Atlantis has been discovered?!

originally posted by: Hanslune

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

The part about the area being no longer navigable due to mud makes it sound like it isn't in the actual Atlantic.

One of the problems is there just isn't enough space to harbor 1000 ships in the rings. Now even if locks were being used, it probably was for specialized transport to the upper levels. Your not going to harbor on the upper level a navy of 1000 ships. It would take years to transport them by locks in those days. That means, the navy had to be closer to the ocean.

Been going over old maps that may reveal where the port was. Debating a second part to the thread.

Your source that you believe also said they were triremes which has a specific meaning in Plato's time. Triremes are very specialized warships; built for one purpose, to ram and sink enemy ships - just who in the center of Africa would these have been used against? Additionally you might want to look up ship anchors and how those tell us a great deal about maritime trade in the Med and elsewhere See this book (that is if you really want to understand what you are talking about)

www.amazon.com...

I also believe something else Plato shared, “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth”.

If you have the anchor info, please share. As far as ships being in the middle of Africa, they may have been there. The African Humid Period puts a lot of water in the area. Rivers, Large lakes to large seas are very possible. But, I'm centered on the ground, ruins, etc. If I could see, which I cant, I would document a anchor. The chances of finding anchors in the desert? Under hundreds of feet in some places? Slim to none.

Finding a ship, boat, in the desert would be virtually nill also. It only takes wood 400 years to rot to dust. But even at that, if it is covered by sand the wood will absorb and retain moisture and a prime spot for vegetation. Sand is a very poor medium to contain and hold moisture. The wood even in the rotted state will retain moisture.

A more logical place to look for ships would be closer to the ocean. But again, I have seen no "Un" rotted ships in the area I have searched.
But there sure are some interesting vegetation designs.

Triremes are very specialized warships

That's nice to know, interesting.

Additionally you might want to

Does that translate to "You Should"? Maybe, you should understand I can not see anchors or Triremes. Nor would I expect to. Nor, would I spend 50 bucks for the book you suggest. You should also understand I am open minded and will consider all information. I will follow the evidence where ever the evidence leads me, even if it falls outside the purview of the "Experts". Is all that something you might be able to understand?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

All ships use anchors usually just a rock with a hole in it, they are thousands and thousands of them found in the Med and associated seas. None date to the time frame of the "Atlanteans"

Wood can last longer than 400 years

Here are javelins from 330,000 years ago

www.historyofinformation.com...
(it says 400,000 but a new dating shows it is a bit earlier as noted)

The key is that their is no sign of such ships anywhere in the world at the time mentioned. Kinda of important.

I will follow the evidence where ever the evidence leads me

You have clearly shown you don't or you wouldn't be wasting our time with this Richat geological feature with no signs of ancient civilization there based on fictional book.

Yep no need to read about anchors, or ships, or geology, or archaeology just go with 'feelings'. Chuckles

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
a reply to: Hanslune

It is also possible that neither of your two photos are the correct vantage point, or during the African Humid Period vegetation was more prevalent in the ring valleys where the fresh water fossils were found.

You must understand, "some" of these people are blind either physically, or mentally. They will not, or can not accept what this region looked like during the AHP. They are incapable of "Imagination". You can not debate them as their physical reality is very limited. The only world they can see is what is around them at the time, again, they posses no ability to imagine. There is another term to describe "them" but inappropriate to use here. They make perfect "Gate Keepers".

a reply to: Hanslune

I see you didn't understand.

Wood can last longer than 400 years

The survival of timbers and artefacts within Flag Fen - dating from about 1000 BC - is remarkable. Visitors can view a preserved section of the causeway as well as many of the artefacts found during excavation. However, much of this exceptional site still survives below ground. It is therefore crucial that the water levels and water quality are maintained so that the structures and artefacts in the ground remain preserved.

Normally, when wood is buried it decays rapidly. However, if the burial environment is very wet it can be preserved for centuries. Bacteria and fungi will still degrade the wood, but when the oxygen supply is limited - under wet or waterlogged conditions - this process is much slower than in the air or in a well aerated soil.

The organisms which live on the wood and digest it leave cavities and tunnels behind and these voids within the wood cell structure then become filled with water from the surrounding environment. Hence the term 'waterlogged wood'. The water therefore helps to preserve not only the overall shape of the wooden object but also fine details, such as tool marks and carvings.

How Does Wood Survive Underground For Thousands of Years?

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

All ships use anchors usually just a rock with a hole in it, they are thousands and thousands of them found in the Med and associated seas. None date to the time frame of the "Atlanteans"

Wood can last longer than 400 years

Here are javelins from 330,000 years ago

www.historyofinformation.com...
(it says 400,000 but a new dating shows it is a bit earlier as noted)

The key is that their is no sign of such ships anywhere in the world at the time mentioned. Kinda of important.

I will follow the evidence where ever the evidence leads me

You have clearly shown you don't or you wouldn't be wasting our time with this Richat geological feature with no signs of ancient civilization there based on fictional book.

Yep no need to read about anchors, or ships, or geology, or archaeology just go with 'feelings'. Chuckles

As you might have gathered, wood can last a very long time when it is buried, and kept wet. The opposite of that is dry and arid.

The wood, such as trees will not fair as well. Open to the air wood will, especially in a desert climate will rot to dust in a given period.

Panel B. Radiocarbon dating of over 1,000 archaeological sites across North Africa reveals how profoundly the end of the humid phase affected human populations14. These dates, which record human occupation at these sites, indicate that North Africa was rapidly depopulated between 6,300 and 5,200 years ago as dry conditions set in

End of the African Humid Period

It took approximately 1100 years to dry out completely. So what ever caused the desert to form must have occurred roughly around 4300BC. By 3200BC all the lush vegetation, and trees, were gone. Again, it only takes 400 - 500 years for a forest to completely disappear. In Plato's time, they had been gone for at least 2200 years. Keep in mind, Plato knew nothing of the AHP.

You have clearly shown you don't or you wouldn't be wasting our time with this Richat geological feature with no signs of ancient civilization there based on fictional book.

I don't know how many times I have to show you whats in the Richat. And what I have shown is not in any book, fictional or otherwise.

Again more and more about the Richat - we already know its real what you need to do is face your worse fears:

Stop hiding behind the Richat and AHP and show us the evidence of a massive civilizatios being there from the time Plato made up and explain why its in the wrong place (based on what he wrote) isn't under water and there is no massive ancient city there.

If we were to magically wipe away every known piece of evidence for the ancient Egyptian civilization - everything pooof gone. No evidence of any kind anywhere in the world, no record of anything. Okay how long would it take for us to find evidence that their had been an ancient Egyptian Civilization? Just a couple of minutes because the Nile valley, delta and surrounding desert is full of evidence of that civilization, 10s of millions of pieces of evidence, scores of still buried cities, thousands of unfound burials, millions of shreds, stone tools, worked stone, etc.

What do you have for Atlantis?

So, again where's the ancient civilization? Either you have evidence or you don't.

So, far it is zilch.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

If I could see, which I cant, I would document a anchor. The chances of finding anchors in the desert? Under hundreds of feet in some places? Slim to none. Finding a ship, boat, in the desert would be virtually nill also. It only takes wood 400 years to rot to dust.

Ah dude, you know you could google this type of information ...right? 400 years? I can think of six wooden boat found in the desert (and there are more), that are thousands of years old.

en.wikipedia.org... 4,500 years old made of wood, found in a hole in the - wait for - desert (actually limestone within the desert)

en.wikipedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org... 29_-_013.jpg

upload.wikimedia.org...

More information:
archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de...

Dude please stop trying to deny reality.

a reply to: Hanslune

Stop hiding behind the Richat and AHP and show us the evidence of a massive civilizatios being there from the time Plato made up and explain why its in the wrong place (based on what he wrote) isn't under water and there is no massive ancient city there.

And Again.

There appears to be at least 7 structures IN the Second Ring, that follow the radius of the ring, that appear to be buried.









To the south, just outside The Richat, there are ruins, that appear to be flood damaged.



In Quadane, a ancient community itself, a short distance to the west, there appears to be a boat dock on a extinct river.



A short distance to the north in the same extinct river there appears to be a island, with ruins on it.



Approximately 47 miles to the South West, on a fork of a extinct river system, there are ruins with no archeological information, at all. "No name".



It is questionable as to Plato.s 9000 years and therefor, I do not see Plato's story to be Bible. I see it as a guide. The end of the African Humid Period must be the guide for the timeline. Therefore I see the following to be more accurate.

However, the translated report we read today says that was 9,000 years before Plato’s timeframe, but whereas the great megalithic building, advanced navigation, and advanced metallurgy, described by Plato, is said to have only begun at circa 2500 B.C. by the archaeological experts, it’s obvious that something is wrong with the translanted number from Plato

Plato’s Atlantis was not 9,000 Years Before but was 9,000 Lunar Cycles or a Mistranslation of the Word for 100

The one thing that Plato described, as far as I'm concerned with, is the absolute uniqueness of his "Ringed City". The Richat Structure, is a perfect fit, if it was in the African Humid Period.

Dude please stop trying to deny reality.

I'm, not.

I cant show you what is no longer there, but I can, show, what is.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Stop hiding behind the Richat and AHP and show us the evidence of a massive civilizatios being there from the time Plato made up and explain why its in the wrong place (based on what he wrote) isn't under water and there is no massive ancient city there.

And Again.

Yawn. Dude I will try to explain this to a guy who has never been to an excavation and whose entire experience is looking at websites and youtubes.

YOU NEED TO DO A ON SITE EXCAVATION AND FIND MATERIALS DATED TO PLATO'S TIMEs.

You can look at blurry images all you want for decades and guess what they are not evidence until you go to the ground site and excavate.

Can you understand that?

Maybe you should watch that video you suggest. Just replace the comments on papers with video on youtube.

Remember that archaeologist I found for you who is an expert in that area - let me guess you refuse to talk to him because he gonna break your world view....chuckle

It is questionable as to Plato.s 9000 years and therefor, I do not see Plato's story to be Bible. I see it as a guide.

Why do you feel a fictional document is a guide? Why not follow the actual archaeological evidence we have?

The end of the African Humid Period must be the guide for the timeline. Therefore I see the following to be more accurate.

Based on what? Your need to have an excuse to change what Plato wrote since reality doesn't support it - hundreds if not thousands of other 'researchers' have also arrived at this same point - Plato doesn't work so I am going to change what he wrote.......?

However, the translated report we read today says that was 9,000 years before Plato’s timeframe, but whereas the great megalithic building, advanced navigation, and advanced metallurgy, described by Plato, is said to have only begun at circa 2500 B.C. by the archaeological experts, it’s obvious that something is wrong with the translanted number from Plato

So what? Do you know the Attic dialect of Greek and can tell us what is wrong with the translation?

Here is the Atlantipedia: (which you already know about but I suggest you read the whole document. Everything you are attempting has been done for other locations): atlantipedia.ie...

Plato’s Atlantis was not 9,000 Years Before but was 9,000 Lunar Cycles or a Mistranslation of the Word for 100

Your 'source' is a young earth creationist which means he's basically a nut and thinks the world is a few thousand years old - that is what we call a CRAP biased source. He just made that up for religious reason. GO TO PEOPLE WHO CAN READ ATTIC GREEK OR GET A DICTIONARY AND DO THE TRANSLATION YOURSELF.

The one thing that Plato described, as far as I'm concerned with, is the absolute uniqueness of his "Ringed City". The Richat Structure, is a perfect fit, if it was in the African Humid Period.

Nope it is millions of years old - remember those geology papers I referred too. You cannot make a statement to erase reality - it still remains.

Dude please stop trying to deny reality.

Bad sources and ignoring science - you aren't going to be going anywhere with this.

a reply to: Hanslune

Not one word addressing the images? It is not I who is denying reality.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Even Herodotus descriptions of the Sahara are possibly not to be taken literally for some reason.
Herodotus apparently learned of the salt mounds with extraordinary water in the middle from five Berbers who caravaned through the Sahara. The prevailing peer review process determined that information was important enough for Herodotus to record it officially. Plenty of circular Oasis wells in the Sahara, some even have rings but if Plato saw a shadow it must have been something important. And if this was kept secret only to be revealed as part of the Eleusinian Mysteries that is going to change the peer review process.

a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

Here is a paper discussing the "Errors" of Herodotus and Plato.

The Importance of Herodotus' histories for the Atlantis problem November 2008 Conference: "Atlantis" 2008, AthensAt: AthensVolume: Stavros P. Papamarinopoulos (editor), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on "The Atlantis Hypothesis" (ATLANTIS 2008), 10-11 November 2008 Athens/Greece, Publisher: Heliotopos Conferences / Heliotopos Ltd., Athens 2010; pp. 161-168. Authors: Thorwald Franke Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Im not going to go over all the point touched upon, and just supply the Summary.

Summary
Herodotus‘ Histories are of high importance for Atlantis research. They contain essential
information on almost all elds of Atlantis research. On the basis of Herodotus alone it is
not possible to decide nally, whether Atlantis is real or an invention by Plato, but it seems
much more likely that it is real.

So, not all the "Academics" think the story is fabricated.

As far as descriptions of countries and geographical features one must consider, just knowing what country sits next to yours, was not common knowledge in those days. You were probably lucky to know the town you lived in. Education was not offered to any and all, but to the ruling class. And the standards of knowledge we posses today can not be applied to those days.

I have a map from 1667- 1727 that shows Mauritania running from the Straights of Gibraltar to the border of Libya. I guess things change, including names.

a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

The map is orientated East up. Well, Edward 1667-1727



Mauritania goes all the way to the Mediterranean, and Eastwards. I find this very interesting.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Peer review might suggest this cartographer understood the eye of Ra world view(first impression).

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

Not one word addressing the images? It is not I who is denying reality.

The images show structures/ruins that could be anything from a few years to a few centuries old. But without archaeology they prove absolutely nothing.

But you know that.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

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

Not one word addressing the images? It is not I who is denying reality.

The images show structures/ruins that could be anything from a few years to a few centuries old. But without archaeology they prove absolutely nothing.

But you know that.

What I know is everyone has their own independent brains that they can use for themselves, and do not need a Paradigm like "Archeology" to do it for them, in this particular case.

Archeology is a fine pursuit, when it is allowed to be performed in the open, but when it comes to this country, this region, it is forbidden.

But, you know that.

If Archeology refuses to take into consideration the African Humid Period and lots of water in the region before 4000bc, the structures remain a mystery. But if they do, then it becomes obvious the structures must come before the end of water in the region. Then a community on the banks of a extinct river, to include islands and a boat dock, becomes logical.

Ahh, but we are discouraged from using our own minds, and bludgeoned into accepting what the establishment dictates.

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

Peer review might suggest this cartographer understood the eye of Ra world view(first impression).

Yes, I can see the relationship. I also can see how the "Lunatics" shield our "Eyes" from that ancient truth.

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

Not one word addressing the images? It is not I who is denying reality.

As explained to you before that part of Africa has and has had people in it for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years and lacking large amounts of wood for some periods they would build with stone.

Those sites could be 50, 150, 450, 850, 1984.5, 4,000 or 15,000 years old. You cannot tell by the such images.All they indicate is that x is there.

Do you not understand this? You can only determine a date by EXCAVATION and study.

What not one word addressing what i said? Here it is again

Nope it is millions of years old - remember those geology papers I referred too. You cannot make a statement to erase reality - it still remains. Dude please stop trying to deny reality. Bad sources and ignoring science - you aren't going to be going anywhere with this.

edit on 25/5/22 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

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

Even Herodotus descriptions of the Sahara are possibly not to be taken literally for some reason.
Herodotus apparently learned of the salt mounds with extraordinary water in the middle from five Berbers who caravaned through the Sahara. The prevailing peer review process determined that information was important enough for Herodotus to record it officially. Plenty of circular Oasis wells in the Sahara, some even have rings but if Plato saw a shadow it must have been something important. And if this was kept secret only to be revealed as part of the Eleusinian Mysteries that is going to change the peer review process.

...and what does this have to do with Atlanteans?

Again and again going off on tangents trying to stay away from the elephant in the room, eh? lol

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

So, not all the "Academics" think the story is fabricated.

Yet you been screaming that they are 'all in on it" LOL

Guess you were wrong, again.