Atlantis has been discovered?!

originally posted by: Byrd

I'd also recommend not watching videos, but reading. You can more easily fact-check from printed material than you can from a video. With all the lame attempts to reconstruct history out there, your fact-checking will take less time if you've got names and dates clearly presented in text rather than stopping and starting videos to find the name of a site and when it's supposed to have existed.

Good advice in all aspects.

The fringe is a nearly closed cycle of misinformation which feeds on itself and grows later and later due to it needs for 'new' discoveries that support their beliefs.

a reply to: Hanslune

Images of buried structures in the second ring, that follow the radius of the ring.















Destruction via directed water flow, and the Great Flood aprox 3500bc.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Presuming you are going back to blurry images of the domed anticline...

As noted before no great flood and seeing indications of people where people should have been for hundreds of thousands of years is kinda like noting there are stone tools (they are everywhere) People have been sloshing around this planet for a long time.

To show evidence of "Atlantis" or another culture that is dated to when Plato said will require on the ground excavations.

There is simply no way around that.

a reply to: Hanslune

Certainly. I just supplied Atlantis's "Ground Zero".

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

Certainly. I just supplied Atlantis's "Ground Zero".

Correction you've made a conjecture based on a biased opinion based on a faulty understanding of geology and archaeology.

However, drive on. May I humbly recommend that you consider joining the believers in flat earth, young earth, hollow earth and geocentricity, as they need faith based researchers. Good luck my friend. I check with you in a few weeks to see how you are doing.

originally posted by: Hanslune

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

Certainly. I just supplied Atlantis's "Ground Zero".

However, drive on. May I humbly recommend that you consider joining the believers in flat earth, young earth, hollow earth and geocentricity, as they need faith based researchers. Good luck my friend. I check with you in a few weeks to see how you are doing.

I am not faith based, for if I were I would have never stumbled upon the evidence that supports the Richat Structure as the location of the Ringed City.

The subject is outside of the scope of this thread, but, there does seem to be "Scriptural" support for the Garden Of Paradise, or as you call it "The Hollow Earth".

Hebrew mythology assigns to the period preceding Adam’s expulsion different geophysical and biological conditions. The sun shone permanently on the Earth, and the Garden of Eden, placed in the East, was, it must be conceived, under perpetual rays of the Dawn. The earth was not watered by rain, but mist ascending from the ground condensed as dew upon the leaves. “The plants looked only to the earth for nourishment.” Man was of exceedingly great stature: “The dimensions of man’s body were gigantic.” His appearance was unlike that of later men: “His body was overlaid with a horny skin.” But a day came and the celestial illumination ceased: “The sun . . . had grown dark the instant Adam became guilty of disobedience.” (3) The flames of the ever-turning sword terrified Adam (Genesis 3:24). In another legend it is told that the celestial light shone a little in the darkness. And then “the celestial light ceased, to the consternation of Adam.” The illumination of the first period never returned. The sky that man was used to see never appeared before him again: “The firmament is not the same as the heavens of the first day.” The “day” of Genesis, as I have already noted, is said to be equal to a thousand years.

It was after the fall of man, according to Hebrew tradition, that the sun set for the first time: “The first time Adam witnessed the sinking of the sun, he was seized with anxious fears. All the night he spent in tears. When day began to dawn, he understood that what he had deplored was but the course of nature.” It was also then that the seasons began. This is told in the following story: “Adam noticed that the days were growing shorter and feared lest the world be darkened . . . but after the winter solstice he saw that the days grew longer again.”

The earth also underwent changes: “Independent before, she was hereafter to wait to be watered by the rain from above.” (4) The variety of species diminished. Man, according to Hebrew legends, decreased in size; there was a “vast difference between his later and his former state—between his supernatural size then, and his shrunken size now.” (5) He also lost his horny skin. The whole of nature altered its ways.

References

Quoted in Athanasius Kircher, Turris Babel sive Archonotologia (Amsterdam, 1679), p. 134.

“The very angels and the celestial beings were grieved by the transgression of Adam. The moon alone laughed wherefore God . . . obscured her light.” Ginzberg, Legends, I, 80.

This describes transiting out, of the Hollow Earth, Garden of Edin. In the Hollow the Central Sun shines constantly. In the Hollow Earth, there are no seasons. In the Hollow Earth there are no rain, storm clouds, but only a foggy mist at times. "The flames of the ever-turning sword" is a artistic rendering of the Aurora borealis'.

It was after the fall of man, according to Hebrew tradition, that the sun set for the first time: “The first time Adam witnessed the sinking of the sun, he was seized with anxious fears

HEBREW MYTHOLOGY OF THE DELUGE, CHANGE IN THE SUN AND MOON AND MANKIND

And this describes the first day Adam lived on the Outside, now seeing the Sun rise and fall. He had no clue, there were two Suns.

It is you who are faith based, believing all ancient writings to be nothing but myth. If you dig deep enough, you will eventually find the buried pearl of truth.

Welcome to "Oz".

originally posted by: Hanslune

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

Certainly. I just supplied Atlantis's "Ground Zero".

Correction you've made a conjecture based on a biased opinion based on a faulty understanding of geology and archaeology.

However, drive on. May I humbly recommend that you consider joining the believers in flat earth, young earth, hollow earth and geocentricity, as they need faith based researchers. Good luck my friend. I check with you in a few weeks to see how you are doing.

I had a close friend once who passed on. He once told me "You don't understand". It was a puzzle for years. But I gave myself the time I needed to understand his words. It should be made mandatory in all schools, no matter the subject, that they be taught ancient history, first.

And now I share those words with you "You, don't understand"!

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Hanslune

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

Certainly. I just supplied Atlantis's "Ground Zero".

Correction you've made a conjecture based on a biased opinion based on a faulty understanding of geology and archaeology.

However, drive on. May I humbly recommend that you consider joining the believers in flat earth, young earth, hollow earth and geocentricity, as they need faith based researchers. Good luck my friend. I check with you in a few weeks to see how you are doing.

I had a close friend once who passed on. He once told me "You don't understand". It was a puzzle for years. But I gave myself the time I needed to understand his words. It should be made mandatory in all schools, no matter the subject, that they be taught ancient history, first.

And now I share those words with you "You, don't understand"!

Actually I do, you my friend are a classic fringe believer - once you think you have a 'great discovery' no evidence, no logic, no anything will ever shift you from blind acceptance of your own brilliance - drive on and enjoy the view and don't worry about that your idea cannot be falsified, that only magnifies how right you are.

a reply to: Hanslune

Actually I do, you my friend are a classic fringe believer - once you think you have a 'great discovery' no evidence, no logic, no anything will ever shift you from blind acceptance of your own brilliance - drive on and enjoy the view and don't worry about that your idea cannot be falsified, that only magnifies how right you are.

If I were so "brilliant' as you suggest, it wouldn't have taken me 45 years to see it.

You are wrong about not having no evidence, no logic. It has all been spelt out, if you have been playing the game, page by page. LOL LOL

Left handed compliment, accepted.

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

Actually I do, you my friend are a classic fringe believer - once you think you have a 'great discovery' no evidence, no logic, no anything will ever shift you from blind acceptance of your own brilliance - drive on and enjoy the view and don't worry about that your idea cannot be falsified, that only magnifies how right you are.

If I were so "brilliant' as you suggest, it wouldn't have taken me 45 years to see it.

You are wrong about not having no evidence, no logic. It has all been spelt out, if you have been playing the game, page by page. LOL LOL

Left handed compliment, accepted.

A true compliment, other suggested the same thing but they then looked at what evidence we had and said, nope.

Yep you 'spelled it out' but you didn't like what it read as so you just ignored that and went blissfully on your way.

Enjoy

originally posted by: Hanslune

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

Actually I do, you my friend are a classic fringe believer - once you think you have a 'great discovery' no evidence, no logic, no anything will ever shift you from blind acceptance of your own brilliance - drive on and enjoy the view and don't worry about that your idea cannot be falsified, that only magnifies how right you are.

If I were so "brilliant' as you suggest, it wouldn't have taken me 45 years to see it.

You are wrong about not having no evidence, no logic. It has all been spelt out, if you have been playing the game, page by page. LOL LOL

Left handed compliment, accepted.

A true compliment, other suggested the same thing but they then looked at what evidence we had and said, nope.

Yep you 'spelled it out' but you didn't like what it read as so you just ignored that and went blissfully on your way.

Enjoy

Since you gave a compliment, I'm going to explain this one time.

I, am a hard core Iconoclast. Im not going to go deeply into except to say in 1978 I realized there was something wrong with the reality that was being taught in schools. I could not trust anyone or anything since that point unless I researched the subject on my own. When researching any subject I consider all aspects regardless if it is mains stream or fringe, and everything in between. I do not reject all of main stream except when there is obviously a agenda. And that agenda goes way back. I do not accept all fringe for the same reason. For instance, I do not accept the Lunar mare or the Lunar pits have anything to do with lava. Period. That is nothing but theory based on no observation. Even though, I believe the Moon was fabricated using Solar heat.

So it seems to me you expect me to fall in with the Accepted way of thinking, I cant. So yes when the disciplinarians show up and demand I only see it their way, its going to be a waist of time on their part. I am wired completely different than anyone else, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Accept it, or walk away.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

So it seems to me you expect me to fall in with the Accepted way of thinking, I cant. So yes when the disciplinarians show up and demand I only see it their way, its going to be a waist of time on their part.

Really? You are that paranoid, that far out in never never land? I don't expect you to 'accept a way of thinking' or that we are trying to change your mind to the mainstream. What we have been doing is informing you that your evidence isn't evidence and your research skills are badly lacking for specific reasons.

Now is that clear? Probably not, anyway: No Gestapo here no evil villains just people with a great deal of experience pointing out to you that one; your sources sucks, that your opinions are not facts, and that the quality of your 'evidence' is greatly damaged by your 'personal' bias ( as clearly shown by your weird view of this debate above) Such a bias is often based on a misguided belief that you know some kind of special knowledge. Lastly, you seem unaware that we are on a discussion board.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

So it seems to me you expect me to fall in with the Accepted way of thinking, I cant. So yes when the disciplinarians show up and demand I only see it their way, its going to be a waist of time on their part.

Really? You are that paranoid, that far out in never never land? I don't expect you to 'accept a way of thinking' or that we are trying to change your mind to the mainstream. What we have been doing is informing you that your evidence isn't evidence and your research skills are badly lacking for specific reasons.

Now is that clear? Probably not, anyway: No Gestapo here no evil villains just people with a great deal of experience pointing out to you that one; your sources sucks, that your opinions are not facts, and that the quality of your 'evidence' is greatly damaged by your 'personal' bias ( as clearly shown by your weird view of this debate above) Such a bias is often based on a misguided belief that you know some kind of special knowledge. Lastly, you seem unaware that we are on a discussion board.

Its becoming very apparent you have no idea what a Iconoclast is. Might I suggest reading a book?

No organization can survive without iconoclasts -- innovators who single-handedly upturn conventional wisdom and manage to achieve what so many others deem impossible.

Though indispensable, true iconoclasts are few and far between. In Iconoclast, neuroscientist Gregory Berns explains why. He explores the constraints the human brain places on innovative thinking, including fear of failure, the urge to conform, and the tendency to interpret sensory information in familiar ways.

Through vivid accounts of successful innovators ranging from glass artist Dale Chihuly to physicist Richard Feynman to country/rock trio the Dixie Chicks, Berns reveals the inner workings of the iconoclast's mind with remarkable clarity. Each engaging chapter goes on to describe practical actions we can each take to understand and unleash our own potential to think differently -- such as seeking out new environments, novel experiences, and first-time acquaintances.

Packed with engaging stories, science-based insights, potent practices, and examples from a startling array of disciplines, this engaging book will help you understand how iconoclasts think and equip you to begin thinking more like an iconoclast yourself.

Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently

An iconoclast is a unique individual and bold thinker—they don’t prioritize what tradition calls for and instead look to challenge it. They see options that other people can’t or won’t see. They break old paradigms and create new ones. Sometimes they can come off as rebels. However, a true iconoclast is still trying to achieve the same desired outcome as the old way of operating: success. They are not trying to derail the traditional way maliciously or for entertainment. Rather, they are typically attempting to solve the problem in an unorthodox way that somehow supersedes the manner in which things have always been done. Most iconoclasts are curious people. The most successful iconoclasts are ones who follow up on their curiosity and do some research to vet their means to an end—reading, watching, and talking to people about why things are the way they are and their ideas for change.

You May Be An Iconoclast And Not Even Know It

Now is that clear? Probably not

It does no good to continue to slap the left hand, in hopes to make him, right handed!

Now about those blurry images, you know the subject matter? Or how about the "Ancient" ruin just outside the Southern entrance. You know, the ones made of "Mud Brick", in a desert. (which would suggest they were made before the end of the African Humid period. 3550bc)

All Seeing Eye,

It may interest you to know that some of what you show here has been 3D modelled by the guys at 'Atlantis Together.'

sketchfab.com...

They are going back to the Richat in December. They are open to suggestions of sites to visit. They can be contacted here:

[email protected]

originally posted by: Osciver
All Seeing Eye,

It may interest you to know that some of what you show here has been 3D modelled by the guys at 'Atlantis Together.'

sketchfab.com...

They are going back to the Richat in December. They are open to suggestions of sites to visit. They can be contacted here:

[email protected]

Thank you. I am a member in that group, and gave them the images I had. In fact, I gave a lot of input lol lol.
But, I don't visit as often as I should

Oh yes, I have a list of targets to investigate

Thank you for the heads up, and share

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Yep and you go right back to being wrong again, no your not Iconolastic redee,er. You are a biased person with no understanding of what evidence is.

I'm sure everyone will one day wake up and find out that YOU have proved that archaeology research never needs to do excavations they just need to look at blurry images and believe, believe and believe more along with more than a touch of paranoia.

Have fun

--------------------

ou know, the ones made of "Mud Brick", in a desert. (which would suggest they were made before the end of the African Humid period. 3550bc)

Mud brick works best in a non-raining environment - being made of dried mud and a binding agent rain is deadly to it. If there is no water to make mud brick then you won't have people there also.

originally posted by: Osciver
All Seeing Eye,

It may interest you to know that some of what you show here has been 3D modelled by the guys at 'Atlantis Together.'

sketchfab.com...

They are going back to the Richat in December. They are open to suggestions of sites to visit. They can be contacted here:

[email protected]

Email sent

Got to Love Jimmy



Another video to be coming out in a week or so. Hope he covers the Buried Structures, on the second Ring

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Hanslune

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

Certainly. I just supplied Atlantis's "Ground Zero".

Correction you've made a conjecture based on a biased opinion based on a faulty understanding of geology and archaeology.

However, drive on. May I humbly recommend that you consider joining the believers in flat earth, young earth, hollow earth and geocentricity, as they need faith based researchers. Good luck my friend. I check with you in a few weeks to see how you are doing.

I had a close friend once who passed on. He once told me "You don't understand". It was a puzzle for years. But I gave myself the time I needed to understand his words. It should be made mandatory in all schools, no matter the subject, that they be taught ancient history, first.

And now I share those words with you "You, don't understand"!

I understand completely you believe your beliefs are facts and things you desperate want to be true - are.

Evidence be damned eh?

Shall we wait until actual archaeology can be done or do you want to go on record as being absolutely certain without any possibility of being wrong that the Richat is Atlantis? LOL



Oh by the way one place you can do archaeology at NOW is in Athens (just need money and permissions) you can show that Athens was actually there 12 thousand years ago........

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

This describes transiting out, of the Hollow Earth, Garden of Edin. In the Hollow the Central Sun shines constantly. In the Hollow Earth, there are no seasons. In the Hollow Earth there are no rain, storm clouds, but only a foggy mist at times. "The flames of the ever-turning sword" is a artistic rendering of the Aurora borealis'.

I think it could just as easily describe him growing up on a space station, or on a small planet tidally locked to its star.

If originally they made him really big, then it might have been an environment with lighter gravity, but they realized when placing him on Earth he would need to be smaller in order to support his own mass and circulation.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Hanslune

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

Actually I do, you my friend are a classic fringe believer - once you think you have a 'great discovery' no evidence, no logic, no anything will ever shift you from blind acceptance of your own brilliance - drive on and enjoy the view and don't worry about that your idea cannot be falsified, that only magnifies how right you are.

If I were so "brilliant' as you suggest, it wouldn't have taken me 45 years to see it.

You are wrong about not having no evidence, no logic. It has all been spelt out, if you have been playing the game, page by page. LOL LOL

Left handed compliment, accepted.

A true compliment, other suggested the same thing but they then looked at what evidence we had and said, nope.

Yep you 'spelled it out' but you didn't like what it read as so you just ignored that and went blissfully on your way.

Enjoy

Since you gave a compliment, I'm going to explain this one time.

I, am a hard core Iconoclast. Im not going to go deeply into except to say in 1978 I realized there was something wrong with the reality that was being taught in schools. I could not trust anyone or anything since that point unless I researched the subject on my own. When researching any subject I consider all aspects regardless if it is mains stream or fringe, and everything in between. I do not reject all of main stream except when there is obviously a agenda. And that agenda goes way back. I do not accept all fringe for the same reason. For instance, I do not accept the Lunar mare or the Lunar pits have anything to do with lava. Period. That is nothing but theory based on no observation. Even though, I believe the Moon was fabricated using Solar heat.

So it seems to me you expect me to fall in with the Accepted way of thinking, I cant. So yes when the disciplinarians show up and demand I only see it their way, its going to be a waist of time on their part. I am wired completely different than anyone else, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Accept it, or walk away.

Just be careful not to grab onto one possible interpretation of the evidence and then close yourself to other possibilities.

If mainstream is wrong, it does not therefore follow that "my chosen alternative view" must therefore be true. Both things could be false, and a third, as yet unconsidered possibility might turn out to be the truth.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

So it seems to me you expect me to fall in with the Accepted way of thinking, I cant. So yes when the disciplinarians show up and demand I only see it their way, its going to be a waist of time on their part.

Really? You are that paranoid, that far out in never never land? I don't expect you to 'accept a way of thinking' or that we are trying to change your mind to the mainstream. What we have been doing is informing you that your evidence isn't evidence and your research skills are badly lacking for specific reasons.

Now is that clear? Probably not, anyway: No Gestapo here no evil villains just people with a great deal of experience pointing out to you that one; your sources sucks, that your opinions are not facts, and that the quality of your 'evidence' is greatly damaged by your 'personal' bias ( as clearly shown by your weird view of this debate above) Such a bias is often based on a misguided belief that you know some kind of special knowledge. Lastly, you seem unaware that we are on a discussion board.

Anyone who reads multiple versions, or does even a little bit of their own research can tell that at least some parts of history as it is taught today, is intended to serve a political purpose.

American history especially. The American revolution has King George twirling his villainous mustache as he levies "unfair" taxes on the people!!! But if you look at their total tax burden, and compare it to what we modern Americans pay today........

How far back do we have to go in academic memory to find full phd scholars writing about the Earth as if it were really only 6,000 years old?

If the politicians of your country like your telling of history, they will give you grants enough to support an army of 100 researchers for 100 years. If they dont like your telling of history, then you had better have achieved tenure at your institution prior to having written it....

Does that make the mainstream wrong? No. There is enough oversight to prevent blatantly wrong hypotheses from surfacing, no matter how popular they are. Something the fringe lacks.

But it means a lot of potentially valid hypotheses are never going to be investigated. You need to be saying that someone with a lot of tax money in their care is very very right about something.

For example: there are a lot of papers out there attempting to blame humanity overhunting for the demise of the Mammoth and other megafauna, even though a much more plausible hypothesis is that the Younger Dryas event preferentially killed off the largest animals (given that other events, such as the KT impact preferentially killed off the largest dinosaurs, and such events tend to to exactly that.)

But since anthropic climate change is a popular political view right now, there are tons of politicians willing to fund the telling of a story that involves humanity accidentally destroying its own environment. (And anthropic climate change is very likely true in our day......... just not in the time these papers are saying it happened....)

Politicians like you to tell stories about how, if everyone came together, and paid 100% of their incomes into tax, so we were all working together and blindly following our great leaders, we could pull together and build something like the Great Pyramid just by the sheer volume of workers. No special technology or engineering. Just a willingness to pay higher taxes!!!

And it needs to be a population of many millions. It cant just be a few highly innovative mammoth hunters, over multiple generations, moving a block or two a year.