Atlantis

It would take a long post to point out every flaw in this article, so I'm just going to take out the mechanism that supposedly drives this 'crustal displacement.'In the article it states that the earth has a liquid layer some 100 miles beneath the surface. This is false according to what is known and can be observed concerning the behavior of waves in solids and liquids.Ever wonder how geophysicists came up with the model of the earth's interior with its solid crust, denser mantle, a liquid outer core, and a solid inner core? It is because of the way waves travel in solids and liquids. There are different kinds of waves created by earthquakes: pressure waves, shear waves, Love waves, and Raliegh waves. Pressure waves travel through solids and liquids, shear waves do not travel through liquids, they only travel through solids. You can not 'shear' a liquid.The reason why geophysicists know that the outer core is liquid is because if an earthquake occurs, there is a sizeable area on the other side of the earth where there are only pressure waves but no shear waves. If there was a layer of liquid 100 miles deep, this sizeable area on the other side of the earth where only pressure waves and no shear waves are picked up would be a lot larger.Therefore the proposed driving mechanism for crustal displacement, a liquid layer 100 miles down, flat-out does not exist.That, and as Subbie pointed out, the source of your information appears to be a looney that believes in everything except science.

Crustal Displacement Theory has more problems than just the lack of a feasible driving mechanism. It does not explain paleomagnetism data or observed rates of plate movements.For example, the Hawaiian Island chain clearly shows that the Pacific Plate has been moving at a steady rate over the static plume currently below the main island. This has been going on for IIRC 220 million years without any sudden 'displacements.' If the crust shifted over such a plume to any significant degree in a shorter period of time than plates are moving today, we would see the Hawaiian Islands as several chains rather than one continuous chain from Mauna Loa to the seamounts going clear to the Aleutians and Kurile Islands.Also, Antarctica has ice cores dating back to nearly a million years in the center. This would mean a considerable amount of time would have transgressed between Atlantis and classical civilization. I would say considerable enough to render the point of any linkage moot as it would amount to the Homo Erectus of Atlantis revealing their advanced technology to the Homo Erectus of Africa.Also, the proposed idea that Antarctica ever had human habitation prior to modern times has never been substantiated by evidence in any form.These are just a few objections I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure that if this line of reasoning is pursued, I can come up with many more.