Paul Kieniewicz's comments on Blavatsky Net's article on Atlantis
Aug 10, 1996 06:15 PM
by Daniel H Caldwell
I am forwarding to Theos-talk some comments by Paul Kieniewicz on
the Atlantis article from Blavatsky Net. Paul K. posted his
comments on Theos-l.
More food for thought.
-- Daniel Caldwell
> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 22:56 -0500
> From: "Paul M Kieniewicz" <email@example.com>
> Subject: One Rock doesn't an Atlantis make...
> Regarding our discussion on Atlantis, Daniel Caldwell wrote:
> > I copy below a message from "Blavatsky Net" about their new web
> > site. I think Theos-l subscribers who have been following with
> > interest the Atlantis discussion will find some very interesting
> > material at Blavatsky Net.
> > Daniel H. Caldwell
> > Blavatsky Net's posting is as follows:
> > > "Blavatsky Net" is pleased to join this conversation and announce
> > > a new web site devoted to researching the writings of, and
> > > vindicating, H. P. Blavatsky. The URL is
> > www.blavatsky.org
> > > As a contribution to the current discussion, Blavatsky Net has
> > > put online a page on the subject of Atlantis. It can be found
> > > under the "Evidence supportive of Theosophy" choice on the
> > > homepage.
> > > Blavatsky Net will continue to add more information vindicating
> > > H. P. Blavatsky.
> > >
> > > Best wishes to All - Scribe
> [Paul K. writes as follows:]
> I urge any reader with an interest in this issue to take a look
> at the page on Blavatsky web, and the article posted there on
> I offer here a reply to that article which, I believe, does not
> vindicate the writings of HPB - or offer convincing evidence for
> the existence of Atlantis.
> I summarize the salient points presented on Blavatsky web:
> 1. HPB hailed the discovery (in her lifetime) of the
> mid-Atlantic ridge as a discovery of Atlantis - or its remains.
> The argument here is that the mid-Atlantic ridge or a significant
> portion of it was once above water.
> 2. The discovery of Cretaceous limestones and quartzitic
> siltstones recently in the area of the Vema fracture zone
> (actually the writers are probably referring to the Romanche
> fracture zone in the central Atlantic) is evidence for a sunken
> continent in the area.
> 3. Various seamounts that are visible in the new gravity map of
> the worlds oceans (featured recently in Discover magazine) are
> possible sites for the sunken continent.
> 4. Discussion was presented on a "horseshoe shape " in the south
> Atlantic and of its connection to Lemuria.
> RE THE MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE AND "HORSESHOE"
> There is really no evidence that a significant portion of this
> ridge was ever above water. HPB was dead wrong in welcoming its
> discovery as evidence for Atlantis.
> The evidence from geophysics is overwhelming that this is the
> site of a tectonic plate boundary that was active since the late
> Cretaceous, and that oceanic crust has been forming these since
> that time. The upwelling magma attaches itself to either plate,
> so that the youngest crust is at that site while the oldest crust
> is near the eastern and western continental margins. As the
> oceanic crust cools - it becomes denser and sinks. This is why
> you can predict the Atlantic bathymetry to a high degree of
> accuracy (excepting seamounts) according to the age of the crust.
> The idea that the mid-Atlantic ridge can (while spreading is
> going on) just rise out of the ocean and then decide to sink
> again - without leaving a trace in the gravity field - is
> preposterous. There is no mechanism for this - and no evidence.
> The well behaved bathymetry - just as prediced by theory argues
> against such an event having ever taken place.
> It is true that limestones have been found near the mid Atlantic
> ridge. But so what? These can be formed in water of depths
> typical of the mid-Atlantic ridge. There are other explanations
> for these - offered below.
> The fact that a major fracture zone in the Atlantic is identified
> with the Lemurian Atlantic ridge mentioned by HPB - doesn't tell
> us anything, except that "seek and ye shall find". There are
> many such similar zones, and is each one supposed to have its own
> mega-continent associated with it?
> RE THE ROMANCHE FRACTURE ZONE
> E. Bonatti of Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory reported
> finding Cretaceous limestones whose ages are older than the
> opening of the Atlantic ocean - an seismic data showing some
> thick sedimentary sequences in the Romache fracture zone . This
> has been hailed by the writer on Blavatsky web, and by others as
> evidence for a significant mass of continental material - and
> thus Atlantis. I believe it is nothing of the sort, and would
> like to summarize Bonatti's argument here:
> The structure of transform faults that offset the mid-Atlantic
> ridge is complex as one can see from the gravity map. Such a
> structure is composed of many strands that over the past 50 mill.
> years have had movement in many directions. It is quite
> plausible that a sliver of continental crust could have been
> rafted by such movements from a continental margin and find
> itself in the Romanche fracture zone.
> It takes more than one rock to make a continent the size of
> There are by the way other significant pieces of obducted
> continental material in the Atlantic - the most significant in
> the North Atlantic being the Jan Mayen block near Jan Mayen
> Island. But this one has almost certainly been submerged in the
> early stage of the opening of the North Atlantic when it was
> fragmented and severely thinned. And it is hardly large enough
> to make a continent - such as suggested by HPB.
> RE SEAMOUNTS
> These form in varous ways - most remain below the water line
> though some do form islands. They can be formed as a result of a
> hot spot in the Earth's mantle (the Hawaian chain, or Iceland).
> Sure - you can have a seamount formed that later in time as the
> crust cools is submerged. But this is nothing new discovered
> today. Of course if you want to place Atlantis on a seamount go
> ahead. And - as on the fabled Atlantis seamount, limestones may
> even form. But space is limited! These are small islands, not
> vast continents. Iceland - is a special case, formed as a result
> of a rather unique circumstance - probably an early Tertiary
> volcanic plume. There are no other candidates that approach that
> In summary - I see nothing in the evidence so far presented that
> vindicates HPB's statements on Atlantis. Quite the contrary, the
> verdict of today's science is that there was no such continent.
> Quite apart from the fact (evident from the gravity map
> mentioned) that there is no space in the Atlantic to put such a
> continent, it is very difficult to make a continent sink.
> Continental crust is of a lower density material, thick (> 30 km
> ) and floats high supported by the higher density mantle.
> ATLANTIS WAS A POPULAR 19th CEN HYPOTHESIS. It offered many
> explanations for geological similarities observed on both sides
> of the Atlantic, similarities in flora and fauna -- etc. - all
> of which are now better axplained by the fact that 100 mill years
> ago - the Atlantic was closed. But not by Atlantis! It's time
> that Theosophists recognized that fact and joined the 20th
> century. So what if HPB was echoing the popular thought of her
> time. It's not surprising. But Theosophists would do better to
> recognize that the grand old lady was wrong, and close the book
> on that issue, rather than constantly trying to vindicate her
> mistaken notions.
> Paul K.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application