Is the Richat Structure, the Eye of Sahara, the remains of Atlantis

a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanks for your opinions, as per the 360 miles, looking at the core data's showing melt water pulse's A & B something caused a huge surge in sea levels at roughly the same time as a mass extinction event. This to me says that possibly at at least 4 points in time (water rising & subsiding x 2) the Richat structure could of been closer or maybe even covered by the Atlantic Ocean?.. Also aren't there hundreds of flood myths from all around the world going back to these times and after?


And yes, thanks again, I do understand what "FOSSILS" means, hence why I used the term bones... I will try to find a link as I'm sure the bones and shells of which I speak, certainly weren't fossilized (fairly sure shells were found hundreds of miles inland in the visiting atlantis documentary too).

cheers

originally posted by: lee54321
a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanks for your opinions, as per the 360 miles, looking at the core data's showing melt water pulse's A & B something caused a huge surge in sea levels at roughly the same time as a mass extinction event. This to me says that possibly at at least 4 points in time (water rising & subsiding x 2) the Richat structure could of been closer or maybe even covered by the Atlantic Ocean?.. Also aren't there hundreds of flood myths from all around the world going back to these times and after?


And yes, thanks again, I do understand what "FOSSILS" means, hence why I used the term bones... I will try to find a link as I'm sure the bones and shells of which I speak, certainly weren't fossilized (fairly sure shells were found hundreds of miles inland in the visiting atlantis documentary too).

cheers

Please link us to this core data you used to determine the Richat structure could have been closer to or covered by the Atlantic Ocean.

And don't forget to include elevations.

And don't forget to explain how a pulse can last long enough for any previously landlocked culture to become a maritime civilization.


Harte

As it (slightly) touches on this topic, i just wondered if anyone had noticed this from last week?

Sahara swung between lush and desert conditions every 20'000 years

That, in essence, means that even the Richat Structure (despite elevation) will be wetter in cycles - over prolonged geological periods that would amount to some serious water and general weather erosion. It would also mean depressions becoming lakes (potentially for thousands of years at a time), so evidence of water borne life should be ample and easily explained.

Hello
I've been following this thread and I'm absolutely fascinated by the quality of the discussion. I created an account to ask why no one one has mentioned the Tamanrasett River?

www.moroccoworldnews.com...

According to this article, the Tamanrasett River flowed as recently as 5,000 years ago. I would otherwise include a photo for that article here, but that function doesn't seem to want to work for me right now. Simply speaking, that river flowed in the area of the Richat to the sea. This freshwater current created an underwater canyon where the water drained into the sea. This canyon is known as Cap Timiris Canyon.

According to this mental floss article, mentalfloss.com...

"Researchers found evidence of the waterway in radar images taken by a Japanese Earth observation satellite. Previous geological analysis of the ocean floor off the coast of West Africa dating back 120,000 years ago seemed to reveal river-borne sediment, but there are no rivers that currently flow into the Atlantic from the western Sahara. The radar images showed that the river beds underneath the desert connect to the Cap Timiris Canyon, a deep underwater canyon off the coast of Mauritania."

Now although this Paleolithic river is very old, the research shows it was definitely active 'recently' (Ie 5,000 years ago)

Wouldn't this prove the 'elevation above sea-level' argument invalid as it appears this grand river flowed past the Richat area? This river drained into the sea, and this has been proven.


Here are some direct links to the images:
www.moroccoworldnews.com...
i.dailymail.co.uk...

Also, early maps of the area show waterways all over Africa as recently as 500 years ago. It's not leap of imagination to realize that Africa was a very different place 12,000 years ago than it is today.

So, the Richat was very likely in water at the time.

a reply to: Dragonfli

Here's a very interesting old map showing some of the waterways in the area:

saharaoverland.files.wordpress.com...

a reply to: Dragonfli
There is an extremely ancient river flowing in a bed not 20 miles from my home. The Mississippi River. I'm not "in water."
Plato tells us that the canal used by boats to sail from the sea into Atlantis was 50 stadia long.

50 stadia is slightly less than 6 miles.
From the sea, not from a river.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Dragonfli
There is an extremely ancient river flowing in a bed not 20 miles from my home. The Mississippi River. I'm not "in water."
Plato tells us that the canal used by boats to sail from the sea into Atlantis was 50 stadia long.

50 stadia is slightly less than 6 miles.
From the sea, not from a river.

Harte

If one was to take Plato literally which is what everybody wants to do, there is no way this is Atlantis, for a very simple reason, HORSES, The Atlanteans were accomplished equestrians, Oh, but wait a minute the horse doesnt appear in africa until 3500BC in Ethiopia.
Then there is the whole ATLANTIS WAS AN ISLAND thing,not yelling at you Harte, and not 400 miles from the ocean in continental Africa.

a reply to: Harte

I don't see how your comment about where you live is relevant to my post. However, the measurement from the sea is based on the assumption that all of the details recounted by Plato were correct. Those are very precise measurements for a story never apparently written by Solon, I find it hard to imagine Solon would have remembered everything he learned in Sais accurately without some sort of notes, yet none have ever been found. What if he based the story of Atlantis on an actual place but did not remember the numbers correctly? Details such as land mass and minerals mined there may stand out, but this story played the telephone game of sorts prior to Plato penning it.

a reply to: punkinworks10

I'm just learning about this theory, can you share more information about the horses please? If any of this can be believed, perhaps the horses were imported as they were apparently well travelled. I'm really on the fence about this because of the striking similarity to Plato's account, but the devil is in the details.

originally posted by: Dragonfli
a reply to: Harte

I don't see how your comment about where you live is relevant to my post. However, the measurement from the sea is based on the assumption that all of the details recounted by Plato were correct. Those are very precise measurements for a story never apparently written by Solon, I find it hard to imagine Solon would have remembered everything he learned in Sais accurately without some sort of notes, yet none have ever been found.

Indeed. In fact, none of Solon's writings survive.
So, how about Solon NEVER wrote anything about Atlantis? I mean, many people wrote about Solon and his poetry, his politics, his life. None of them mention anything about some story he got from Sais. Only Plato. And, apparently, we get to ignore whatever is inconvenient that Plato said.

FYI, Plato stated that a canal was dug to the sea that was 50 stadia in length. It's purpose was maritime shipping. That means port depth. Did Solon get that mixed up? He misremembered that Atlantis was a great MARITME power that sailed to and conquered all the lands surrounding the Mediterranean?

originally posted by: DragonfliWhat if he based the story of Atlantis on an actual place but did not remember the numbers correctly? Details such as land mass and minerals mined there may stand out, but this story played the telephone game of sorts prior to Plato penning it.

Which makes it just as likely that Atlantis was one inch from the sea as 600 miles, doesn't it.
I mean, if we are to selectively ignore Plato, then the numbers can go either way, can't they?

Harte

originally posted by: Dragonfli
a reply to: punkinworks10

I'm just learning about this theory, can you share more information about the horses please? If any of this can be believed, perhaps the horses were imported as they were apparently well travelled. I'm really on the fence about this because of the striking similarity to Plato's account, but the devil is in the details.

Plato wrote that the island had horses (and elephants) and that one of the rings was devoted to horse racing.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Dragonfli
a reply to: punkinworks10

I'm just learning about this theory, can you share more information about the horses please? If any of this can be believed, perhaps the horses were imported as they were apparently well travelled. I'm really on the fence about this because of the striking similarity to Plato's account, but the devil is in the details.

Plato wrote that the island had horses (and elephants) and that one of the rings was devoted to horse racing.

I have often wondered if that story was allegorical and meant to convey what the ancients knew about the solar system in their day , the 7 rings being the planets they knew of

Get your ass to Mars quaid

I have found a few interesting things. For example, horses weren't even domesticated until around 4,000BC ish.
www.livescience.com...
"" Scientists have now traced the first conclusive evidence of domesticated horses back to Kazakhstan, about 5,500 years ago. That's 1,000 years earlier than we already knew about, and about 2,000 years before domesticated horses showed up in Europe"

So, an Atlantis anywhere could not have horses at all at that time.

""The whole of this country has successively had the names of Ætheria,18 Atlantia, and last of all, Æthiopia, from Æthiops, the son of Vulcan.
(Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, chapter 35, "Ethopia". www.perseus.tufts.edu...:text:1999.02.0137:book=6:chapter=35&highlight=atlantia)

While you're up there checking those rings, ask if old Pliny was telling the truth.

Seriously though, can there be a logical debate about the merits of the Richat possibly being the inspiration for Plato's allegory? Possibilities are endless and if there is a heretofore undiscovered settlement at the site, it could have served to inspire him.

Honesty, space is too far out for me to really discuss... Keep looking up

a reply to: Dragonfli

I have found a few interesting things. For example, horses weren't even domesticated until around 4,000BC ish. 

Wow,
Someone actually paid attention and used logical thought processes, right on, and I'm not being facetious.
That info is a little out of date, but still germain to the conversation.
The earliest evidence for horse domestication comes from the Arabian peninsula at about 9000ybp. Horse remains show signs of bitting among the teeth, there is also ample rock art showing horses and people.
These horses had some specific physiological traits that are still found among modern Arabians, who are the product of these early Arabians and the later Eurasian horses.
The story of horse domestication is a quite interesting.
Although there were these early Arabians, it seems to have been almost specific to a "tribe" as horse use did not spread until much later and and was partially driven by Eurasians moving into Arabia and NE Africa during the extreme climatic excursions of the 3-4 millenia BC.
So on that point alone we have to accept that Plato is not an accurate account.

a reply to: Byrd

Yes, I understand that. It is a story he admitted to creating. However, the best fiction is based on truth and since Plato is not the only ancient to have written about a place such as this, I am certain there is a grain of truth to it. The names of the places back then aren't the same as they are today, like the Atlantic for example. It's name was changed before Plato's time. I think he took a lot of creative license to convince people of a certain reality, to make it home so to speak.

Atlantis if it ever existed in any form did not have horses as they were first domesticated long after Atlantis' apparent demise.

I never said I believed this story was true in its entirety.

Furthermore, prior to the younger dryas, the area around the Richat did have water. They may have dug a channel to a lake. Remember, the names have changed and thinking the Atlantis of Plato has anything to do with the Atlantic we know today is nonsense.

@Harte, to selectively ignore anything is to believe the story is true. Do people actually believe what he said is true? He was a philosopher, not an historian. I do not believe it, however, I do think he based the description.

Also, there is no evidence in Egypt of anything called Atlantis. They do have a lot of interesting myths, and it is known that the priests didn't always write the truth. Let's take the example of the Pharaoh eating common food. That incident was blown way out of proportion.

One interesting myth from Egypt involves a 'mysterious territory' called Haou-Nebout. Fabio Marino wrote a fascinating paper called "Atlantis of the Egyptians". You can find it here: www.academia.edu...

in it, he states that the heiroglyph is one of the oldest. Incidentally, it almost resembles a trident. Please see the link for the image, I'm still figuring out how to share images.
This same term refers to the Sea Peoples as well. They tried to invade Egypt quite a few times and were apparently never successful. Marino then goes on to describe writings associated with the glyph, it refers to a place that's green, round and big.

Perhaps this is where part of the story originates... IF Solon got the story from Egypt and passed it on at all. There is nothing conclusive as to where this territory mentioned in Egypt may have been.

And of course I do my homework, how else will I learn lol

If we take it as a literal story (also leave out all the woo-woo crystal and aliens stuff of modern times) it has to be surrounded by water 9000 years before the time of Solon, placing it around 11,600 ybp. At that time there were 1-2 Mile glaciers on the northern hemisphere causing isostatic depression which was pushing the areas under the glaciers down which raised a lot of other areas of the crust, plus the sea levels were about 3-400 feet lower.

The Azores are a pretty good choice: The plateau during the ice age/younger dryas was much larger that what it is today, on the other side is an ocean with a true continent on the other side, the plateau is beyond the Pillars of Hercules, it would have had great weather during the Ice Age thanks to the gulf stream at the time running the warm water in its direction which would help Agriculture and surplus to develop. We don't know about ring structures because the plateau is now submerged

If we lower the sea level by 3-400 feet and the Richat impact is now no where near the coast line.

As an aside an excerpt from Timaeus which sounds an awful lot like a story of meteors or other impacts - "There is a story that even you [Greeks] have preserved, that once upon a time, Phaethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals."

# I've been listening to too much Carlson and Hancock.

a reply to: KezigluBey

The Richat is not a crater, it's a volcanic structure.
Did you miss the post where I showed the river going through there at the time in question?
Also, if you follow the chain of actual archaeological evidence in west Africa, there was a highly developed civilization there at the time in question.

You have to realize that Plato's year was not the same length as our current year, and a lot of errors come in translation. Although he was the only one to call them "Atlantis", their are a lot of other names for them. Look at the Haou Nebout Glyph, it points to the west as well. Prior to the Glyph being used to describe the Phoenicians (One of the over 200 variants), it was used to describe these people.
The catalyst for the younger dryas period caused tsunamis and was an impact. We know this.

Even if Plato said "due east from the pillars of Hercules" which he didn't, but if he did, then maybe I'd believe the land was in the middle of the Atlantic. This is not what he said at all, he said beyond. Also, did you know that many landmarks besides the Straights of Gibraltar have been used as the "pillars"??

I'm talking real science here, not some woo-woo idea. And on the subject of woo-woo ideas, why would people be more willing to accept the idea of ancient aliens than think about that technology belonging to us? Many cultures spell that out in they're 'myths'... That humanity has been born and died something like 3 times already.

Remember, Plato was a story teller and a philosopher, not an historian. Perhaps someone got some story from somewhere ad told him, but it was very likely they were talking about the Haou Nebout. Consider the telephone game, how much does the story change from mouth to mouth? If all we had were oral traditions, you know that somebody somewhere would have added to it. This was thousands of years before his time, and if we accept the story came from Egyptian priests, not scholars..then you know it's a 'version' of the truth as I mentioned in a previous post, look at the story of the Pharoah and the common food. He didn't eat it because of a religious reason like they reported in their story. Other documents show that his supply train was late, he ate it because he had to and he liked it.

Sifting through a lot of information over the years, I have learned that you can't take much literally in histories, Legends and folklore. Even radiocarbon dating is not 100% reliable considering the variables. However, you can look at the consistencies at the core of it all... To see the trees, you need to see the forest.

So, disregarding all but primary sources, nowhere does it say that this people were on an island in the middle of the Atlantic. Disregard Hancock, Donnelly, et all, and focus on the Pre-Adamites, the finds reported in 1911, the inconsistencies in the reports from 1830-1887 regarding the area, and forget about coloring history through a modern lens.