating back to the Heroic Age of Greece, Homer portrays the underworld as a gloomy realm of deceased spirits and shades. However, in myths that depict events taking place in the distant past, Hades is described as an abode of the living. For example, in the myth of the Titanomachy, or the war between the Titans and the Olympians, Zeus, son of Kronus, rebelled against his father and the Titans, the elder race of Gods, and emerged victorious in a ten-year-long war. Upon his victory, Zeus imprisoned the defeated Titans in Tartarus. There is no mention of spirits, shades, and ghosts in this version of Hades, and if Hesiod had called Hades and Tartarus by another name, one would hardly suspect that the setting of this war between the Titans and the Olympians was in any way a spiritual realm.

Did you catch the conflation? “Hades” is not synonymous with “Tartarus.” The Greek Underworld was composed of different parts. As Homer himself says in the Iliad (8.17), Tartarus is “as far beneath Hades as heaven is above earth.” Hesiod echoes the same claim. It is astonishing that Yoon knows this but nevertheless fails to distinguish between the general realm of Hades and the deepest level of Tartarus when it isn’t convenient to do so. But even in a mythological sense, Yoon is wrong because he does not distinguish between the eras of Greek mythic history. There were no spirits, shades, or ghosts when the Titans were chained in Tartarus because humans hadn’t been created yet. The battle of the Titans and the Olympians occurred before the creation of humanity, and therefore there were no ghosts to populate the Underworld until Prometheus and Epimetheus formed men from clay. The Titanomachy did not occur in Tartarus, but in Thessaly, according to standard Classical authors.

In short, Yoon doesn’t understand the subject he wishes to discourse on, and therefore his arguments fail the simple test of factual accuracy. Consequently, there is no reason to support Yoon’s claim that the Underworld’s Greek depiction shifted from a land of the “living” to the realm of the “dead.” It was a supernatural prison from beginning to end.

105 Comments

Scott David Hamilton

3/31/2017 11:12:19 am

I'm perversely curious how Yoon landed on the Caribbean, which doesn't strike me as particularly dry, let alone dark and shadowy.

Shane Sullivan

3/31/2017 11:29:44 am

Funny story: my dad was arrested in the Dominican Republic back in the 70s, although unlike Tartarus, his children were not responsible for his imprisonment their.

Bob Jase

3/31/2017 01:54:49 pm

maybe he was thinking of one of those cruise ships that had an outbreak of lower g. i. disease?

Americanegro

3/31/2017 03:57:20 pm

Leaving aside the question of how the Greeks knew it was there, include me in the group that doesn't understand how the Caribbean is either "dry" or "below sea level".

Brady Yoon

3/31/2017 04:29:16 pm

Sorry. I've written almost all of my articles on Ancient Origins and have fallen into the habit of assuming people are familiar with the theories I discussed in my earlier articles.

In several of my other articles published on Ancient Origins, I argued that the Caribbean Basin was dry and inhabited at a time when behaviorally modern man had evolved.

To summarize the evidence:
1) Structures which seem like the ruins of a city have been found over 2000 ft underwater off the western tip of Cuba. Scientists have concluded that it is highly unlikely that the seabed where the city was constructed collapsed to its present depth without remaining intact, and we know that the sea level never dropped this low. So I presented an alternative theory to explain the existence of the city at such a great depth: that the construction of the city predated the formation of the Caribbean Sea, and was built when the Sea was a dry basin. I also cited as evidence the fact that the Taino indians who are indigenous to the Caribbean isles tell the story of "How the Sea was Created." The story tells, in brief, about how the "cracking of a gourd" caused the formation of a sea. I argued that the story wasn't referring to the creation of the entire ocean, as has been commonly interpreted, but rather the creation of the Caribbean Sea. I also interpreted the gourd as a reference to the Caribbean Basin, which if dry, would have been of a concave shape just as the gourd - the basin in the interior combined with the mountains that had to surround the basin to prevent the ocean from flooding in would have formed a concave shape.

3/31/2017 04:35:22 pm

2) I also discovered evidence of structures using Google Earth in the Caribbean Basin that could not have been created naturally, provided that the structures are actually faithfully represented by Google Earth and are not image artifacts. For example, a nearly vertical, mile-high cliff on the western boundary of the St. Croix Basin. (The basin is named but the cliff is not). Also, I believe that the Muertos Trough is manmade, and not natural as geologists have concluded. These and other features on the bottom of the Caribbean Sea convinced me that the Caribbean Basin must have been dry and inhabited at one time when humans had already evolved, and moreover that an advanced civilization as advanced as ourselves had inhabited this basin (the structures must have required advanced industrial equipment to construct).

3/31/2017 05:37:16 pm

So were the mountains man-made or natural? A civilization advanced enough to construct a mile-high cliff but gets flooded out?

And how did the Greeks get there and back again?

3/31/2017 06:11:44 pm

Well, in my view, the mountains were entirely natural. Like I said in another comment to this post, I believe that the West Indies island arc is the remnant of a once contiguous landmass that extended all the way from Florida to Venezuela. This contiguous landmass would have, together with what is now the Central American isthmus and the northernmost boundary of South America, completely encircled the Caribbean Basin, thus isolating it from the Atlantic Ocean. And because there is an excess of evaporation over the sum of precipitation and runoff in the Caribbean region, the Caribbean Sea would have evaporated away much as the landlocked Mediterranean Sea evaporated away during the Messinian Salinity Crisis millions of years ago.

This continuous chain of land was basically like a giant dam, holding back the waters of the surrounding ocean and the tremendous pressure its waters generated from bursting through and drowning everyone living within the basin. Its inhabitants must have known that it was only a matter of time before a weak link in this chain would break, and the ocean would deluge their land. But they chose to live in the basin anyway, just as people still live in New Orleans even though they know that the levees will eventually break.

Even a civilization advanced enough to construct the mile-high city, would be unable to stop the oceans from eventually breaching the encircling mountains, or stop the ensuing flood once it did. (Can you think of a way to stop such a flood with modern technology?) And eventually, the dam burst, and the waters of the Atlantic and the depths of the basin resumed their primordial embrace. The ocean, as it poured into the basin, carved out the channels that now separate the isles of the Caribbean...

How did the Greeks come to know about it? Well, through the Egyptians, as Plato told us.

3/31/2017 06:14:32 pm

Sorry, mile high cliff, not mile high city.
And the "continuous chain of land" I mention in my previous comment is the same as the mountains you mention in your comment. To the inhabitants of this basin, the encircling chain of land would have been perceived as mountains.

3/31/2017 06:20:16 pm

I like to hear more about the construction of the mile high cliff.

And how did the Egyptians get there and back again?

3/31/2017 06:48:30 pm

I wasn't there, so I don't know how it was constructed! But I'll make a guess. The mile-high cliff, as I said earlier, forms the western boundary of a smaller basin - the St. Croix Basin, which is located within the larger Caribbean basin. I suppose that the smaller St. Croix Basin was already present when the Atlanteans or whoever was living there settled in the basin, and was originally just a natural formation. Then, the Atlanteans decided to make one of the sides of the basin into a steep wall for whatever reason. Maybe the St. Croix Basin was meant to be a reservoir to provide waters to irrigate the nearby plain (the Venezuelan Plain that is roughly 2000 x 3000 stadia, and resembling the plain of Atlantis mentioned by Plato). I really don't know though. But it's not clear why the St. Croix Basin would have had to have a steep, almost vertical cliff in order to function as a reservoir. But again, I believe they already found a preexisting small basin about a mile deep and made one of its sides a steep cliff instead of excavating the entire basin first, which would have required much more work.

In the world of 3D printing, manufacturing processes are categorized into two distinct types: additive and subtractive. In the former, a desired product is built by successively depositing material in layers such that it becomes a predesigned shape, whereas in the latter, 3D objects are constructed by successively cutting material away from a solid block of material. Most examples of megalithic construction, including Pyramids of Egypt and Mesoamerica and any pyramids for that matter are of the additive type - blocks of stone are piled on top of each other to create the finished product. Sculpture, on the other hand, is the classic example of a subtractive process. I believe that the construction of the mile-high cliff can be categorized as a new form of art on a grand scale - subtractive megalithic architecture. It is, in a sense, an example of sculpting the earth itself instead of merely a block of stone. In that sense, the Atlanteans were the ultimate artists, and their medium was not mere stone, but the earth itself. Subtractive processes carried out on such a large scale necessarily generate lots of wastage - in the case of the cliff, large masses of stone that would have been pried off the side of the St. Croix Basin in order to generate a smooth surface. These masses of stone could have, in turn, been used to generate additive megalithic structures. In other words, you're recycling the very waste products of a subtractive megalithic construction process to create additive megalithic architecture.

I believe, personally, that most of the Maya and Mesoamerican pyramids were built from the refuse of these subtractive megalithic processes whose remnants are lying deep underwater. It would have been too wasteful to simply quarry out stones on such a large scale unless the stones being quarried were created from another process that was also believed to be "necessary." But this is just speculation.

I believe that the Egyptians were once ruled directly or indirectly by the Atlanteans, or were within their sphere of influence. Plato says that the Atlanteans controlled territories around the Mediterranean Basin as far inland as "Tyrrhenia" and "Egypt," though he does not say whether the territories conquered by Atlantis include or only go up to the borders of these islands. To answer your question, it's not necessary that the Egyptians went to Atlantis and back. The Atlanteans were the ones who came to Egypt, or very close to it.

3/31/2017 08:18:48 pm

Why do we not see any Egyptian tales of Atlantis?

Why did the Atlanteans want to control Egypt?

How did they know Egypt was there?

How did the Atlanteans get to Egypt and back again?

3/31/2017 09:58:56 pm

Why do we not see any Egyptian tales of Atlantis?
Because most of Egyptian history was lost after the Greek, Roman, and Islamic conquests. The Egyptians forgot how to speak and understand their own language. The priesthood which was responsible for maintaining detailed records of the past, among other tasks, were converted to another religion.

Why did the Atlanteans want to control Egypt?
Because of geography. Egypt is situated at a key geographical location, and control of Egypt implies control of Africa, Europe, and Asia. Case in point: the Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Napoleon, and Britain tried/succeeded in controlling Egypt.

How did they know Egypt was there?
Exploration. In my opinion, colonialism in the ancient world took place the other way around. It wasn't Europeans exploring the "New World," but the Americans discovering and "exploring" the "Old World." Maybe the Atlanteans were the descendants of the Asians who crossed the Bering Strait and settled in the Americas. It's always assumed that the Atlanteans were somehow a Western civilization but there's no actual evidence to suggest this. Plato described the Temple of Poseidon as "barbaric," suggesting that Atlantean culture was foreign to the Mediterranean region of its time. This is speculation of course. I honestly have no idea what "race" the ruling class of the Atlanteans were.

How did the Atlanteans get to Egypt and back again?
By boats. Plato says that the Atlanteans were a maritime people. They probably stayed until they were defeated by the Greek-Egyptian alliance.

4/1/2017 12:28:13 am

I shudder when I reflect on how many quatloos someone spouting this nonsense would fetch on Triskelion.

"Why do we not see any Egyptian tales of Atlantis?
Because most of Egyptian history was lost after the Greek, Roman, and Islamic conquests. The Egyptians forgot how to speak and understand their own language."

Prove it.

"Why did the Atlanteans want to control Egypt?
Because of geography. Egypt is situated at a key geographical location, and control of Egypt implies control of Africa, Europe, and Asia. Case in point: the Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Napoleon, and Britain tried/succeeded in controlling Egypt."

Prove it. How does control of Egypt imply control of Europe or Asia?

"How did they know Egypt was there?
Exploration. In my opinion, colonialism in the ancient world took place the other way around. It wasn't Europeans exploring the "New World," but the Americans discovering and "exploring" the "Old World." Maybe the Atlanteans were the descendants of the Asians who crossed the Bering Strait and settled in the Americas. It's always assumed that the Atlanteans were somehow a Western civilization but there's no actual evidence to suggest this. Plato described the Temple of Poseidon as "barbaric," suggesting that Atlantean culture was foreign to the Mediterranean region of its time. This is speculation of course. I honestly have no idea what "race" the ruling class of the Atlanteans were."

You DO know that Plato's account of Atlantis is a STORY about a story about someone telling someone a story about a story and then that person telling someone else a story about the story, right?

"How did the Atlanteans get to Egypt and back again?
By boats. Plato says that the Atlanteans were a maritime people."

In a STORY about a story about someone telling someone a story about a story and then that person telling someone else a story about the story, Plato says...

"They probably stayed until they were defeated by the Greek-Egyptian alliance."

No, that doesn't float. You already said the Atlanteans were more technologically advanced than we are now. Try to keep your story straight.

This is fun but there's really something wrong with you.

Mr. Pyramid

4/1/2017 07:18:33 pm

"…most of Egyptian history was lost after the Greek, Roman, and Islamic conquests. The Egyptians forgot how to speak and understand their own language."

TheEgyptians stopped understanding their hieroglyphic writing system and its relatives in late Roman times, not earlier. There are countless Egyptian texts from before that knowledge died out, spanning more than 3,000 years. The only foreign rulers of Egypt ever mentioned in these texts are the group of peoples known as the Hyksos, who were clearly Semitic peoples from the Near East and not incredibly technologically advanced, and easily identifiable peoples like the Nubians, Assyrians, and Persians. Before those invaders started arriving, there were very few foreign cultural influences on Egypt, and all are clearly identifiable all the way back to the Mesopotamian influence in Predynastic times. There is no place for your Atlanteans to fit in.

4/1/2017 10:23:59 pm

How can you explain the numerous similarities between Egyptian and Pre-Inca/Inca cultures?http://www.richardcassaro.com/suppressed-by-scholars-the-mystery-of-twin-cultures-egyptians-incas-on-opposite-sides-of-the-globe

Only Me

4/1/2017 10:31:20 pm

"How can you explain the numerous similarities between Egyptian and Pre-Inca/Inca cultures?"

The claim is being made by someone who also believes Atlantis is real. Before that claim can have any merit, Atlantis must be proven to be more than a work of fiction.

4/1/2017 11:54:54 pm

Now that I know that Big Academia is suppressing the truth, I may have to reconsider my dismissal of what seemed to me to be nonsense.

Naaaaah. Still nonsense.

Finn

4/4/2017 05:33:58 am

"How can you explain the numerous similarities between Egyptian and Pre-Inca/Inca cultures?"

How can you explain the numerous similarities between a dolphin, ichthyosaur, and a shark?

Convergence can be a component, and sometimes it's just chance. I once wrote a storyline for a tabletop RPG, and a friend with a background in mythology who was playing said it was remarkably like a particular Norse tale. I'd never read it, but just hit on the same basic storyline premise on my own.

An Over-Educated Grunt

3/31/2017 11:27:04 am

This the same Brady Yoon who used to post here about how Greeks were just plain better? If so I'm not terribly surprised. Arguing with him was like shooting fish in a barrel with a grenade launcher. It isn't difficult, but it's deeply unsatisfying and not very rewarding.

3/31/2017 02:49:36 pm

I'm curious if Yoon is choosing the Caribbean Sea due to a circular geographical feature. He did argue Atlantis is real because circles, after all.

Jonathan E. Feinstein

3/31/2017 03:01:53 pm

I just assumed he had chosen the Caribbean as a desirable locale in which to write off a vacation as a business trip.

3/31/2017 03:32:47 pm

I ask because Jason pointed out, "In the end, he tries to argue that a Google Earth artifact in the Caribbean that resembles concentric circles must be Atlantis" here:

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/rings-of-power-do-concentric-circles-prove-atlantis-real

Yoon responded,

"Also, the concentric circles in the Google Earth images have measurements that precisely match those provided by Plato. If they were just circles, and the dimensions did not match, or if the feature were not contained within a rectangular plain - precisely as Plato said the city of Atlantis did, then I could see how the feature might be dismissed as an artifact. But what are the chances that an artifact was generated with almost the exact measurements as mentioned in a book over 2,500 years ago? I think the chances of that are, essentially zero."

So, is Yoon claiming both Atlantis and the real-life inspiration for Hell are in the same geographical area?

Jason Colavito link

3/31/2017 03:50:23 pm

Short answer: Yes. Atlantis was paradise, but then it was destroyed and became the Underworld.

Jim

3/31/2017 03:55:27 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAOANmzOiHg

3/31/2017 04:14:46 pm

Why I Believe the Caribbean was Hades...

In several of my other articles published on Ancient Origins, I argued that the Caribbean Basin was dry and inhabited at a time when behaviorally modern man had evolved. Most of the readers on Ancient Origins are already familiar with that article, so I didn't go into too much detail there.

The most authoritative Greek sources placed the Underworld in the far West, somewhere at the ends of "Oceanus." If it is accepted that "Underworld" was a poetic word used to describe a place on the earth below sea level (as opposed to just a world underground beneath our feet, or any other interpretation for that matter), AND it is accepted that the Caribbean Basin was once dry and inhabited in the recent past (geologically speaking), then it is highly likely that the Underworld was referring to the Caribbean Basin, as there weren't any other lands situated below sea level contemporaneously with modern man to the (far) west of Greece. Even if there were, only the Caribbean Basin has a trench analogous with Tartarus, the chasm/abyss within Hades that was as far below Hades as Hades was below the Earth.

I tried to minimize any references to Atlantis to emphasize that the argument presented in the article is independent of whether the Caribbean is Atlantis or not, but yes, I believe Atlantis and Hades were one and the same place (if Atlantis = Caribbean, and Caribbean = Hades, the conclusion follows).

3/31/2017 04:18:08 pm

P.S. I was replying to Only Me and Scott David Hamilton in the comment above.

SDO

4/1/2017 10:31:34 pm

Thanks! I was having a bad day and needed a good laugh.

Uncle Ron

3/31/2017 04:42:33 pm

But, the Caribbean basin was NOT dry, below sea level, and inhabited contemporaneously with modern man.

3/31/2017 04:55:05 pm

I seismic event that would sink the land in the Caribbean 2000 feet would have created a tsunami of nearly global proportions. Not to mention that the mass under the basin would have had to go somewhere. The event would have been worse than the impact that killed off the dinosaurs. Nothing like that has happened during the time that man has been on earth.

3/31/2017 05:03:18 pm

I'm not saying that the entire Caribbean collapsed 2000 ft. I'm saying that the West Indies island arc was once a continuous chain of land that extended all the way from Florida to South America near Venezuela just like the Central American isthmus is a continuous chain of land. Together, these two landmasses (the continuous W. Indies archipelago and what is now the Central American isthmus) isolated the Caribbean Sea from the world ocean. Because the Caribbean region has an excess of evaporation over precipitation and runoff, the Caribbean Sea would have evaporated away if it were isolated, just as the Mediterranean Sea became isolated and dried up several million years ago.

4/4/2017 05:38:12 am

"I'm saying that the West Indies island arc was once a continuous chain of land that extended all the way from Florida to South America near Venezuela"

And does any of the geology of the region match this hypothesis? Are there any fossils of non-aquatic animals found on the modern islands that could not be explained in any other way? Because that should be easy to verify. The rocks themselves don't lie.

3/31/2017 04:59:30 pm

Type in the following 17°58'39.04" N 64°14'06.43" W on Google Earth. Then, look to the northwest using the compass. How could the mile-high cliff that you see have been created naturally? If it wasn't made by nature, then it must have been made by our ancestors (the alien hypothesis can be excluded by Occam's Razor). But since it was made by our ancestors, the Caribbean Basin must have been dry when it was built (nobody would have built a structure like that underwater). Therefore, the Caribbean Basin was dry contemporaneously with "modern" man.

3/31/2017 05:54:33 pm

And you have, I presume, a bathymetric survey to back up your Google Earth source? If you don't, ask William of Ockham if you can borrow his razor again and go back to "imagery artifact." Keep in mind that to support this conclusion in the face of known, existing geology will require your underwater survey to include evidence of worked surfaces that could not have formed naturally.

David Bradbury

3/31/2017 06:25:38 pm

83°40'43.04" N 179°59'54.47" W is also fun.

As for the "Caribbean is hell" theory, it crops up incidentally in Harriet Martineau's 1841 novel "The Hour and the Man" (about Toussaint l'Ouverture's brief Utopian rule on Hispaniola) when a wise woman observes that "if ever there was a place set apart by cursing- if ever there was a hell upon this earth, it is this island. Men can tell us where paradise was- it was not here, whatever Columbus might say."

3/31/2017 07:28:36 pm

Sorry I don't have the money and time to do that.

If you think it's an artifact, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If the formation existed in isolation, with no other evidence of man-made structures, I would too think it was an artifact. But there's another artifact nearby that resembles Plato's Atlantis. I'll quote another comment on this post:

"I ask because Jason pointed out, "In the end, he tries to argue that a Google Earth artifact in the Caribbean that resembles concentric circles must be Atlantis" here:

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/rings-of-power-do-concentric-circles-prove-atlantis-real

Yoon responded,

"Also, the concentric circles in the Google Earth images have measurements that precisely match those provided by Plato. If they were just circles, and the dimensions did not match, or if the feature were not contained within a rectangular plain - precisely as Plato said the city of Atlantis did, then I could see how the feature might be dismissed as an artifact. But what are the chances that an artifact was generated with almost the exact measurements as mentioned in a book over 2,500 years ago? I think the chances of that are, essentially zero."

So, is Yoon claiming both Atlantis and the real-life inspiration for Hell are in the same geographical area?"

Again, the cliff isn't the only artifact.

3/31/2017 06:46:15 pm

Brady, I can point to three examples that undermine the following statement:

"How could the mile-high cliff that you see have been created naturally?"

A) Plateaus near the Nazca Lines were claimed by Erich von Däniken to have been mountains that were cut down by alien technology to make landing strips.

B) The Bosnian pyramids are natural formations that only Semir Osmanagić won't accept.

C) The Yonaguni Monument is also a natural formation that Masaaki Kimura chooses not to believe.

Now for one indisputably natural formation that proves nature can create spectacular wonders: Giant's Causeway. No one is arguing *any* ancient lost civilization created it because he/she would be demonstrably wrong.

I'll need more than "looks like, therefore is" and speculation due to geographical coincidence.

3/31/2017 07:19:24 pm

The Earth is a big place, so if a formation is a product of a natural process, one should expect there to be more than one example of said formation...no? There isn't just one mile-deep canyon, one symmetrical conical volcano, one flat-topped mesa, or using your examples, one pyramid-shaped mountain, one flat-topped plateau, or one rock formations similar to Yonaguni.

But the mile-high cliff is just vastly different from any other formation that exists on earth. If it was formed by a natural process, why did this process create a formation that is one of a kind? Surely the natural process responsible for creating said formation operates at least SOMEWHERE else on earth. Tell me what that process is. (And no, it's not glaciation because the region is in a tropical area). And it's not earthquakes either - no earthquake can create a cliff that large.

3/31/2017 07:59:05 pm

"The Earth is a big place, so if a formation is a product of a natural process, one should expect there to be more than one example of said formation...no?"

Yes. Your next statement acknowledges that fact.

"There isn't just one mile-deep canyon, one symmetrical conical volcano, one flat-topped mesa, or using your examples, one pyramid-shaped mountain, one flat-topped plateau, or one rock formations similar to Yonaguni."

Now, to answer this statement:

"But the mile-high cliff is just vastly different from any other formation that exists on earth. If it was formed by a natural process, why did this process create a formation that is one of a kind?"

It isn't one of a kind. The tallest cliffs in the world, above land, include:

1) Nanga Parbat, Rupal Face, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan, 4,600 m
2) Ultar Sar southwest face, Karakoram, Gilgit–Baltistan, Pakistan, 3,000 m
3) Spantik northwest face, Karakoram, Gilgit–Baltistan, Pakistan, 2,000 m
4) Shispare Sar southwest face, Karakoram, Gilgit–Baltistan, Pakistan, 3,200 m
5) Lhotse south face, Mahalangur Himal, Nepal, 3200 m
6) Lhotse northeast face, Mahalangur Himal, Nepal, 2900m
7) K2 west face, Karakoram, Gilgit–Baltistan, Pakistan, 2900m
8) Mount Thor, Baffin Island, Canada; 1,370 m (4,500 ft) total; top 480 m (1600 ft) is overhanging.
9) Pared Sur Cerro Aconcagua. Las Heras, Mendoza, Argentina, 2,700 m

Nine examples, all within the same size range of your mile high cliff. Keep in mind, the tallest cliffs are underwater. Taken at face value, your claim about that cliff isn't as unique as you think.

3/31/2017 08:19:49 pm

Nice pwning.

3/31/2017 08:21:57 pm

Clearly the Atlanteans constructed Uluru.

4/1/2017 06:59:26 pm

1. What are now "the tropics" at one time did reside in or near glacial areas, during the time of Pangaea, just as what are now the poles existed in the tropics at that time. This is the nature of continental drift.

2. Earthquakes created the Atlantic Shelf, a far, far larger cliff than your cute little "mile high" relic.

3. Please show me a single cliff of anything remotely the same size that HAS definitively been created by human hands. I will give you a margin of error of up to half, even. You are attempting to argue that "nature couldn't have done it, so humans had to." I challenge you to prove the opposite: that humans COULD have done it. If you can't even prove that humans are CAPABLE of creating cliffs of the same characteristics, then your conclusion is deeply flawed. Without being able to prove that humans CAN create such structures, the absolute most you can claim is "this cliff was created by an unknown process" which could be either artificial OR natural.

4/1/2017 08:25:19 pm

1 and 2: Those are good points.

3. I don't know of any man-made structures carved out of the earth as tall or even half as tall as the cliff. But if you look at it from the point of view of volume of rock/earth excavated instead of height, which after all better approximates the work that went into creating the structure, it's not wholly unprecedented. If we assume that the people who carved out the structure found a preexisting basin and made one of its sides a sharp cliff instead of carving out the whole basin, and also assume that the angle of the slope was originally around 40 degrees, the total volume of rock that would have had to be excavated to make the slop 68 degrees (the actual slope of the cliff) is just under 2 square miles, using 4700 ft as the height of the cliff and 3 miles as its length.

For comparison, mountaintop mining can remove up to 250 million cubic yards of Earth, or 0.06 cubic miles per mine (http://mentalfloss.com/article/18483/6-massive-earth-moving-projects).

So the amount of earth/rock moved in constructing that cliff, were it to have been manmade, would just be 2/0.06 ~ 30 times greater than the amount of earth moved when removing a mountaintop. Surely more than 30 mountains have been removed in this manner ever since the coal industry first began the practice in the 1960s.

Maybe there were precious metals in the rock that was removed to create the cliff that would have paid for the project (if it was built by humans).

In other words, if we really wanted to create such a cliff today, we could.

4/1/2017 08:26:39 pm

Correction: 2 cubic miles.

BigNick

4/1/2017 09:27:03 pm

Nobody should "assume" anything. Conclusions should be based on evidence, and until you examine the "cliff" up close, then you have none.

4/1/2017 10:00:06 pm

Say that to the astronomers who work outside of the visible spectrum. You'd get laughed out of the room. Evidence is not limited to what you can examine up close. Your definition of science takes us back to the Middle Ages, if not before.

4/1/2017 10:42:13 pm

"Evidence is not limited to what you can examine up close."

Yes, it is. Even astronomers who "work outside of the visible spectrum" have instruments that allow them to see what the human eye cannot. Evidence includes observations, acknowledged as part of empirical evidence. Your understanding of science and evidence leaves much to be desired.

4/1/2017 10:51:16 pm

"Yes, it is" is incomplete. Here's the full line:

Yes, it is true evidence isn't limited to "up close", but it is preferred whenever possible.

I hate when I forget to proofread.

4/2/2017 01:28:05 am

I'm not sure if it was astronomers or not, but Viking I took a picture of the Martian surface that looked like a two mile wide face on mars. They never said it was a carved face. Subsequent pictures of the area show it is clearly not a man made object. You, by contrast, found something on Google earth, said it was real, came up with a theory about the Caribbean basin Draining, and applied that to at least three other theorys: Atlantis, hell, and the rainbow bridge. I am a ditch digger by trade, but even I know there is a next step that must be taken before publishing a theory like that.

3/31/2017 09:29:34 pm

But it's not the height of the cliff that distinguishes this underwater cliff from those you've mentioned. (I’ve Googled all of them). It's not even the steepness. I measured the cliff to be almost exactly 68 degrees, but there are cliffs that are steeper and almost as high (i.e. Half Dome and El Capitan in Yosemite).

What is truly exceptional, in my opinion, is the uniformity of the cliff. If you orient yourself to true north, and slowly move your mouse from west to east, you'll notice that the elevation slowly increases to a maximum, and then suddenly drops as you go past the edge of the cliff. Then, as you keep moving east, the depth continues to drop precipitously for around 0.36 miles. Continuing eastward after this distance, the depth continues to decline, but at a much slower rate. I think it's fair to say that the "top" of the cliff is where the depth below sea level of the seabed increases to a maximum and the "bottom" is where the rate of dropoff of the depth decreases rapidly (i.e. the longitude at which moving your mouse right by one pixel causes the depth to decrease by only a foot instead of tens of feet).

I picked a random latitude (18°02'16.47" N) in the upper-middle portion of the section of the cliff that is, by inspection, oriented North to South (the cliff curves northwest to the extreme north): and found that, following the above process, the corresponding longitude of the "top" of the cliff was 64°17'26.32" W. Also, the "top" of the cliff was at a depth of -4427 ft and the bottom at -9140 ft. The "height" of the cliff at this latitude, was 9140 - 4427 ft = 4713 ft, and the dropoff occurred over a distance of 1931.22 ft. Using the inverse tangent function, the angle of the dropoff is 67.718 degrees to 3 significant figures.

Then, I moved 1 arc minute of latitude southward to another latitude (18°01'16.47" N), and performed the same process again, to find that the top of the cliff was at the same longitude as the 64°17'26.29" W (which differs from the longitude of the top of the cliff 1 arc minute northward by only 0.03 arc seconds, which at the equator would correspond to a 3 ft difference and at 18 deg N, which is where the cliff is, even less). That is, the top of the cliff, at two points that are more than a mile away (1 arc minute of latitude is slightly more than a mile) is less than 3 ft offset from a perfect north-south orientation). Also, the top of the cliff measured along this second latitude was at a depth of 4438 ft, and bottom at 9138 ft, with a height of 9138 - 4438 ft = 4700 ft, over a distance of 1930.74 ft. The slope of the cliff is then, 67.667 degrees to 3 sig figs.

Here’s a summary of the data:
Latitude A: 18°02'16.47" N 64°17'26.32” W: Descends from -4427 to -9140 ft over 1931.22 ft at angle of 67.718.
Latitude B: 18°01'16.47" N 64°17'26.29” W: Descends from -4438 to -9138 ft over 1930.74 ft at angle of 67.667.

Error in parts per million (like “percent error” but error is multiplied by 1 million instead of 100) difference between all of the data gathered:
% diff depth of top of cliff = (4427 - 4438)/4427 = 0.226%
% diff depth of bottom of cliff = (9140 - 9138)/9140 = 0.0219%
% diff depth of horizontal distance between top and bottom of cliff = (1931.22 ft - 1930.74 ft)/1931.22 ft = 0.0249%.
% diff depth of angle of inclination = (67.718 deg - 67.667 deg)/67.718 deg * 100% = 0.0753%.
% offset from N-S axis = 3 ft/(1 arc minute converted to ft) = 3 ft / 6072 ft * 100% = 0.0494%.

Taking the average of these percent errors, we can get an approximate of the overall error in the cliff. We get an average error of 0.0795%, which is less than a tenth of one percent. If nature produced this feature, it did so at a tolerance of 0.1% or less. The % offset from the N-S axis is the most important number here - nature doesn’t have any preference for creating things oriented toward a N-S axis, as is the straight portion of this cliff - but this cliff is offset from the N-S axis by only 3 ft over 6072 ft, or 0.05%, or around 1 part in 2,000.

Yes, I only picked two data points for this “experiment,” but since they were randomly picked, additional data points will probably reduce the percent errors rather than increase them.

(I’m on vacation. I have a lot of time on my hands.)

3/31/2017 09:34:54 pm

Corrections:
1) "...to find that the top of the cliff was at the same longitude as the..." should be "...to find that the top of the cliff was at almost the same longitude as the..."
2) "Error in parts per million (like “percent error” but error is multiplied by 1 million instead of 100) difference between all of the data gathered:" Ignore this, the errors are in percents.

4/1/2017 12:12:25 am

tl;dr

There's something wrong with you.

3/31/2017 09:30:25 pm

Sorry, this is in reply to Only Me.

3/31/2017 10:14:34 pm

Sorry, Brady, but you're moving the goalposts and I'm gonna have to throw the flag.

"What is truly exceptional, in my opinion, is the uniformity of the cliff."

Uniformity exists in nature. You are imposing your confirmation bias on a geographical feature formed by natural processes. That was the point of my previous comment about von Däniken,
Osmanagić and Kimura. You see something you *think* supports your hypothesis, but you can't adequately explain how.

I'm trying to help you understand that you can't say, "But this is just speculation" while stating unequivocally the Atlanteans lived in the Caribbean Basin, reshaped its surface and ruled Egypt.

Weatherwax

3/31/2017 10:30:20 pm

Not too mention making grand conclusions based on low res photos of an area you haven't inspected or even researched.

3/31/2017 10:35:23 pm

Nice try, but I would have had to set up a goalpost for you to legitimately accuse me of moving it. And I did no such thing. When I described the cliff as a "mile high cliff," I wasn't setting up the terms of the debate, I was merely coming up with a convenient name to describe the feature being discussed, which is not named. Would I have had to call it the "mile-high, almost vertical, uniform cliff" for you to not accuse me of setting up a goalpost? You created the goalpost in your mind when you took my description of the cliff as the terms of debate, and are now accusing me of moving what you yourself created.

And also, I clearly state when I am speculating: 1) When I say that the Atlanteans might have been a non-Western civilization. 2) That the Pyramids of Mesoamerica were built from recycled products of subtractive megalithic processes whose remnants are now underwater. These are highly speculative claims, and I readily concede this. However, the following claims: "Atlanteans lived in the Caribbean Basin, reshaped its surface and ruled Egypt," may seem speculative to you, but they form the core of my theory. They are definitive claims that you can either ignore, accept, or refute, and accusing me of moving the goalpost that you set up isn't a debate-winning tactic.

3/31/2017 10:54:13 pm

Sorry, Brady, but the goalpost wasn't your description of the cliff. It was your insistence that it was a one-of-a-kind formation that couldn't be the result of natural processes. You have yet to produce a convincing rebuttal.

Here's what you are having trouble comprehending: it doesn't matter which claims are the core of your hypothesis and which are speculation. Until you can provide irrefutable evidence those core claims are conclusively true, you cannot present such claims as having any factual basis. They are based on speculation themselves, absent facts or evidence.

By the way, winning isn't necessarily the goal of a debate. It *is* the goal of an argument. Are you interested in debate or an argument?

3/31/2017 11:07:03 pm

Ok, then, let me address your counterclaim directly. You say, "Uniformity exists in nature. You are imposing your confirmation bias on a geographical feature formed by natural processes. That was the point of my previous comment about von Däniken,
Osmanagić and Kimura. You see something you *think* supports your hypothesis, but you can't adequately explain how."

Yes, uniformity created by natural processes does exist, but it's all a matter of degree, no? My counterclaim is, "quantity has a quality of its own." In other words, I'm not just saying the structure looks uniform by saying, "hey, look at it" but am providing actual numbers - quantitative percent errors within 0.1% on average. Do you dispute my methodology, or do you have an explanation as to how that structure could be created solely by the workings of nature to such exact tolerances? I say that the exactness of the structure's dimensions distinguishes it from all other known natural formations. On what basis do you deny that a structure with such quantitative tolerances is not one of a kind?

3/31/2017 11:55:26 pm

"On what basis do you deny that a structure with such quantitative tolerances is not one of a kind?"

You are basing such tolerances on a Google Earth photo. Without a survey on the cliff An Over-Educated Grunt suggested earlier, what is your rationale for accepting your tolerances as accurate? How are you so certain the photo is
accurate enough to make your calculations without taking into account a margin of error?

"Yes, uniformity created by natural processes does exist, but it's all a matter of degree, no? My counterclaim is, 'quantity has a quality of its own.'"

Which do you think has a more impressive degree of tolerance, your calculations based on a photo or:

a) the wallpaper symmetry of a honeycomb, b) the fractal symmetry of the romanesco broccoli or c) the sun-moon symmetry?

4/1/2017 12:47:16 am

I don't have the data, so I'll do the best I can with what I do have.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279412308_Origin_of_Florida_Canyon_and_the_role_of_spring_sapping_on_the_formation_of_submarine_box_canyons

Types the following coordinates (24°24'52.15" N 84°06'30.29" W) into Google Earth, and then look to the northeast. You should see a semicircular canyon with very steep walls. If you have the "Borders and Labels" checkbox checked in your sidebar, and zoom out a bit, you'll see that you're at the Florida Canyon.

The linked article discusses the Florida Canyon, and its abstract begins as follows: "Florida Canyon, one of a series of major submarine canyons on the southwestern edge of the Florida Platform, was surveyed using GLORIA, SeaBeam, and Deep-Tow technologies, and it was directly observed during three DSRV Alvin dives. Florida Canyon exhibits two distinct morphologies: a broad V-shaped upper canyon and a deeply entrenched, flat-floored, U-shaped lower canyon. The flat-floored lower canyon extends 20 km into the Florida Platform from the abyssal Gulf. The lower canyon ends abruptly at an ~3 km in diameter semicircular headwall that rises 750 m with a >60 degree slope angle to the foot of the upper canyon. The sides of the lower canyon are less steep than its headwall and are characterized by straight faces that occur along preferred orientations and indicate a strong joint control..."

The following description of the lower canyon's headwall perfectly describes the feature shown on Google Earth: "The lower canyon ends abruptly at an ~3 km in diameter semicircular headwall that rises 750 m with a >60 degree slope angle to the foot of the upper canyon."

I have provided an example of a steep, inclined underwater formation that is accurately represented by Google Earth. Therefore, if you wish to argue that the other steep, inclined underwater feature we're talking about is not accurately represented by Google Earth, the burden of proof lies on you.

4/1/2017 02:05:01 am

"I have provided an example of a steep, inclined underwater formation that is accurately represented by Google Earth. Therefore, if you wish to argue that the other steep, inclined underwater feature we're talking about is not accurately represented by Google Earth, the burden of proof lies on you."

No, it doesn't. Here's why:

1) Where is the data for your cliff? I haven't seen any link to an article that describes it with the same detail as the Florida Canyon. You're comparing a known canyon with a record of surveys to a cliff you admittedly describe as a mile-high because "I was merely coming up with a convenient name to describe the feature being discussed, which is not named."

2) You yourself have said, in this comment section, the following:

"If Google Earth is accurately representing the feature..."
"If the feature is manmade..."

If means you don't know either with certainty. The burden of proof is still on you.

4/1/2017 02:13:15 am

It's a glitch in google earth. See the link I provided below, for a Bathymetric Data Viewer.

4/1/2017 04:06:49 pm

Replying to both Only Me and Jim

"If Google Earth is accurately representing the feature..."
"If the feature is manmade..."

If means you don't know either with certainty. The burden of proof is still on you.

I know that the probability that both statements are true is 90% or higher.

The Florida Canyon's headwall, which we know actually exists, isn't accurately represented by this map on Oceangraphix (http://www.oceangrafix.com/chart/zoom?chart=BR-6PT2). The Florida Canyon appears just as a V-shaped canyon, and the U-shaped headwall is completely missing. Does this mean that the Oceangraphix map is completely useless? Far from it. Does it mean that the Florida Canyon's unique U-shaped headwall isn't actually there? Of course not. It's just not being displayed because the resolution of the map isn't good enough to accurately display the feature. We need higher resolution maps (like the NOAA maps linked to by Jim, which do show the feature), to show the feature as it actually is. And what is more, the U-shaped canyon doesn't just appear as fuzzy or indistinct in the Oceangraphix map, it essentially doesn't appear at all! You would never know it's there if we didn't know from other sources that it actually existed.

What general principle has been established here? That features below the resolution threshold of a given map will not merely appear fuzzy or unclear, it may not be visible at all, or be unrecognizable. Conversely, a higher resolution map will show features that a lower-resolution map simply won't show. In other words, If Map A has a higher resolution than Map B, all of the features that are clearly and accurately displayed on Map B will also be accurately shown on map A, but not vice versa. Some of the features that are clearly visible on map A will appear fuzzy on map B or will be unrecognizable. Do you disagree with what I've said?

Now, go to the Muertos Trough on Google Earth, at coordinates 17°05'21.55" N 66°48'18.18" W), and then look to the east and downward. You'll see that the southern delineation of the Muertos Trough is a steep cliff, some 1500-2000 ft high. Here's what the book "Geology of the United States' Seafloor: The View from GLORIA" says about the Muertos Trough: "In the area south of Puerto Rico, the GLORIA data reveal that the [Muertos] trough is bordered on its south side by north-facing scarps, presumed to be normal faults associated with the bending of the Caribbean Plate beneath the Greater Antilles." So Google Earth accurately represents the south side of the Muertos Trough. Yet the NOAA ocean viewer, which Jim is trying to use to show that the cliff on the St. Croix Basin is a glitch, does NOT accurately represent this scarp. But, as we know, the scarp is actually there.

I say that the mile high cliff could very well exist, as shown by Google Earth or very close to it, even if the NOAA map doesn't show it simply because the NOAA map doesn't have a high enough resolution to accurately represent the feature. I have also demonstrate, according to the general principle above, that Google Earth has the higher resolution than the NOAA maps, which in turn have a higher resolution than the Oceangraphix map, as the former in each case display KNOWN features accurately that the latter do not.

But since the Google Earth maps have a better resolution than the NOAA maps, Jim saying that the mile high cliff is an artifact based on the fact that it doesn’t appear on the NOAA map is analogous to saying the letters on the wall aren’t really there because a guy with 20/200 vision can’t read them.

4/1/2017 04:57:46 pm

First, Jim isn't saying the cliff is a glitch. He's referring to the circular pattern you say is Atlantis or Hell, which others believe to be an image artifact. If I'm wrong, I'm sure Jim will let me know.

Second, you have also said:

"provided that the structures are actually faithfully represented by Google Earth and are not image artifacts."

You've included a lot of ifs in your hypothesis, which rely on assumption for the details to be plausible. The probability of truth to those assumptions are zero, until evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise. Your best evidence, thus far, is the claim a cliff is manmade based upon calculations taken from a photo whose accuracy is unknown.

4/1/2017 05:04:38 pm

Brady Yoon: I have no Idea what you are talking about ! The Muertos Trough is shown plain as day in great detail on the NOAA map !!!! I think you are confusing it with another glitch??
The fact that NOAA doesn't label it at the same location as google earth certainly doesn't mean it isn't there, as I said it is plain as day.
The Muertos Trough is an east/west escarpment approx. 42 miles south of Puerto Rico, it is 400+ miles long, If you can't locate it on the NOAA map I really can't help you !
Your mile high "wall" however remains missing !

4/1/2017 05:11:39 pm

Only Me: I haven't even bothered looking at the circular pattern, I'm saying his mile high wall is a glitch.

4/1/2017 06:10:30 pm

Looking at the NOAA Bathymetric Data Viewer and clicking on the Multibeam Bathymetric Surveys feature it becomes obvious that these straight line swath features or "walls" are nothing more than surveys conducted by ships travelling in a straight line.The data is added to the map as a distinctly more detailed area.

4/1/2017 06:11:00 pm

To Jim: You're either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I've said. I never said the Muertos Trough cannot be seen in the NOAA maps!! What I did say was that Google Earth shows the Muertos Trough at a higher resolution and with greater detail than NOAA, and cited as an example the scarps on the south side of the trough which are clearly visible in the former and barely noticeable in the latter. And the superior resolution of Google Earth isn't limited to just this feature - look at the sloped mountains that descend from Puerto Rico down to the Muertos Trough on GE and compare that to the level of detail displayed by NOAA. It's evident that the seafloor is mapped to a significantly higher resolution in the GE imagery versus the NOAA imagery.

I suppose you could just dismiss ALL of the additional detail present in GE and missing in NOAA as just artifacts, but I don't think your intellectual dishonesty goes that far.

If you want to say that the feature shown on GE is an artifact, you have to show that a source with equal or superior resolution to GE does not show the feature as it is shown on GE, just like if you want to credibly say that a guy with 20/40 vision is reading the letters on an eye chart wrong, your vision has to be as good or better than the other guy's. But as I have shown, NOAA does not have a higher resolution than GE. So your argument is dead in the water.

4/1/2017 09:02:16 pm

Brady Yoon; If you look at the GE image of the bottom of the escarpment of the Muertos Trough you can see each and every pass made by a survey vessel on north south runs. They all terminate on the bottom east west boundary run. ( part of your wall ?)
The data while looking distinct is very choppy and raw.
As soon as you go beyond the boundary run the image is quite noticeably vague and lacking in detail, why do you think that is ?

4/1/2017 10:13:37 pm

Because that's as far as the survey ships went?

But the lines that were formed by the survey ships don't go all the way down to the south escarpment of the Muertos Trough. I'm assuming you're talking about the lines that run down the slope between Puerto Rico and the Muertos Trough. Most of them don't even reach its Northern boundary.

What's your point? Are you trying to say that what appears like the mile high cliff/southern escarpment of the Muertos Trough lie outside the area of the seafloor that was mapped accurately, and is therefore not of superior resolution?

4/1/2017 10:46:14 pm

Brady, if more than one example of a "feature" means it is natural, then do these two+ features get created at random points on the earth at the same time? If not, then the first one *must* be non-natural by your logic. I'm one of a kind, was I made by atlanteans?

4/1/2017 11:00:13 pm

Brady Yoon : Are you being intentionally obtuse ? Those lines run down the escarpment and right through the letters where the Muertos Trough is labelled !! They all terminate right on your "wall" which is in fact obviously an an overlay of another sonar survey run (part of the same program ) that goes around the boundary of the south and then turns north and goes up the east boundary of the survey program.

4/1/2017 11:04:51 pm

Your comment is irrelevant given what we know about the age of the Earth.

4/2/2017 12:30:16 am

I see what you mean now. But wait, you're accusing me of being intentionally obtuse when you keep insisting that the Muertos Trough having a steep cliff on its southern border as seen on GE somehow is helping your case instead of hurting it? Did you see the link to the book that described this very southern limit of the Muertos Trough as being an "escarpment?" I'm sorry, but that's helping my argument, not yours.

And I maintain that this formation that "goes around the boundary of the south and the turns north and goes up the east boundary of the survey program" is a manmade structure too. I've written an article on it, in fact.

4/2/2017 01:06:13 am

Brady; I am not even sure what you are talking about. I never once said there was a steep southern cliff ! There isn't one in fact ! There is a steep escarpment from the north that drops down into the trough. What you call a steep southern cliff is non existent, it does gradually decline some and then slowly rises going south. If you run your cursor on GE through your "wall" there you will see that what you call a "Wall" most of us would call a depression as it dips down there.

4/2/2017 02:04:06 am

After further checking the actual depths of your "wall" and following the depths on either side of it I can say confidently that there is simply no wall whatsoever ! The land simply follows the natural contours. Yes it drops steeply at some points, but the steep drops start before the wall and simply continue through it.
Your wall is what I said it is, a map overlay of a barometric survey.
I'm done, this is completely pointless.

4/2/2017 02:06:51 am

oops Bathymetric survey,,,, now I am done.

3/31/2017 10:54:04 pm

So the mile high cliff is proof of atlanteans, he'll, and the rainbow bridge? How does that work, Mr. Yoon?

3/31/2017 11:43:05 pm

No, I argue the following: If Google Earth is accurately representing the feature, then the feature must have been manmade, for no natural process can create a structure of such precision, uniformity, and size. If the feature is manmade, then it was either made underwater, or on dry land. The possibility of the former is so absurd it can be discarded, so the structure must have been built on dry land. But if the land was dry, then the land must have either been above sea level when the structure was constructed and collapsed later on to its present depth, or the Caribbean Basin must have been isolated from the Atlantic Ocean like the Mediterranean Basin was isolated and dry during what geologists call the Messinian Salinity Crisis. But the first alternative can be excluded since there is no known geological mechanism that would allow lands to collapse by a mile, the depth of the formation below sea level. So the latter possibility, namely of a dry and isolated Caribbean Basin, is the only possibility remaining.

We know that the Mediterranean Sea underwent not only one cycle of drying and reflooding, but several. I argue that the Caribbean Basin goes through the same cycles, and that the ancients were aware of this, and called the successive cycle of flooding and drying of this basin "Ragnarok." The Eddas mention that Ragnarok itself involves catastrophic flooding, with Midgard "laying underwater" as a result of the cataclysm. Then, eventually, Midgard will be born again and the world will be created anew, just as the Caribbean Basin will once more become isolated as the West Indies island arc once again becomes a continuous chain of land due to volcanic activity...

For why I think the underworld is Hades/the Caribbean, just read the article and my comments...

4/1/2017 12:15:12 am

"If Google Earth is accurately representing the feature, then the feature must have been manmade, for no natural process can create a structure of such precision, uniformity, and size."

But again, you have no idea how accurate that info is, and have made no attempt to verify it.

4/1/2017 12:55:24 am

Type the following coordinates (24°24'52.15" N 84°06'30.29" W) into Google Earth, and then look to the northeast. You should see a semicircular canyon with very steep walls. If you have the "Borders and Labels" checkbox checked in your sidebar, and zoom out a bit, you'll see that you're at the Florida Canyon.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279412308_Origin_of_Florida_Canyon_and_the_role_of_spring_sapping_on_the_formation_of_submarine_box_canyons

The linked article discusses the Florida Canyon, and its abstract begins as follows: "Florida Canyon, one of a series of major submarine canyons on the southwestern edge of the Florida Platform, was surveyed using GLORIA, SeaBeam, and Deep-Tow technologies, and it was directly observed during three DSRV Alvin dives. Florida Canyon exhibits two distinct morphologies: a broad V-shaped upper canyon and a deeply entrenched, flat-floored, U-shaped lower canyon. The flat-floored lower canyon extends 20 km into the Florida Platform from the abyssal Gulf. The lower canyon ends abruptly at an ~3 km in diameter semicircular headwall that rises 750 m with a >60 degree slope angle to the foot of the upper canyon. The sides of the lower canyon are less steep than its headwall and are characterized by straight faces that occur along preferred orientations and indicate a strong joint control..."

The following description of the lower canyon's headwall perfectly describes the feature shown on Google Earth: "The lower canyon ends abruptly at an ~3 km in diameter semicircular headwall that rises 750 m with a >60 degree slope angle to the foot of the upper canyon."

I have provided an example of a steep, inclined underwater formation that is accurately represented by Google Earth. Therefore, if you wish to argue that the other steep, inclined underwater feature we're talking about is not accurately represented by Google Earth, the burden of proof lies on you.

4/1/2017 11:10:11 am

4/1/2017 10:59:58 pm

"No, I argue the following: If Google Earth is accurately representing the feature, then the feature must have been manmade, for no natural process can create a structure of such precision, uniformity, and size. '

You cannot prove that it could not be natural, if indeed it actually exists, which is far from fact. By your logic I could equally state that civilization did not have the means to "create a structure of such precision, uniformity, and size" and therefore it MUST be natural.

4/1/2017 11:16:47 pm

Your argument is valid if you think that the probability of the cliff (if it exists exactly as it appears on GE) having been formed by natural processes is roughly comparable to the probability that an ancient civilization built it. I believe, to the contrary, that as unlikely as the latter possibility is, the former is orders of magnitude more unlikely.

4/1/2017 11:20:14 pm

p.s. And the reason we can know that the probability of the formation having been created naturally is so much lower than the probability of a human civilization having created is precisely because no similar structures exist, despite the fact that the earth is so large and is billions of years old. Enough time has passed, and the earth is large enough so that if a structure like that could have been created naturally, a similar structure should exist somewhere on earth.

Fawkes

4/1/2017 11:28:38 pm

Can you explain this sentence:

"I believe, to the contrary, that as unlikely as the latter possibility is, the former is orders of magnitude more unlikely."

That implies some sort of calculable or quantifiable justification with one order of magnitude being 10, two being 100, and so on.

So how many more orders of magnitude is it likely that it is natural then it is man made? And why? Also, how many more orders of magnitude is likely that it is natural then it is a google earth artifact?

To me it seems like you just said: order of magnitude. That phrase means something.

4/1/2017 11:53:07 pm

" is precisely because no similar structures exist, "
Sorry, but that is not proof of anything. First, you do not know that THIS structure exists. Second, you do not know that other similarly defined structures do not exist. Third, being unique does guarantee or increase the likelihood of something being man-made. All you have is wild speculation with absolutely NO verified facts.

4/2/2017 12:14:36 am

Because we have all of the evidence we need in assessing the probability of such a formation having been created by natural processes. Like I said earlier, it's not even the height of the cliff that makes it exceptional, nor is it the slope, but the uniformity of the slope's dimensions across its entire length, and most remarkably, its almost perfect orientation to true N-S. (5 ft deviation from true north over a mile, which amounts to 2 arc minutes, which is, incidentally, less than the 3 arc minute deviation of the Great Pyramid from true N-S). Since nature shows no bias for any particular alignment, the odds that the cliff's face is aligned to within +/- 2" of true N-S is (360*60)/2 = 5040 to 1 (probability 0.02%). And the probability that a formation like the cliff would be formed naturally with uniform dimensions to a tolerance of 0.1% (such as angle of slope, height, etc.) is also very small, and independent of the alignment. Multiply all of these probabilities and you get a number that's probably less than 1 in 100,000.

But what's the probability of the Caribbean Basin having been dry, and there being an advanced civilization? If we knew about nothing other than the cliff, then honestly, not very high. But the cliff, together with the remains of what looks like an underwater city situated 2000 ft+ underwater, and the Taino flood myths that speak of the creation of "the sea" (what sea if not the one right next to where they've lived for millennia?), the evidence begins to pile up. We also know that other marginal seas have been dry in the past - the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, so the hypothesis of a dry Caribbean Basin is not unprecedented. What is somewhat unprecedented is the notion that it was dry at the same time intelligent humans had already evolved, but we know that over the last 10 million years, there was a below sea level basin on earth for a few million of those years. We also know that the sea level suddenly dropped by 12 feet circa 9600 BC during a time of general sea level rise - the flooding of a marginal basin would account for this. And plus, the Old World discovered the Caribbean only 500 years ago. I'm saying that the Taino Indians themselves were always saying that the Caribbean was formed in a flood. Maybe we should listen to the people who've been living in that region since who knows how long ago? Individually, all of these things don't really amount to much - but together, I argue that a convincing case can be made that the Caribbean was dry - at least 10-30%.

4/2/2017 12:37:11 am

"Because we have all of the evidence we need..."

Let's examine that evidence.

Uniformity- based on calculations taken from a single Google Earth photo with unknown accuracy

Taino flood myths- requires the assumption the myth actually describes a real-life event

The cliff- requires the acceptance of the idea the Atlanteans carved it, to the exclusion of all other explanations

Sea level drop circa 9600 BCE- requires the assumption the Caribbean Basin was landlocked flooded at that time

As I said before, too many assumptions are *essential* for this hypothesis to work. Assumption must necessarily replace facts and evidence. Remove the assumptions and the whole thing comes apart. Not too convincing, really.

4/2/2017 01:12:07 am

Plato said that there was a plain, approximately rectangular, with dimensions 2000 stadia x 3000 stadia, or 238 miles * 341 miles. The dimensions of the Venezuelan Plain match these dimensions. Quoting Plato: "But the country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea; it was smooth and even, and of an oblong shape, extending in one direction three thousand stadia, but across the centre inland it was two thousand stadia."

Plato also said that the Atlanteans carved into the plain a ditch that was so large that it was almost inconceivable that it was constructed by man - doesn't that sound suspiciously similar to the Muertos Trough? He described it as follows; "The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

Plato also said that the ditch was let off to the sea as follows; "It [the ditch] received the streams which came down from the mountains, and winding round the plain and meeting at the city, was there let off into the sea." If you look at the Muertos Trough, you can see that it curves northward and then goes all the way up to the Virgin Islands, which is of course next to the Atlantic Ocean.

How could Plato have happened to accurately describe a place that so closely resembles a part of the Caribbean Sea, thousands of feet underwater, if he had just made it up? Coincidence? Chances of that are pretty low, no?

Atlantis was said to have elephants. If the Caribbean Basin were dry, it would have bordered the known range of the American mastodon at the time Atlantis was said to have existed - before 9600 BC.

In Atlantis the Antediluvian World, Donnelly says that a Central American codex said that "originally part of the American continent extended far into the Atlantic Ocean." If Central America once was not a narrow isthmus, but extended all the way from the Pacific to Atlantic and encompassed the Caribbean Basin, an explanation for this passage has been found. (Donnelly p. 126).

Furthermore, the destruction of this part of the American continent that extended "far into the Atlantic Ocean" was described as follows by the Central American accounts: "The land, in these convulsions, was shaken by frightful earthquakes, and the waves of the sea combined with volcanic fires to overwhelm and engulf it...each convulsion swept away portions of the land until the whole disappeared, leaving the line of coast as it now is." (Baldwin's Ancient America), (Donnelly, p.126).

4/2/2017 01:33:13 am

"Plato said..."

No, Plato wrote. He wrote about Atlantis and until you or anyone else can definitively prove what he wrote isn't a fictional work, your hypothesis is still heavily dependent on "Looks like, therefore is."

Using Donnelly, who also believed in Atlantis, is merely doubling-down while ignoring the aforementioned weakness.

"If the Caribbean Basin were dry", " If Central America once was not a narrow isthmus". There you go again with IF. Once more, your hypothesis cannot work when assumptions are so integral to its existence.

4/2/2017 11:13:44 pm

Please explain the 10-30% with numbers. Not stories.

You are trying to argue that the chance of your theory being correct based on GE "evidence" is the same as me flipping a penny twice and getting heads each time. 0.5*0.5 = 0.25 so between 10 and 30 percent.

Even if there was a minute amount of actual scientific evidence that percentage would be way high.

4/3/2017 12:08:38 am

Fawkes: This type of GE evidence was previously debunked by Google Earth themselves. check this out :

https://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2009/02/atlantis-no-it-atlant-isnt.html

4/4/2017 05:51:26 am

"We know that the Mediterranean Sea underwent not only one cycle of drying and reflooding, but several."

Which is supported by geological evidences.

"I argue that the Caribbean Basin goes through the same cycles"

Where are the geological evidences? Uniformitarianism and all.

3/31/2017 11:30:58 pm

Interactive Bathymetric Data Viewer:

https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/

Something seems to be missing.

4/1/2017 12:02:36 am

Note; You might want to click off " Multibeam Bathymetric Surveys" at the top left to reduce the clutter.

3/31/2017 11:34:07 pm

"That the Pyramids of Mesoamerica were built from recycled products of subtractive megalithic processes whose remnants are now underwater."

So you're researched whether or not archaeologists know the sources of the building materials?

4/1/2017 04:00:04 am

This is all just silly. I used to LIVE in Hades, though these days most people just call it Lubbock.

4/1/2017 08:35:38 am

I'm sorry to all the people who posted interesting commented but what a useless thread. I found Jason's article interesting but since this is all just based on a stupid argument, and Google Earth which contains artifacts from the combination of lots of data there isn't really anything here.

Maybe if someone goes and looks at where hell is supposed to be they will find something. Google Earth is a dumb way to investigate, especially if you are looking for something completely anomalous.

Any kind of circular concentric rings are probably from Airy's rings (disks) from a diffraction pattern.

This list some of the known issues though I'm sure there is a more complete list elsewhere.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/gec-data-discussions/z2rEahyQa3U/XQqhyrG4Y_YJ

"Google Earth is a dumb way to investigate,"

I couldn't agree with you more. Certainly not a tool for anyone who wants to be taken seriously. Are we sure this isn't some weird reincarnation of SW talking about the KRS when viewed from Mars?

Elizabeth Stuart

4/1/2017 12:05:05 pm

Wow. This Bradley Yoon is a real piece of work. Myself personally, I can't stand anyone that calls his speculations a theory. Mr. Yoon, you have a good imagination, stick to fiction. That is where your stories belong.

4/2/2017 12:04:38 pm

Atlantis found !!!!!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not.

https://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2009/02/atlantis-no-it-atlant-isnt.html

Frank

4/4/2017 09:36:07 am

I'm making this blog one place to come for laughs when I'm not laughing at the current political atmosphere through the nightly late show hosts/comedians. Talk about the circles of Atlantis, Jason is a regular master-of-ceremony of a three-ring circus.

In one ring he entertains the want-to-appear intellectuals. In the second ring he entertains the idiots. And in the third ring he combines the want-to-appear intellectuals with the idiots.

The final act in this third ring amounts to all the nonsense being exchanged on the forum. I would say that we are in hell already, and there is no need for anyone to be looking for it. Ignorance is one of the circles of hell, Dante's Hell. Call it Hades, or Tartarus, or whatever, it all amounts to the same old cave. The cave of shadows, where we are all prisoners of this hellish illusion of reality. And there are plenty of elephants around; dumbos and pink elephants. And Plato did say ".....you fools, sell all you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasures in heaven, the real world of existence."

Francisco Javier Ropero Peláez link

12/26/2019 02:54:42 pm

In 2011 I published the book entitled W in which I proposed that the rectangular plain of 3000 by 2000 stadia referred by Plato is the Caribbean basin. In the same year I presented my book at the popular Brazilian TV program "programa do Jô" https://youtu.be/ONTH9xpJhuI .The coincidences between the description of Plato's plain and the Caribbean basin plain are explained in minute 3:50 of the video. More information about the book is in the site w-book.info that was created at that moment for launching and selling the book. The book is also sold in amazon.com.br

홀덤뉴스 link

3/1/2025 07:28:56 am

The idea that the Caribbean could be considered "Hell on Earth" is a fascinating and controversial one.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Is the Caribbean Hell on Earth? One Writer Says It's the Real Underworld of Myth

Leave a Reply.

Author

Newsletters

Categories

Terms & Conditions

Archives