Atlantis
Revealed

Copyright © 1999 by  Gábor Bihari

Sample Chapter

3.3 A Continent in the Atlantic Ocean?

This is the classical conception isn't it? An enormous continent lay in the Atlantic Ocean a good ten thousand years ago. As Plato writes, it was bigger than Libya and Asia combined. It was formed by mountains and plains, and criss-crossed by rivers, just as any other continent. Then, one fine day, the whole thing sunk into the ocean, complete with the mountains, plains, trees and bushes. As the penalty of the gods, precisely as Plato described it.

If it really was like this, then it is extremely simple to explain all those chance coincidences and unexpected peculiarities, which we listed earlier. It becomes understandable why the Basques are such a strange people: they originate from Atlantis. Why did the Indians have themselves originate from an island laying in the East in the ocean: they are also descendants of the Atlanteans. And the linguistic similarities originated from Atlantis to both the Old World and the New World. While the saga of the flood is an altered form of the history of Atlantis.

Thus a continent of this sort would mean a relief from many points of view. Although today it would much rather cause complications, the science of the beginning of the century was very fond of bringing up Atlantis as a convenient explanation for the mysteries listed. According to one conception, the original continent stretched practically from Europe to America, and periodically even dry-land bridges could connect it with these continents. Shallow sea sections separated it from Europe, African and America, but sometimes these narrow channels dried up and made great migrations of the Atlanteans possible. When the continent sank, a few smaller pieces broke off from its edge and remained in the ocean as islands. On the eastern side these would be the Canary, Madeira Islands and the Azores, while on the western - American side of Atlantis - the Bahamas and the Bermuda Islands.

As nice as this sounds, it is not by chance that it did not find its way into the history books. Namely, there are some serious problems with this conception, of which it is generally written that it suits Plato word for word. Let us look at these in order.

In the first place: Plato never for a moment spoke of a continent! He always mentioned Atlantis as an island. The reason for the misunderstanding is clearly that in relation to the size of Atlantis he wrote: “ there was an island, which was bigger than Libya and Asia combined”. This trap immediately captures the laymen in their masses and very frequently the specialists as well. They start looking for a continent, for with the Greeks Libya meant Africa, while Asia is the same as with us, thus Atlantis was an enormous continent. As an excuse for them, the meanings of these words are not entirely unambiguous, and Plato himself only increases the mix up.

The key to the solution is that the names 'Libya' and 'Asia' had different meanings in the period of Solon and in that of Plato. That is to say, we must not forget that almost two hundred years separated them from each other.

The era of Greek colonization commenced  about one hundred years before Solon. The mass of impoverished Greeks without land, swarmed out of Greece, and established coastal settlements all along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The more brave, even sailed northwards and established flowering trading cities on the shores of the Black Sea, on the Crimean Peninsula and on the coasts of the Ukraine and Russia of today.

Settlements were established on the southern shores of Italy and Sicily also. In Sicily is the famous city of Syracuse also, where Archimedes lived. The Greeks establishing their cities, even reached France, and they established the city of Massilia on the site of the Marseilles of today. This process took place from the VIII century BC to the VI century BC, that is to say, it was at its height during the life of Solon. At that time - in Solon's youth, around 630 BC - some Greek colony towns were established in North Africa, in the northern part of today's Libya, that is on the peak sticking out towards Greece. Its is no wonder that they settled here, for to be sure, this is the closest point of Africa looking from Greece. Among these cities, the most significant - a kind of capital city - was Cyrene. This area of the coast occupied by the few cities, represented Libya in the time of Solon, that is to say, this name does not indicate a continent, merely a smaller Greek colonial territory.

As to what could the precise size of this area, is of course not completely unambiguous. Namely the cities were built on the sea coast and only a narrow coastal band came under their administration. Dependent on what width of coastal band we calculate with, we obtain various sizes of territory. The most realistic is if we consider the Greek national territory as a 3-400 km long coastal section, about 100 km in depth. Further inland the desert area starts, where the Greeks were scarcely likely to have ventured. Thus the result for the colonial territory of Libya was according to logic 30-40 km2, but at any event not more than 50 km2.

The situation is similar with Asia also. The word 'Asia' according to the lexicons meant the Asian continent to the Greeks commencing from the time of Aischylos. Aischylos however was born in 525 BC, while Solon was born in 640 BC, thus the latter a good one hundred years earlier. Accordingly in the time of Solon 'Asia' would still not have meant the continent. But we can not even be certain that the area later named as Asia Minor, that is today's Turkey, is in question here. That is to say, originally 'Asia' - just as 'Libya' - was the name of a coastal region, of that sea coast which the Greeks occupied together with Troy at that time. Homer used this interpretation of the name 'Asia', in the IX century BC meaning the western coastal region of today's Asia Minor. Later however, as we know, the name spread to mean the entire peninsula, then to the entire continent behind it.

Thus it is not possible to know precisely what this name meant in the time of Solon, because somewhere around that time the meaning altered. If it is just the coastal section, then we have to count an area similar to that of Libya. If however the entire peninsula is in question, this is more than four hundred thousand square kilometers. At all events it is fairly likely that the Egyptian priest only meant the coastal section under the name 'Asia'. It is not certain that he was up to date with the recent changes occurring with the Greeks in that period, and probably used the older meaning for the name 'Asia'. This is logical also, because the Asia-minor peninsula is much larger than the Greek Libya colony. If he was thinking of the whole peninsula, then there would have been no need to add Libya also to its size.

In this case the Saisian priest speaking of Libya and Asia, presumably spoke of the two colonies inhabited by Greeks, and not of the continents. The size of these is about 50 thousand km2 each, thus together making up approximately 100 thousand km2. But in the worst case - if we calculate the entire peninsula -, this is still only about 500 thousand km2, although as can be seen, this later is rather improbable. Even this is a significant area if an island is in question, but not that of a continent, rather only that of a country. To more easily create a conception of the size of this territory, then it is best if we imagine an island about the size of Ireland. Thus if anyone seeks for a sunken continent then they are up the wrong road. The cause of the misunderstanding is simple: while in Solon's time 'Libya' and 'Asia' designated smaller areas, Plato and his contemporaries, two hundred years later, interpreted them as Africa and Asia.

Plato just heightened the misunderstanding by the fact that he uses these names in both senses. For indicating the size of Atlantis he uses the form described by Solon: bigger than Libya and Asia combined. Elsewhere however he writes: “ ruled Libya right up to Egypt”; thus here Libya means the whole of North Africa. While no much before this we can read: “ arrogantly marched against the whole of Europe and Asia, from outside, starting out from the Atlantic Ocean.” Here however Asia can hardly indicate the entire continent, since only a small part of Asia can be found in the coastal area of the Mediterranean Sea, that the Atlanteans conquered. But this sentence is suspicious also for other reasons. Also for the reason that in place of 'Ocean' the 'Atlantic Ocean' appears in it. We do not know for certain when the ocean received this name, it is only certain that it was received from the Greeks - probably after the story of Atlantis became known. It does not appear in this form anywhere else in the text. Perhaps this was placed in the text during the translations of the middle ages. This is precisely the same as how the Viking inhabitants of Vesterbrygd, went to America in 1342 - instead of Vinland.

We certainly do not have to look for a continent, for the very reason that Plato gives the size of the flat area to found on Atlantis. Namely the plain, as he writes, was divided up into plots of ten times ten stadiums, and the number of these amounted to 60 thousand. From which it can be simply calculated that the above mentioned plain was an area of six million square stadiums, which calculated in measurements of today, is about 190 thousand square kilometers. He adds that the territory was rectangular, with one side of 3000 stadium (533 km) and the other side 2000 stadium (355 km).

More Coming:  But, first a word from our sponsors.

Keep up with all our new articles and freebies.

Have some of your favorite ebooks quit working? Click HERE and let me GIVE you a secret that will: Fix Your Ebooks. 

Travel the World, and get paid for it. 

The Truth about Virus Dangers
There ARE ways to protect your computer!
Actually, we'll be publishing an entire series
on How to Guard, Protect and Rebuild your computer.

This 190 thousand km2 of course is only the size of the flat area, to this comes the mountainous area also - because as we know the island also had mountainous regions - but the story however does not mention the size of this. For safety sake we shall add to it the size of the plain, then we get about 400 thousand km2. And we have still not exceeded the value, which we set a moment ago as the upper limit, the 500 thousand km2. In any case it is not worth adding too much to the area of the plain, because on an average area of dry land, the proportion of the flat area is greater than that of the high mountains.

Averaging our results up to now, we can draw the final conclusion. Although Plato's data are only of approximate accuracy - just the area of the plain is already much larger than “Libya and Asia combined” -, we can put the size of the island somewhere between 100 and 500 thousand km2, perhaps most probably 2-300 thousand km2. Sufficiently large for an island, but in no way a continent. Thus it is not by chance that neither does Plato name it as such.

There are however much more serious items of evidence than this that a continent never lay in the Atlantic Ocean. Even in the first half of the twentieth century we still did not know with complete certainty how the continents were established, and what is the difference between the continental and the ocean crust. Today this is no longer a question, at the most some smaller details can be uncertain. Therefore the conception of a sunken continent in the ocean was upheld in the first half of the century, but the geology of today unambiguously rejects this. But why? Let us look at this in order.

As early as in the years of the 50-s an ocean research ship named Ericsson took 550 sediment samples with deep-sea sample taking equipment, from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, in its northern half. Analysis of the samples showed unambiguously that the sediment obtained from the ocean floor, originated in the sea. Of the 550 samples, not a single one was of a character that could have possibly contained sediment from dry land.

All of the drilling-core samples were several meters in length, which also made it possible to reconstruct the process of forming of the sediment. The ages of the sediments were established layer by layer, thus it was possible to determine that the sediment layer thickens by 1 cm at the most during one thousand years. If Atlantis existed a good ten thousand years ago, then one part of the sediments should have shown a dry land character from a depth of 10 cm. This however did not occur: the layers of the drilling-core samples contained marine sediment over a thickness of several meters, in faultless stratification. On the basis of these we can be certain that the places of taking the samples were on the bottom of the sea not just ten thousand, but millions of years ago.

Already in these first experiments, the ocean floor was almost completely examined. Although there remained a few patches in which one or two larger islands could have fitted, however these also have been examined since then. And the result is unambiguous: there is no sunken continent at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Every larger piece of land, which lies on the ocean bottom today, was also there ten thousand years ago. It appears that there is only one exception to this rule. There are some areas where the researchers found no sediment of any kind on the ocean bottom, neither of a sea nor a dry land character. Here, everywhere the ocean floor is formed of bare basalt. According to the assumptions, these areas were either created by means of some volcanic process taking place not long ago, or the sea currents made depositing of the sediment impossible, and that is why the original rock remained uncovered.

In the course of the research expedition a geographic formation - at that time still considered as peculiar - was discovered in the middle of the ocean. As it turned out, a tall mountain chain runs right along the centerline of the ocean. Neither were these mountain peaks of the sea bottom covered with sediment - not even a thin layer - therefore they were apparently of young origin, and as became clear, they really are young. Many saw in this under-sea mountain range, named the Atlantic Ridge, their possibly sunken Atlantis.

At the beginning of the century a rock sample was brought up from here, which caused quite a stir in the scientific community. The block of volcanic rock, which was caught in a dredging net, was examined by Termier, one of the leading geologists of the period. The glass-like structure of the rock, suggested that it became like this due to rapid cooling occurring in the air. Thus Termier reach the conclusion that that part of the ocean floor from whence the sample originated, was still dry land not long before. The position of the find was close to both the Atlantic Ridge and the Azores, therefore the presumption was convenient, that the legendary Atlantis could have been in this area. And also because this area - the Azores Ridge - is only at a depth of two kilometers below the sea, while elsewhere the ocean is 4-6 kilometers deep.

The area of the Azores has been carefully examined since then. Unfortunately here also everywhere just marine sediment is laying there. Well, where is the fault?

Since the case at the beginning of the century, the deep-sea examinations have dealt in detail with the volcanism of the sea floor. A great mass of rocks, showing structures similar to Termier's sample have been found. These glassy rocks named 'tachylite' really are of this structure due to rapid cooling. However as the sea water is also an excellent cooling medium, this kind of rock is also characteristic of the lava pouring out into the sea. Thus the argument of Termier does not stand the test of time.

But what is the situation with the Atlantic Ridge, with this enormous mountain range running along the ocean floor. Did this we wonder originate in the depths of the sea, or above the surface of the sea, and only sank after this? The answer is already taught in school today, that is to say, this is one of the cornerstones of the modern theory of geology.

The German meteorologist, Alfred Wegener published his theory on the migration of continents, in 1912. His conception produced quite a lot of argument, and certain of the details proved to be incorrect. He was correct in general however, and since then geology would be unimaginable without him.

Wegener observed how well the coastlines of South America and Africa matched each other in theory. Therefore he considered that originally these continents formed one block but for some reason became separated and commenced to drift in opposite directions to each other. He took a further step: originally all of the continents formed a single block - he named this Pangea - and the picture formed of the Earth's surface today, resulted only after its later breaking up and migration of the continents.

Wegener was only mistaken in that according to him the continental blocks slide over the basalt on the ocean bottom and their yearly movement could be put at several tens of meters. Wegener however could not give an answer to the question as to what forces cause this. Because of this, in the beginning his theory was accepted with skepticism. In 1930 he organized an expedition to Greenland to measure the speed of separation estimated by him, between Greenland and Europe. However the expedition ended in misfortune, as Wegener met his death in the ice field of Greenland.

With his death, his theory was pushed into the background and only reappeared in the years of the 50-s, in a modified - and seemingly correct - form. According to the renewed theory, the slabs of the Earth's crust, whether they are ocean bottom or dry land, float on the molten rock of the Earth's interior. Their speed of movement, which since then is also measured with the help of satellite radar systems and lasers, is merely a few centimeters a year. That is to say, much less than that estimated by Wegener. The forces required for this could be much more easily found than those sought after by Wegener.

The forces required by the modern theory originate from a process relatively simple to understand. Similarly to the way warm air rises because it is lighter than the cold air, the warmer molten rocks also expand and due to their smaller density rise from the Earth's deeper regions towards the surface. Arriving close to the crust, they spread and flowing sideways, transfer the conveyed heat to the crust. Following this, the melts becoming colder and heavier, sink deeper to start the re-circulation again. Thus the densely running rock melts in the Earth's interior, flow in enormous vortex rings, during which heat is transferred by the inner parts, upwards to the outside, towards the crust of the earth. In fact the migration of the crust slabs is induced by the densely running melts flowing underneath them for the reasons given above: immersed in the dense mass, the frictional forces continually push the otherwise floating crust blocks, in some direction.

In actual fact the whole process is fed by the decay of radioactive elements in the Earth's interior producing heat: this heat maintains the material in a melted condition, while the Earth's crust radiates this heat flowing to it, towards the cold outer space.

At those positions where the melt rising from the deep, expands when reaching the crust, the rock slabs are forced apart. The melt flows out of the aperture forced between the slabs, onto the surface, where it solidifies, by which it thickens the edges of the crust slabs. Thus both of the slabs not only move away from each other, but newer and newer crust forms at their edges.

At other places - where the cooled melt turns downwards - the two floating rock slabs strain against each other. At this time, there is no alternative but for one to sink into the depths, under the other. The sinking slab continuously dissolves and disintegrates in the melt under the higher temperature deeper down. It is destroyed just as it was created.

Although it is true that this can only take place in this manner on the ocean bottom, not on dry land, but exactly this occurs at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, between America and Africa also. Wegener was right, it is not by chance that the edges of the continents match each other so well. Let us rub in mind Central America, which in any case has only formed recently, from the map. The northern peak of South America fits precisely into the Gulf of Mexico. The coastline of America put together in this way, perfectly reflect the negative profile of Africa's coastline. That this is not a chance coincidence, is supported by the fact when matching the continents together the neighboring coastlines are comprised of the same rock types, while the sediments contain the same fossil remains, thus they originated really by the separation of one uniform earth block.

Thus the Atlantic Ocean - we can now state - was created when a gap was forced between America and Africa, then the gap expanded and was flooded by the sea. There was not a continent between them - for to be sure their coastlines match each other perfectly - and one has not been there since. The freshly forming ocean crust constantly adhered in an increasingly wider layer to the edges of the continents being pushed apart, until the Atlantic Ocean of today was established.

The Atlantic Ridge, where some presumed to recognize the sunken Atlantis, receives a new role. This S-shaped mountainous curve is where the one-time connected America and Africa split apart. It is not by chance that the ridge is of the same form as the coastlines of both continents, and today is positioned precisely half way between them. They commenced moving away from each other from this split, meanwhile the ocean crust constantly grew between them on both sides of the ridge. The mountains of the ridge are formed by the crust edges still being created today also. Although the freshly established crust is very thin here, it rises to a mountainous height due to the force of the upward flowing rock melt. Thus the Atlantic Ridge is not a sunken mountain range, but is one of the cracks in the Earth's crust where the new crust is born.

Precisely the opposite of this process is taking place on the other side of America. The continent is drifting to the West and collides with the rock slabs forming the bed of the Pacific Ocean. The thinner ocean crust sinks under the more massive continental crust and disintegrates in the depths. In the course of which its force has quite a big effect on the continental crust slabs, therefore the edges of these crumble and rise into the air as enormous mountain chains. The Andes were formed like this in South America, the Rocky Mountains in the North, and Central America also as a bridge connecting the two of them.

There are a large number of indications that this occurred in reality. For example the earthquakes almost always take place where the boundaries of these slabs are positioned. As the slabs are continuously originating and disappearing, their edges are constantly rubbing against each other, therefore periodically being the sources of strong upheavals, for to be sure, these displacements do not occur smoothly and free from impacts.

The majority of the volcanoes are also line up along the edges of the crust slabs, which is not surprising in accordance with the mechanism shown. The molten rock ejected by the volcanoes is obviously pushed out to the surface by the flows forcing up from the deep along the crust boundaries. The theory similarly provides a convenient explanation also for the forming of mountain ranges of non-volcanic origin: these - as we already know - crumple upwards under the impact of the crust slabs.

Besides the fact that this theory provides a full explanation without contradiction for the forming of the earth surface today, it is also supported by a great amount of data. Intensive heat flow can be measured along the ocean ridges: the heat from the upward flowing hot rock melt. The cameras of deep-sea submarines have already immortalized the melt coming to the surface. The gravitational measurements are also in accordance with the theory. Besides this, establishing the age of the rocks of the ocean floor certified the prognostication of the theory that the ridges are made up of very young rocks. While moving increasingly farther away from these, the rock is increasingly older; the age of the rock at the edges of the continents is the greatest: this gives the time of the splitting apart of the continents.

Thus we have an excellent theory, which explains almost every geological process and phenomenon, compiles these into unity and gives them a logical structure. This theory however states that a continent did not exist between America and Africa. Then what should we discard? The logical theory, that is the basis of modern geology, or the continent of Atlantis? The answer is unambiguous for those who think logically and are not swayed by their emotions: Atlantis, even if it did exist and if it did lie in the Atlantic Ocean, could in no way have been a continent.

A single resource is left for those who seek a continent in the Atlantic Ocean. Can we assume that under some force of a geological character, a piece of the ocean floor rose to the surface, remained for a while - a couple of thousands of years -, for the Atlantis civilization to develop on it, then just as it rose, in the same way it sunk again?

The answer for the believers in Atlantis is unfortunately not too reassuring. We have seen in the foregoing how the pieces and slabs of the earth's crust originate and are destroyed. However it is important to know that this part of the theory relates only to the section of crust under the ocean. But the crust under the oceans will never be dry land and the fate of the crust of the dry land is determined by completely different laws than the ocean crust. The continental crust - disregarding some rare exceptions - is not destroyed and is not built up, at the most just a little here and there at its edges. Why?

The key to the secret lies in the existence of the two kinds of crust. One type is the continental type the other is the ocean type. The continental crust is made up of rocks of relatively low density, mainly of granite, rich in silicon-dioxide, that is quartz. These rocks cover the surface in a thick layer reaching down to a depth of 30-40 km. As opposed to this the ocean crust is extremely thin, on average only 5-8 km thick, and underneath it is already the smoldering pliant material. The ocean crust comprises of basalt, a material less rich in quartz, which has a greater density - is heavier - than the granitic continental rock.

These rock slabs - since the physical laws are the same everywhere - similarly float on the melt existing underneath them, just as the icebergs, or pieces of wood on the water. We can apply the Archimedes law on objects immersed in a liquid, to these just in any other everyday case. For example in the knowledge of the density of ice, we can simply calculate that one tenth of the mass of a piece of ice floating in water, is above the surface of the water, and nine tenths is underneath. If a table of ice rises 10 meters out of the water, then we can be sure that it reaches a much greater depth under the water. The higher it protrudes upwards, then necessarily the deeper must its bottom protrude into the water.

The crust slabs behave similarly to this. The continental crust is about 5 kilometers higher than the ocean crust, which is why it protrudes out of the sea. From this it is given, that it is on average 30 kilometers thick, while the ocean crust is only 5 kilometers.

An interesting consequence of this floating balance, is that the real mass of the high mountains is not above ground. The Himalayas rise to almost 9 kilometers above sea level. However downwards, they can be perhaps 100 kilometers “ high”, that is, deep. Thus the mountains are not really enormous on the surface, but in the depths of the earth where their roots are several times the mass of that on the surface. Only the volcanoes are exceptions to this rule: namely they are not held up high by a foundation of this kind, but by the pressure of the rising flow of molten rock. We can be certain of this, just for the reason that according to observations, the expired volcanoes regularly begin to sink. This can be observed, for example on the islands of Hawaii. The older members of the chain are increasingly deeper in the sea.

From all of this, can be seen the answer to the original question. The bottom of the ocean neither rises nor sinks. It may possibly move a little - ten-twenty or even one hundred meters - vertically. However for it to rise several kilometers - right up to the surface - would require that it should suddenly expand from 5 kilometers thick to ten times this. This is clearly a nonsensical presumption.

Another possibility is given by a rising flow of melt lifting the crust. Of course from this will be a volcano, but at least it rises. This will not grow into a continent, but perhaps there could be an island from it.

There are such islands in the Atlantic Ocean. For the majority they protrude above the water level where intensive magma flow is in progress, namely in the Atlantic Ridge area. Moving from south to north, such are the Bouvet, Gough and Tristan da Cunha islands, the St. Helen island and Ascension. North from the Equator the ridge almost reaches the sea surface at several points, but really peaks out at the Azores Plateau. Here the ridge widens out to a plateau of several hundred kilometers in diameter, from which the Azores rise above the water level. Similarly of volcanic origin - although not a part of the ridge - are the Bermuda Islands, the Canaries and the Madeira Islands.

Those who attempted to find Atlantis in the area of the Azores were really pleased that the islands lay on a plateau of larger area. Could it not be possible that at some time this area rose out of the sea simply by the volcanoes building it up higher? And afterwards this enormous island was destroyed by a volcanic catastrophe?

In theory it could be possible. The volcanic activity, if sufficiently intensive, could nice and slowly build up a larger island. There is for example Iceland. It can also destroy that, although this is rather possible only slowly. We do not know any example of the rapid destruction of an island of this size. The sinking, which is a feature of every extinct volcano, is very slow, requiring millions of years. On the other hand the volcanoes of the Azores are still really operating, thus the sinking is still not timely. Therefore the only possible method of destruction is the same as in the case of Thera, that is to say, an eruption of an explosive kind. Of course an eruption of this kind can occur with every volcano, but the volcanoes are in general 10-20 kilometers wide: a volcanic eruption can rarely form a cavity larger than this. The biggest that we know about is the Toba-caldera on Sumatra. This is almost one hundred kilometers long and 20-30 kilometers wide. However a far greater explosion than this would have been necessary for the destruction of the Azores Ridge. Details of the calculation are not of interest now, but the probability of a volcanic explosion of this size is extremely small. It is almost certain that there has not been one like this in the several thousands of million years of the history of Earth.

But no matter what the probability should be, a catastrophe of this size would certainly have left a tremendous amount of evidence behind it. We saw in the case of Thera how the debris of the volcanic eruption spread over several hundreds of kilometers. In the case of a larger explosion, the debris would travel even further. Even Europe and America would be covered with the ash, if an area the size of the Azores Ridge should be destroyed in this manner. But no trace whatsoever can be found comparable to this, not even in the direct neighborhood of the Azores. On the contrary a faultless layer of sea sediment can be found. Unfortunately it appears that Atlantis can not have been in this area either.

But we don't have to be downhearted because of this. If we do not find Atlantis there, where it never was, don't worry. We can still perhaps find it there, where it actually was.

Namely, something very important occurred at the time when, according to Plato Atlantis was swallowed up by the sea. Precisely 9000 years before Solon heard about Atlantis, a special period in the history of the Earth came to an end: the ice age. This event - just by the way - raised the level of the world seas by a good one hundred meters.

If this subject has been of interest you might also like to read:  The Prehistoric World: or, Vanished Races  by Emory Adams Allen.  THE Atlantis page can be accessed HERE.

The First Elements in Finding Peace; Perceptual Matrix and Models -- Written by Tracy Sandberg.  At some level all models must fail. That axiom has a corollary: For any given model of reality there will at some time and place be a different and more accurate model.  An extremely interesting mind is at work here.

Trials and Triumphs by College Athletes, by Katie Morgan is a MUST-READ project which has a tight focus, built in customers, broad promotional base, with a huge line of exciting endorsement possibilities. People are coming to visit the page from all over the country and sending their friends back to share it with them too. 

Whiz Teens in Business by Danielle Vallee is a remarkable book for its comprehensive format in a down to earth language kids can use to get serious about business.  In conjunction with the book WhizSeminars are being offered for free to groups of 100 teenagers who want to learn hands-on how to start and expand their own business.  If you have an ambitious teen at home, insist on a visit to either link.

Gábor Bihari is the author of the latest book on Atlanticas.  

The Merry Method To Accelerate Success  We believe a couple of things are very critical for both personal and professional success; here we describe to you these success builders.

John Wisdom is an established author with over eight nationally published books. "My first book was published in 1988. I have authored over 40 educational workbooks. These books are sold only to CPA’s in the tax and accounting field.  My latest book is titled "Street Smart Selling."

JOSEPH A. KINNEY is a noted author, researcher, and pioneering manager who has received numerous national awards for his leadership and contributions to forging a safer world. He approaches life with passion and vigor that enriches his professional and literary contributions.

June Campbell writes business help projects.  She is a professional writer whose work has appeared in a several international print and online publications.

Lin Stone * has had one book published by Truman Publishing, a complete book on the web, and the beginnings of two other books.

.

Maggie Wood has her own tongue-in-shiek way of looking at things.

Dr. Norman Jones has now had two books published.  I just got the beautiful cover for the last one a few minutes ago.   I'm so happy for Norman.  So far as I know, he isn't bringing another book out any time soon but I don't want him forgotten either.

Ron Lavine is a training specialist in the areas of non-invasive, top down selling, high-level lead qualification and telephone sales research. He teaches dozens of listening and questioning strategies along with valuable telesales tips so you can uncover sales opportunities while gaining a thorough understanding of the needs, and challenges existing within your account.

SO YOUR CAR FAILED EMISSIONS by Steve Bodofsky is available for private label (branded) publication. Steve wrote the training manuals for emission control specialists in all of the states testing vehicles.  Steve has many nonfiction credits to his name, including:  Cooling System Training Program, Air/Fuel Theory and Driveability Diagnosis, several other automotive manuals for consumers or Technical, Ferrets, Page Layout, and Technical Communications.  Ferrets?  Yeah,  Steve is big on ferrets.

Check out the Tale Spinners Club to voice your comments.

Keep up with all our new articles and freebies.

Have some of your favorite ebooks quit working? Click HERE and let me GIVE you a secret that will: Fix Your Ebooks. 

Travel the World, and get paid for it. 

The Truth about Virus Dangers
There ARE ways to protect your computer!
Actually, we'll be publishing an entire series
on How to Guard, Protect and Rebuild your computer.

Bargains for the literary minded surfer