By Alton Parrish.
The Swedish research ship “Albatross” had just returned from a peaceful reconnaissance in the South Atlantic.
“This may be about the most astonishing thing you ever heard, A City 6,000 Feet Under The Sea, reports Jonathan Gray in his newsletter -”
Had you peeped through a lattice window in a little house outside Stockholm, you might have seen two men, one of them bearded, huddled across a table, engaged in lively talk.
One of them, in fact, looked almost wild-eyed. But, knowing him as a well-balanced, sober man, you would have to admit that whatever it was that now had him so excited must be something extraordinary.
“I swear to you, it’s incredible! Do you know, we were sounding the seabed 700 miles east of Brazil. And we brought up core samples of fresh-water plants! Can you believe that! And do you know how deep they were? Three thousand metres!”
The speaker was Professor Hans Pettersson, who had led the expedition.
And he added: “These samples actually contained micro-organisms, twigs, plants and even tree bark.”
Another discovery
Within a similar time frame, discussion was hot in London. Coral had been recovered from depths of over 3,000 feet (1,000 metres) in mid-Atlantic Ocean sites. Now we all know that coral grows only close to sea level.
So in London, England, someone else was making a chilling diagnosis: “Either the seabed dropped thousands of feet or the sea rose mightily.”
And still another
Meanwhile, at Columbia University in the U.S.A., Professor Maurice Ewing, a prominent marine geologist, was reporting on an expedition that had descended to submerged plateaus at a depth of 5,000 feet.
“It’s quite amazing,” he said. “At 5,000 feet down, they discovered prehistoric beach sand. It was brought up in one case from a depth of nearly three and one half miles, far from any place where beaches exist today.
“One deposit was 1,200 miles from the nearest land.”
As we all know, sandy beaches form from waves breaking on the edge of the coastal rim of the seas. Beach sand does not form deep down on the ocean bottom.
Then Ewing dropped his bombshell: “Either the land must have sunk 2 or 3 miles or the sea must have been 2 or 3 miles lower than now. Either conclusion is startling.
These facts mean one of two things: either there was a mighty ocean bed subsidence (unexplainable by orthodox science), or a huge (likewise unexplained) addition of water to the ocean.
Let’s briefly consider these.
1. Sudden subsidence
Much of the landscape that is now drowned by the ocean still has sharp, fine profiles. But these sharp, fine profiles would have been eroded, and the lava covering the ocean floor would have decayed if all this rocky terrain had been
immersed in sea water for more than 15,000 years.
You see, chemical and mechanical forces are very destructive. Sharp edges and points can be ground down and blunted by abrasion, erosion, and the action of waves.
But the entire seabed below the present surf zone has retained its sharpness of profile. Had the subsidence taken place gradually, chemical and other forces would have ground down this sharp profile within a few hundred years.
If the land had sunk slowly, even the surf would have worn away these profiles. No, it was a rapid subsidence, if a subsidence it was.
This sudden collapse of an area covering many millions of square miles does not support a gradual sinking, but rather a cataclysmic event.
Such subsidence is perfectly in keeping with the centuries-long adjustments that occurred after the Great Flood trauma.
2. Pre-Flood sea level lower
However, some of the data strongly suggest that the sea level actually was several thousand feet lower than at present – that there was less water in the ocean at one time. These discoveries suggest that we are uncovering evidence of a former sea level!
But this would call for a relatively sudden increase of 30 percent in the volume of the ocean. The compelling question is, where did this water come from? Few geologists can bring themselves to answer this.
Obviously, melting ice sheets could never have contained enough water to raise the ocean level thousands of feet. So we can forget melting ice sheets being the cause.
City on the sea bed?
Now for another surprise. This time the excitement was in the Pacific. The year was 1965. A research vessel named “Anton Brunn” was investigating the Nazca Trench, off Peru.
The sonar operator called for the captain.
“I don’t know what to make of this,” he murmured. “Around here, the ocean floor is all mud bottom. But just take in these sonar recordings… unusual shapes on the ocean floor! I’m puzzled.”
“Better lower a camera,” came the order.
At a depth of 6,000 feet a photograph revealed huge upright pillars and walls, some of which seemed to have writing on them. In other nearby locations, apparently artificially shaped stones lay on their sides, as though they had toppled over.
The crew rubbed their eyes and kept staring. Could this really be? …the remains of a city under a mass of water more than a mile deep!
Was it overwhelmed suddenly by some gigantic disaster? And now it was buried under 6,000 feet of ocean?
