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

Something that must be considered in the story of Atlantis, is the inclusion of other classic civilizations in the story.
It begs the question, how old are these cities, really?
It's not impossible these cities may have been in those locations 11000+ years ago in one form or another.
It's not uncommon for cities to thrive, be all but abandoned, disappear, and then be rebuilt upon more than once over several millennia.

People tend to settle in a spot for a reason.
Even many modern cities in North America are built in places where the natives congregated for millennia.

Baalbeck for instance.

The Roman's build the temple of Jupiter on the pre-existing foundation that was built who knows when by who knows who (yeah, the narrative being pushed that the Roman's built the whole thing is clearly rubbish).
The idea that these civilizations inherited a lot of the megalithic architecture that doesn't fit in with their obviously less sophisticated stonework is just as valid if not more so than the "accepted" story.

These aren't even radical ideas.
Just common sense.
Something that appears to be seriously lacking in the field of archeology.

If I wanted to build a pyramid or make a vase made out of one solid block of granite, you know who I would call for advice? It wouldn't be bloody archaeologist that's for sure.

Heh heh . Me neither mate .
a reply to: JoeRelentless

a reply to: bluesfreak

It's a good point actually, most archaeologists are NOT engineers, stone masons or otherwise skilled so there interpretation is ALWAYS speculative although stick a lot of speculation together and you have a model, make enough of your colleagues and enough of the less informed believe your Speculation is how it really was and pretty soon you have an established model of the past.

There are always great archaeologists though, they are the ones that often go against the paradigm and then there are bad ones whose entire knowledge is based solely on book's or the speculation of other people, they vary though some of them are actually very good as well while others?.

If a pyramid was made of solid stone we would probably not recognize it as such, in fact even if we did there would be all manner of sceptics that would claim it was just an eroded rock formation, mountain or hill.

And if it was buried over time or damaged in some cataclysm the evidence for what it was once would be even harder to distinguish from nature.

So there may indeed be such solid stone pyramids but we probably do not recognize them.

Still we NEED archaeology, not everything they do is correct but it is absolutely better then the vacuum that existed prior to the ever more refined science (loosely as it is not actually science though it does adopt many scientific principles and is about observation but with rather a lot more speculation thrown in than any competent scientists would and far more guesswork than most real science uses) of today.

The problem for the entrenched paradigm is that everyone that looks into it knows that it is wrong, oh it has pretty much right especially in more recent history but it has also a hell of a lot wrong and there are more and more sources questioning the mainstream explanations.
While referencing Youtube is always dodgy I like this young lady's ideas though not directly or even in any real way related to the main subject matter of this thread.
www.youtube.com...@ShatteredHistory
Sorry link did not show correctly so here is one of her videos just watch in on Youtube and then click on her profile to see her other videos, as yet not many but there are some good ones including one that gives a very good natural explanation for mysterious underground tunnels throughout much of northern Europe such as in Germany which I can't get away from the fact on those I believe she is absolutely correct, it also shows she is trying and doing a great job of impartiality in her own views.


And this guy whom is pushing his book on this site is also very intriguing due to his ideas.
beforeatlantis.com...
He spends his time looking at the alignment of ancient sites and comparing them to the position of previous pole positions which of course opens up the questioning of the real dating either for these sites OR for the movement of the pole, if the later is correct then cataclysmic events may be rather more frequent than many would find comforting to say the least.

originally posted by: JoeRelentless
a reply to: Harte
Your MODERN SCIENTIFIC ESTIMATES aren't any more accurate than playing pin the tail on the civilisation, from the Wiki article on Gunang:

"An archaeologist who did not wish to be named due to the involvement of the country's president, stated:

In archaeology we usually find the 'culture' first … Then, after we find out the artefact's age we'll seek out historical references to any civilisation which existed around that period. Only then will we be able to explain the artefact historically. In this case, they 'found' something, carbon-dated it, then it looks like they created a civilisation around the period to explain their finding.[9]"

In otherwords, the SOP is to shoehorn whatever you find into the narrative you already created, instead of realizing that it doesn't fit.

No wonder he didn't want to identify himself.
I wouldn't either if I just explained what is actually wrong with the institution of archeology.

The problem is the lack of evidence for true antiquity at the site.
Would you be surprised that some organic material that old was present under some of the pile of columnar basalt at the site?
Why? Dirt's pretty old you know.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Re Khafre

Its smaller and has an estimated smaller amount of stone also. I've never seen an estimate for how many it has.

It’s bloody massive mate . Massive.
In builders terms, even today, it’s massive .
If it has no internal natural core structure, then it too can have its own set of numbers done according to how long Egyptologist’s know it took to build it .
Wonder how many blocks per minute for that massive structure…

Nothing in Wikipedia regarding Khafre block number? (!

It’s 78 million cubic feet in volume . )
If it has no internal core, it could possibly have MORE blocks in total than the GP.. now that would be funny …..
a reply to: Hanslune

Individual stones in the core of Khufu's pyramid (the part we can see) range in size from football-sized to pickup truck sized.
Much of it is not even stacked stone, just a pile held together by mortar.
Consider then what it means to ask how many stones are in the Great Pyramid.

Harte

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.

Yet all of the above is mainstream today, preClovis having been so for over a quarter century now.
Tell us where "alternative" archaeology has altered its stance based on evidence.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak
What is the evidence for the exact size of the internal hill? The two sets of estimates cause these divisions because:
You don’t know
Egyptologists don’t know
I don’t know
Nobody knows

just admit it .
You just pick the evidence you choose to believe.
Just pick the one that makes archaeology look smart , as they leave such a margin of error that reasonable focus on the actual number of blocks and the calculations that it throws up , can’t be achieved and is muddied.
Half a million blocks is a ridiculous number discrepancy when it comes to fabrication of stone blocks .
These aren’t just numbers , they are objects .
Assumptions made by people who don’t make stuff, about people who did make stuff.
Ever thought about making half a million of anything ?? It’s such a huge number.
a reply to: Harte

Parts of the hill are visible (there are hills inside each of the three main Gizamids.)
So, there's no question it is there. The question is, how did they arrive at the margin for error.
Personally, I don't know, But I bet I could find out.
I just don't care enough about it to do so.
Do you?

Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless
2 million blocks in 20 years = 1 block cut, hauled and placed every 5 minutes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for the entire 20 years.
Only an archaeologist could believe that tripe.

A more reasonable pace would be 15 blocks a day.
That would take 365 years.
Just as unlikely.

So leaves 2 options.
1. Magic
or
2. It was built over successive era's by multiple players.
Not just by Khufu.
It doesn't take any special training to figure that out.
Just common sense.

How about 100 blocks placed every five minutes for a year or so, when the pyramid was only 0 to 20 levels tall and there was room for multiple ramps on each side?
Half of the volume of any pyramid is in the bottom one third of the object.

Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

originally posted by: bluesfreak
What is the evidence for the exact size of the internal hill? The two sets of estimates cause these divisions because:
You don’t know
Egyptologists don’t know
I don’t know
Nobody knows

just admit it .
You just pick the evidence you choose to believe.
Just pick the one that makes archaeology look smart , as they leave such a margin of error that reasonable focus on the actual number of blocks and the calculations that it throws up , can’t be achieved and is muddied.
Half a million blocks is a ridiculous number discrepancy when it comes to fabrication of stone blocks .
These aren’t just numbers , they are objects .
Assumptions made by people who don’t make stuff, about people who did make stuff.
Ever thought about making half a million of anything ?? It’s such a huge number.
a reply to: Harte

There it is...not the first to say it but it remains a fact.
You couldn't trust these fools to put an Ikea coffee table together, yet they are all experts on stone masonry, large scale construction, and logistics of major construction projects.
That's where the stupidity of the claim it was just hunter-gatherers getting together for a little stone carving hobby at Gobekli Tepe.
You want fringe ideas, that takes the cake.

Probably shouldn't criticize a position without bothering to find out why that position is taken.
If you knew anything about a) What a civilization is and b) Gobekli Tepe, you wouldn't make such a crazy claim.

Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless
a reply to: bluesfreak
The numbers don't lie.
But archeologists do.
Can you imagine the log jam of boats on the Nile carrying all those stones to be able to place one every 5 minutes?
They must have really had Asterix and Obelix helping out with some of Getafix' magic potion....

You're making my point.
Over 99% of the stone used in every monument at Giza comes from quarries right there at the feet of the pyramids.

Obviously, you lack information concerning whatever it is you're on about.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

The problem here is that you require the complete removal of all evidence - which means the entire point would then be moot. How do we know there is no Green Lantern? After all, ALL the evidence for Green Lantern could have been removed.

Not quite the same. There’s a difference between ‘removal’ and ‘destruction’.
A relentless campaign to eliminate any stragglers and destroy or steal all they stood for would leave things in disarray dig wise.
The library of Alexandria was destroyed not just to destroy it , but to psychologically destroy too, and cultural knowledge removal.

No, sorry, but that pipe dream has gfone out.
That library fell into severe disrepair when the Romans removed everything the wanted from it and took it to Rome. Nobody bothered with it after that, and it existed for quite some time as an irrelevant anachronism before finally being taken down by Muslims for religious reasons.

You may need to get your info somewhere other than memes on instagram and facebook.

Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

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.

Yeah we know that but YOU are saying archaeology is hindering that change. Your idea of dogma is not supported by the constant change of theories - so it would seem you are the dolt.

You aren't remotely believable which is why you just appeared here with no ID information. You are here to scream at people.


[quote] the evidence being presented to support it.

It wasn't didn't you read his book did you? He says, and I quote, “My speculation, which I will not attempt to prove here or to support with evidence but merely present for consideration, is that the advanced civilization I see evolving in North America during the Ice Age had transcended leverage and mechanical advantage and learned to manipulate matter and energy by deploying powers of consciousness that we have not yet begun to tap.” Graham Hancock, America Before

He's giving his opinion - and NOT supporting it with evidence.

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

That is staggering stupid - okay whose in charge then and where is the adminstrative HQ?

With the comment above you've move to troll status. Why even talk to someone if they are going to pretend you believe something so idiotic. LOL

originally posted by: bluesfreak

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

Just poijnting out what a hypocrite you are.
But I'm glad that at least you decided not to rely ENTIRELY on Joe Rogan interviews for your info.

Harte

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

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.

Show us where sea level rise encroached that far inland.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak
What is the evidence for the exact size of the internal hill? The two sets of estimates cause these divisions because:
You don’t know
Egyptologists don’t know
I don’t know
Nobody knows

We do know they incorporated the ridgeline - we can see the parts that stick out. You can also so they/ve made an estimate. The one thing we can say - is a volume calculation made on a perfect pyramid shape that is solid is incorrect. We can see the slop in the core, we can see the gypsum mortar.

hal.archives-ouvertes.fr...

So what is the number if we KNOW 2.3 is wrong?

Any guesses?

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

originally posted by: bluesfreak

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.

I won’t copy and paste reams of your posts as it’s too much space , but I’m on the same page with you .

Zero credibility in many areas .
That stupid made up sum about the GP core MUST be a joke… well, I keep laughing at it, so it must be.
a reply to: JoeRelentless

It's certainly up for debate how much of the core is a ridge.
I personally think the granite core construction of the interior was built on this ridge with subsequent layers of the pyramid added later over centuries of renovations and add ons..

There is no "granite core construction" at Giza.
You gettin' my point about trying to find out before spouting off yet?

Harte

I didn’t read every single page of this thread but have watched all these YouTube videos concerning this topic. It appears a massive tsunami swept across Africa possibly sweeping the Capital city of Atlantis and the country across a large swath of land in upper Africa out to sea. The evidence is in the video in my opinion of the large tsunami. I am left wondering is someone searching for the source of a massive tsunami? Volcanic eruption causing an inland sea to sweep across Northern Africa? An impact crater as an alternative source? I heard in the video there used to be a large inland sea through parts of Northern Africa so I was just wondering if a volcanic upheaval caused the entire inland sea area to lift up and sweep the area of the Capital of Atlantis out to the Atlantic Ocean leaving nothing but the bedrock where the city used to be. Seems possible.

originally posted by: JoeRelentless

....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......

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

Oh I don't recall any underwater archaeology done off the coast of North America looking for his cities - it would seem GH doesn't fund stuff - so are you paid by him to tell lies? LOL

You are really such a silly troll - to be a good troll you have to be remotely believable - but we'll give you a chance so show us all this research GH is funding to find these cities? Who running the expeditions, which underwater drones are they using, where are they searching?

Zero Credibility.

Yep an excellent description of yourself

originally posted by: liammc
Very interesting topic.... just wondering though as I have been browsing this forum for years now, why is it the same 3 people all the time who are forever "debunking" stuff on this forum?

It's like they are being paid to do it or something. Very strange.

Because the rest of the people that used to debunk the utter BS on this forum got tired of beating their heads against the ignorance wall.

Use the search function. Better yet, use a site-specific google search to see what I mean.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

After all, if you saw something that you knew was wrong, wouldn't you rush to correct it?

Funny though, how when other experts give their input , they are not treated as experts giving their opinion in the same manner.
I have had several run ins with Harte over the use of lathe work in AE.
I am a machinist and I see circular uniform striations every day at work - the resultant tool mark signature of lathe work.
I have seen these forensic markings on many AE bowls , with my own eyes too in museums here, and yet all you hear from these gatekeepers is the mantra
“ they didn’t have lathes “ .

Now I’m not trying to say that I wish a ‘victory ‘ over Harte , and want to make him kneel and say there were lathes (he probably sees it that way) I know what I’m looking at ,
but the disrespect of other expert opinion by these three is not very academic at all.
Byrd is never rude I might add.
But your point isn’t exactly correct, I’m afraid .
a reply to: Hooke

The fact is, there is not a single whit of evidence that lathes were used in ancient Egypt.
Cold hard fact.

You know, if you turn the tool and not the part, it's not a lathe.

Harte