Atlantis has been discovered?!

a reply to: Hanslune

Atlantis has been 'discovered' in hundreds of places, strangely not a single one so far has proven to be 'it'.

First, again, "Atlantis" as described by Plato was a name of an Allotment. There were other Allotments with other names but Plato had no information concerning the others. Atlantis had a capital city that was ringed in nature, no name was supplied for this city except for its shape, dimensions, and layout.

Atlantis has been misapplied to represent things, areas, Plato did not intend. But at the same time, you would expect to find ruins of other Allotments scattered about the globe, and we do. Technically these other ruins would be in other Allotments, but, share a certain characteristics with the others, but not exactly. Each allotment would represent the flavor, individuality of the ruling elite of each allotment.

From your link

The Richat Structure in Mauritania has also been proposed as the site of Atlantis.[57][58] This structure is generally considered to be a deeply eroded domal structure that overlies a still-buried alkaline igneous intrusion.[59] From 1974 onward,[60] prehistoric artifacts of the area were mapped, finding an absence of prehistoric artifacts or Paleolithic or Neolithic stone tools from the structure's innermost depressions. Neither recognizable midden deposits nor manmade structures were found nor reported in the area, thus concluding that the area was used only for short-term hunting and stone tool manufacturing during prehistoric times.[61][62]

In September 2018 the YouTube channel Bright Insight claimed that the Richat Structure's features match Solon's description of Atlantis. Bright Insight claimed that matching features included 5 concentric circles, the diameter (127 stadia or 23.5 km), a waterway outlet to the south, salty groundwater everywhere except below the centerpoint, and mountains with waterfalls sheltering the city on the north. The present location, elevated and away from any body of water was explained by the lakes and rivers once present across the Sahara, and by a gradual rise of the land of about 2.5 cm per year.[63]

This, is untrue!

Neither recognizable midden deposits nor manmade structures were found nor reported in the area, thus concluding that the area was used only for short-term hunting and stone tool manufacturing during prehistoric times.

Not one mile from the outer most ring is a obvious man made structure. And the only research provided on this structure/site (also surrounded by man made dwellings) is that it is "Ancient". There is no detailed archeological survey of this site.



Quadane itself sits 12 miles from the outer most ring, and the origins of this town are "Unknown".

The early history of Ouadane is uncertain

en.wikipedia.org...



Not to mention the buried structures in the second ring, that follow the radius of the ring.



There are "Man Made" structures, in the area.

Another video discussing ancient aquatic life in the Desert, and the Richat.

This is the map of Africa. If you look to the South, you will see lush vegetation, with lots
of greenery. However, when you go north, things are different. Covering multiple
countries, it is the most gigantic desert globally, with miles and miles of dune formation.
Altogether, the Sahara Desert covers 9 million square kilometers, meaning it will
swallow Spain 18 times!
However, did you know that this vast stretch of sterile sand covering a third of the
African continent was covered in lush vegetation thousands of years ago? What
happened to the Sahara? And what is happening to it right now? In this video, we look
at the terrifying discoveries scientists made under the Sahara desert!

Scientists Terrifying New Discovery Under Sahara Desert Changes Everything!

The whale fossils would explain the myth of Antares.

He was supposed to be a huge giant, and supposedly an explorer visiting the monument to him found bones of a person who would be like 200 feet tall. The story makes sense if local people had found a 200 foot prehistoric whale skeleton, mistook it for human, and brought it to the monument to bury it.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The deepest question would be "How did they get there, in the first place". It signifies a great deal of water was present, the same with the Octopus discovery in Wyoming. It is starting to look like Earth was actually covered in water for some unknown amount of time, or until the water pressure forced the rifting and created the depressions know as Oceans.

Before the ocean rifting the water created minor depressions that did not rift, some dried up as weather patterns changed, and other became lakes. One such depression is in the area of the Richat, the entire area does not drain away readily.

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

The deepest question would be "How did they get there, in the first place". It signifies a great deal of water was present, the same with the Octopus discovery in Wyoming.

It's well known that many parts of what is currently dry land were once under shallow seas. The local hills where I live in England are made of limestone; full of fossil shells and the remains of coral reefs. It was once a shallow, tropical, sea.

Some millions of years ago, what is now central parts of the USA was a shallow inland sea. Likewise parts of what are now the Sahara.

There are fossil shells high up in the Himalaya, because the rocks that formed those mountains have been pushed up by tectonic forces from where they originally formed in the Tethys Sea.

Obviously, this is not what you want to believe so you'll ignore it. But hey, the Earth is flat hollow and expanding, if you listen to youtube ....

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

The deepest question would be "How did they get there, in the first place". It signifies a great deal of water was present, the same with the Octopus discovery in Wyoming. It is starting to look like Earth was actually covered in water for some unknown amount of time, or until the water pressure forced the rifting and created the depressions know as Oceans.

Now we are to be astounded that a region comprised of more than 99% limestone beds was once underwater!

Not only that, but we are asked to pretend that nobody knows when this occurred.

New depths of ignorance have been reached.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

New depths of ignorance have been reached.

Harte

Yes greatly aided by (PPD)

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

The deepest question would be "How did they get there, in the first place". It signifies a great deal of water was present, the same with the Octopus discovery in Wyoming. It is starting to look like Earth was actually covered in water for some unknown amount of time, or until the water pressure forced the rifting and created the depressions know as Oceans.

Before the ocean rifting the water created minor depressions that did not rift, some dried up as weather patterns changed, and other became lakes. One such depression is in the area of the Richat, the entire area does not drain away readily.

I've always suspected this about Pangea : from the perspective of equilibrium, it doesn't seem possible that all of a planet's land mass could be located on one side. That would mean a sphere is spinning about an axis that is off center to its center of gravity............ which isn't physically possible in free space.

More likely: some continents that are now above water were underwater at that time. And some shelves that are below water now, were above water then.

However, we're talking time frames much larger than 10,000 years. Usually.

The video you posted argues that maybe a change that should have taken millions of years or at least many thousands of them, got accelerated by humans over grazing the savannah. Changing its properties with respect to moisture and albedo, causing the local climate to change and then that change triggered other changes.

That is an interesting idea. Not sure what evidence to look for or how to prove/falsify it.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I've always suspected this about Pangea : from the perspective of equilibrium, it doesn't seem possible that all of a planet's land mass could be located on one side. That would mean a sphere is spinning about an axis that is off center to its center of gravity............ which isn't physically possible in free space.

I agree. If it were unbalanced over time the planet would start to come apart.

More likely: some continents that are now above water were underwater at that time. And some shelves that are below water now, were above water then.

Agree again. The thing about fossils being discovered high up on a mountain that were obviously aquatic translates to, that mountain top was once at the bottom of a body of water. When the rifts started to split, that pressure had to go somewhere, and mountain building was the result. Some may have taken millions of years, but, I suspect the ones with strata that are inclined at a great degree were created rather quickly. When the stress released it released quickly, 1 day to one week. I see the coal vanes in mountain chains to be everything that was in the area was folded over, encapsulating all the life inside the fold.

The video you posted argues that maybe a change that should have taken millions of years or at least many thousands of them, got accelerated by humans over grazing the savannah.

There was a university team that built a computer model of the African humid period exploring "Other" possibilities as to how it ended so quickly. The model simply reversed the rotation of the planet. And the weather patterns reversed, leaving North West Africa, bone dry. I can't find the link to the article, darn. For me its just more evidence that the earth has been externally, mechanically, manipulated.

That is an interesting idea. Not sure what evidence to look for or how to prove/falsify it.

It doesn't really matter what evidence you find or have, because those who are indoctrinated will never see it for its true value. But if your interested in finding evidence that the moon came into contact with the earth, go to the area of contact and look for moon rocks on the edges. The Sandwich Island chain would be a good place to start.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

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

The deepest question would be "How did they get there, in the first place". It signifies a great deal of water was present, the same with the Octopus discovery in Wyoming. It is starting to look like Earth was actually covered in water for some unknown amount of time, or until the water pressure forced the rifting and created the depressions know as Oceans.

Before the ocean rifting the water created minor depressions that did not rift, some dried up as weather patterns changed, and other became lakes. One such depression is in the area of the Richat, the entire area does not drain away readily.

I've always suspected this about Pangea : from the perspective of equilibrium, it doesn't seem possible that all of a planet's land mass could be located on one side. That would mean a sphere is spinning about an axis that is off center to its center of gravity............ which isn't physically possible in free space.

More likely: some continents that are now above water were underwater at that time. And some shelves that are below water now, were above water then.

However, we're talking time frames much larger than 10,000 years. Usually.

The video you posted argues that maybe a change that should have taken millions of years or at least many thousands of them, got accelerated by humans over grazing the savannah. Changing its properties with respect to moisture and albedo, causing the local climate to change and then that change triggered other changes.

That is an interesting idea. Not sure what evidence to look for or how to prove/falsify it.

You misunderstand the size of the earth and the relative size of the continents (tectonic plates). They are essentially nothing in comparison to the mass of the entire earth. The earth is approximately 8,000 miles thick, the average thickness of the tectonic plates is 30 miles. or 0.0037

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

There was a university team that built a computer model of the African humid period exploring "Other" possibilities as to how it ended so quickly. The model simply reversed the rotation of the planet. And the weather patterns reversed, leaving North West Africa, bone dry. I can't find the link to the article, darn. For me its just more evidence that the earth has been externally, mechanically, manipulated.

....uh? The rotation of the planet was just reversed uh? I think it is more likely you need to read basic geology text books and learn about gravity, mass and inertia.

More likely than "reversing" is that planets sometimes shift their axis of rotation.

Not wanting to get AllSeeingEye started on the Moon issue, but Earth's Moon is actually what keeps Earth's axis of rotation stable.

Reversing the direction of Earth's spin would not only be insanely hard, but would probably kill all life. However a total flip of axis is not impossible. Unlikely, but not impossible. Reversing axis in this case would mean the Earth spins the same direction, but gets flipped upside down, so from our perspective it's like the direction of rotation has been reversed.

I doubt a full flip happened, but there is some reason to think the axis could have migrated during/after the ice age. The Laurentide Ice sheet in North America blocked access between Alaska and the present day lower states of the USA, while Alaska itself was relatively free of ice. Having an ice sheet further South, and a relatively ice free area further North is easy to explain if the "North Pole" wasn't then located where it is today. The center of the overall ice shelf would have been fairly close to modern day Greenland.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

I doubt a full flip happened, but there is some reason to think the axis could have migrated during/after the ice age. The Laurentide Ice sheet in North America blocked access between Alaska and the present day lower states of the USA, while Alaska itself was relatively free of ice. Having an ice sheet further South, and a relatively ice free area further North is easy to explain if the "North Pole" wasn't then located where it is today. The center of the overall ice shelf would have been fairly close to modern day Greenland.

You forget that ice sheets are dependent on precipitation. Hence parts of the interior of Antarctica are entirely ice free even today. Whilst Greenland, even outside of the Arctic circle, has much more ice than places further north.

(Greenland's ice sheet today is due to it's elevation and because prevailing weather systems bring lots of moist air across it from the Atlantic - whilst at similar latitudes, Alaska and Siberia are ice free)

That provides a possible explanation.

However the Bering Strait hypothesis, for native American settlement proposes that there were people living in Alaska during that time, unable to cross further South. If present day Alaska wasn't getting any precipitation, those people would have had a really tough time subsisting.

I'll admit I'm not entirely convinced there has been a pole shift. But events of the Younger Dryas could have displaced enough mass/water quickly enough to cause a shift. So it's not impossible.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Reversing the direction of Earth's spin would not only be insanely hard, but would probably kill all life.

You are certainly correct, and that is exactly what happened, virtually all life was wiped out. We call it "The Great Flood".

I find it very interesting that map makers would get this area, so wrong. Missing the entire Sandwich Island chain and a vast separation between South America, and Antarctica. Who knew what, when.



Not to go into the subject of the moon, but hey, it is what it is.

Reversing axis in this case would mean the Earth spins the same direction, but gets flipped upside down, so from our perspective it's like the direction of rotation has been reversed.

From a point of view, outside of our solar system, reversing the direction of rotation, could be seen as flipping the planet, upside down. The magnetic effect would be registered in the rifts as reversing the polarity's direction. "Pole shift" is actually polarity reversal. All you need is something large enough to do the job. Boy, look at all those dark circles on the moon..... Did they say "water" was discovered on the moon?

The question then becomes where was the original North Pole. And as you point out equilibrium is one of the most important aspects of a planet. Would a planet attempt to right itself to its original balancing point, original north pole(concept reversed for south pole). Seems to me, it would, if it could. Unless something was holding the planet at a unnatural angle. It might take a million, 2 or 3 million years for it to wobble back to its original alignment, just like a "Top" tries to do. Always wanting to go back to the balanced point. Seems to me, the original point is at the center of Magnetic North.

Just a side note. Forrest's, given enough time will come back after a calamity of destruction in as little as 200 - 500 years.

You will note in the following image, the "Skid Marks" in the Pacific line up perfectly with the center of Magnet North, and the Political North Pole. Just a coincidence?



I'm not asking you to believe my observations. I'm just asking for you to Consider them.

UFO's and Aliens, or, the Ancient Flying gods called the Anunnaki. You decide.

In as far as the destruction of the Ringed City of Atlantis, dumping a great deal of water directly down on the area would give you exactly what you see.

Impact point of the "Flood Waters". Note the erosion pattern is from directly above.... A column of water at least 2000ft in diameter.



The evidence is everywhere, you just have to get out of the "Institutional" mindset, to see it........

a reply to: Hanslune

....uh? The rotation of the planet was just reversed uh? I think it is more likely you need to read basic geology text books and learn about gravity, mass and inertia.

Still with the personal attacks, I see. No matter..

"Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows" Yes, obviously a computer model you know nothing of, maybe "You Should" consider the materials first, before you try to unsuccessfully put me back in the box... But thanks to your encouragement I went back and found the information, just for you

Climate models—computer simulations of Earth’s climate system—are crucial tools for scientists, given that it's impossible to run experiments on the entire planet. Access to these digital laboratories also gives people the option to occasionally play “mad scientist” and mess with the Earth a bit. One newly published study falls into that category, asking the question “What would happen if the Earth spun backward?” You can almost hear the maniacal laughter.

Mad scientists flip the Earth’s spin in climate models, watch water go nuts

Deserts would cover North America, arid sand dunes would replace expanses of the Amazon rainforest in South America, and lush, green landscapes would flourish from central Africa to the Middle East, according to a computer simulation presented (opens in new tab) earlier this month at the annual European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2018 in Austria.

What if Earth started spinning backward?

Additionally, the Sahara Desert was gone in Ziemen's simulation, with the bone-dry Middle East receiving loads of precipitation. Conversely, the southeastern U.S. and large portions of Brazil and Argentina were turned into deserts; these areas typically receive plenty of precipitation on the actual Earth.

Here's What Your Climate Would Be if the Earth Rotated the Other Direction

So, let me spell this out for you, it "appears" the end of the African Humid Period was caused by the rapid reversal of the planets rotational direction. But in all honesty, the evidence would suggest this phenomenon has been occurring on a regular basis throughout the planets history. Now you can see all those geological strata (some containing artifacts) in their proper context, and caused by great amounts of water rushing over the surface, redistributing the topsoil and anything else that gets caught up in a global great floods. Or, simply looking at it as the playing field getting reset...

Now considering all those dark circles on the moon would give you an idea as to how many times the "Reversal" took place.




I think it is more likely "you" should get out of those books, and start using your own mind for something more than just being a cheerleader for the controllers.......... Gate Keepers...........

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

Reversing the direction of Earth's spin would not only be insanely hard, but would probably kill all life.

You are certainly correct, and that is exactly what happened, virtually all life was wiped out. We call it "The Great Flood".

However, the evidence shows that didn't happen.

I find it very interesting that map makers would get this area, so wrong. Missing the entire Sandwich Island chain and a vast separation between South America, and Antarctica. Who knew what, when.

America Meridionalis map of 1606 it shows 'antarctica' as being all unexplored territory. Cape Horn was not found and 'passed' until 1616. The map doesn't show the Sandwich islands had been found by Europeans yet.... nor are they in the area of that map.

If you ever want to be taken seriously you're going to have to accept that the creationist ideas you support aren't going to garner you any support in scientific world.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
So, let me spell this out for you, it "appears" the end of the African Humid Period was caused by the rapid reversal of the planets rotational direction.

If that had happened, we wouldn't be here. The end of the AHP was caused by a shift in the position of the inter-tropical convergence zone.

But if you want to go down the reversing Earth's rotation route, what then caused the Earth to start rotating the other way, at the start of the AHP? - You're talking 2 massive global extinction level events within a few thousand years, neither of which caused any mass global extinctions or left any evidence whatsoever.

Pure fantasy.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
So, let me spell this out for you, it "appears" the end of the African Humid Period was caused by the rapid reversal of the planets rotational direction.

If that had happened, we wouldn't be here. The end of the AHP was caused by a shift in the position of the inter-tropical convergence zone.

But if you want to go down the reversing Earth's rotation route, what then caused the Earth to start rotating the other way, at the start of the AHP? - You're talking 2 massive global extinction level events within a few thousand years, neither of which caused any mass global extinctions or left any evidence whatsoever.

Pure fantasy.

In the Stratification experiments conducted in a controlled manner, it is revealed that great amounts of moving water is required to produce the individual strata. This experiment is on a very small scale but demonstrates how all the global strata must have been formed. LARGE AMOUNTS OF MOVING WATER is required.

Space dust can not account for these formations as found and must be explained by other processes, Globally.


rumble.com...

As far as being wiped out, I don't understand your position concerning extinctions, there have been many. 5 main ones. I see these extinction events not caused by meteorites or volcanoes, but by stratification building, or extremely large global flooding. A regional flood would not cause wide spread extinction. As I have pointed out before many bone beds are found as if washed together by flood waters. And the latest find.

Ireland’s First Dinosaur Bones Found in Flood Rocks

Human beings have had the same fate.

The human race once came dangerously close to dying out — here's how it changed us

As to how the reversal took place, as I stated, must have been done mechanically, as in controlled contact with a large body. And again, I have shown evidence that supports that contention that points directly at the moon. But look at it this way, if the moon was artificial, intelligently manned, and guidable, it would be the perfect candidate for Planetary Terraforming.

Now, if you want to go back in time there are records that indicate the Sun used to rise in the west.

Prior to this, the sun was rising in the West, which should not be surprising. As noted earlier, four ancient historians of Greece documented the western sun rise as well. Sophocles, in his play Atreus wrote “…Zeus wrought a fresh portent: he changed the course of the sun, causing it to rise in the east, and not (as it was said to have done previously) in the west.

First Age of Man

Egyptian priests told Herodotus, a careful listener, that four times since Egypt had become a kingdom “the Sun rose contrary to his wont; twice he rose where he now sets, and twice he set where he now rises.”

Karnak, Temple of the Western-Rising Sun