Lost Roman Map has ATLANTIS at Eye of Sahara Africa! (Richat Structure)

Heh heh. The Doctor . And my favourite one too. Heh hehe reply to: All Seeing Eye

So, you're gonna ask wikipedia after you dismissed me as a wikipedia reader? Please. You must not know much if you don't know how that 2.5 million block count was calculated.

Yeh! You bet I will! Because EVERYWHERE you look it’s pretty much 2.3 million as the general consensus. Some made up maths about the core , when no one knows how big it is , is pretty damn funny to me .

What, I’m not allowed to use your sources? ?!
What you think I’m going to be hurling buckets of Brien Foerster at you?!

Naughty boy! Close that book!.. said the Wizard of Oz from behind the curtain . a reply to: Harte

.. and that James Melville thing is succinct , is t it ? a reply to: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: bluesfreak
.. and that James Melville thing is succinct , is t it ? a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I believe so.

By the way, I have a "James Melville" that follows me on twit. Not sure if he is the same fellow. Probably not. I certainly would love to spend some time with the one in the video though..

a reply to: Byrd

Excellent point they left no detectable footprints in the manner of artifacts or cultural relics that would have been scattered along trade routes, that IS one to ponder.

Of course if it was that long ago remember also ancient artifacts have a habit of being re-used when they are found, why not reuse ancient jars for example if they are still usable when making new ones or buying them from the point of view of a poor local, the settlements that exist in the region today as they have for thousands and thousands of years not only for the salt miners would also have robbed out any treasure troves they came across and also used any usable stones.

Then there is the sheer time that has elapsed, how deep would any surviving artifacts be and even if there were trails of them reaching out along trade routes that have long since ceased to be the same trade routes as used today even the settlements that may have existed along them would likely have long vanished.

Makes me think of Prof. Angelo Petoni and his controversial claims about the Lady of Mali Formation, so long and only artifacts if that is what they are and I am of a mind to believe him and believe he was NOT liar, would be the ones that were actually actively dug and searched for.

Who is actually digging and searching for evidence of this site and of trade routes today, only a few internet amateur sleuths and more power to them in my opinion, it is men like them that gave birth to Archaeology no matter how stifled and boring it has become and how it may shy away from paradigm breaking ideology's today.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Byrd

Excellent point they left no detectable footprints in the manner of artifacts or cultural relics that would have been scattered along trade routes, that IS one to ponder.

Of course if it was that long ago remember also ancient artifacts have a habit of being re-used when they are found, why not reuse ancient jars for example if they are still usable when making new ones or buying them from the point of view of a poor local, the settlements that exist in the region today as they have for thousands and thousands of years not only for the salt miners would also have robbed out any treasure troves they came across and also used any usable stones.

Then there is the sheer time that has elapsed, how deep would any surviving artifacts be and even if there were trails of them reaching out along trade routes that have long since ceased to be the same trade routes as used today even the settlements that may have existed along them would likely have long vanished.

Makes me think of Prof. Angelo Petoni and his controversial claims about the Lady of Mali Formation, so long and only artifacts if that is what they are and I am of a mind to believe him and believe he was NOT liar, would be the ones that were actually actively dug and searched for.

Who is actually digging and searching for evidence of this site and of trade routes today, only a few internet amateur sleuths and more power to them in my opinion, it is men like them that gave birth to Archaeology no matter how stifled and boring it has become and how it may shy away from paradigm breaking ideology's today.

The trade routes wouldn't have been overland.
Why waste time crossing desolate continents that are teeming with megafauna when all of your settlements are coastal?
And even if they did, what traces would be left after 12000 years?
Arguably, the so called Inca road could be such a thing, but you get the geniuses jumping in with "It was made by the Inca a few hundred years ago.."
Eventhough they have zero proof of that.
It goes exactly as the dimwitted archeologist said about Gunung.
They find an unexplained artifact and shoehorn it in to whatever culture they think was around at the timeframe they feel comfortable pitching the artifact as being created.
Even if that culture says they didn't build it.

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

The trade routes wouldn't have been overland.

They don't need to be. We find evidence of trade that takes place through coastal and oceanic shipping.

And even if they did, what traces would be left after 12000 years?

The very things I mentioned: pottery, stone carvings, jewelry, cloth, bones, coins, leather, swords, etc. You've never been on a dig, I take it, but humans are messy and much older things (remains of houses) even older than Gobekli Tepi (which would be the age of the presumed Atlantis) show up all the time.

Oh... and we have material from the culture that built Gobekli Tepi (and villages as well.)

So if Atlantis had been around and was this wonderfully advanced place, we'd see their administrative buildings in all the places they conquered (good example is all the Roman buildings in Britain) and documents and artifacts from the "mother country" Atlantis. And they'd be in a lot of different cultures, too.

But we don't see this.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Byrd

Excellent point they left no detectable footprints in the manner of artifacts or cultural relics that would have been scattered along trade routes, that IS one to ponder.

Of course if it was that long ago remember also ancient artifacts have a habit of being re-used when they are found, why not reuse ancient jars for example if they are still usable when making new ones or buying them from the point of view of a poor local, the settlements that exist in the region today as they have for thousands and thousands of years not only for the salt miners would also have robbed out any treasure troves they came across and also used any usable stones.

Ancient jars actually get broken and tossed into garbage pits (they're not that durable.) And a lot of things in garbage pits aren't dug up or looted. So there'd be something; a certain style of pottery at a certain level, consistent changes in multiple cultures reflecting a trend (for example, Roman roads all over Europe... the roads themselves show that the Romans were there, along with watchtowers (there was one in Gelnhausen, where I spent part of my childhood - we had no idea what it was and locals said it was the "witches' tower".)

Then there is the sheer time that has elapsed, how deep would any surviving artifacts be and even if there were trails of them reaching out along trade routes that have long since ceased to be the same trade routes as used today even the settlements that may have existed along them would likely have long vanished.

The bulk of the goods would have come into the main towns at that time (Athens, Plato says), not in small outposts. Atlantis would have had to set up garrisons and administrative areas in the places they conquered to ensure loyalty and that the tribute flowed to Atlantis. You do that from the main towns, not the farms.

Who is actually digging and searching for evidence of this site and of trade routes today, only a few internet amateur sleuths and more power to them in my opinion, it is men like them that gave birth to Archaeology no matter how stifled and boring it has become and how it may shy away from paradigm breaking ideology's today.

Actually, no. Internet sleuths aren't the ones digging for them and finding them via satellite and other methods. Here's a link to one published this year about Caribbean trade routes - just search for "news" and "ancient trade routes"... I came up with a bunch of publications and news stories.

It's actually a very interesting and critical area of study in archaeology and history.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

The trade routes wouldn't have been overland.

They don't need to be. We find evidence of trade that takes place through coastal and oceanic shipping.

And even if they did, what traces would be left after 12000 years?

The very things I mentioned: pottery, stone carvings, jewelry, cloth, bones, coins, leather, swords, etc. You've never been on a dig, I take it, but humans are messy and much older things (remains of houses) even older than Gobekli Tepi (which would be the age of the presumed Atlantis) show up all the time.

Oh... and we have material from the culture that built Gobekli Tepi (and villages as well.)

So if Atlantis had been around and was this wonderfully advanced place, we'd see their administrative buildings in all the places they conquered (good example is all the Roman buildings in Britain) and documents and artifacts from the "mother country" Atlantis. And they'd be in a lot of different cultures, too.

But we don't see this.

Nonsense.
I have never heard of a single archaeology study done 2-300 miles off any coast looking specifically for a lost pre YD civilisation....which is where coastal cities from 12000 years ago would be found.
I've heard and seen a lot of childish name calling from supposed professionals throwing a tantrum because the idea they push that makes them money is questioned,though.

As far as your fantastic "digs" go, let me see how close I can get, shall we?
The lead of the project, an older adherent to the narrative picks a spot to dig....probably a midden or some other spot that is no where near that anything new can be found.
They lay out the grid, and a group of initiates are set to the job of painstakingly picking through that square with a tiny trawl and brush or shoveling loose dirt into a screen until they get to the depth for the timeline they are looking to prop up.
If they find nothing, they stop and move elsewhere.

Do they dig deeper to see of there's anything older?
Naaah, there's nothing there because no one could have been here!

Except they were.

Not just a few thousand years previously but probably 100's of thousands of years.
Likely in multiple migrations from multiple vectors over millennia.

Some idiots are still vehemently pushing the Clovis first fantasy and it's even dumber proposal that those people were responsible for the extinction of the megafauna.
They push this ludicrous idea while telling the rest of us that we don't understand hunter-gatherer society.
I don't know, but I've always been under the impression that hunter-gatherers know enough not to murder themselves by killing their entire food supply off in less than a generation.

Why?

Because that's the only way to explain the mass extinction event without invoking an earth changing cataclysm.
If they admit the YD Cataclysm occured, then they have to admit that an ancient pre YD event civilisation is not only possible, but would explain a great many anomalous discoveries that are currently explained in archeo-gibberish that isn't remotely believable.

Careers were ruined over stuff like this because of narcissistic gatekeepers that think like YOU and the other 2 archeophilosophers on here that attempt to maintain the status quo.

I'm curious as to why none of you say anything about how atrocious and widespread the academic practice of character assassination is while clinging to the notion that it is to be reverentialy deferred to regardless of this?

It is well known that academicians are childish narcissistic bullies amongst themselves, that viciously attack new ideas and the blasphemer that presents them.

They admit it.

What's the saying?
New ideas in science arise when the old ideologues die off.
Tell me again about the credibility of your assertions that the "fringe" is absolutely wrong when all the evidence point to the accepted narrative as complete and utter horsesh17.

originally posted by: JoeRelentless
a reply to: Hanslune
The unbelievable delusion.
Here's some archeological truths that are truly laughable:
Pyramids built in just 20 years.

That is one theory - you do know the different between a theory and a fact right? I ask because you don't seem to. So, how long was it then?

The whole clovis culture fiasco.

You mean where they waited until the evidence was found before overturning it? That fiasco? That is exactly how science is suppose to work.

Then Gobekli Tepe popped up, and frigging crickets.

It didn't pop up it was found and reported on by archaeologist - shouldn't they have hidden it?

I'd get into the complete and utter incompetence displayed by the Smithsonian regarding the investigation and preservation of artifacts from the mound building culture in North America, but that would be an entire thread on its own.

I hope you aren't going to go on about giants - however early archaeology WAS very sloppy because they had no methodology. Any profession you'd like name that started off well - Medicine perhaps?

Do I believe the clownish institution of archeology is trying to cover anything up other than the self interest of its grant and accolade chasing adherents?

That doesn't even make any sense? Archaeologist have it in their best interest to find things, and yes those who find new things get tenure, grants, foundations, National Geo documentaries, honorariums, etc. You know what you get if you find nothing? You get to teach at a community college (not that that is a bad thing).

originally posted by: bluesfreak

The whole clovis culture fiasco. How many careers were ruined by the brilliant gatekeepers that refused to accept or even look at evidence that proved them incorrect? Many of them are still pushing that failed theory when they should be sitting quietly in the corner rethinking why they chose the career they did.

Spot on . Clovis is the summation of the Dogmas faced , when trying to unearth the Truth.
J Harland Bretz was also demonised beyond belief for correctly stating that vast , unimaginable amounts of water carved out the Scablands of Washington State.
Research is also challenging the dogma of the Missoula flood, it’s weird theory that an ice dam incapable of holding in so much water (2000 ft of it) melted, re froze, melted, refroze up to 90 times . During a period of melting. This is being challenged and rightfully so.

He was a geologist. Guys when new theories come out they are always,always highly debated especially if the evidence is weak or non-existent. After a while you get two or more sides they tussle but in the end the evidence wins. I would note that there is absolutely no agreement within the fringe (the community of deep thinkers who of course agree on everything) on where Atlantis is - so I wouldn't throw to many rocks about 'non-agreement' and not agreeing. LOL

originally posted by: Byrd
along with watchtowers (there was one in Gelnhausen, where I spent part of my childhood - we had no idea what it was and locals said it was the "witches' tower".)

Only a few hundred years later, and it's already easy to mistake it for some random thing.

Then there is the sheer time that has elapsed, how deep would any surviving artifacts be and even if there were trails of them reaching out along trade routes that have long since ceased to be the same trade routes as used today even the settlements that may have existed along them would likely have long vanished.

The bulk of the goods would have come into the main towns at that time (Athens, Plato says), not in small outposts. Atlantis would have had to set up garrisons and administrative areas in the places they conquered to ensure loyalty and that the tribute flowed to Atlantis. You do that from the main towns, not the farms.

The question is: what should we be looking for?

I've been reading a bit about Gravettian culture lately. Hunters that existed around 33,000 years ago in Europe.

en.wikipedia.org...

Looking at what artifacts they left. They really don't seem much different than medieval Europeans, with the exception that medieval Europeans had steel, and made many things out of steel that Gravettians made out of bone instead.

They had nets that they twined out of something. This makes it likely they had rope as well. Their clothing looks like it was at a similar level of craftsmanship to medieval European clothing, except it's mostly made from treated animal hides. Fur coats are considered a luxury to modern Europeans, but were commonplace among Gravettians.

This is all a far cry from lasers, or sonic levitation, but how would you really tell what tech someone has from just looking at their daily items? I can't even be quite fully sure the Gravettians didn't have steel artifacts also, because it doesn't survive. (But I think they probably didn't.)

a reply to: Byrd
the-past.com...

You're seriously using that as an example?
We're talking about 12000 years ago and you are blathering on about 1000 year old junk that even a casual student of history would assume to be there, probably laying out in the open in a lot of cases.
Incidentally, this irrelevant article starts off with the statement:
"The Caribbean is made up of thousands of islands and cays, which have been home to humans for c.7,000 years. "
I find that hard to believe, even if the Clovis First lie were true, that the earliest anyone was in the Caribbean was 9000 years ago...especially if the evidence holds true that we may have been here for over 100 000.
Or even the more conservative 20000 years ago date, considering 12000 years ago you could facetiously walk there from Florida...

Come back when you have the studies that are being done looking for coastal cities buried around now submerged river deltas on the continental plates that would have been above water 12000 or more years ago.
Surely that must be happening since archeology is so terribly interested in discovering our past...

originally posted by: bluesfreak
delete irrational rant

You still cannot show us where you got the 2.3 can you? You don't see the humor in it? I mean you just believe anything you are told - even if it is wrong. You do understand the fringe uses that number because if is so large it adds to the impossibility of the pyramid being made. So, why is it showing up at wikipedia? Which I can't believe I have to explain to an adult, is not a scientific source.

Why?

Because it has been used for many years and no one challenged it. I have challenged it. Isn't that what you fringe guys are suppose to be doing challenge orthodoxy? Aren't you suppose to find the mistakes? Oh no you don't do that, LOL?

The geologists who did the study about the inclusion are not well known. However the incorporation of the ridgeline into the structure is a fact, I've seen it first hand. I know you don't understand but for lurkers. Wikipedia should never be taken as fact unless you can back it up(which is what the citation are for - the 2.3 is....not cited or supported and is stated to be an estimate - yes it is an estimate and not only that it is clearly wrong.

So, what percent of the total volume is made up by that included ridge?

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

I wouldn't either if I just explained what is actually wrong with the institution of archeology.

So why are all the theories constantly changing? Please explain? Why is fringe unable to come up with a common alternative position? Should archaeology follow their example of irrational chaos?

You do know that archaeology is not an organization, corporation or in any way organized? Its separate people working independently? You do know that right?

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

Come back when you have the studies that are being done looking for coastal cities buried around now submerged river deltas on the continental plates that would have been above water 12000 or more years ago.
Surely that must be happening since archeology is so terribly interested in discovering our past...

....and why is the fringe not funding this research? They are the one who believe there is something there? Orthodoxy doesn't and more importantly those who give out the money. Also if the mainstream does it the fringe will scream they are hiding what they find......

Hancock has millions, you have a few bucks too so why isn't the fringe focusing their alternative butts on this? Would it be they don't want to search? They just want the possibility not the sad fact of finding nothing? - and of course they might actually find something now that would be cool- but are they going to fund any research?

Hell no. Please explain to us - why you aren't attempting to organize that?

Something to consider about the timeline the archeo-scam proposes...
Europe/Mediterranean/Asia/Africa populated by humans for (at recent count) 300 000 years.
Clovis First says: Humans in North America only around 14000 years ago, South America much later.
There's some push back that the evidence shows otherwise, but even thats conservative and the radical stuff is still ridiculed.

Now, there is Lidar evidence that the entire Amazon basin was densely populated and was originallya deforested plain.
It is established fact that more than one of the cities of this era were large metropolises bigger than every citiy in the world at the time with the exception of perhaps Constantinople.
How would that be possible?

This assertion would mean that South America out performed the entire world in population success in a matter of a few thousand years, with a technological level that stagnated and actually reversed almost immediately after they learned how to carve and pile multi-ton boulders...
Only to be dominated and destroyed in less than a couple decades by Europeans, who arguably weren't that far ahead technologically considering their tech tree had a multi-thousand year pedigree.

And all this after scratching by for the 9000+ years since their parent culture failed from killing off their own food supply.

And they have the nerve to call us "Fringe"?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

I wouldn't either if I just explained what is actually wrong with the institution of archeology.

So why are all the theories constantly changing? Please explain? Why is fringe unable to come up with a common alternative position? Should archaeology follow their example of irrational chaos?

You do know that archaeology is not an organization, corporation or in any way organized? Its separate people working independently? You do know that right?

What the hell are you talking about?
Why are the theories constantly changing?
Really?
And you question my understanding of science?
That is science, you dolt.

And there is a common theory that an event occurred that destroyed a precursor civilization that was present prior to the YD event.

The question is to what was the actual event and the nature of the precursor civilization.

You'd know that if you spent less time smirking and making snide remarks about Graham Hancock like a group of jealous high school girls and actually read what is being suggested and the evidence being presented to support it.

I do know that archeology is a monotheistic monopoly that absolutely is not working independently of each other.

You know why I know this?

I'll quote someone that purports to be an expert in the field:
"Should archaeology follow their example of irrational chaos? ".

You know what constitutes irrational chaos?

Separate people working independently of each other (also stated by said expert).

You do know that, Right?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

Come back when you have the studies that are being done looking for coastal cities buried around now submerged river deltas on the continental plates that would have been above water 12000 or more years ago.
Surely that must be happening since archeology is so terribly interested in discovering our past...

....and why is the fringe not funding this research? They are the one who believe there is something there? Orthodoxy doesn't and more importantly those who give out the money. Also if the mainstream does it the fringe will scream they are hiding what they find......

Hancock has millions, you have a few bucks too so why isn't the fringe focusing their alternative butts on this? Would it be they don't want to search? They just want the possibility not the sad fact of finding nothing? - and of course they might actually find something now that would be cool- but are they going to fund any research?

Hell no. Please explain to us - why you aren't attempting to organize that?

Why is the "Orthodoxy" basing their decisions on whether to search for such evidence on what they "feel"?
That's not science, it's philosophy.

Kind of interesting that you use a religious term to describe your totally non-monopolistic non-organised non-group of independent blah, blah, blah believers, isn't it?

Also, Hancock has gone out and spent his own money investigating these things.
As has Randall Carlsson, West, Schoch, UnchartedX, ad nauseum.

The likes of you disregard this research because it wasn't funded by the "ones who give out the money"...the true gatekeepers.

Why don't you question why they won't fund it?
Anyone with a shred of curiosity would question that.
Why don't you?

Jesus Christ, every word you guys say just proves the point that much more.

Zero Credibility.

You still cannot show us where you got the 2.3 can you?

The 2.3 million figure is EVERYWHERE you look. And the laughable misdirection you apply in saying I personally made it up is just totally hilarious.
You and your rude boy mate just don’t like your own oft quoted source material used against you.

You cannot provide the size of the internal core.
You have ZERO proof of the size of the internal bedrock core . NONE. NADA, NOWT.
now some spurious maths is done and a figure is revealed with such a HUGE margin of error that it could suffice as both wrong and right without any serious investigation into the answer .
It’s a total joke .

Can you not see the awful irony that you have become the thing you hate?
You are trying to shoehorn in new figures from ONE single source of flawed and completely made up calculations, with a ludicrous margin of error.

You mention and admit that the group who came up with this figure are ‘not well known’.
You mean they are on the ‘fringe’ ?
They must be if they think that answer has credibility .

So, instead of blaming me personally for the 2.3 million figure, what I suggest you should be concentrating on is your prepared answer to the fact that NOBODY KNOWS how big the internal bedrock hill is , thus invalidating that totally made up figure you think solves the problem.

Sorry , but we can’t have things presented as fact , when they come from made up figures , dreams and wishes .
That made up maths is simply not credible at all.

Hang on …... This sounds so familiar doesn’t it?
Oh yes, it’s usually you and Harte saying these things to the ‘fringe’, who just pluck figures out of the air and try to convince others that it’s true .
More pure comedy gold from you .

Let’s just also take a minute to thank Archaeologists and their institutions for being so kind and caring and open to new ideas . Yes let’s. They are all good old sticks really.
Unless you are Graham Hancock.

These same nice open minded people refused to let Graham WALK round Serpent Mound because they don’t like what he says . Which they literally said in a letter .
A beautiful earthwork made by our own ancestors , and these ‘people’ refused him entry.
These people are not scientists, they are Fascist c***s who don’t want their Dogma challenged or revealed as wrong .

Please explain how this is a good look for your profession, and do you agree that a man who says things that aren’t wanted to be heard , should be physically barred from entering a national monument ?

a reply to: Hanslune