Atlantis has been discovered?!

originally posted by: dragonridr
Perhaps you might want to start by reading this.

link.springer.com... 82c&utm_campaign=CONR_BOOKS_ECOM_GL_PHSS_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100357191&?utm_medium=affiliate

First, you might want to consider I have already read the material.

Geophysical modelling of the deep structure of the Richat magmatic intrusion (northern Mauritania): insights into its kinematics of emplacement

Lets start with the term "Geophysical Modeling". = "Man creates models of his natural and artificial environments to understand and explain them better and as a prelude to any exploratory action. Preclude = Preclude definition, to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible".

So in essence, it is a model, that will not allow the inclusion of any thing that is not part of the model. A ridged paradigm.

Now for "magmatic intrusion" = "Observations of natural outcrops of frozen and exhumed magmatic intrusions, however, have revealed a great variability and complexity of intrusion geometry. In terms of their shape, intrusions vary from thick stocks, cryptodomes, laccoliths, fingers, and cup shapes to thinner cone sheets, inclined sheets, layer-parallel sills and layer-perpendicular dikes." Keyword "Frozen". They are frozen in time going from the molten to the solid state.

Now, this model states "It is expressed at the surface as a slightly elliptical depression, about 40 km in diameter, marked by concentric ridges of Proterozoic-Lower Paleozoic sediments. This gives a description and timeline.

Proterozoic-Lower Paleozoic sediments. = "The Proterozoic ( /ˌproʊtərəˈzoʊɪk, prɒt-, -əroʊ-, -trə-, -troʊ-/)[2][3][4] is a geological eon spanning the time interval from 2500 to 538.8 million years ago.[5] It is the most recent part of the Precambrian "supereon." It is also the longest eon of the Earth's geologic time scale, and it is subdivided into three geologic eras (from oldest to youngest): the Paleoproterozoic, Mesoproterozoic, and Neoproterozoic.[6]"

In short they are stating the Rings are anywhere from 2.5 billion to 1/2 billion years old.

Next, what caused it "Its origin as resulting from either a meteorite impact or a deep magmatic intrusion has been long debated."

Well, I don't really know they can say this as half the population still does not even know where Mauritania is on the map. Besides, in Geologic terms, Humanity has only known of its existence since the mid 1960s, not, a very long time to debate, at all.

Next we have some science, the observation. "Modelling of high-resolution airborne magnetic data as well as satellite gravity data reinforces the intrusion hypothesis." Agreed. Molten rock will maintain its magnetic signature as it freezes, similar to the Mid Atlantic Ridge does. Besides, everyone knows what a meteorite impact looks like.

They have made 4 conclusions, which to me are unimpressive. So I will only discuss, here, #2

"(2) its overall circular structure rests above a deep mafic (gabbroic) body, " It is purely assumption, with no direct observations. But even at that, its kind of a gimmie "Duh".
Mafic = "A mafic mineral or rock is a silicate mineral or igneous rock rich in magnesium and iron. Most mafic minerals are dark in color, and common rock-forming mafic minerals include olivine, pyroxene, amphibole, and biotite. Common mafic rocks include basalt, diabase and gabbro. "
(gabbroic) = "A usually coarse-grained igneous rock composed chiefly of pyroxene and calcic plagioclase feldspar. Also called norite" We all know science must start with the observation. And how they could conclude it sits on "Rock" is amazing lol Now a real scientific conclusion would start off something like this "We have observed mafic (gabbroic) deep within the ring via a 3000 foot BORE HOLE. But since there has not been a bore hole drilled into the Richat, it can only be assumption as to what lays below.

The model does not include any discussions as to how the Rings formed. Mine, does. Nor does the model take into consideration the presents of a natural spring flowing from the center, that now has gone dry since the end of the African Humid Period. Nor does it allow for built up pressures from gas.

If you do then you might realize that water must be following a fault, upwards. And I believe that fault is the result of gasses during its creation. And, I also suspect there could be a vast network of caverns, channels still present, that were formed by gasses during the planets molten state. And there is no true way to scientifically date the planet. So, its all, assumptions and theory.

As far as why Science papers (institutions) must be written using the "Babble language" is explainable, but more suited to another thread.

As a model, I find it lacking in fundamentals. As a plane, it has no landing gear. As a boat, it lacks a rudder. As a human, it lacks a brain. I'm not impressed.

How ever the Richat structure was created, really has little to do with if it was the sight of Atlantis. The structure had water between rings of
land. If it was colonized by Atlanteans, they took advantage of what was there and built a city and culture around it.

This thing was never architected or built by man.

originally posted by: charlyv
How ever the Richat structure was created, really has little to do with if it was the sight of Atlantis. The structure had water between rings of
land. If it was colonized by Atlanteans, they took advantage of what was there and built a city and culture around it.

This thing was never architected or built by man.

There wasn't water between the rings of the Richat Structure.
Except maybe in a few spots - after a rain.

Harte

originally posted by: charlyv
How ever the Richat structure was created, really has little to do with if it was the sight of Atlantis. The structure had water between rings of
land. If it was colonized by Atlanteans, they took advantage of what was there and built a city and culture around it.

This thing was never architected or built by man.

True. It's formation doesn't really matter, but my 2 cents, anyway: absolutely GINORMOUS plasma event.

ibb.co...

originally posted by: charlyv
How ever the Richat structure was created, really has little to do with if it was the sight of Atlantis. The structure had water between rings of
land. If it was colonized by Atlanteans, they took advantage of what was there and built a city and culture around it.

This thing was never architected or built by man.

I have come too far in my life to say what I really want to say about a certain group of self serving, treasonous, lying, despicable soulless bunch of scum. No sir, I'm not going to say it!

I'm only sorry I cant give you more than 1 star.

They refuse to see what is there, outside of the paradigm they created to contain it. Ack ack knows there was no water there because he was there and observed. Wow, that would make him well over 7000 years old. Or, he reads from a paradigm.

Not a water dock



Not Islands in a extinct river.



Not a mud brick community on a extinct river



And why can't ack ack see it? Because their "Geopolitical" Model does not include it. That's why. They never thought about the African Humid Period, would be discovered some day!

They will refuse to look and stamper away screaming, "Its just a myth, it just a myth, ITS JUST A MYTH!! While they star each other in a supportive manner. Ill keep the rest to myself, for now.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Hanslune

So basically you have nothing then? I've been studying fringe subjects for 50+ years and in my experience and knowledge there are no vast conspiracies.

Then you didn't dig deep enough, or, you choose not to see.

I think it is clear by your refusal to answer question or provide evidence that you are just spouting nonsense other have told you to believe and you have mixed what they told you to believe with irrational hate.

So, is that caused by your being wrong about Atlantis being not where Plato said and his whole idea not working in the real world. Is that what has made you so angry?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
.

You do know people lived there right? As they do over most places on the globe. What would be odd is if no sign of humanity was found around a geographical feature that has been in area where mankind has been for hundreds of thousands of years.....

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

You have some reading to do. Well, if you cared about the truth. UNESCO runs Mauritania!

...and corruption about hiring and ties to the third world and the failed Soviet union doesn't mean they are doing what you are making up. Can you show evidence that they are a world wide organization trying to control the archaeological narrative for x reason?

a reply to: Hanslune

I think it is clear by your refusal to answer question or provide evidence that you are just spouting nonsense other have told you to believe and you have mixed what they told you to believe with irrational hate.

Who are these "Others" your concerned about influencing my intellectual process's? Does the idea of these "Others" concern you? Are you afraid that I'm a Secret Society cult member being manipulated in dark and a mysterious manner? Are you frightened that these "Others" are ghosts, goblins, body-less spirits whispering in my ear??

I'm starting to get concerned about your well being. After all, I have posted a great deal of material to consider. And to be honest, it could push a unstable person over the edge, blow a fuse. Irrational hate? You might be projecting and not realize it. I would suggest some guidance, you know, talk it out with a friend you can trust. Show them all the information you find offensive, let them help you through it all. Maybe they can help you figure out who these "Others" are.

Now if this subject triggers you, just remember, its just a myth, its just a myth, its just, a myth, and let it go. And if you figure out who these "Others" are, please share, so I can listen to them, too. If its all just nonsense to you, just walk away.

Good luck, Hanslune.

a reply to: Harte

There wasn't water between the rings of the Richat Structure.
Except maybe in a few spots - after a rain.

That conflicts with the original descriptions of Atlantis by the Egyptians, and what they told Solon. Of course, if this was
the site of Atlantis, and I think the vast amount of evidence thus far says it was.

It also conflicts with what Jimmy at Bright Insight had researched as well as some discoveries that Randall Carlson had made, even though he is on the edge of believing it was the site of Atlantis.

It also conflicts with the marine biological records and research done in the area as it uncovered the remains of many aquatic creatures and bones of fish.

The biggest conflict with what you claim is the fact that the Sahara has gone through many cycles of change and even recently. It had been a fertile and wet environment many times. The whole of Africa is under constant change and logic would say the Richat was a very habitable place way back when, and that means abundant water. The cataclysm that ensued was so extreme, we will probably never really know for sure what was there and probably never will.

a reply to: charlyv

That conflicts with the original descriptions of Atlantis by the Egyptians, and what they told Solon. Of course, if this was
the site of Atlantis, and I think the vast amount of evidence thus far says it was.

At minimum, we are talking about 7500 years ago. Plus the fact that the global flood had just taken place. To have "Any" information at all, this detailed, as Plato's, is a divine Miracle.

Even at that we cant hold the story as the final decider, authority. It must be judged on the evidence. He said, she said is fine to consider but the evidence on the ground must be the deciding factor. And when you ponder,not one lazer focused item, but all of it in context, together, the judgment becomes clear.

It also conflicts with what Jimmy at Bright Insight had researched as well as some discoveries that Randall Carlson had made, even though he is on the edge of believing it was the site of Atlantis.

Because of the size of the area, not just the Richat, it becomes a greater task than just a archeologist researching one site. There are multiple sites that need to be taken in together when considered, so it isn't a easy thing to share. I'm pretty sure Jimmy and Carlson have not seen the evidence in totality. I doubt either are aware of the structures in the second ring. Or the extinct river sites, ancient road network. Randall Carlson is focusing on the ocean bed in the Azors, while I believe Jimmy has moved on to Egypt.

The cataclysm that ensued was so extreme, we will probably never really know for sure what was there and probably never will.

So very true. For the most part the destruction was centered around the center island, wiping clean not only any structures that were there, but the topsoil as well. Much of the region and surrounding areas were unaffected, such as Quadane, where the ridge line shielded it from the waters. There is also another Mud brick ruin just south in the flood wash zone that miraculously survived, damaged, but basically intact.

As with any flood run off the heavier bulky items will fall out of the water rather quickly, depending on the volume and speed of the water. Lighter items will fall out proportionally to their weight, until nothing but a silty mud remains. If you look at the flood run off zone you find rather large rectangular or square stones scattered around the area. Then you find further away stone rubble. It appears the Mud silt made it all the way to the ocean, actually filling in a inland bay. The oldest maps I could find actually show a inland bay in the area. And that would make Ajoujk the likely site for a harbor port. And interestingly, there is a lot of "Digging" going on there, with one buried structure in the area.

"Biological's" , that being anything that was living, people animals tree's, wood, linen will act a bit different in flood waters. They have a tendency to "Log Jam" into points. And these points have a unique ability of retaining water 100 times better, than sand. And by the time the mud got to Chinguett, most of the biological's have fallen out. These points are very unique and very identifiable.

Yes, much has been lost, but there is much, that remains. Many in the institutions do not wish to look at the evidence, not because the evidence is unworthy, but because of the ramifications that follow.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Harte

There wasn't water between the rings of the Richat Structure.
Except maybe in a few spots - after a rain.

That conflicts with the original descriptions of Atlantis by the Egyptians, and what they told Solon. Of course, if this was
the site of Atlantis, and I think the vast amount of evidence thus far says it was.

If there is such a "vast amount of evidence" that the Richat Structure is the former Atlantis, why don't you select the best, say, ten pieces out of that vast amount and show it here?

I mean, no such evidence has been presented yet here, and this thread is 30 pages long.

Harte

a reply to: All Seeing Eye


Here explains alot of the false information put out on the area

a reply to: dragonridr

I actually watched the video, because, I am open minded, and a free thinker.

You will note, this threads premise was to establish, or not, that their would be a larger regional area required to support a large city in the Richat. I am not a follower of Jimmy, or anyone else. I too disagreed about "Africa Rising", and some of his explanations he offered. And I don't believe I posted about the Whale bones. Why? Because it didn't fall into my mission, and I didn't find it..

Yes, Jimmie didn't know about the AHP, and he tried to over compensate in his explanation. The rest is just nit picking. But at 28 min he does admit it possible that there was a community in the area. Well, good for him.

This thread is about my discoveries, not Jimmy's theories, and no where does it contest the discoveries I have made.

Now about the logic of "Some" people going out of their way trying to prove a myth is a myth. I mean, do these people love me that much to try and stop me from looking like a fool? After all, if it was just a myth, what real harm is there? No one is asking for money to run a scam. No one will be executed if its just a myth. So whats the harm in the end? The logic of the continual attacks, if its just a myth, is illogical.

I'm going to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Santa Clause is real. I will expose the hidden history, his actions, and most of all, will include a highly accurate map, so you can visit. All for only 49.95 plus tax. Yea, just a harmless scam to make a few extra bucks. Whats wrong with that? Everyone's doing it... If its just a myth, what harm is there? But what if I did all the above, for free? What harm would that be?? You see the logic? Actually, the more they protest, the more they strengthen the argument. Keep it up, keep it up. For if its just a myth, there will be NO HARM. Its hilarious.

Now, if one or two of you would like to start your own thread, lets say "Atlantis is just a myth". How far do you think the thread will go, without any evidence? But don't base it on anyone's work, create your own content.

Now if those detractors could actually look at the info presented, naw, that's asking too much.

I don't see that the video address any locations, sites, or discoveries I have made.

Thanks for sharing.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

As a model, I find it lacking in fundamentals. As a plane, it has no landing gear. As a boat, it lacks a rudder. As a human, it lacks a brain. I'm not impressed.

In other words, you don't understand geology therefore it must be wrong and you, alone, most be right.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

As a model, I find it lacking in fundamentals. As a plane, it has no landing gear. As a boat, it lacks a rudder. As a human, it lacks a brain. I'm not impressed.

In other words, you don't understand geology therefore it must be wrong and you, alone, most be right.

Ya see, Andy, only people that pore over satellite photos for solid weeks at a time finding miniscule bumps in the landscape as part of their OCD regimen are qualified to hold forth on the Richat Structure.
Geologists and Anthropologists that have actually been there and excavated and studied the site have no say in this matter.

Harte

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

As a model, I find it lacking in fundamentals. As a plane, it has no landing gear. As a boat, it lacks a rudder. As a human, it lacks a brain. I'm not impressed.

In other words, you don't understand geology therefore it must be wrong and you, alone, most be right.

That, is not for me to decide, and I believe, using the most basic common language, is for the reader to decide. I'm going to walk you though this, slowly, okay?

Now, you might find this a shock, but, I'm a little different than most folks. You know, folks that let others do their thinking for them. They go to school and absorb all the lessons in hopes of passing the test, not, thinking about the subject matter. Their whole life they are spoon fed information, not once questioning the validity of it. In fact if they do, they may get a whack with a ruler. At worst, may fail the course.

On the other hand there are people who notice things, that just don't add up in their education. The subject matter is immaterial, it could be anything from religion to politics, from Geology, to Astrophysics, they question.

Now, Since I am a person who has walked on that "Geology" all his life, just like everyone else, have opinions as to what exactly am I walking on. And ya know, when it comes to that, I'm really no different than anyone else. And, Andy, my opinions are very unique, and that is the way its suppose to be. I'm not a stamp out from some "Geology" factory (Institutional cut out). I am a Independent, free thinker.

Andy, are you offended by free thinking? Maybe a little jealous of people who are capable "Breaking Free"? Does it frighten you that people do not fall in line with what you believe? Do you view a Iconoclast, as a enemy?

A intellectual will view information, debate the information, interrogate the information, process the information. He does not attack the person who brings the information. For that, is left for the non intellectual, the followers, the brain dead to do. Andy, are you a intellectual, or brain dead. Have you processed what I have shared? Are you capable of that?
Or, are you a gate keeper trying your best, to round up the sheep, back into the intellectual pen.

Again, being right or wrong is not the point, the point is for the reader to awaken his own mind, and think. Does that frighten you?

For me, I will question any and all "Institutions" that incorporate the "Babble Language" (Language Games). Do you know what that is? "Prydain am Byth!"? Why do you say "Briton forever, in the Welsh tung? I believe, you do.

Maybe I am "Most be right", maybe I'm not. The readers will decide. But to be honest, I haven't seen you critiquing the information, maybe, to win your argument, you should start.

a reply to: Harte

Notice how they all fall in line, and "Follow"? Just a bunch of non thinking followers....

Clowns in costume........ That's all i see.



Where else have I seen this? Oh, yea..... LOL LOL LOL

21° 3'54.39"N 11°24'8.02"W


What a clown lol lol Dont worry folks, its just "miniscule bumps" lol lol

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Harte

There wasn't water between the rings of the Richat Structure.
Except maybe in a few spots - after a rain.

That conflicts with the original descriptions of Atlantis by the Egyptians, and what they told Solon. Of course, if this was
the site of Atlantis, and I think the vast amount of evidence thus far says it was.

If there is such a "vast amount of evidence" that the Richat Structure is the former Atlantis, why don't you select the best, say, ten pieces out of that vast amount and show it here?

I mean, no such evidence has been presented yet here, and this thread is 30 pages long.

Harte

Hey evidence isn't important if the real reason for a thread is to create a situation where they can spew nonsense.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Harte

There wasn't water between the rings of the Richat Structure.
Except maybe in a few spots - after a rain.

That conflicts with the original descriptions of Atlantis by the Egyptians, and what they told Solon. Of course, if this was
the site of Atlantis, and I think the vast amount of evidence thus far says it was.

It also conflicts with what Jimmy at Bright Insight had researched as well as some discoveries that Randall Carlson had made, even though he is on the edge of believing it was the site of Atlantis.

It also conflicts with the marine biological records and research done in the area as it uncovered the remains of many aquatic creatures and bones of fish.

The biggest conflict with what you claim is the fact that the Sahara has gone through many cycles of change and even recently. It had been a fertile and wet environment many times. The whole of Africa is under constant change and logic would say the Richat was a very habitable place way back when, and that means abundant water. The cataclysm that ensued was so extreme, we will probably never really know for sure what was there and probably never will.

The main lack of evidence is that of a city, in a large developed country near the sea. Such things would leave a remarkable amount of evidence - which is simply not there. Yep there was water there but it was fresh and not the sea.