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

originally posted by: Rich Z
As for the likely cause of the destruction of Atlantis, most people apparently still tend to ignore the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky.

...because he is not remotely scientific or believable.

However, tell us what evidence he presented that you think is real and germane?

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Irishhaf

""just another advanced for its time trading nation then the theory doesnt feel as far fetched."


We live on a planet with primitive tribes still existing along side of advanced cultures in today's age.

I am not sure how advanced they were, but what Nation on Earth today will be talked about twelve thousand years from now?

They did do one absolutely remarkable thing. While most ancient civilizations left literally thousands to millions of pieces of evidence 'Atlantis' left absolutely nothing. That is truly amazing, yep not one pot sherd, no burials, no habitations, no stone tools, no use of resources, no shipwrecks, no campsites, no writing - just nothing - while everyone else did even hunter-gather groups.

originally posted by: ConsciousRoots

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Deplorable

Troy was a story till it was found, havent followed it but I know there was an announcement some time ago in the right general area for Sodom and Gomorrah as well, stories about amazon cities that are starting to be found thanks to lidar also.

Ah well the Roman's claimed it for their ancestral home and knew where it was. They use to travel to it and visit it

Here are the sources of Roman's who mentioned it:

[1] Lucan, De bello civili 9.966-99. Lucan records the anecdote that as Caesar walked through a patch of grass, one of the locals called out to him: 'They buried Hector there. Take care not to offend his ghost!'

[2] Thus Erskine (2001:248-50).

[3] Austin (1964:216).

[4] Virgil's literary patron was Augustus' close confidant Maecenas.

[5] Elder Pliny, Naturalis historia 5.124.

[6] Vermeule (1995:476, with note 100).

[7] See Vermeule (1995:477), Sage (2000:217-18).

If the Romans only had such few quotes about Troy then is not possible that an even more ancient civilization would have very little if any written history of it.

About 1% of what the Roman's wrote has come down to us. The Roman's had no idea about Sumer, Indus, Han, Minoans etc.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Harte

Did Plato lie about Solon and the Scrolls of Aziz?

No it wasn't lying it was fiction crafting, i.e., writing a book to make a political point.

originally posted by: McGinty
For me the concentric circles are enough proof that this is indeed the place Plato described. He called it Atlantis and now we have a myopic vision of what Atlantis means; a lone great prehistory civilisation.

But I think there were probably other great cities that may have been part of a single power/culture coexisting. Many of the places that present clues of being Atlantis are the ruins of this global civilisation - just not Atlantic itself. All of these cities probably fell in the same era due to whatever caused a cataclysmic event, or simply climate change.

That particular city described by Plato is imo without too much doubt the eye of Africa.

Despite your belief the evidence doesn't support your contention about the geographic featured called Richat. There is also no evidence of a global lost civilization either.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Harte

The Richat Structure is one of several known examples of an eroded dome and was absolutely not flooded by any sea level rise associated with the end of the last Ice Age.
Its elevation (400 feet above sea level) is FAR too great, and the distance to the ocean is 300 miles from the site.

You really have a way of twisting words don't you. I didn't say it was flooded by rising sea levels, I said sea levels rose rapidly during the Younger Dryas period, even faster than they were already rising due to the ice age ending, because something happened in that time period which caused large floods and released a lot of water into the oceans (something probably caused a lot of ice to suddenly melt), and it occurred at the same time all that sedimentary material was dumped across the area.

You clearly didn't see the post I made a week ago analyzing rising sea levels since the end of the last ice age, I'm aware it wasn't submerged by rising seas, but the area was clearly flooded somehow. And I'd like to see another similar structure on the scale of the Richat Structure and with the same symmetry, got any examples to show? I looked and couldn't see any similar examples on the African continent. However, after thinking about this topic a bit more, I think it's certainly possible the Richat Structure is a natural formation and people chose to make it into a city because of the shape.

Once again you are misinterpreting my words. I was referring to the mythology about the wise leaders who sailed around the world after the Great Flood, the myths which are shown in Graham Hancock's recent Netflix show. I was saying it would make sense for those people to come from Atlantis if it did get destroyed by a large flood, not that they are said to be from Atlantis in the mythology, although it wouldn't surprise me if some ancient myths do say that.

en.wikipedia.org...(geology), the Richat is in an area with little erosion and lack of vegetation making it easier to see than other ones

"wise leaders" a nice myth but a problem arises with this idea: if they did this after Atlantis 'sank' (bit of a problem for Richat) why did the other ancient civilization not rise after it sank 11,000 years ago - ancient Egypt was 3,200 BCE same or slightly earlier for Sumer, Indus and Han were later, Inca was 1400 AD, Maya about 200 BCE etc. What were they doing for 6-7000 thousand years exactly?

a reply to: Hanslune

Apart from Plato describing it as concentric circles and this formation being concentric circles

a reply to: Hanslune

One question, did you even watch the video? It’s the same characters entering the same threads that never even bother to watch the videos presented.

I’m still on the fence about the Richat being Atlantis. Mostly due to the lack of man made evidence. However, it’s pretty difficult to neglect the maps labeling it as such. Furthermore, the clear evidence of a massive geological catastrophe is undoubtedly present. As Jimmy states in the video, maybe the evidence is in the Atlantic Ocean off of the west coast.

a reply to: Hanslune

'Atlantis' left absolutely nothing

tell me you didnt watch the video without saying I didnt watch the video.

If you cant be bothered to watch and listen to what the guy offers to support his argument dont expect much of a discussion with your views.

a reply to: Rich Z

Probably closer than most. Though not accurate, the idea Venus or any other planet moving is thought provoking.

It amazes me that "some" people actually demand we see history, ancient history in only one light, only one school of thought. And that, is where the Iconoclast comes into play.

Being a Iconoclast who has studied the Richat and ancient Geology, I can see the destruction quite clearly. I can also see the forces that created that "One School" mentality that disallows any thought, idea, that might tend to shed light on the subject. To the method, manner, of its destruction is not rocket science, its basic fundamentals hidden in plain sight. I am now at 100+% I am correct.

The "One School" approach has limited our visual abilities to see what lays before our eyes. Therefore, we are not allowed to even consider the possibility that the Ancient gods had advanced knowledge, abilities, we are forbidden to know, understand, comprehend, or duplicate. The "why" itself is the most important part. The answer, may shock you..

Was their a great global society that ruled with a iron fist? One merely has to look around the world to see its ruins. But, to see them in their proper perspective. Ruins that in most cases must be dug out of overgrowth and dirt, or "Flood derbies". The "One School" will allow them to be discussed and even promoted, as long as they are not revealed to be part of the vast global culture, or to be put into their proper perspective, which Plato gave us.

But why was the Ringed City destroyed so completely? For starters, it wasn't completely destroyed, there are ruins, if, you look for them. It is the one city where the gods themselves lived. It is where the "Brotherhood" was established. To expose proof of this would be in essence, the beginning of the end, to their covert, One School, rule. The hidden players, would then be exposed.

The destruction of Ringed City, was a attempt to destroy, a crime scene..

a reply to: LABTECH767

It's definitely an interesting argument for Atlantis, and there is secondary evidence as well. namely that fact that the Mediterranean Sea used to be lower, as well as dongdoga land, that sunk into the ocean. All this points to northern Europe being higher in elevation then sinking. If the sinking occurred catastrophically, then the water would rush through northern Africa, and this could coincide with the destruction of Atlantis. I think he hit the nail on the head, the mud flats where the remnants of this ancient civilization would lay, is the place where excavation should occur. if northern Africa and Europe were higher during the last ice age, and a collapse resulted causing a temporary sinking, then stabilization; you would see the water rush in, then back out to the ocean.

Camain

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Hanslune

'Atlantis' left absolutely nothing

tell me you didnt watch the video without saying I didnt watch the video.

If you cant be bothered to watch and listen to what the guy offers to support his argument dont expect much of a discussion with your views.

"They" dont want to debate, only divert, manipulate. Quite intellectually dishonest.

Someone needs to LIDAR the # out of that area.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: Hanslune

Apart from Plato describing it as concentric circles and this formation being concentric circles

Yep and what size did he state, where did he state it was and what happened to it? You are only taking on one aspect of the story and ignoring the rest. How to you rationalize doing so?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Someone needs to LIDAR the # out of that area.

It doesn't work very well on rock.

Lidar has many uses in archaeology, including planning of field campaigns, mapping features under forest canopy, and overview of broad, continuous features indistinguishable from the ground. Given the terrain a ground survey by humans on foot or aerial photographs would tell you if there was a city in the center. Based on Google Earth there isn't but perhaps Plato - in making up his story instead of stating they used rocks for construction they used wood or mudbrick both of which would have disintegrated over time. Now people HAVE been there and didn't notice a ruined city there.

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: Hanslune

One question, did you even watch the video? It’s the same characters entering the same threads that never even bother to watch the videos presented.

I’m still on the fence about the Richat being Atlantis. Mostly due to the lack of man made evidence. However, it’s pretty difficult to neglect the maps labeling it as such. Furthermore, the clear evidence of a massive geological catastrophe is undoubtedly present. As Jimmy states in the video, maybe the evidence is in the Atlantic Ocean off of the west coast.

The map doesn't label it as such. its located on the Atlas mountains and is based on information 8,000+ years later. No, no sunken island off Cadiz and well the Richat is still there so it didn't sink now did it?

Duplicate

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

"They" dont want to debate, only divert, manipulate. Quite intellectually dishonest.

Yes that is what you label what we call rational investigation and evidence...lol

Why do you think Plato got the details all wrong?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Someone needs to LIDAR the # out of that area.

Based on Google Earth there isn't

I understand Google Earth actually shows some structures.
Definitely there needs to be further GPR and digging in the area.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Harte

Did Plato lie about Solon and the Scrolls of Aziz?

Plato never mentioned Aziz.
Plato was executing a literary mechanism. Might be a little too much for you.
Perhaps you're unaware that Plato actually advocated for telling lies?

Socrates' introduction of the Republic's notorious “noble lie” comes near the end of Book 3 (414b-c). “We want one single, grand lie,” he says, “which will be believed by everybody - including the rulers, ideally, but failing that the rest of the city.” Grand lie? Noble lie? G. R. F. Ferrari has a good note on the issue: “The lie is grand or noble (gennaios) by virtue of its civic purpose, but the Greek word can also be used colloquially, giving the meaning 'a true-blue lie,' i.e. a massive, no-doubt-about-it lie (compare the term 'grand larceny').” This is not the only point on which there might be argument about the translation. Some prefer to “lie” the more neutral “falsehood” (which need not imply deliberate deception), others “fiction ” (perhaps trying to prescind from questions of truth and falsehood altogether).

Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic

Harte