« Skeptics Circle | Main | Skeptics Circle »

February 22, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The picture shown is the view from an altitude of about 200 miles. Forgetting the fact that you can't see the streets of London or Paris from this height, don't these loonies wonder why no geologist or oceanographer noticed the square patterns when the data was collected? I guess they feel real scientists are stupid and it takes an amateur to point out the obvious.

When I saw the original story, I couldn't account for the phenomenon, but there was one thing I was sure of.

It wasn't Atlantis.

One of the original wingnuts said "It's clearly man made" He was correct, but not in the way he was hoping.

It's amazing how much drivel has been generated out of Plato's paragraph.

nevertheless it doesn't explain everything. Is that really the pattern of the mapping boats? that's a pretty pathetic mapping grid. There are some more typical mapping gridlines to the east, and that level (detail) of mapping isn't shown anywhere else in the area, even close to land.

I don't know if the sonar info includes specialty sources such as people looking for lost wrecks or not. My guess would be there may have been some kind of military use, training ground for subs or divers or something that required such extensive mapping.

"that's a pretty pathetic mapping grid. "

And what pray tell, is a "good" mapping grid? Its not necessarily just the path of the boat, but also the data stitching process that creates the artifact. When I saw the boats doing this in the carribean, the path was much finer than this, i.e. lines that the boat took were much closer together. BTW, yeah it was a coast guard boat doing it.

In time we will probably see this artifact all over the ocean if you look.

"that level (detail) of mapping isn't shown anywhere else in the area, even close to land."

What? The outcropping right next to and inside of the gridded area have the same resolution as the grid lines them selves, otherwise you would not be able to see the tips or the smaller ones.

here, use goggle earth and check out the "strange" diagonal lines made in the shelf off the coast of the virgin islands.

lat: 17 deg 36' 49.08" N
Long: 65 deg 13' 14.53

These are the measurements I saw being made. Just slightly south, below St. Croix you will see another atlantean 'box'

Here we go, I've found something a bit more falsifiable.

It has been predicted that Atlantis will have risen out of the sea by 2012, so when that happens (simultaneous to the complete submergence of Australia), everything should be clear for all to see.

It should however be noted that this prediction was made by Ashton Pitre who also predicted that the east and west coasts of the US would collapse into the the ocean, and a vast inland sea would virtually bisect the continent sometime between 1995 and 1999.

A more conservative prediction says Atlantis will indeed rise, but it will happen very very slowly, over about 5000 years. This more sober pronouncement was made by the authoritative Antoniose Soltec, geophysicist with Ashtar Command, who is also responsible for the phenomena we earth people call "earthquakes".

The irrepressible Drunvalo Melchizidek said the real Atlantis was found in the Bermuda triangle in 1998, and that its identity "has now been scientifically proven beyond any doubt."

I hope that clears up any misunderstandings about this issue.

(As a service to public mental health, I have not provided any references for this material.)

Dang, I was really hoping there was an artifact in the triangle... No such luck.

I can't understand something I see from what I read about it in the newspaper, as their uneducated journalist didn't teach me how the entire mapping process works. Therefore the mappers' educated, experienced, factual explanations are worthless. My made-up conspiracy theories are just as good.

Man, I'm really conflicted about the whole search for Atlantis thing... I mean, sure, it's ridiculous to take Plato's word for anything, never mind something that supposedly happened about 7,000 years before he wrote about it. He was a philosopher, not a historian.

However, the search for Atlantis has thrown up so many other interesting discoveries, I don't mind if people keep looking for it - despite the fact that I don't believe for an instant that it ever really existed. It's kinda link finding new orchid species whilst hunting for faeries at the bottom of the garden...

Mycenae and Troy were a myth before their discovery from Heinrich Schliemann, the same will be with Atlantis, when nobody believes that this is the lost continent someone will find it.

Note this anomaly lies on the Madeira Abyssal Plain.
This alone should ring alarm bells that it wasn't originally any kind of submerged island. There is no evidence of a shoreline, the area merges seamlessly into the surrounding area. Note how the 'streets' cross the topology - strange for a 'city'.

It's also huge: the Anomaly measures 166 x 131 km!

Pure facts are never enough to dissuade a believer.

Elena:

Ever read much Plato? One of his literary/philosophical devices is to make up cities to talk about their virtues and ethics and organisation.

What other primary sources are there for Atlantis, other than Plato and that aren't based on Plato's account?

What other evidence is there for Atlantis?

There is a reason that this newly discovered Atlantis is so huge....Atlaneans were huge! Duh!


/snark

If you doubt this is possible, how is it that there are PYGMIES + DWARFS???!

You omitted:
Faeries; elves; goblins; hob-goblins; orcs; trolls and satyrs!

Midgets too!

Elena,
I don't know what the fact/fantasy ratio for myths is, but it's pretty small. Clearly, not all myths are false, because some have been found to be based-upon fact. But that's a very long way from saying many or all myths are true.

This anomaly is NOT Atlantis. Whether Atlantis ever existed is another matter, but it seems unlikely.

Ocean-floor mapping is likely to reveal many more submerged traces of human habitation. Whether these would be cities is for archaeologists to determine, but presumably, these traces would have to date-back to before the last ice-age when sea-levels were much lower.

Jimmy has hit the nail on the head - Plato has a very strong track record of using all sorts of weird historical and geographical allegories to illustrate his points. He's notorious for just making stuff up. If his description of Atlantis actually is accurate, then it's more-or-less unique amongst his writings in that respect.

Also bear in mind that it was Plato's pupil Aristotle who argued that flies have four legs, and did it so convincingly that that was what all the natural history textbooks said for the next couple of thousand years. You simply can't trust a Greek philosopher of the Socratic school on any empirical matter - they just weren't interested in empirical truth as we understand it. Plato is actually quite dismissive of the idea that one should investigate the world by looking at it (see, for example, Phaedo).

The other big difference between the bronze-age myths of Troy and the myth of Atlantis is that Atlantis is much more remote in time. At the time the Iliad was first composed, the events described in it were (supposedly) only a couple of hundred years past. But when Plato was writing about Atlantis, the events in question supposedly occurred more than 9,000 years in the past. How did he know about it (and in such detail) when apparently nobody else did?

Hi ScaredAmoeba,
I'm not saying that this is Atlantis, I'm pretty sure that this isn't but I'm just saying that everything is possible and maybe someday someone will found the lost continent. In every myth/story/fairytale there is a little true so who knows what will be.

Hi Jimmy_Blue,
Yes I read Plato and he describes the Atlantean capital good enough so Avotin can make a picture which is almost the same or I can say that for me is the same like Muiuparka, where Inkas performed their rituals. Doesn't matter is this Atlantis or no maybe someday someone will found it. Everything is possible!

elena,

do you subscribe to the worldview of The Secret, by any chance?

Yes I read Plato and he describes the Atlantean capital good enough so Avotin can make a picture

Yeah, and in Republic (IIRC) he describes the geography of the world clearly enough that you can map it - and see that it bears absolutely no relation to reality.

In every myth/story/fairytale there is a little true ...

Well, I'm broadly sympathetic to that idea, as I generally believe that mythology accretes around actual people and events. However... the writings of Plato are not mythology. They are not the cumulative product of an entire oral culture. They are the work of one man - a man with a well-known habit of making stuff up from wholecloth to illustrate his philosophical arguments. (And even when you are dealing with mythology, there is the significant problem of figuring out exactly which bits of it may be derived from fact, and how much they've been modified during transmission and translation.)

I'm entirely happy to believe that Plato drew some elements of his story of Atlantis from pre-existing myths of lost civilisations, some of which may indeed have had some basis in fact. However, I don't believe for an instant that Atlantis per se, as described by Plato, ever actually existed. Plato is not a reliable source, and his ideas about geography are largely nonsense.

OK, I'm agree with you that you can't believe entirely of what he says about geography but still how you will explain the picture of Avotin? And something else what about Homer and his Iliada, nobody believes that Troy exist before her discovery. In this order why we can't believe in Plato maybe there is something real in his words.

My preliminary searches haven't turned up anything solid for either "Avotin" or "Muiuparka", so I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about there.

The point about Plato is that we know, from all of his other writings, that he is totally unreliable when it comes to matters of empirical fact. We even know that he held the entire concept of empirical facts in some degree of contempt, because he specifically said so. He was, in many ways, a writer of fiction. Looking for Atlantis makes no more sense than looking for Minas Tirith.

At least "Homer" actually claimed to be writing a story based on historical fact, and the historical facts which he claimed as the basis of his story were recent enough (with respect to the time of writing) to still be recognisable. There is a big difference between a pseudo-historical epic describing a 200-year old war, and a philosophical text containing a description of a civilisation lost over 9,000 years previously. You could piece together a recognisable description of the American Revolutionary War from oral sources today - we can't do the same for events that happened over 9,000 years ago.

Elena:

Yes I read Plato

With respect, if you think Plato was actually describing a real city, then you haven't really read Plato. You've looked at the words, but you haven't really understood. Creating cities for philosophical discourse is how he does things - read the Republic and the Laws to see this.

he describes the Atlantean capital good enough so Avotin can make a picture which is almost the same or I can say that for me is the same like Muiuparka

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that a description of Atlantis written by Plato is so detailed that someone made a picture of it that looked like something else, and that proves Atlantis is real? Plato talks in so much detail in parts of the Republic he describes peoples sex lives, who can have sex, at what age and who with. Does that mean the city he is talking about is real?

Everything is possible!

No, not really.

LOL, by this theory, then if you can make a movie from a book, it means that the stuff in the book is real!

LOL, Lord of the Rings!!! Yahoo!
Gotham City!
Golden Compass!!

Woohoo! Where do we start looking?

Elena,
I am no expert about continents, but I believe I know sufficient to know that the crust thickness is greatest at the continents and thinnest on the ocean floor. What this means is that continents cannot just vanish without trace in ten thousand years [subduction]. If Atlantis was a continent that really existed, it would be fairly obvious, say on Google Earth. If Atlantis were small, then it could have been overlooked, but it would be located on a continental shelf somewhere and probably inundated at the the end of the last ice-age, which would seem to match the myth. However, it would have a submerged coastline, which would show-up on sonar, if the area had been surveyed.

I thought Atlantis was supposed to be circular, anyway.

If anyone wants to see what Plato wrote, and where this nonsense all started, here is the relevant dialogue.

Critias

I mean, come on. The dialogue even states it was Posiedon who carved up the centre of Atlantis. Do the people who believe in Atlantis believe in the Greek pantheon as well? Do they seriously believe that Atlantis had growing on it every plant, flower, fruit and vegetable? Do they seriously think that an island bigger than Libya sat outside the Straits of Gibralatar and then sank without a trace, leaving no evidence of its passing?

Here's something for these people to think about:

Do you remember the devastating tsunami of December 2004? Do you remember the scale of the devastation?

Well that was the result of a 'mere' 60ft upthrust at the epicentre of the quake.

Now, imagine an island the size of Libya violently disappearing under the sea. And leaving no trace at all.

Sometimes I despair for the human race...

Hi guys,
I'm from Bulgaria and I found a lot of information in Bulgarian, but I don't want to translate so I'm sending you the link where you can see the picture of Avotin:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/ATLANTIS-AVOTIN-Canvas-Print-40x30cm/dp/B001AU2H46
I'm not saying that I'm a expert about Atlantis a just said my opinion. How you can say that I don't understand Plato when he is not here and you cannot ask what exactly he wants to say. People are different and everyone is seeing the world from different place and all if us have different imagination. This what is right for maybe is not right for me. And about Everything is possible - yes this is true because when you believe in yourself nothing can stop you!

So, since we can't know the meaning of things without being told them, archaeology is a useless discipline, right?

The archaeologists will be so disappointed to hear that.

Oooh, a pretty picture! Doesn't exactly prove anything though, does it? I did find that in my earlier searches, but I didn't think it could possibly be what you actually meant... I'm afraid all those great Roger Dean posters aren't really real either.

How you can say that I don't understand Plato when he is not here and you cannot ask what exactly he wants to say.

Well, you see, he left a fairly extensive body of writing in which he laid out what he wanted to say with a quite remarkable degree of precision for the time. And yes, I have read the section of Phaedrus where he discusses the limitations of written communication... Nonetheless, words mean things. That's how we're managing to communicate right now. (Although I'm starting to suspect we're not communicating very effectively...)

And about Everything is possible - yes this is true because when you believe in yourself nothing can stop you!

The Law of Gravity, the General Theory of Relativity, and all four of the Laws of Thermodynamics disagree with you there. Plus I think you'll find that a sledgehammer to the back of the skull will stop just about anybody, no matter how much self-belief they have.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Real World!

I think we're done here.

Maybe you are right that is time to finish our dispute, because I didn't change my mind probably none of you too. Why you so angry that I believe that everything is possible it's good to be an optimist. The posters are nice:) And one more thing when people read book they read between lines and what you will read there depends on you, so I don't want to argue anymore I'm just an optimist:)Bye everyone

Why you so angry that I believe that everything is possible it's good to be an optimist.
Yes Elena, it's good to be an optimist. But optimism isn't the same as gullibility.
when people read book they read between lines
No offense, but perhaps you try reading the actual lines themselves first.
Why you so angry that I believe that everything is possible

I'm not angry, I'm just bemused... Oh well, have a nice life. :)

A few other major differences between Troy and Atlantis:

We have other examples of ancient cities being destroyed/lost/abandoned/whatever and being eventually rediscovered by acheologists. There are almost certainly other ancient cities that we have not yet uncovered, and many that we probably never will. So even if people believed Troy itself was likely a myth, no one ever doubted that it was possible for such a city to have existed and we just hadn't found it yet.

Continents, on the other hand, are a little more difficult to hide. It's simply not plausible that a land mass of that size could've disappeared without a trace. For example, once it was hypothesized that an asteriod impact killed off the dinosaurs it took barely a decade to find the impact crater, even tho that was an event that took place 65 MILLION years ago.

And oh by the way, if you believe that Plato's account of Atlanis is factual, you have to believe that Athens fought an intercontinental war 8000 years before the city was even founded. Do you see why the rest of us are so skeptical?

Elana:

How you can say that I don't understand Plato when he is not here and you cannot ask what exactly he wants to say.

We have his other works, we can compare them. We know the methods he used because of this. I posted the Critias, read it. It is no different.

People are different and everyone is seeing the world from different place and all if us have different imagination.

And none of that has anything to do with what is real and what is not.

And about Everything is possible - yes this is true because when you believe in yourself nothing can stop you!

More new age nonsense. If I believe I can defy gravity and pull giraffes from my arse, is that possible? Everything is not possible.

You never answered my questions:

Do you believe in the Greek pantheon? If you don't, then you have problems with your belief in Atlantis.

Given the devastation caused by the December 2004 tsunami, do you really sincerely believe that a continent can disappear into the ocean off the Straits of Gibralatar without leaving a single trace anywhere?

But there's still more, and it is well worth repeating. I hadn't considered this until WScott pointed it out - Athens didn't exist until a hill fort was founded on top of the Acropolis at around the turn of the fourth and third milleniums BC. Plato lived from about 428/427 BC to 348/347 BC. Critias claims the war between Atlantis and Athens happened 9000 years before this period. So you have a problem. Quite a big problem really. Unless you don't believe Plato's version is accurate. And if Plato's version isn't accurate, then ...

If Atlantis was such a great power, where are the archeological remains of its trade with other nations and empires? We find well travelled trade goods and fragments at dispersed archeological sites all over Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. But nothing from the major empire Atlantis. Why is this?

Plato writes that the Atlantis story came from Egypt. Why don't the Egyptians have records of dealings with Atlantis then? Oh, and I mean real evidence, not the stuff made up by followers of Edgar Cayce.

All the available evidence, and the lack of real evidence, points to the nonexistence of Atlantis. Yet people still choose to believe.

So what if the posters look nice? Alan Lee's pictures are nice, but they aren't evidence for the existence of Rivendell or Hobbits, even if they closely match Tolkien's descriptions and look like something else that does exist.

Like I said, I despair for the human race. And I've spent way more time on this than should be necessary in the 21st century.

Do you believe in the Greek pantheon? If you don't, then you have problems with your belief in Atlantis.
Well to be fair, couldn't the same could just as easily be said about Troy? It's possible to believe the Trojan War was an actual historical event without accepting Homer's story of the gods' role in it. Or for that matter, to believe that the Jewish Exodus may have a basis in fact without believing God actually parted the Red Sea. So one could theoretically believe in Atlantis while dismissing the "god parts" as mere mythology.

None of which invalidates any of the other objections raised. But still. [/Devil's Advocate]

I see where you are coming from, but I am not sure that it is the same.

Leaving aside the debate over whether the Trojan war or the Exodus actually did happen, Homer (whose existence is debated as well) and other poets who wrote about the war were writing myth based on oral tradition, not simply history (much like the medieval romances about King Arthur).

Most of us seem to know that Plato was doing something similar - but the people who believe in Atlantis believe that Plato's account is an accurate factual description. Which means they do have to accept the role of the gods or find themselves in the same place as people who believe the bible is literal - picking and choosing which bits to believe with no justification for believing some parts and not others - if one part of the Atlantis story is dismissed as just myth, why not all of it?

We know Homer was writing about myths, not just real (and that's debatable) events. Atlantis believers think Plato was writing about facts, not myths.

For the Trojan war at least we have some sources other than Homer (however limited), so it is possible to believe in it without his account at all. Don't forget that until the limited historical and physical evidence was found, scholars did think the Trojan war had not actually happened, and are still debating it now. We also know that Homer was writing mythology, we don't have to accept the role of the gods to believe he may have been inspired by actual events.

For the Exodus, correct me if I am wrong, but we have no outside evidence other than the bible, so there is no reason to believe in it with or without God.

For Atlantis we have no evidence but Plato, and the gods are a specific and fundamental part of it. Central to it in fact.

So (and I know it is too late) to cut a long story short my point was that if Atlantis believers accept the Greek gods exist, frankly they'll believe anything and there's not much point speaking to them. If they don't accept that Poseidon was the founder and forbear of the empire and island of Atlantis and reject that as myth, what grounds do they have to believe Atlantis is not myth also?

The answer is, none.

(My posts seem to be getting longer, too – sorry all, but I am enjoying the conversation.)

Jimmy - You raise several good points, and obviously you & I are in agreement about the absurdity of believing in Atlantis. My objection is more of a logical/debating concern.

First, I think lumping Atlantis believers in with Biblical Literalists seems like a bit of a straw man. Elena never said that she thought every word Plato wrote was factually accurate; indeed, she said: “In every myth/story/fairytale there is a little true…” (Emphasis mine.) Her error here, of course, was insisting that’s true for every myth, rather than some/many myths. But to give her credit, she does specifically allow that the stories may not be 100% accurate. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that if any part of the story is false, then the entire rest of the story must be false as well, which doesn’t quite follow.

Ancient people often interpreted everything in terms of Acts Of The Gods. (Some modern people still do, but that's another topic...) But just because they spread a layer of God Frosting on top of their history doesn’t ipso facto mean their history didn’t happen. To take an absurd example, no rational person today believes that Rome was founded by twin sons of the god Mars who were suckled by wolves yadda yadda. And yet Rome exists nonetheless. The story of its founding has been mythologized past the point of recognition, but the city is no less real because of that. You mention King Arthur; but there is indeed debate over to what extent the Arthurian legends may have been based on actual historical figures and events; that debate is not invalidated by the fact that much of the stories are clearly just mythological nonsense. Other examples that come to mind are the city of Jericho, the Seven Years’ Famine of Egyptian Myth, and several Norse sagas – all believed to have some basis in truth, despite their layers of supernatural silliness.

(As for the Exodus: I thought the jury was still out on that one, but I haven’t really researched it, so I could be totally wrong. My point is still that the historical truth or untruth of the story is a debatable topic separate from questions of divine intervention.)

Now you might well reply that we know these other events happened because we have other pieces of verifiable evidence to support them. Yes! Exactly! The problem with believing in Atlantis isn’t that Plato loaded the story up with mythological window-dressing – the problem is that there is no evidence for its existence aside from one fantastical account by a guy who never claimed he was writing real history and who we know made a lot of stuff up, weighed against a mountain of evidence that it didn’t/couldn’t have existed.

To conclude, to Elena (if you’re still here) or anyone else: Would you agree that at least some parts of Plato’s account are pretty clearly nonsense? If so, I would like to hear what parts you then feel likely have a basis in fact, and what you base that assessment on?

Clearly I'm not saying in print what I think I am saying in my head, because I don't see a significant difference with what you are saying and what I thought I was!

I do disagree with this:

First, I think lumping Atlantis believers in with Biblical Literalists seems like a bit of a straw man.

I think they are one and the same sorts of behaviour because they both seek to assert that the whole is true, whilst picking and choosing exactly which bits of the whole are true for themselves from the original text, which bits are 'mythologically' true, and which bits are irrelevant, and yet with no coherent justification for doing so.

There is no difference between a biblical literalist rejecting some extreme form of punishment for a wayward child whilst claiming homosexuality is a sin, and an Atlantis believer saying that clearly Poseidon is part of a myth in the text, but Atlantis itself existed exactly as described in the same text.

she said: “In every myth/story/fairytale there is a little true…”

But she also states that the description was accurate enough for people to draw an interpretation that matches other structures. That was my point (and I think we agree) - she is selecting some parts of the story and claiming they are precisely accurate and likely dismissing others - but there is no coherent reason to do so. Why claim that the physical description of Atlantis is factually accurate and detailed, but not the fact that Poseidon did it, when you have no evidence but the text itself for either? It doesn't falsify the whole thing, but it highlights how incoherent your argument might be. Just like biblical literalism.

On the other hand, you seem to be saying that if any part of the story is false, then the entire rest of the story must be false as well, which doesn’t quite follow.

No no no, my fault for not being clear enough so my apologies. I'm merely saying you have no real basis for accepting one part of the story but not the other - what allows someone like Elena to say "That bit is myth, but this bit is highly accurate in its detail."?

For something like Troy, or King Arthur, heck even Robin Hood, there is some external evidence that allows us to highlight the elements of truth in the myth. For Atlantis, there is nothing. And I knew someone would bring up Romulus and Remus! What's Randi's number?

all believed to have some basis in truth, despite their layers of supernatural silliness.

My point is: what allows these people to determine this bit is silliness and this bit isn't, and what allows them to do so coherently?

Yes! Exactly! The problem with believing in Atlantis isn’t that Plato loaded the story up with mythological window-dressing – the problem is that there is no evidence for its existence aside from one fantastical account by a guy who never claimed he was writing real history and who we know made a lot of stuff up, weighed against a mountain of evidence that it didn’t/couldn’t have existed.

I agree completely. I just think that this gives believers a problem - what enables them to reject one bit as mythology and not another?

I think we are closer on this than it appears, thanks to my being in a rush earlier!

If Atlantis was such a great power, where are the archeological remains of its trade with other nations and empires? We find well travelled trade goods and fragments at dispersed archeological sites all over Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

Hey, it's not just North Africa. There were major civilizations in south Africa that also traded internationally.

Woah, I meant no disrespect! I mentioned those places simply because I knew for certain about them.

I recall I even once read an article about shards of Roman pottery being found on the shores of a South American country - wait till the Atlantis nutters hear about that!

My point is: what allows these people to determine this bit is silliness and this bit isn't, and what allows them to do so coherently?
Jimmy - Yes, I think we're saying the same thing, just coming at it from slightly different angles. Sorting out which bits are likely true and which bits are likely false is part and parcel of the historian's job. But you have to have a coherent reason for doing so, instead of just cherry-picking the parts you like. Thanks!

Woah, I meant no disrespect!

Oh no no no, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm sorry if I came across that way.

I do feel it's important to point out the existence of advanced sub-Saharan (read: black) cultures, though, so I burst in here.

Yes, all myth is based on reality, and some day we will rediscover all the wonders that the Ancients enjoyed.

I personally am looking forward the day when our scientists crack the secret of impregnation via golden shower.

That's a myth? O.o

I'm hoping I don't see that one on Mythbusters anytime soon.

That's a myth? O.o

Yes, assuming that he meant "golden shower" literally and not as a euphemism. Zeus was into weird sex:
Zeus came to [Danaë] in the form of golden rain, and impregnated her. Soon after, their child Perseus was born.

Please also note the inscripion at
0° 1'1.58"N
94°46'20.25"E
it says something like "DT 8/8" plus a Number or Letter that is hard to decipher. The inscription is huge.
Maybe Google Earth has some bugs?

I checked it this morning, and it was there. Now when I checked it again they painted it over... So don't bother checking.

Must have been a bug...

I think when they said the city was "the size of Wales," they really meant it was "sized for whales."

That should clear everything up.

I think the site ate my comment the first time.

When they said the city was "the size of Wales," they really meant that it was "sized for whales."

That should clear everything up.

I can't wait till they find "Middle Earth"

I keep checking 47°9′S 126°43′W for unearthly geometric figures.

So far, no, nothing.

Hi Mabus!

Did the mental institution let you back on the internet?

Off topic Spam by "pzdummy" deleted. Stop spamming multiple posts with this off topic nonsense, whoever you are.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site