Lost Roman Map has ATLANTIS at Eye of Sahara Africa! (Richat Structure)

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Someone needs to LIDAR the # out of that area.

Based on Google Earth there isn't

I understand Google Earth actually shows some structures.
Definitely there needs to be further GPR and digging in the area.

There are structures in the area but not (AFAWK) dating back that far and not constituting a 'city'. The area has been inhabited for a long time. A stone based city as written about by Plato would still be there - as would the evidence that the 'rings' were cut and the stone used for the city. The size is incorrect too and of course it didn't actually 'sink'.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Harte

I'm aware it wasn't submerged by rising seas, but the area was clearly flooded somehow.

This is the crux.
Are you qualified to make the above statement?
Do you know how to tell if an area has been flooded in the last 15,000 years or so by simply looking at it?
You realize, I suppose, that Atlantis was a seafaring culture. And I don't mean the "ship of the desert."
There WAS NO OCEAN THERE in the time period in question.

What did they do, get little crabs to carry their boats to the coast like Jack Sparrow escaping Worlds End?

Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

"They" dont want to debate, only divert, manipulate. Quite intellectually dishonest.

Yes that is what you label what we call rational investigation and evidence...lol

Why do you think Plato got the details all wrong?

I dont. Agree with Jimmy.

As he pointed out we may be looking at a story that is in one way or another 11000 years or as little as 7000 years. In that time there were no written books like today, no DVD,s, no flash drives to copy the original story exactly as it was shared so many years ago. How many languages was it told and retold in, some may have gone extinct. And in some of those languages, as today, some words have multiple meanings, depending on how it is used. Ocean or Inland sea, etc.

You would have to know each person, personally, who shared the story to see exactly what they shared.

No, I label the detractors in that manner. Not the honest open minded researcher, investigator.

Who is "We" ??

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

"They" dont want to debate, only divert, manipulate. Quite intellectually dishonest.

Yes that is what you label what we call rational investigation and evidence...lol

Why do you think Plato got the details all wrong?

I dont. Agree with Jimmy.

As he pointed out we may be looking at a story that is in one way or another 11000 years or as little as 7000 years. In that time there were no written books like today, no DVD,s, no flash drives to copy the original story exactly as it was shared so many years ago. How many languages was it told and retold in, some may have gone extinct. And in some of those languages, as today, some words have multiple meanings, depending on how it is used. Ocean or Inland sea, etc.

You would have to know each person, personally, who shared the story to see exactly what they shared.

No, I label the detractors in that manner. Not the honest open minded researcher, investigator.

Who is "We" ??

How do you propose that Plato got this story? People RIGHT THERE in Greece had been writing stories for a thousand years before Plato was born. Myceneans and earlier the Minoans. The Egyptian record goes back farther.
Not even a whisper of such a story in either mythos.
No oral tradition either.

So, where is the story pre-Plato?

Harte

a reply to: Hanslune

There are structures in the area but not (AFAWK) dating back that far and not constituting a 'city'

Just outside the rings to the south a ruin. No archeological information is available for this site, yet, it is fenced off. The only thing available is that it has been labeled "Ancient". The problem isn't finding the ruins, they are everywhere, the problem is the "One School" academia refuses to do the digging for various reasons.

Ancient history is a time period from the beginning of writing and recorded human history to as far as late antiquity. The span of recorded history is roughly 5,000 years, beginning with the Sumerian cuneiform script. Ancient history covers all continents inhabited by humans in the period 3000 BC – AD 500

en.wikipedia.org...

A stone based city as written about by Plato would still be there

Suspected foundation ruin, in the center island. There are others.

and of course it didn't actually 'sink'.

True. It was submerged under flood waters but as the waters subsided it reemerged. Too hard to visualize?

I found the video's reference to the Norwegian Journal of Geology study dealing with the Mauritania Slide Complex just off the coast from the Richat structure, to be interesting.

The argument is made that it dates back approximately 11,000 years ago and indicates the possibility of being tsunamigenic.

a reply to: Harte

Submerged or over washed?
There’s more than one place on the planet that shows evidence of an unimaginably huge, short lived flood scoured the land down to bedrock, and much deeper.
Remember the crustal jerk during the Japan Earthquake?
The whole island moved 8 feet.
Imagine something like that earthquake thousands of times stronger, pick a reason.
There are a few good theories out there.
What kind of tsunami like disturbance would that trigger?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
It was submerged under flood waters but as the waters subsided it reemerged. Too hard to visualize?

did you ever read the Critias?

Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, which, as I was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.

So, it wouldn't matter if the seas receded, the place was covered in mud.

Look in every single thread on Atlantis you bring up the Eye of the Sahara as being the place where Atlantis existed, how much comparative work have you done on that theory, what kind of research have you done into the ideas you push? You always come across as someone who saw an idea and just blindly believe in it. Have you looked into any other angles of Atlantis and tried to figure anything out?

I'm not going to fault you on your opinion, but you like to shove this Eye of Sahara as the only workable theory. Why?

originally posted by: PiratesCut

What kind of tsunami like disturbance would that trigger?

I made a thread about a theory I have about that. AS SEEN HERE
In it I propose the idea of a glacial lake located in the Alps as being the deluge that was this earthquake and flood.

Oh and in case anyone was wondering it would seem that the people of Attica were fighting against a pre-Celtic people if my theory is correct.

a reply to: Hanslune

It would seem that finding evidence is very hard when noone knows where to look for it.

a reply to: highvein

I am not sure how advanced they were, but what Nation on Earth today will be talked about twelve thousand years from now?

*shrugs* we also dont treasure the written word, or cultural stories of our ancestors anymore in the race to embrace social media.

originally posted by: Harte
This is the crux.
Are you qualified to make the above statement?
Do you know how to tell if an area has been flooded in the last 15,000 years or so by simply looking at it?

Well besides the pretty clear visual evidence, there are multiple scientific studies indicating the sedimentary material was dumped across that area and into the ocean around 12 thousand years ago, which happens to be during the Younger Dryas period when scientist know large floods did occur around the world, something they suspect was caused by a sudden surge of melt-water that was trapped behind ice. It's pretty clear that some extreme event occurred during that period and the Richat Structure appears to be right in the path of the worst of it.

What did they do, get little crabs to carry their boats to the coast like Jack Sparrow escaping Worlds End?

Well it probably wasn't a flood event which occurred over night, it may have taken weeks or even years for Atlantis to become entirely uninhabitable. I imagine they would have traveled to dryer lands in order to re-settle but there would have been a strong motivation to start constructing boats after the flood and once they realized the oceans were rapidly rising. It wouldn't be hard for them to build boats if they were capable of building megalithic structures.

a reply to: Guyfriday

I'm not going to fault you on your opinion, but you like to shove this Eye of Sahara as the only workable theory. Why?

Fair question.

The answer, sadly, isn't so easy or cut and dried. To start, I started researching in 1978 as to what I saw over a Air Force base. It was so far outside our understanding of reality that at that point I knew what we were being taught was at best, incomplete, if not outright, lies.

I became a sponge for information and knowledge concerning the phenomenon and along the way discovered other truths. For about 30 years I never accepted all the things that were being printed, or for that matter, documentaries. Nor did I ever come to any conclusions as to what I saw.

In that search I had to go into many subjects, disciplines, to gain a understanding as to what I had seen. I have had people testify to me as to their own personal experiences. Along the way I had more aerial observations, and started to notice certain little things like observation time to the time the object retreated.

It wasn't until I finally discovered the ancient writings about the Sumerians and the "ancient gods". And it was then that the bells started going off. No one has "Trained" me, or manipulated my conclusions, and in fact, quite the opposite. I have come to my conclusions independently.

Along the way I have discovered that much of the research waters have been muddied by forces that wish certain truths remain buried in that mud, of that flood, of so long ago. And it appears those forces hold the highest and most influential positions in our global structure. But that is for another thread.

As far as the location of the Ringed City of Atlantis, yes, I have looked at the other locations and their reasoning and logic. And yes, I have studied Plato and what he shared a few times. None of them held any interest for me.

In his first video Jimmy made a compelling case for the Richat, so I gave him the benefit of doubt, and looked, just like I did with all the other suggested locations. And when I looked, I saw more, and more, and even more evidence to support Jimmys theory. And now I am utterly, flabbergastedly, certain, this is the location. I did not come to this conclusion on a whim but after just over 2 years spending 10 - 12 hours a day going over the desert inch by everlasting inch. Documenting each ruin, ancient road sections, in the area. There is even a ancient vegetable garden (Suggested) at the bottom of a salt plain just north of the Rings (The entire area is fenced off). There is a road section next to a dry waterfall. No, Jimmy didn't convince me, the evidence has. In fact, I dont agree with Jimmy trying to raise and lower the region to make it fit, you dont have to. During the AHP the area was absolutely filled with water, because it has , and had poor run off. I have even found ruins on top of extinct islands to the south.

The entire area was not covered with mud, just the main entrance in the area of Ajoujk. The "slide" Jimmy speaks of in the Atlantic also filled in the natural bay that used to be there. Ancient ruins can be found there as well. I suspect it was this bay where the Navy of Atlantis was docked. Then how did sea fairing travel make it to the Rings you might ask. Locks. In one of the old manuscripts it was also referenced as "The City of Locks". Dont ask me, I cant remember where I read it.

Blindly believe? No. I looked, and looked, and looked... Now, would you like me to share the "evidence" that supports the last 2 line of the Critias?

Why this theory? Because of the evidence on the ground, the buried structures in the second ring, and the absolutely illogical (Logical if you realize there are some who wish this to remain as a myth) politically motivated resentment and disdain for the subject.

Jimmy, as far as I'm concerned, has discovered the Ringed City... And, I know independently, he is right!

I'll make a deal with the OP.

I'll watch the video, on the condition that you explain HOW such a site hundreds of miles inland AND uphill in an era of lower sea levels -- meaning their coast was FURTHER OUT from today's -- was also supposed to be the fabled pro sea-farers' island in the ocean.

Ball beith in your court, go.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Just outside the rings to the south a ruin. No archeological information is available for this site, yet, it is fenced off. The only thing available is that it has been labeled "Ancient". The problem isn't finding the ruins, they are everywhere, the problem is the "One School" academia refuses to do the digging for various reasons.

So, again no sign of a stone built city inn the center, no sign of he rings being cut out of the rock. You KNOW the reason why archaeologist are not there. We discussed it in detailed and there are valid reason for not digging there - as you know.

Suspected foundation ruin, in the center island. There are others.

rocks ----- you do remember right that people have actually been to that site before... ruins in an area with people living in it for thousands of years will have, wait for it, ruins.

and of course it didn't actually 'sink'.

True. It was submerged under flood waters but as the waters subsided it reemerged. Too hard to visualize?

What flood? May I suggest you read what Plato wrote?

Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe. Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, which, as was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.

Have you ever actually read what Plato wrote?

Why are you running away from a discussion of he size of the ring to what Plato wrote?

The island in which the palace was situated had a diameter of five stadia.

All this including the zones and the bridge, which was the sixth part of a stadium in width, they surrounded by a stone wall on every side, placing towers and gates on the bridges where the sea passed in. The stone which was used in the work they quarried from underneath the centre island, and from underneath the zones, on the outer as well as the inner side. One kind was white, another black, and a third red, and as they quarried, they at the same time hollowed out double docks, having roofs formed out of the native rock. Some of their buildings were simple, but in others they put together different stones, varying the colour to please the eye, and to be a natural source of delight. The entire circuit of the wall, which went round the outermost zone, they covered with a coating of brass, and the circuit of the next wall they coated with tin, and the third, which encompassed the citadel, flashed with the red light of orichalcum.

The whole country was said by him to be very lofty and precipitous on the side of the sea, but the country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea; it was smooth and even, and of an oblong shape,The whole country was said by him to be very lofty and precipitous on the side of the sea, but the country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea; it was smooth and even, and of an oblong shape,

I will now describe the plain, as it was fashioned by nature and by the labours of many generations of kings through long ages. It was for the most part rectangular and oblong, and where falling out of the straight line followed the circular ditch. The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told. It was excavated to the depth of a hundred, feet, and its breadth was a stadium everywhere; it was carried round the whole of the plain, and was ten thousand stadia in length. It received the streams which came down from the mountains, and winding round the plain and meeting at the city, was there let off into the sea. Further inland, likewise, straight canals of a hundred feet in width were cut from it through the plain, and again let off into the ditch leading to the sea: these canals were at intervals of a hundred stadia, and by them they brought down the wood from the mountains to the city, and conveyed the fruits of the earth in ships, cutting transverse passages from one canal into another, and to the city. Twice in the year they gathered the fruits of the earth-in winter having the benefit of the rains of heaven, and in summer the water which the land supplied by introducing streams from the canals.

So, where is all this?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I found the video's reference to the Norwegian Journal of Geology study dealing with the Mauritania Slide Complex just off the coast from the Richat structure, to be interesting.

The argument is made that it dates back approximately 11,000 years ago and indicates the possibility of being tsunamigenic.

Large-scale mass wasting is an important sedimentary process along the northwest African margin, and is related to high sediment accumulation rates under an ocean margin upwelling regime. Although the margin is generally arid with limited fluvial input, additional sediment supply comes from wind-borne Saharan dust. Recent mapping of the margin off Mauritania has revealed a major sediment slide, here called the Mauritania Slide Complex, as it comprises elements of true sliding as well as more mobile distal debris flow. Seismic data image stacked slide deposits separated by undisturbed stratified sediments indicating that undisturbed sediment accumulation was interrupted by several phases of slope failure. A series of stepped headwalls, 25–100 m high, represents the source area of the youngest slide event, which most likely occurred as retrogressive type of failure. The area of seafloor affected by this mass movement is 30,000 km2, while the deposit volume is 600 km3. The uppermost debrite unit, which has been 14C dated at 10.5–10.9 ka, forms a broad tongue extending down to the lower slope. This debrite comprises a vertical succession of three different layers of matrix types, with a predominantly outer shelf source at the base and pelagite-dominated composition at the top. The complete sequence of three layers was deposited at a mid slope position, whereas only the upper layers reached the lower slope. A thick pile of sediments with outer shelf/upper slope derived biogenic and terrigenous debris-rich sediments at the base and hemipelagic sediments on top failed at an upper to mid slope location and disintegrated into a layered debris flow on its down-slope journey

Title: Architecture and sediment dynamics of the Mauritania Slide Complex (I've tried to link to it but ATS won't display it properly)

www.sciencedirect.com...

Here it is:
Tell us what us why this is important and why you think the date = 11,000 years ago - it is actually listed as 10.5–10.9 ka

"just off the coast" equals 500 kilometers.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Fair enough, thanks for explaining this position of yours.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: Hanslune

Apart from Plato describing it as concentric circles and this formation being concentric circles

Yep and what size did he state, where did he state it was and what happened to it? You are only taking on one aspect of the story and ignoring the rest. How to you rationalize doing so?

Don't need to rationalise it, it's an opinion, not a statement of fact. I

ndeed other aspects don't fit Plato's tale, his rumour, his second, or third, or fourth hand information. But IMO since the ring aspect is so iconic and unique, as is the eye of africa, i'm willing to believe that by the time the tale reached Plato it had morphed somewhat, as tales do and misrepresented much of its content. Locations and events may well alter, but it's easy for me to accept a detail such as the rings might remaining.

Often in science we think we have the facts and then an observation comes along and we have to rethink it. IMO the rings and the eye are such an observation; too close, too unique and too coincidental to ignore.

No it wasn't lying it was fiction crafting, i.e., writing a book to make a political point

Please prove this statement beyond any reasonable doubt to the forum .
I have seen no evidence presented anywhere that proves this statement conclusively.
You are making a statement that you cannot prove and are placing yourself into the ‘belief’ category that you so despise.
Some say Solons tale is the recounting of a ‘truth’ (Plato states it is the truth) and others like yourself say it is not. Neither have any more credence than the other so stop pretending it’s a ‘done deal’ with Atlantis, as it really isn’t , despite your ‘belief’.

Ps- please tell the forum just how many expeditions have been funded to explore , oh I don’t know, the Azores plateau actually LOOKING for evidence on the seabed that humans lived there ?
Please explain the peer reviewed papers from 1947 that clearly show late Pleistocene shallow water fossils and shorelines around the area of the ‘Atlantis’ seamounts , proving, surprisingly to those involved that this area had been above water during the late Pleistocene, and that limestone cobbles had been weathered sub-aerially- ie in the air, not under water.
Isostatic uplift and rebound are where your arguments fail spectacularly - sea level plotting around this area must take into account what happened to the sea bed after ice sheet melting on a triple plate junction that was affected from at least two joints as ice melted .
a reply to: Hanslune

originally posted by: PiratesCut
a reply to: Harte

Submerged or over washed?
There’s more than one place on the planet that shows evidence of an unimaginably huge, short lived flood scoured the land down to bedrock, and much deeper.
Remember the crustal jerk during the Japan Earthquake?
The whole island moved 8 feet.
Imagine something like that earthquake thousands of times stronger, pick a reason.
There are a few good theories out there.
What kind of tsunami like disturbance would that trigger?

Again, Atlantis was described as a seafaring culture with ports and wharves right there on their islands.
WTF does a tsunami have to do with it if there was NO OCEAN at the site in the last million years?

Are you thinking that, what with a tsunami coming, they converted overnight to a maritime culture and sailed away on the magic, unprecedented tsunami that not only washed inland hundreds of miles, but was still over 400 meters high when it got to Atlantis?

Harte