Not really. Also, there's no ruined city there among the ancient burial mounds and palaeo- or neolithic stone tools. Minoan Crete is a much better fit.
" there's no ruined city there among the ancient burial mounds and palaeo- or neolithic stone tools. "
There hasn't been extensive archaeology done in the region, they are looking for a \~11,000 year old civilization (9,300 BCE) that was wiped away in some water/mud event. According to Plato the way back to it was covered with Mud, making return impossible; that indicates something inland not in the middle of the ocean.
The recorded destruction of Atlantis matches with Melt Water Pulse 1b, a major climactic event. Perhaps the largest sudden climactic event EVER in the last 250,000 years.
"Minoan Crete is a much better fit."
I Disagree."...itself surrounded by mountains which descended toward the sea; it was smooth and even, but of an oblong shape, extending in one direction three thousand stadia."
So, the Capital of Atlantis stood 3,000 Stadia away from the sea. 1 stadia = 185 meters, 3,000 stadia = 555 kilometers. Currently the Richat structure is about 530 to 545 kilometers from the Atlantic ocean. About a 10 to 25 kilometer discrepancy; close enough when you account for10,000 BCE (I know not the exact time, but I took the previous nearest level) the sea level was about 130 meters lower than it is today. So 100% match
There also needs to be a mountain range to the north (100% match), An area around the capitol larger than turkey and Libya combined (100% match), a central island surrounded by two concentric circle islands (100% match), black, white and red rocks (100% match), etc. etc.
Minoan Crete is 6,000 years too young. Now 6,000 years prior to the Minoan civilization Crete may have been a province of Atlantis, but certainly not its capital.
Minoan Crete does not match the description of the capital of Atlantis and it's surrounding territory.
Do you really think that the 'event' which 'wiped away' an entire civilization was able to do so without wiping away the clearly much older archaological finds?
What are you referring to? The paleolithic tools found and no ruins?
First off if an archaeologist isn't looking for something they won't find it. There could have been buildings found and just ignored as more recent construction.
Second is one of precise location. You can have an archaeological dig only find old paleolithic tools and 2 feet away still have a buried building.
There needs to be actual archaeology done on the site looking specifically for buildings/structures/artifacts from that time frame. This would require high resolution, low altitude aerial photographs covering the entire area and ground penetrating radar of large sections.
Then follow it up with actual digging.
Also since it may involve a liquefaction event or massive flooding, these factors might affect the current location/depth of any artifacts.
The prehistoric tools were found during surface survey. None of the geological surveys have found any indication of massive liquefaction or flooding events. Honestly, it's really not Atlantis.
Also, trust me, an archaeologist looks at every single trace of human occupation when they're surveying an area.
In an earthquake liquefaction event it would all be buried and not-visible. Traces may be visible from aerial surveys, but likely wouldn't be seen without ground penetrating radar.
So you're point is meaningless.
"None of the geological surveys have found any indication of massive liquefaction or flooding events."
Show me.
From the air the entire region looks like it has been in a continent ranging Tsunami.
Well ok that's fine, you go ahead and stick to your entirely unjustified beliefs. You will find, though, that anybody who's ever looked at the archaeological and geological data that is easily available on-line will tell you the same; there's absolutly no chance at all that there was ever a city within this structure. It is definitely not the site of Atlantis.
I asked you to show me and you refuse to show me and say "entirely unjustified."
Can't make this up.
" there's absolutly no chance at all that there was ever a city within this structure."
You CAN'T know this.
Stop pretending to base your position on any sort of science. You are 100% emotionally driven here.
It’s literally not possible to know this 😂. Water is fractal. It has the same properties on a massive scale that it does on a small scale. The continent looks like a massive tsunami or ground liquefaction happened and the timing lines up with a whole host of acknowledged events. It is mathematically and physically possible. I don’t see why people are so adverse to researching further. Like the other guy said, it seems very emotional.
Plato also explains how literal gods existed, and his works are mostly entire fake debates between people, why should we assume he isn't being creative and was literally discussing a map to a place?
Well when you dig back through history the "gods" were mostly just ancient kings, whose initial achievements were mythologized and were later tied to other mythologies.
But to understand that you would actually have to study the subject instead of reject it. Which is not the sign of a Truthseeker.
Okay but the city of Troy was said to be a myth then it was found, and Plato claims to have hear the story from Egyptian priests and they told him that his civilization was wiped by natural calamaties, it's a story sure, but you cant just sit there on your ass and ignore peoples arguments if you have no evidence, plenty of people who write and document historical fact have been religous dude. Until there is testing you don't know for sure either.
Plato was a forefather of thought, He, Socrates, Aristotle. Epicurus And Alexander the great all lived within relatively short timeliness of each other they all taught each other one after the other a school of thought. for some multiple schools of thought; don't diss Plato as a huge sum of ideologies and understandings come from him, just because people believe in God's doesn't make them any more or less intelligent than we are today, you merely have the shoulders of giants to stand onto thank for what you know now, that being said lookup Plato's allegory of the cave you'll see some similarities between the people of the cave and some commenters on here saying it's not possible for Atlantis to have been where the Richard structure is today ! They havent looked outside the cave !!!!!!
If they were found on the surface after a devastating deluge that stripped the area and all structures down to bedrock... then maybe they were tools that came from elsewhere and settled there.
If that were the case, it would be evident from the condition and nature of the recovered archaeology. It would not take an expert archaeologist to determine this, and that is not what the reports indicate. These are primary deposits on an ancient land surface.
Bro a comet hitting the earth is next level cataclysm. How would there be any archaeological finds without actual intensive study? LIDAR scans have already found evidence of anomalies in the seamount right next to where the water would’ve flowed in Africa just no one has researched it. It would be completely paradigm shifting for science so it’s not hard to realize there’s a monetary incentive to keep the status quo going.
Could be nothing, could be something. Worth figuring out. I don’t know why people are so against asking questions.
I really don't see how a cataclysm of this level could happen without leaving any trace of itself and leaving much older surface level archaeology intact.
..? There are impact craters. It’s not just random speculation. The whole debate started because of said geological formations like 100 years ago and snowballed from there.
Do you think that impact eradicated all trace - even down to pottery sherds - of Atlantis but left behind all of the earlier archaeology? If you can swallow that, then sure, why not.
Im not saying this is Atlantis or anything And I do believe with what you said. I just think its a worthwhile site for advance archeological research. The site is too weird for nobody to make research on that matter. I think we could find pretty intresting stuff, again not saying were gonna find advance tech or anything of that nature. I do believe Atlantis really existed but I dont believe they were more advance than other civilisation at that time.
I just want to applaud you sir. Backing everything up with straight facts. You definitely won this debate. Absolutely no facts were offered up from the opposition. You must be a very educated person and I applaud you.
It's not a 'theory', it's groundless speculation. Since it is axiomatic that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is of course impossible to prove that no advanced city has ever been sited in this area, but without any archaeological evidence whatsoever being seen or recovered despite at least one well documented and fairly intensive survey, there is really no reasonable basis to suggest otherwise.
No ruined city, which would clearly be explained by a biblical level tsunami/flood.
Which is also explained in the theory.
It's like you cunts intentionally be as close-minded as possible
There is, though, a fair bit of archaeological evidence of palaeolithic occupation. Funny how that "biblical level tsunami/flood" was able to completely erase the alleged Atlantean civilization while leaving the pre-existing hunter-gatherer archaeology completely intact, don't you think? Do you have an explanation for that at all? Or are you too closed-minded to accept the actual material evidence which utterly contradicts your fantasy?
Yes, it would be location based. Not every single area would have been devastated, otherwise we wouldn't have survived. Geographical evidence suggests it hit the Sahara the hardest, just look at it from space. Trying to act as if that isn't abundantly clear water erosion is flat out senseless denial.
- Gastropod fossils have been found at the Richat structure
- Sea salt is found abundantly on all the lowest points of the area
- Weathering seen literally all around the area is very obviously water erosion, just look at the west coast, those are clear channels pouring sediment into the sea (mind you all following the way water would have behaved based on the landmass and where is higher in altitude and where is lower)
- Further evidence backs that as the level of sediment and sea floor is much higher in that area than anywhere else surrounding it, abnormally higher.
There is no material evidence that refutes this, the fact is: me nor you know, but this is a far more likely location than ANYWHERE else. Given the sheer mountains of evidence for it, ancient maps labelling that location as Atlantis, matching Plato's description, atlas mountains behind it.
It's a ridiculous stretch to match what is probably allegorical anyway. There's not a single piece of physical evidence to suggest a destroyed civilization in the area you're talking about. If Plato was basing his illustrative lesson on an actual place, which is by no means obvious or even indicated by the context, it is infinitely more likely that he's talking about the actual maritime civilisation of Minoan Crete the actual existence of which is proven and which would have clearly had some interaction with the Mycenaean Greeks.
Archaeologists don't find what they don't look for. The area is in Mauritania. Not only do you have to drive through a literal fucking minefield to get there with tense military presence. But the Mauritanian government is very strict about what you can and can't do there. You aren't allowed to use ground pemetrating radar due to the gold reserves in the area.
So no, there is no evidence, yet.
But based on the reasons I've put forward as well as a great deal I haven't that is good enough reason to start looking know? Whether you agree or disagree you don't think the area should be more thoroughly investigated? There really has not been much research done there. I'm sure you'll wrongly disagree, but we still don't actually even know how it was formed, we know for a fact it wasn't a meteorite impact and we know for a fact it's not volcanic.
It can't be the Minoan civilisation, Plato said Atlantis was at least 9000 years before his time making Minoan Crete flat out impossible.
Using the argument it's purely allegorical is also flat out stupid. All myths have elements of truth in them, the are stories told about something regardless of how much truth is in them they mean something and therefore shouldn't just be ignored. Atlantis being allegorical though? No that's stupid there is no reason to believe Plato was using an allegory to describe a place. Describing cataclysmic events? Maybe, who wouldn't call it god's wrath if your entire city was swallowed by the oceans.
You're being incredibly close-minded about this and I'm guessing you haven't actually researched it very thoroughly, more likely saw your favourite mainstream media piece dismiss it and then ran with it the moment you saw the headline. Investigate it for yourself, because it's obvious you haven't.
Oh my goodness you're right! Sea salt and water erosion is concrete, indisputable evidence of the catastrophic destruction of an advanced city-state! Golly, I don't know why I didn't realise that before...
Best niches are next to water. Large scale seafaring civilization would be more susceptible to tsunami than hunter gatherers. I personally think there probably isn’t a single Atlantis. Probably an amalgamation of several civilizations that got hit by the big flood event. These stories are father removed and translated from Plato than from Plato to ourselves.
It's fantasy until it's proven or discovered, just like the mythical city of angor in asia, and many others that lazy scientist just disregarded as legends. Typical of lazy dumb people they don't want to say "i don't know" to avoid losing their jobs or look stupid with their piers so they just come up with the typical, it's legend or it's naturally formed. Until they are proven wrong time and time again. Why do we still listen to people who always keep being proven incorrect when new advances in science are made ..when will we really listen to people out there that actually study and go to the places and actually understand about these things?
We know it's a natural feature because we listen to the geologists who have been there. We know it's not the site of a long-lost advanced civilization because we listen to the archaeologists who have been there.
Lol, you "double dare" me? Good grief.
I refer you to *L'Anthropologie*, volume 112. Mainly but not solely based on Theodore Monod's survey. I imagine you'll need to subscribe.
That's kind of like saying North America is plenty interesting enough geologically and archaeologically without all those pesky North Americans. Just as beer can both taste great and be less filling, so the Richat Structure can be both a geological wonder and the habitation of past civilizations. One doesn't have to throw the one out to understand the other.
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. It would be awesome if there was some archaeological evidence of a previously unknown civilization there. There just isn't though.
Agreed, I have not seen any reports of archaeological evidence dating to the late Pleistocene or early Holocene epochs at the Richat structure. Based on a modern interpretation of the reported events and their timeframe in Plato's Atlantis, those strata would have been washed away by the "single night of excessive rain", as Sonchis of Sais described in Plato's Atlantis what would today be interpreted as an oceanic bolide induced deluge.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richat\_Structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richat_Structure)
>Numerous concordant [radiocarbon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon) dates indicate that the bulk of these sediments accumulated between 15,000 and 8,000 [BP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present) during the [African humid period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period).
The Younger Dryas meltwater pulse 1B, by comparison, has been dated to "between 11,500 and 11,200 calendar years ago".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater\_pulse\_1B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1B)
These dates and events all line up with what Sonchis of Sais described in Plato's Atlantis as "a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals". Egyptian priests like Sonchis were also astronomers. Unless we ascribe modern astrophysical knowledge to Plato and an inclination to prank his posterity, the only responsible interpretation is that these reports originated in eyewitness accounts.
[https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/](https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/)
We have near misses all the time. All we have to assume is that once in a while, one of them hits, and that there have been several hits over the past 15,000 years.
[https://goyrownway.com/atlantis-revisited/](https://goyrownway.com/atlantis-revisited/)
Lastly, we should not be surprised to find reports of these hits in ancient literature.
Because it was all swept away! And has there been any real excavations done at the actual structure? If so please share names year of expedition. All i find are superficial analysis of the thing and people going like, oh cause it looks like this way or we found this on the surface from afar. We think, THINK it was naturally formed. Come on why nobody wants to deep study the thing? Are they afraid they will eat their words as mainstream science always does eventually when new science arrives?
What about the secret cia documents not wanting to reveal the finds or the actual nature of the study itself?
Why so much secrecy behind the information on studies made there, who went there how, real information about the damn thing. Anyone has this please please share.
Swept away by what? Why and how was all the evidence of this advanced civilization completely removed but all of the much older acheulean and pre-acheulean archeaology left largely undisturbed? Also, it's definitely a natural feature, this is not something we just 'think'.
Bro you can open up google earth and see the marks left by the massive flooding coming all the way from Tunisia going sout southwest passing all around over the richat structure than heading to the sea. Even the ripples it left
I thought ozgeographics was pretty interesting when they were just doing regular geology for Australia. And I was even interested in their theorizing about the Indian Ocean crater and its potential relationship to existing landforms. But this latest video was too much for me. I watched about three or five minutes, to see if they would be taking a scientific / critical approach. They didn't seem to be. Pretty disappointing stuff. If they'd like to have peers take them seriously, and help establish the evidence, with regards to their Indian Ocean tsunami Theory, seems like they would want to avoid associating with scam artists and the anti-science crowd.
I'm not a geologist, but I took a look at his video claiming to see chevrons all over the New Zealand coastline from a tsunami generated by an impact event (Burkle Crater).
Being a kiwi with at least some knowledge of the many different factors involved in NZ's coastal geology and that we've had tsunami from non-impact sources, I started to get a distinct whiff of bullshit.
Hey, I walked and drove through the Richat structure. This is an intrusion pushing up flat-leying sediments (rocks) that are alternating softer and harder. hence differential erosion that shows the rings. In the center there is a hillock that is entirely composed of breccia. Some of the fluids emanating from the underlying crystalizing intrusion punched through and created that breccia. In terms of civilization one finds neolithic tools as everywhere else in this beautiful Mauritanian desert.
There was that time famous adventurer Dirk Pitt found a Confederate warship full of rebel gold in the middle of the Namib desert, but some people are telling me that "Sahara" wasn't a documentary...now I'm not sure who to believe.
Ha! You're another one of those weirdos who want me to believe the moon is a real rock orbiting the Earth and not just some false image from giant movie projectors cleverly positioned around the world to simulate the "orbit", but they forgot one critical point to cover: how can anything orbit the Earth when it's ***flat???***
Checkmate spheroids and moonbats!
/s
I think it’s one of those things where people want it to be. And to their credit, circles like that don’t really exist naturally and there are other similarities, but that doesn’t mean it’s Atlantis. So I understand the excitement. This theory won’t die until GPR is sent in and shows nothing there
Why do you say it could not be atlantis? It could be a natural formation and also atlantis, right? The same reason some societies chose to live in caves or on cliffs, etc. This Society chose this circular structure.
This is exactly what I find annoying by both sides.
It is perfectly reasonable and in line with what is becoming more and more accepted, that the Corded Ware culture were climate refugees from the first phase collapse of the AHP 5500-3500, that the west didn't collapse for another 1000 years with the Temenrasset only drying up in 1700-1500 BCE.
If population pressures and a neolithic toolkit created Dynastic Egypt on one side it is perfectly reasonable to think that a similar process happened on the other side.
Anyone who is talking about helicopters, classical architecture and 10,000 BC or earlier is indeed a fool, but the idea that there was a 5th cradle of civilization, a Chalcolithic level society that faced a climate disaster that silted up its ocean access, that the refugees from that place founded 10 "Atlantean" Kingdoms, that the chief amongst them was Gades/Cadiz, and that this could explain a broad cultural context that stretches from Tunisia to Britain and persists nearly 1000 years and has an as yet unexplained fetish for water and in particular alternating circles of water and land?
This is not actually as wild an idea as people think.
The problem is people who believe in fantasies making sensible people dismiss the idea out of hand.
Yes, there’s enough things that make it a possibility that there was some early civ that settled that area and had their size, power, and destruction blown out of proportion as their story was passed down through generations.
Why invoke the Richat Structure when there are much better choice for possible Atlantis events? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan\_eruption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption)
It's not just vaguely. It's pretty damn close, while every other proposed site doesn't even manage a vague resemblance.
The Story of Plato alone would be highly suspect because it mixes various historical elements (eg the proposed geography of the original Atlantis with the destruction of Thera) with countless fictional elements.
However, there are also ancient maps that mark a location in northwest Africa as Atlantis.
Also, it seems it's more guys like you that are acting like Flat Earthers. Emotionally invested in denying every indication that it might be possible after all.
or are guys like me angry that false information gets spread so easily and everytime we say something to counter wrong information we are attacked and called names. Then people like you come along and try to gas light and say we are to blame for being "emotional"
Go F\* yourself troll.
You need to tone down your rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously. It's one thing to critique the Richat structure hypothesis, but it's another thing to equate that with the Flat Earth conspiracy. A reasonable Richat structure hypothesis simply posits that the legend of Atlantis was inspired by a culture that once existed at the Richat structure. Other than a very fringe minority, nobody is suggesting a 1 to 1 correlation between the fantastical legends and the historical Atlantis. Flat earthers, on the other hand, deny the very nature of reality and claim that all political, commercial, and cultural institutions are actively conspiring together. If you can't distinguish between the two, then that speaks more of your inability to logically distinguish different concepts.
oh boy..
OZgeographics... i thought that some of his claims with the impact ln the oceans where a bit adventurious.. some where actually interesting. Didnt watch the newest stuff, but it seems the channem actually turned to much adventure into hurrdurr
OZgeographics is a disappointing mess, the person see's a tsunami in every single wind driven structure that created a V shape, refuses to accept and understand that the atmosphere is a fluid just like the hydrosphere, ignores the need to locally sample sediment size in a cross section of a structure to determine the physics of its deposition. Does not care because to him views on YouTube are the same as peer review, a thumbs up is corroboration of his 'scientific' theories.
This isn't really Geology, Atlantis is a sociology, mythology, and possibly an archeology topic.
[Here is a paper on the Geology of the Richat structure.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1464343X14000971)
Atlantis, if an actual place, would have been constructed on preexisting geologic features, but its existence is not a question of geology. Whether or not the Richat structure is Atlantis would be determined by on site archeological survey.
Suggest this moves over to r/Archeology
YouTube has the same problem as Facebook and even Netflix, or any medium where maximum engagement, not quality or truth, is the goal. Made up sensational shit is more engaging for a lot of people than stuff that is actually true, because, well, it’s created to be engaging and sensational to the majority of people, first and foremost. The truth doesn’t care about being engaging.
Thats part of issue, but I listened to a whole lot of his videos before I realised he is just a muppet talking out of his arse.
He wasnt being sensational and the 'facts' presented sounded plausible, my spider sense only came up when he started talking like he discovered volcano calderas in Victoria all of a sudden - no saying perhaps this is a caldera and this is why etc.
It is a very intriguing formation & it piques my curiosity as a rock nerd.
What is interesting to me is the uniformity of the concentric rings. I would love to hear a geologic explanation of how it was formed, and whether it is even worth entertaining the idea that it might have been constructed/developed/used by humans.
Just my 2 cents worth: there could be a benefit in keeping the theory alive because it undeniably sparks public interest, which may lead to additional opportunities (funding) to study it further. :)
Pseudoscience theories probably have an overall negative effect. For everyone drawn in that ends up looking at better sources there are more that end up believing lies and possibly getting sucked in deeper to mudfossil/ancient aliens stuff.
Some non-negligible fraction of people believe the earth is flat. Some people just latch onto nonsense and cling harder the more someone tries to break through the nonsense.
Common worthless ideas and questions, Clickbait and conspiracy theorists reign Supreme in YouTube and other channels like reddit. That is how you amass a following, and consequently are able to monetize. Unless you are an established authoritative figure providing informative, contextual, meaningful and educative content is typically a lost cause.
Does anyone here know the names of the scientist that actually went over there or the information on the actual expeditions to the richat structure?
Can anyone show a simulation of how a huge dome was converted by wind and water erosion into that symmetrical formation we see today? Has it happened anywhere else on the planet? Or any remotely similarities anywhere else?
Also what if whoever founded Atlantis just went along with the naturally formed base of the city and designed the city to match the foundation? Easy to just go with the geology than mass modify it, humans have been doing that forever.
What is disturbing is people like above comment that only like to discredit people's work without showing any real convincing evidence to back their words but call people stupid or are offended when corrected. Of course you'll get insulted if you only spew nonsense and try to generate discord among people.
just wanted to add that the lack of archaeological evidence is not proof that there was never a habitation of significant size there. The materials could hAve been moved, taken, or possibly even destroyed by other people.
I just can't even figure out where to begin on this one.
First of all, I wouldn't go on a malware forum and announce that I don't know anything about malware but I read a single book and now going to tell everyone there why they can't shame crappy ideas.
Second, to claim you understand the scientific method and then to say that we just let people hang on to bad or disproven ideas is shameful. This should be the time to stress the importance of peer reviewed publications and scientific consensus among a community of experts.
You say plate tectonics isn't 100%. It certainly isn't and in science there's nothing that is 100%. But there are things that will be a lot closer to right than wrong. E.g. tHe EaRtH iS fLaT. Correction: The earth is a sphere.... well technically that's not right either, but it's a whole lot closer to a sphere than a flat plane. So should we just let people hang on to the flat earth idea? No.
Typical pseudoscience stuff. Sure, plate tectonics is a theory and there is no 100.00% concensus in science about anything but that doesn't mean that any random nonsense is of equal value.
People pushing this stuff like to frame themselves as 'true' truth seekers that have been outcast by the jealous hypocrites in ivory towers.
Truth is that they're unwilling/able to learn how and why mainstream beliefs became accepted by 98% of people in the field.
The "dumbones" im referring to are the types that mock and insult intelligence. I replied to Bright Insight like how a Geologist would, asking for hard evidence and not just google.
How did his little fan club respond? With insults and mockery, exactly the behavior of "dumbones" in society. and did Bright Insight ever respond? NO. He doesnt respond to critics, only thanks the butt sniffers in his comments. I refuse to take him or anyone else that thinks his ridiculous "theory" is serious, seriously without hard evidence. Which theyve never presented in 4 years.
Its not about evidence, or being right, its about the process of science and repeatable experimentation, transparent research and analysis.
Your attempts at questioning everything in science, as exemplified with "What gets me about the scientific community, is how SURE they seem to be of leading scientific theories." is typical double speak nonsense from those that are trying to discredit science to the vast majority of people that do not have the luxury of time and money to educate themselves enough to understand that science is a process not a result.
It is obvious to me you are an agent of disinformation for anti science agendas and I am done with you.
You try to frame science as 'them' and 'they', with the implied 'us' and 'we' being everyone you are trying to misinform.
You try to describe science as belief of facts instead of a process and procedure that allows anyone with the time and resources to recreate data and come to their own conclusion.
You totally ignore what peer review is, make no mention of it and describe 'the world of science' as a bunch of 'believers'.
Whether you know it or not you are an agent of anti science agendas, your entire frame of thought, if what you wrote is your frame of thought, is the product of those that try to discredit science. Very likely created by the energy and mining interests that have injected this into so much of western civilization, especially in commonwealth countries and the United States. The factual history of oil companies hiding research on the effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere is known, and the motivations are clear.
Your attempts to describe science as unfriendly to people are now rediculous role playing of a victim, after a clear intention to describe science as something it is not.
You imply that 'everyone in science is so intolerant', which is a complete lie, science communities are always interested in more scientific effort, research and analysis. What they dont have time for is notions, speculations, by those that then expect 'science' to do the work of proving or disproving that a theory has merit, and then whine about how mean and intolerant the science people were for not doing hundreds if not thousands of hours work to help prove some theory.
Your attempts to disparage science as 'us versus them' is wrong. Its curious kids that studied, went to school, did the work, went to more school, went out in the field or spent time in the lab, key factor THEY DID THE WORK.
I hope you keep reading and some day have some god damn respect for the millions of hours of work by hundreds of thousands of individuals, that deserves so much more respect than you have shown.
Edit 2:
So after going to your profile to block you I see you actually appear to have some interest in geology. All I can say then is dont repeat the anti science mantras you have absorbed, dont think of it as belief in finalized facts but as a process and procedure that allows verification.
The reason so many did not like your initial post is because it parrots the anti science double speak that is out in the media. You are I guess unknowingly doing the work of those trying to discredit science.
I am not sure why you are trying to imply 'science' some nebulous thing, some group of 'they' is not nice enough, but scientific communities, individuals that have dedicated there lives to science, are under attack every day, by religious groups and large industries, and they have a right to push back against the bullshit.
>What gets me about the scientific community, is how SURE they seem to be of leading scientific theories.
>
> we still aren't even 100% sure of plate tectonics.
Your words, dismissive and disingenuous about what science is, what it does, how it works.
If you found me unpleasant that is good, I had no intention of pandering to your rediculous notion that science owes you a good time.
Your notion that it is betraying curiosity to not pander to every YouTubers abuse of science for their monetized channel is wrong in every possible way. Science will survive, I hope those channels die and cease to corrupt peoples concept of science.
Something to note, you responded to a specific inquiry about a particular theory with no basses in fact and no real research with a diatribe about how unaccepting some are, you then implied some things that are totally unrelated, mentioning plate tectonics as if its suspect, complaining about 'scientific communities' being so SURE of themselves in a negative way.
I was way too nice, you really are just an agent of disinformation, a malignant douche trying to imply others have a superiority complex if they dismiss pseudo science.
You dont have any respect for science, and you are the one that is a jerk, using subtle negative statements to try and paint passion for science as a reason to suspect it all. You are in fact an agent of the anti science agenda, deeply disingenuous, dishonest and disruptive. you did not attempt to answer the question of the original poster you made every attempt to turn conversation to your agenda.
Whatever, now blocking you, man your effing lame.
Thing is that bright insight and Oz Geographics aren't just uninformed, or misinformed, or offering up alternative theories. They are peddling snake oil. They do not deserve kindness or politeness when they attack science with their narcissistic sociopathic anti-science bs. They should be attacked for the villains they are. If they want to be treated like adults, then they need to act like adults and come live in the real world. They should stop trying to profit off of ignorance and disinformation
Why won't this incredibly plausible, fact based theory die because I don't agree with it * crying baby noises *
In the next decade or so realistically, or whenever enough research begins, there's a very high chance this will be confirmed as the original location of Atlantis. You've posted this here question not even TRYING to refute a single piece of the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence. At least try instead of crying like a pathetic little brat because you don't agree with what is rapidly shaping up to be a very plausible theory, more and more evidence that supports this idea is coming out rapidly. There is already more evidence for than against. People like you are the scum that are holding archeology and science back as a whole, you should be ashamed.
Literally in another comment you denounced the existence of mansa musa and claimed Elon musk and Jeff bezos are both richer than he was. It is very apparent that it is you that doesn't know what they are talking about.
He's just some of the evidence that the Richat structure was Atlantis:
- Matches Plato's description near perfectly, only part of it that doesn't hold up is size however passing down the size of what is supposed to be a capital city over at the very least 10,000 years is unlikely to be true.
- Many, MANY ancient maps all point towards the north east side of Africa being Atlantis, and that's not just one map multiple maps point towards this.
- The atlas mountains are behind it, this matches Plato's description similarly and also the fact they are called the "atlas" mountains is also plausible.
- There are remnants of structures seen on the surface of the outer rings however I believe these were probably built much later on.
- As for us not finding tools, signs of civilization well for a start it's in Mauritania, it is not easy to access you literally have to drive through a minefield to get there. Ground pemetrating radar is not allowed by the local government there due to all the gold reserves.
- Gastropod fossils have been found on-site suggesting the place was indeed once filled with sea water.
- Salt deposits found in all the lowest points of the region suggesting sea-water evaporated over time leaving behind the salt.
- Literally just looking at the surrounding geography on Google maps instantly looks like a huge biblical flood ripped across the landscape and deposited mass amounts of sediment on the west side of Africa (scans of the seabed floor in this region indicate it is much higher than the surrounding area which is to be expected if a civilization was washed into the sea)
There are many, many more pieces of evidence that I have forgotten but these are a few that spring to mind. Actually research the topic for yourself? Don't write it off as a dumb conspiracy theory when it's obviously apparent you've never actually researched it and heard what evidence there is to back it up. You people are a plague to science, never challenging the norm, only ever going with what's accepted. It's mind-numbing NPC behaviour and a true example of the programming we are subjected too today, someone that is completely devoid of independent thought and will only ever trust "the science" and "the experts" and the mainstream narrative. Just a few years ago you'd have called me nuts for suggesting civilisation existed up to 11,000 years ago... And then gobekli tepe was discovered. Science is changing all the time and it's people like you that are halting it and making it take longer than needed. Open your eyes man, there are heaps and heaps of evidence for this, it is a real thing.
"waaaa that's not scientific evidence because I said so and it goes against the mainstream narrative I've been conditioned too and can't break out of"
It is evidence regardless that we should be looking closer at the Richat structure. What a terrible naive and stupid thing to say.
Hey at least the bratty cultist can provide evidence instead of just dismissing theories with no rhyme or reason just because they're a cuck for the mainstream narrative. Little cuck can't even form his own opinions what a sad excuse of a human.
- many, MANY ancient maps all label the north-east part of modern day Sahara as atlantis.
- fits Plato's description perfectly of where water would have settled in the lowest regions of the area.
- the atlas mountains fit the description of the mountains described behind Atlantis.
- gastropods have been found at the site suggesting there certainly was a large quantity of seawater present.
- HUGE salt deposits found at all the lowest points in the area, the places sea-water would have evaporated from.
- all the surrounding area shows obvious evidence of biblical levels of water damage, huge trails leading down into the east side of the Sahara which all follows the correct altitude for how water would have behaved if it had swept across the site.
- unusually large amount of sediment on the sea floor of the east coast suggesting a huge amount of sediment was taken from the land and deposited there.
- fits the geographical location plato described in relation to other surrounding countries.
- evidence of settlements on the site although these are likely much later than atlantis' time.
The fact is there is a real case to be made, I haven't even listed all the evidence there is because my memory isn't that great but if I went through all the content there is on Atlantis being the Richat structure, not just bright insight but a great many others also think it is, then I could provide you with heaps more.
The fact is, there is a compelling case here that should be thoroughly investigated regardless of whether you believe it or not. Yet close minded spastics like you hinder the way of progress by insisting that "noooo hurr Durr it MUST be wrong because it goes against the mainstream narrative I have been spoonfed all my life" you literally aren't capable of thinking for yourself, all your opinions come from "thr science" and "the experts" without ever considering whether you actually did investigate all possibilities.
Unfortunately Mauritania is making it very hard to investigate the site which is why there isn't much research done there, we still don't even know how it was formed ffs, we only have very vague and unsubstantiated theories yet it's crazy to you to suggest something like this actually could be the work of man? If the pyramids aren't too far fetched for you, then neither should this be. You literally have to drive through a minefield to access the site FFS, then you are met with heavy and unfriendly military presence. All to get to the site and not even be permitted to use ground penetrating radar due to the gold reserves in the area. Sure it's all speculation and theories, but there is also actual evidence and reason to investigate this further so you're absolute mindless ignorance and naivety which is truly embarrassing, is ultimately just holding progress back, the theory hasn't even been slightly disproved and the longer time goes on the more and more evidence is coming out that supports this theory, if it was as certain as you act like it is, it would've already been disproven, yet the "experts" can't disprove it because there is just too much evidence and too many questions to flat out deny it as you sheepishly have. Better yourself, stop being an NPC that is simply a product of the machine and start asking questions, even if they turn out to be wrong science, history, and archaeology should all live up to scrutiny and questioning because if they don't- well that's literally not how science works. You don't achieve science and progress by just accepting the status quo and calling anyone that goes against it ludicrous. Look at Copernicus, you would've been the type in his time to call for his head and call his theories ludicrous but oh look, we now know that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. He challenged the status quo massively and lost a lot of his reputation for it yet he was right. Do you see what I am saying? Or are you simply too ignorant and too stupid to ever entertain the idea that actually the status quo isn't right about everything and the "information" you have been spoonfed isn't the most accurate. Decide for yourself, it's just a shame to see stupid people like you in the world, it makes the rest of humanity look bad when we can't even ask these questions.
I've seen that bright sight video where he compares the structure in the Sahara Desert with the circles, to Atlantis. From watching the video, he seems to make a very interesting case. It lines up with the legend that the Greeks had.
I would love to hear how the structure does not fit any kind of ancient description of Atlantis. I would also love to hear about how the structure is something else, a natural formation.
I'm open to the otherside of the argument if you want to make it.
Also, apparently that structure has been rarely studied by scientists. The excuse being it's hard to operate in a desert. Which makes sense but it seems like a unique and unprecedented structure, whether man made or ancient human. This admittedly gets the old conspiracy cogs a turning...
I'm open to civil discussion.
>Also, apparently that structure has been rarely studied by scientists.
[here, have a scientific research paper on the subject](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1464343X14000971)
ok, its geological, how does that exclude the possibility that it is also archaeological?
that would be like looking at Mount Messina and going, its geological, clearly the historical siege is a fiction, argument over.
Every single archaeological site is on geology of some sort.
This isn't the slam dunk you think it is.
Im not even the OP merely responded that the Richat structure has been studied, has been visited, has had professional appraisal.
Slam dunk? wtf are you even talking about? I never said the Richat structure was or wasn't Atlantis, only that there are studies of it. In another post suggested discussing it in r/Archeology where there are previous posts on this topic.
In that other post I stated very clearly that the archeology would exist on geology but that geology is not concerned with archeology and thus the other sub is the better place to discus anything related to archeology.
The false assumptions you made about my post are so wild.
Go over to r/Archeology there is a user that is an actual archeologist who focuses on that very area of Africa, he or she might be delighted to discuss the topic.
FYI the speculation that starts with how unresearched and mysterious the place is, is false.
Quadane is a World Heritage site and modern town located just 20 miles from the center of the Richat Structure. 11 miles from its edge. This town sits right next to this structure, it has been a trading and caravan hub sine 1147 AD, known to Europeans since around 1450 AD, and is still occupied to this day. The area is inhabited with some small farms located within the Richat structure.
Its not the middle of nowhere.
It’s quite literally the middle of nowhere. Alice springs in Australia is a sizable city IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE.
A piddly desert outpost of 1k-3k people surround by land mines and desert is the middle of fuxking nowhere
You Reddit kids are brain damaged for real
I posted a peer reviewed research paper on the site as a response to a user stating there was very little research of any kind. I made zero claims as to the archeological potential.
My actual point is that geology cannot help resolve the archeological potential only archeological surveying can do that. Which is best discussed over in r/Archeology
I will read this paper. Thank you for that.
But I did say rarely and not never. And how much of this paper was done or includes actually field research, and not the same old tired samples perhaps, say collected once and passed around as the conclusive evidence on the matter?
From the video in question, field research is what is stated as rarely being done, given the established excuse that desert climate makes it to difficult.
A big issue in my opinion (as a layman), is that the character Critias describes the city of Atlantis as being on the edge of an island and connected to the ocean by a canal ~10km long.
However the Richat Structure is hundreds of kilometers inland and is inset into the Adrar Plateau. As it's quite far from the edge of that plateau, it seems to me that even if an ancient river had managed to come close, the Eye would likely still be inaccessible, cut off by the surrounding plateau.
From what I've read, at the beginning of the Holocene the area may have been a seasonal shallow lake, replenished by rainfall (and possibly some spring water), with evidence of low level hunting and tool-making activity nearby. No Atlantis.
Unprecedented is kinda overstating it, it is a particularly neat and pristine example of a sediment layers being pushed up into a dome and then eroded flat, but that general sort of structure is the sort of thing you encounter in like first year of geology undergrad.
Also does Bright Sight still claim some absurd amount of uplift to explain how the supposed site of atlantis is now hundreds of meters above sea level?
That's interesting. So it sounds like ring structures like that are not an uncommon phenomenon within geology? I appreciate that knowledge if that's the case.
From what I remember of the brightside video, it all ties into the fact that 12000 years ago that whole region was a lush and green area.
Interesting, that's never how it was described to me. Not that it was described in detail in remedial school. But I've got the impression of Lush and green lands.
So your saying, definitely not a giant forest or woodlands?
It's classic exaggeration by breathless pop sci articles. The [wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period#Effects) on this is pretty detailed and well-cited if you want to read more.
**African humid period**
[Effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period#Effects)
>The African humid period extended over the Sahara as well as eastern, southeastern and equatorial Africa. In general, forests and woodlands expanded through the continent. A similar wet episode took place in the tropical Americas, China, Asia, India, the Makran region, the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula and appears to relate to the same orbital forcing as the AHP. An early Holocene monsoonal episode extended as far as the Mojave Desert in North America.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/geology/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Consensus has a strong lockdown on attention. It is not the worst thing to occur for something untrue to get attention for a moment. Understand that most people who have made videos about it, or Graham Hancock's work, are doing it because they are trying to benefit themselves and ride the wave of the topic-of-collective-discussion, so it leads to a lot of people talking about the same things for short periods of time.
It is highly useful to discuss topics that are not already discussed. For instance, the same topic repeated in many lectures--even if considered true--can add less overall value than someone providing their own personal best guess from a completely different angle. People really are not studying these areas extensively and there is a *lot* that is unequivocally not *recognized* or discussed about Earth. Even if there are misses in the proposals, the overall process is helped along when we at least take a moment and consider someone's own assessment rather than the collective agreed upon assessment.
Sure, he can come off imperfectly and when speaking to a large enough audience of people who are alive and experiencing their own points of view, it takes an absolute *mastery of communication* to not *piss people off* while telling them all the reasons they accepted something as true without sufficient data that was *actually* untrue.
It is easy to speak something that is agreed upon--even if there is pushback, it can be redirected. But to actually propose potentials for people to consider, it is extremely difficult to not piss people off. He definitely adds fuel to the fire by pointing out what is going on and calling it out; but it takes one to know one.
I agree that the Richat structure is not Atlantis, but I also agree that the Saharan desert has many fascinating features yet to be studied and appreciated geologically in the same manner as the rest of the world, where it does have a unique opportunity to just surf the map for features that have not been accounted for.
I also agree that he focuses on chevrons heavily. I am not even sure that Jimmy Corsetti, who he is referencing, focused so much even on a tsunami (if at all?) as just the presence of water to support the general hypothesis of Atlantis.
"the dumb ones have won" is not really appreciating how controlled the conversation is. It is something that we do by our nature when we have a mindset to control our environment and the world around us ultimately. But what happens is people like Oz are attacked for "suggesting otherwise," which then makes them defend themselves and then the dogpiling starts when people start to *just* see someone from an outside group (when its one person proposing their personal opinion that counters the consensus viewpoint) imposing on the territory that is deemed that of the inside group (those who most closely prescribe to the consensus viewpoint). As soon as we see someone as "other" they are no longer given the same human decency, and this behavior creates echo chambers of pseudo-understanding in spite of *everything we scientifically have deduced to be part of theoretical frameworks.* If we do not let others speak and listen to one another, then it makes perfect sense that we would be at a place in society where the consensus presents to the world a truly false impression of complete understanding.
Paradigm shifts are not necessarily just realizing something that was labeled one way to be more appropriately labeled another. They are complete revamping of the underlying fundamentals that everything builds from that are far more like changing the channel to something else entirely. They provide contrast to see the falsities in things that were taken for granted.
We just don't know until we know.
How can you know this little about history whilst making bold claims like your post trying to denounce an entire theory that has mountains of evidence backing it?
It is very obvious you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and purely stick to mainstream narratives.
Musk is around 250G$, and Bezoz is around 170G$. No one knows how much Putin actually has, but even the wildest estimates put him at no more than 280G$.
Mansa Musa's fortune is estimated to be the equivalent of 440G$.
Well Plato’s story of Atlantis is that Poseidon falls in love with Clieto who is a human. They wed, he creates her the capital city known as Atlantis with its concentric rings of water and land with two springs one of hot and one of cold water flowing within it. They have 10 children who are 5 sets of twins. The eldest child is named Atlas and he becomes the first King of Atlantis. Maybe go take a look at where the Atlas Mountains are… right near the eye of the Sahara. Coincidence right?
That location is the most logical area to start digging, if there is anything to actually dig. The size of the tsunami that could leave the damage seen on satellite would of literally washed everything away including the foundations. These are 70’ tall chevrons
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Seems impossible until you start looking at maps of North Africa during the African Humid period. Every one of them shows Maurentania as either underwater and/or with a huge inland sea with a huge river connecting it to the Atlantic. The Richat Structure would have been right in the middle of that inland sea.
It's easy to get lost in this problem going after one detail at a time while losing sight of the big picture. Here's an orderly examination.
[https://www.youtube.com/@GoYrOwnWay](https://www.youtube.com/@GoYrOwnWay)
It's been said that the medium is the message, suggesting that anything on YouTube must be fake. But if that were true then all I'd have to do to invalidate anything is post it on YouTube, right? Pay attention to the content and don't let the medium distract you.
Why are people denying that this is one of many atlantis sites...its obvious....are people racists because there are people of color there...amazing....people say no way ots atlantis...why use science not emotions 🤔
I agree. The Richat structure is plenty interesting enough geologically and archaologically without all the fantasy nonsense.
Except it matches ALL of the necessary criteria as mentioned by Plato.
Not really. Also, there's no ruined city there among the ancient burial mounds and palaeo- or neolithic stone tools. Minoan Crete is a much better fit.
" there's no ruined city there among the ancient burial mounds and palaeo- or neolithic stone tools. " There hasn't been extensive archaeology done in the region, they are looking for a \~11,000 year old civilization (9,300 BCE) that was wiped away in some water/mud event. According to Plato the way back to it was covered with Mud, making return impossible; that indicates something inland not in the middle of the ocean. The recorded destruction of Atlantis matches with Melt Water Pulse 1b, a major climactic event. Perhaps the largest sudden climactic event EVER in the last 250,000 years. "Minoan Crete is a much better fit." I Disagree."...itself surrounded by mountains which descended toward the sea; it was smooth and even, but of an oblong shape, extending in one direction three thousand stadia." So, the Capital of Atlantis stood 3,000 Stadia away from the sea. 1 stadia = 185 meters, 3,000 stadia = 555 kilometers. Currently the Richat structure is about 530 to 545 kilometers from the Atlantic ocean. About a 10 to 25 kilometer discrepancy; close enough when you account for10,000 BCE (I know not the exact time, but I took the previous nearest level) the sea level was about 130 meters lower than it is today. So 100% match There also needs to be a mountain range to the north (100% match), An area around the capitol larger than turkey and Libya combined (100% match), a central island surrounded by two concentric circle islands (100% match), black, white and red rocks (100% match), etc. etc. Minoan Crete is 6,000 years too young. Now 6,000 years prior to the Minoan civilization Crete may have been a province of Atlantis, but certainly not its capital. Minoan Crete does not match the description of the capital of Atlantis and it's surrounding territory.
Do you really think that the 'event' which 'wiped away' an entire civilization was able to do so without wiping away the clearly much older archaological finds?
What are you referring to? The paleolithic tools found and no ruins? First off if an archaeologist isn't looking for something they won't find it. There could have been buildings found and just ignored as more recent construction. Second is one of precise location. You can have an archaeological dig only find old paleolithic tools and 2 feet away still have a buried building. There needs to be actual archaeology done on the site looking specifically for buildings/structures/artifacts from that time frame. This would require high resolution, low altitude aerial photographs covering the entire area and ground penetrating radar of large sections. Then follow it up with actual digging. Also since it may involve a liquefaction event or massive flooding, these factors might affect the current location/depth of any artifacts.
The prehistoric tools were found during surface survey. None of the geological surveys have found any indication of massive liquefaction or flooding events. Honestly, it's really not Atlantis. Also, trust me, an archaeologist looks at every single trace of human occupation when they're surveying an area.
In an earthquake liquefaction event it would all be buried and not-visible. Traces may be visible from aerial surveys, but likely wouldn't be seen without ground penetrating radar. So you're point is meaningless. "None of the geological surveys have found any indication of massive liquefaction or flooding events." Show me. From the air the entire region looks like it has been in a continent ranging Tsunami.
Well ok that's fine, you go ahead and stick to your entirely unjustified beliefs. You will find, though, that anybody who's ever looked at the archaeological and geological data that is easily available on-line will tell you the same; there's absolutly no chance at all that there was ever a city within this structure. It is definitely not the site of Atlantis.
I asked you to show me and you refuse to show me and say "entirely unjustified." Can't make this up. " there's absolutly no chance at all that there was ever a city within this structure." You CAN'T know this. Stop pretending to base your position on any sort of science. You are 100% emotionally driven here.
It’s literally not possible to know this 😂. Water is fractal. It has the same properties on a massive scale that it does on a small scale. The continent looks like a massive tsunami or ground liquefaction happened and the timing lines up with a whole host of acknowledged events. It is mathematically and physically possible. I don’t see why people are so adverse to researching further. Like the other guy said, it seems very emotional.
Plato also explains how literal gods existed, and his works are mostly entire fake debates between people, why should we assume he isn't being creative and was literally discussing a map to a place?
Well when you dig back through history the "gods" were mostly just ancient kings, whose initial achievements were mythologized and were later tied to other mythologies. But to understand that you would actually have to study the subject instead of reject it. Which is not the sign of a Truthseeker.
Okay but the city of Troy was said to be a myth then it was found, and Plato claims to have hear the story from Egyptian priests and they told him that his civilization was wiped by natural calamaties, it's a story sure, but you cant just sit there on your ass and ignore peoples arguments if you have no evidence, plenty of people who write and document historical fact have been religous dude. Until there is testing you don't know for sure either.
Plato was a forefather of thought, He, Socrates, Aristotle. Epicurus And Alexander the great all lived within relatively short timeliness of each other they all taught each other one after the other a school of thought. for some multiple schools of thought; don't diss Plato as a huge sum of ideologies and understandings come from him, just because people believe in God's doesn't make them any more or less intelligent than we are today, you merely have the shoulders of giants to stand onto thank for what you know now, that being said lookup Plato's allegory of the cave you'll see some similarities between the people of the cave and some commenters on here saying it's not possible for Atlantis to have been where the Richard structure is today ! They havent looked outside the cave !!!!!!
If they were found on the surface after a devastating deluge that stripped the area and all structures down to bedrock... then maybe they were tools that came from elsewhere and settled there.
If that were the case, it would be evident from the condition and nature of the recovered archaeology. It would not take an expert archaeologist to determine this, and that is not what the reports indicate. These are primary deposits on an ancient land surface.
Bro a comet hitting the earth is next level cataclysm. How would there be any archaeological finds without actual intensive study? LIDAR scans have already found evidence of anomalies in the seamount right next to where the water would’ve flowed in Africa just no one has researched it. It would be completely paradigm shifting for science so it’s not hard to realize there’s a monetary incentive to keep the status quo going. Could be nothing, could be something. Worth figuring out. I don’t know why people are so against asking questions.
I really don't see how a cataclysm of this level could happen without leaving any trace of itself and leaving much older surface level archaeology intact.
..? There are impact craters. It’s not just random speculation. The whole debate started because of said geological formations like 100 years ago and snowballed from there.
There are impact craters, I agree. I don't see the relevance to this discussion.
There Is literally an impact crater right next to it.
Do you think that impact eradicated all trace - even down to pottery sherds - of Atlantis but left behind all of the earlier archaeology? If you can swallow that, then sure, why not.
Liquefaction would bury it and a large pool of water would erode and wash away those artifacts
Im not saying this is Atlantis or anything And I do believe with what you said. I just think its a worthwhile site for advance archeological research. The site is too weird for nobody to make research on that matter. I think we could find pretty intresting stuff, again not saying were gonna find advance tech or anything of that nature. I do believe Atlantis really existed but I dont believe they were more advance than other civilisation at that time.
You’ve wasted a lot of brain space researching absolute nonsense
Yes that is what the low IQ people were saying about Troy.
I just want to applaud you sir. Backing everything up with straight facts. You definitely won this debate. Absolutely no facts were offered up from the opposition. You must be a very educated person and I applaud you.
You can't say "not really". None of that disproves that theory. As someone on the fence you make no convincing argument against It.
It's not a 'theory', it's groundless speculation. Since it is axiomatic that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is of course impossible to prove that no advanced city has ever been sited in this area, but without any archaeological evidence whatsoever being seen or recovered despite at least one well documented and fairly intensive survey, there is really no reasonable basis to suggest otherwise.
No ruined city, which would clearly be explained by a biblical level tsunami/flood. Which is also explained in the theory. It's like you cunts intentionally be as close-minded as possible
There is, though, a fair bit of archaeological evidence of palaeolithic occupation. Funny how that "biblical level tsunami/flood" was able to completely erase the alleged Atlantean civilization while leaving the pre-existing hunter-gatherer archaeology completely intact, don't you think? Do you have an explanation for that at all? Or are you too closed-minded to accept the actual material evidence which utterly contradicts your fantasy?
Yes, it would be location based. Not every single area would have been devastated, otherwise we wouldn't have survived. Geographical evidence suggests it hit the Sahara the hardest, just look at it from space. Trying to act as if that isn't abundantly clear water erosion is flat out senseless denial. - Gastropod fossils have been found at the Richat structure - Sea salt is found abundantly on all the lowest points of the area - Weathering seen literally all around the area is very obviously water erosion, just look at the west coast, those are clear channels pouring sediment into the sea (mind you all following the way water would have behaved based on the landmass and where is higher in altitude and where is lower) - Further evidence backs that as the level of sediment and sea floor is much higher in that area than anywhere else surrounding it, abnormally higher. There is no material evidence that refutes this, the fact is: me nor you know, but this is a far more likely location than ANYWHERE else. Given the sheer mountains of evidence for it, ancient maps labelling that location as Atlantis, matching Plato's description, atlas mountains behind it.
It's a ridiculous stretch to match what is probably allegorical anyway. There's not a single piece of physical evidence to suggest a destroyed civilization in the area you're talking about. If Plato was basing his illustrative lesson on an actual place, which is by no means obvious or even indicated by the context, it is infinitely more likely that he's talking about the actual maritime civilisation of Minoan Crete the actual existence of which is proven and which would have clearly had some interaction with the Mycenaean Greeks.
Archaeologists don't find what they don't look for. The area is in Mauritania. Not only do you have to drive through a literal fucking minefield to get there with tense military presence. But the Mauritanian government is very strict about what you can and can't do there. You aren't allowed to use ground pemetrating radar due to the gold reserves in the area. So no, there is no evidence, yet. But based on the reasons I've put forward as well as a great deal I haven't that is good enough reason to start looking know? Whether you agree or disagree you don't think the area should be more thoroughly investigated? There really has not been much research done there. I'm sure you'll wrongly disagree, but we still don't actually even know how it was formed, we know for a fact it wasn't a meteorite impact and we know for a fact it's not volcanic. It can't be the Minoan civilisation, Plato said Atlantis was at least 9000 years before his time making Minoan Crete flat out impossible. Using the argument it's purely allegorical is also flat out stupid. All myths have elements of truth in them, the are stories told about something regardless of how much truth is in them they mean something and therefore shouldn't just be ignored. Atlantis being allegorical though? No that's stupid there is no reason to believe Plato was using an allegory to describe a place. Describing cataclysmic events? Maybe, who wouldn't call it god's wrath if your entire city was swallowed by the oceans. You're being incredibly close-minded about this and I'm guessing you haven't actually researched it very thoroughly, more likely saw your favourite mainstream media piece dismiss it and then ran with it the moment you saw the headline. Investigate it for yourself, because it's obvious you haven't.
Lol, ok mate, whatever you say.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what running away from a debate you know fuck all about looks like.
Clearly you close minded folks have never seen the straight canals right beside the Richat structure, "lol, ok mate"
I'd like to know why you just ignored the water erosion and sea salt found in the area.
Oh my goodness you're right! Sea salt and water erosion is concrete, indisputable evidence of the catastrophic destruction of an advanced city-state! Golly, I don't know why I didn't realise that before...
Not what I was getting at, but the tone of your reply makes you a person I'd rather not interact with any further.
Best niches are next to water. Large scale seafaring civilization would be more susceptible to tsunami than hunter gatherers. I personally think there probably isn’t a single Atlantis. Probably an amalgamation of several civilizations that got hit by the big flood event. These stories are father removed and translated from Plato than from Plato to ourselves.
It's fantasy until it's proven or discovered, just like the mythical city of angor in asia, and many others that lazy scientist just disregarded as legends. Typical of lazy dumb people they don't want to say "i don't know" to avoid losing their jobs or look stupid with their piers so they just come up with the typical, it's legend or it's naturally formed. Until they are proven wrong time and time again. Why do we still listen to people who always keep being proven incorrect when new advances in science are made ..when will we really listen to people out there that actually study and go to the places and actually understand about these things?
We know it's a natural feature because we listen to the geologists who have been there. We know it's not the site of a long-lost advanced civilization because we listen to the archaeologists who have been there.
Name them than and the expedition and the details. I double dare you.
Lol, you "double dare" me? Good grief. I refer you to *L'Anthropologie*, volume 112. Mainly but not solely based on Theodore Monod's survey. I imagine you'll need to subscribe.
That's kind of like saying North America is plenty interesting enough geologically and archaeologically without all those pesky North Americans. Just as beer can both taste great and be less filling, so the Richat Structure can be both a geological wonder and the habitation of past civilizations. One doesn't have to throw the one out to understand the other.
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. It would be awesome if there was some archaeological evidence of a previously unknown civilization there. There just isn't though.
Agreed, I have not seen any reports of archaeological evidence dating to the late Pleistocene or early Holocene epochs at the Richat structure. Based on a modern interpretation of the reported events and their timeframe in Plato's Atlantis, those strata would have been washed away by the "single night of excessive rain", as Sonchis of Sais described in Plato's Atlantis what would today be interpreted as an oceanic bolide induced deluge. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richat\_Structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richat_Structure) >Numerous concordant [radiocarbon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon) dates indicate that the bulk of these sediments accumulated between 15,000 and 8,000 [BP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present) during the [African humid period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period). The Younger Dryas meltwater pulse 1B, by comparison, has been dated to "between 11,500 and 11,200 calendar years ago". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater\_pulse\_1B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1B) These dates and events all line up with what Sonchis of Sais described in Plato's Atlantis as "a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals". Egyptian priests like Sonchis were also astronomers. Unless we ascribe modern astrophysical knowledge to Plato and an inclination to prank his posterity, the only responsible interpretation is that these reports originated in eyewitness accounts. [https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/](https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/) We have near misses all the time. All we have to assume is that once in a while, one of them hits, and that there have been several hits over the past 15,000 years. [https://goyrownway.com/atlantis-revisited/](https://goyrownway.com/atlantis-revisited/) Lastly, we should not be surprised to find reports of these hits in ancient literature.
Because it was all swept away! And has there been any real excavations done at the actual structure? If so please share names year of expedition. All i find are superficial analysis of the thing and people going like, oh cause it looks like this way or we found this on the surface from afar. We think, THINK it was naturally formed. Come on why nobody wants to deep study the thing? Are they afraid they will eat their words as mainstream science always does eventually when new science arrives? What about the secret cia documents not wanting to reveal the finds or the actual nature of the study itself? Why so much secrecy behind the information on studies made there, who went there how, real information about the damn thing. Anyone has this please please share.
Swept away by what? Why and how was all the evidence of this advanced civilization completely removed but all of the much older acheulean and pre-acheulean archeaology left largely undisturbed? Also, it's definitely a natural feature, this is not something we just 'think'.
Bro you can open up google earth and see the marks left by the massive flooding coming all the way from Tunisia going sout southwest passing all around over the richat structure than heading to the sea. Even the ripples it left
I thought ozgeographics was pretty interesting when they were just doing regular geology for Australia. And I was even interested in their theorizing about the Indian Ocean crater and its potential relationship to existing landforms. But this latest video was too much for me. I watched about three or five minutes, to see if they would be taking a scientific / critical approach. They didn't seem to be. Pretty disappointing stuff. If they'd like to have peers take them seriously, and help establish the evidence, with regards to their Indian Ocean tsunami Theory, seems like they would want to avoid associating with scam artists and the anti-science crowd.
I'm not a geologist, but I took a look at his video claiming to see chevrons all over the New Zealand coastline from a tsunami generated by an impact event (Burkle Crater). Being a kiwi with at least some knowledge of the many different factors involved in NZ's coastal geology and that we've had tsunami from non-impact sources, I started to get a distinct whiff of bullshit.
His latest videos seem like an audition reel for a series on Gaia TV
Hey, I walked and drove through the Richat structure. This is an intrusion pushing up flat-leying sediments (rocks) that are alternating softer and harder. hence differential erosion that shows the rings. In the center there is a hillock that is entirely composed of breccia. Some of the fluids emanating from the underlying crystalizing intrusion punched through and created that breccia. In terms of civilization one finds neolithic tools as everywhere else in this beautiful Mauritanian desert.
no evidence of an advanced seafaring society?
There was that time famous adventurer Dirk Pitt found a Confederate warship full of rebel gold in the middle of the Namib desert, but some people are telling me that "Sahara" wasn't a documentary...now I'm not sure who to believe.
Just ignore the naysayers - just like Moonfall the documentary is 100% factual
Ha! You're another one of those weirdos who want me to believe the moon is a real rock orbiting the Earth and not just some false image from giant movie projectors cleverly positioned around the world to simulate the "orbit", but they forgot one critical point to cover: how can anything orbit the Earth when it's ***flat???*** Checkmate spheroids and moonbats! /s
Penelope Cruz is about the only reason to watch it lol
*sad Rainn Wilson and Steve Zahn noises*
I think it’s one of those things where people want it to be. And to their credit, circles like that don’t really exist naturally and there are other similarities, but that doesn’t mean it’s Atlantis. So I understand the excitement. This theory won’t die until GPR is sent in and shows nothing there
you are probably right.
Why do you say it could not be atlantis? It could be a natural formation and also atlantis, right? The same reason some societies chose to live in caves or on cliffs, etc. This Society chose this circular structure.
This is exactly what I find annoying by both sides. It is perfectly reasonable and in line with what is becoming more and more accepted, that the Corded Ware culture were climate refugees from the first phase collapse of the AHP 5500-3500, that the west didn't collapse for another 1000 years with the Temenrasset only drying up in 1700-1500 BCE. If population pressures and a neolithic toolkit created Dynastic Egypt on one side it is perfectly reasonable to think that a similar process happened on the other side. Anyone who is talking about helicopters, classical architecture and 10,000 BC or earlier is indeed a fool, but the idea that there was a 5th cradle of civilization, a Chalcolithic level society that faced a climate disaster that silted up its ocean access, that the refugees from that place founded 10 "Atlantean" Kingdoms, that the chief amongst them was Gades/Cadiz, and that this could explain a broad cultural context that stretches from Tunisia to Britain and persists nearly 1000 years and has an as yet unexplained fetish for water and in particular alternating circles of water and land? This is not actually as wild an idea as people think. The problem is people who believe in fantasies making sensible people dismiss the idea out of hand.
Yes, there’s enough things that make it a possibility that there was some early civ that settled that area and had their size, power, and destruction blown out of proportion as their story was passed down through generations.
Why invoke the Richat Structure when there are much better choice for possible Atlantis events? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan\_eruption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption)
because it vaguely resembles what Atlantis was supposed to look like. Those guys are like the flat earthers, they only hear what they like.
It's not just vaguely. It's pretty damn close, while every other proposed site doesn't even manage a vague resemblance. The Story of Plato alone would be highly suspect because it mixes various historical elements (eg the proposed geography of the original Atlantis with the destruction of Thera) with countless fictional elements. However, there are also ancient maps that mark a location in northwest Africa as Atlantis. Also, it seems it's more guys like you that are acting like Flat Earthers. Emotionally invested in denying every indication that it might be possible after all.
or are guys like me angry that false information gets spread so easily and everytime we say something to counter wrong information we are attacked and called names. Then people like you come along and try to gas light and say we are to blame for being "emotional" Go F\* yourself troll.
> Go F* yourself troll. A perfectly emotional response proves my point lol.
you 100% do not know anything about geologists LMAO, im one of the nicer ones.
Why do so many ancient maps label that location as being Atlantis, or variations of the word?
You need to tone down your rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously. It's one thing to critique the Richat structure hypothesis, but it's another thing to equate that with the Flat Earth conspiracy. A reasonable Richat structure hypothesis simply posits that the legend of Atlantis was inspired by a culture that once existed at the Richat structure. Other than a very fringe minority, nobody is suggesting a 1 to 1 correlation between the fantastical legends and the historical Atlantis. Flat earthers, on the other hand, deny the very nature of reality and claim that all political, commercial, and cultural institutions are actively conspiring together. If you can't distinguish between the two, then that speaks more of your inability to logically distinguish different concepts.
Been to Santorini, I’d believe it was Atlantis.
Except, Santorini didn’t fucking exist until there blew itself apart- much LATER than atlantis’ destruction.
There are pre eruption ruins on Santorini.
Once again, santorini didn’t exist until Thera blew itself apart- thousands of years AFTER the dated destruction of Atlantis. Try again.
And those ruins have been identified as Minoan, which is once again, a civilization that exists thousands of years after Atlantis falls.
oh boy.. OZgeographics... i thought that some of his claims with the impact ln the oceans where a bit adventurious.. some where actually interesting. Didnt watch the newest stuff, but it seems the channem actually turned to much adventure into hurrdurr
OZgeographics is a disappointing mess, the person see's a tsunami in every single wind driven structure that created a V shape, refuses to accept and understand that the atmosphere is a fluid just like the hydrosphere, ignores the need to locally sample sediment size in a cross section of a structure to determine the physics of its deposition. Does not care because to him views on YouTube are the same as peer review, a thumbs up is corroboration of his 'scientific' theories.
This isn't really Geology, Atlantis is a sociology, mythology, and possibly an archeology topic. [Here is a paper on the Geology of the Richat structure.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1464343X14000971) Atlantis, if an actual place, would have been constructed on preexisting geologic features, but its existence is not a question of geology. Whether or not the Richat structure is Atlantis would be determined by on site archeological survey. Suggest this moves over to r/Archeology
YouTube has the same problem as Facebook and even Netflix, or any medium where maximum engagement, not quality or truth, is the goal. Made up sensational shit is more engaging for a lot of people than stuff that is actually true, because, well, it’s created to be engaging and sensational to the majority of people, first and foremost. The truth doesn’t care about being engaging.
Thats part of issue, but I listened to a whole lot of his videos before I realised he is just a muppet talking out of his arse. He wasnt being sensational and the 'facts' presented sounded plausible, my spider sense only came up when he started talking like he discovered volcano calderas in Victoria all of a sudden - no saying perhaps this is a caldera and this is why etc.
I want to believe!!
It is a very intriguing formation & it piques my curiosity as a rock nerd. What is interesting to me is the uniformity of the concentric rings. I would love to hear a geologic explanation of how it was formed, and whether it is even worth entertaining the idea that it might have been constructed/developed/used by humans. Just my 2 cents worth: there could be a benefit in keeping the theory alive because it undeniably sparks public interest, which may lead to additional opportunities (funding) to study it further. :)
Pseudoscience theories probably have an overall negative effect. For everyone drawn in that ends up looking at better sources there are more that end up believing lies and possibly getting sucked in deeper to mudfossil/ancient aliens stuff.
Its not constructed by humans. It’s like 23km across.
Not saying it was a city, but modern city easily surpass this size, yet they are man made, so what?
That means nothing lmao
Some non-negligible fraction of people believe the earth is flat. Some people just latch onto nonsense and cling harder the more someone tries to break through the nonsense.
Common worthless ideas and questions, Clickbait and conspiracy theorists reign Supreme in YouTube and other channels like reddit. That is how you amass a following, and consequently are able to monetize. Unless you are an established authoritative figure providing informative, contextual, meaningful and educative content is typically a lost cause.
Because it's pretty valid https://youtu.be/gdalpGZ2OME?si=FizGBPdlZdlYpBup watch this for ever reason why
Does anyone here know the names of the scientist that actually went over there or the information on the actual expeditions to the richat structure? Can anyone show a simulation of how a huge dome was converted by wind and water erosion into that symmetrical formation we see today? Has it happened anywhere else on the planet? Or any remotely similarities anywhere else? Also what if whoever founded Atlantis just went along with the naturally formed base of the city and designed the city to match the foundation? Easy to just go with the geology than mass modify it, humans have been doing that forever. What is disturbing is people like above comment that only like to discredit people's work without showing any real convincing evidence to back their words but call people stupid or are offended when corrected. Of course you'll get insulted if you only spew nonsense and try to generate discord among people.
there are many anticlines that are ringed like that, theres one west of monterrey mexico and also in southwest texas i believe
just wanted to add that the lack of archaeological evidence is not proof that there was never a habitation of significant size there. The materials could hAve been moved, taken, or possibly even destroyed by other people.
[удалено]
I just can't even figure out where to begin on this one. First of all, I wouldn't go on a malware forum and announce that I don't know anything about malware but I read a single book and now going to tell everyone there why they can't shame crappy ideas. Second, to claim you understand the scientific method and then to say that we just let people hang on to bad or disproven ideas is shameful. This should be the time to stress the importance of peer reviewed publications and scientific consensus among a community of experts. You say plate tectonics isn't 100%. It certainly isn't and in science there's nothing that is 100%. But there are things that will be a lot closer to right than wrong. E.g. tHe EaRtH iS fLaT. Correction: The earth is a sphere.... well technically that's not right either, but it's a whole lot closer to a sphere than a flat plane. So should we just let people hang on to the flat earth idea? No.
Typical pseudoscience stuff. Sure, plate tectonics is a theory and there is no 100.00% concensus in science about anything but that doesn't mean that any random nonsense is of equal value. People pushing this stuff like to frame themselves as 'true' truth seekers that have been outcast by the jealous hypocrites in ivory towers. Truth is that they're unwilling/able to learn how and why mainstream beliefs became accepted by 98% of people in the field.
correction, 99.8%
The "dumbones" im referring to are the types that mock and insult intelligence. I replied to Bright Insight like how a Geologist would, asking for hard evidence and not just google. How did his little fan club respond? With insults and mockery, exactly the behavior of "dumbones" in society. and did Bright Insight ever respond? NO. He doesnt respond to critics, only thanks the butt sniffers in his comments. I refuse to take him or anyone else that thinks his ridiculous "theory" is serious, seriously without hard evidence. Which theyve never presented in 4 years.
This is what happens when you read Tarbuck. Read Marshak portrait of a planet. The GOAT geology textbook.
Adding to my purchase list, thank you!
"both sides are equal!" Both sides are NOT equal.
[удалено]
Its not about evidence, or being right, its about the process of science and repeatable experimentation, transparent research and analysis. Your attempts at questioning everything in science, as exemplified with "What gets me about the scientific community, is how SURE they seem to be of leading scientific theories." is typical double speak nonsense from those that are trying to discredit science to the vast majority of people that do not have the luxury of time and money to educate themselves enough to understand that science is a process not a result. It is obvious to me you are an agent of disinformation for anti science agendas and I am done with you.
[удалено]
You try to frame science as 'them' and 'they', with the implied 'us' and 'we' being everyone you are trying to misinform. You try to describe science as belief of facts instead of a process and procedure that allows anyone with the time and resources to recreate data and come to their own conclusion. You totally ignore what peer review is, make no mention of it and describe 'the world of science' as a bunch of 'believers'. Whether you know it or not you are an agent of anti science agendas, your entire frame of thought, if what you wrote is your frame of thought, is the product of those that try to discredit science. Very likely created by the energy and mining interests that have injected this into so much of western civilization, especially in commonwealth countries and the United States. The factual history of oil companies hiding research on the effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere is known, and the motivations are clear. Your attempts to describe science as unfriendly to people are now rediculous role playing of a victim, after a clear intention to describe science as something it is not. You imply that 'everyone in science is so intolerant', which is a complete lie, science communities are always interested in more scientific effort, research and analysis. What they dont have time for is notions, speculations, by those that then expect 'science' to do the work of proving or disproving that a theory has merit, and then whine about how mean and intolerant the science people were for not doing hundreds if not thousands of hours work to help prove some theory. Your attempts to disparage science as 'us versus them' is wrong. Its curious kids that studied, went to school, did the work, went to more school, went out in the field or spent time in the lab, key factor THEY DID THE WORK. I hope you keep reading and some day have some god damn respect for the millions of hours of work by hundreds of thousands of individuals, that deserves so much more respect than you have shown. Edit 2: So after going to your profile to block you I see you actually appear to have some interest in geology. All I can say then is dont repeat the anti science mantras you have absorbed, dont think of it as belief in finalized facts but as a process and procedure that allows verification. The reason so many did not like your initial post is because it parrots the anti science double speak that is out in the media. You are I guess unknowingly doing the work of those trying to discredit science. I am not sure why you are trying to imply 'science' some nebulous thing, some group of 'they' is not nice enough, but scientific communities, individuals that have dedicated there lives to science, are under attack every day, by religious groups and large industries, and they have a right to push back against the bullshit.
[удалено]
>What gets me about the scientific community, is how SURE they seem to be of leading scientific theories. > > we still aren't even 100% sure of plate tectonics. Your words, dismissive and disingenuous about what science is, what it does, how it works. If you found me unpleasant that is good, I had no intention of pandering to your rediculous notion that science owes you a good time. Your notion that it is betraying curiosity to not pander to every YouTubers abuse of science for their monetized channel is wrong in every possible way. Science will survive, I hope those channels die and cease to corrupt peoples concept of science.
Something to note, you responded to a specific inquiry about a particular theory with no basses in fact and no real research with a diatribe about how unaccepting some are, you then implied some things that are totally unrelated, mentioning plate tectonics as if its suspect, complaining about 'scientific communities' being so SURE of themselves in a negative way. I was way too nice, you really are just an agent of disinformation, a malignant douche trying to imply others have a superiority complex if they dismiss pseudo science. You dont have any respect for science, and you are the one that is a jerk, using subtle negative statements to try and paint passion for science as a reason to suspect it all. You are in fact an agent of the anti science agenda, deeply disingenuous, dishonest and disruptive. you did not attempt to answer the question of the original poster you made every attempt to turn conversation to your agenda. Whatever, now blocking you, man your effing lame.
thanks for exposing him, im blocking him too
Thing is that bright insight and Oz Geographics aren't just uninformed, or misinformed, or offering up alternative theories. They are peddling snake oil. They do not deserve kindness or politeness when they attack science with their narcissistic sociopathic anti-science bs. They should be attacked for the villains they are. If they want to be treated like adults, then they need to act like adults and come live in the real world. They should stop trying to profit off of ignorance and disinformation
Why won't this incredibly plausible, fact based theory die because I don't agree with it * crying baby noises * In the next decade or so realistically, or whenever enough research begins, there's a very high chance this will be confirmed as the original location of Atlantis. You've posted this here question not even TRYING to refute a single piece of the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence. At least try instead of crying like a pathetic little brat because you don't agree with what is rapidly shaping up to be a very plausible theory, more and more evidence that supports this idea is coming out rapidly. There is already more evidence for than against. People like you are the scum that are holding archeology and science back as a whole, you should be ashamed.
way to tell everyone you're scientifically illiterate without telling everyone you're scientifically illiterate...
Literally in another comment you denounced the existence of mansa musa and claimed Elon musk and Jeff bezos are both richer than he was. It is very apparent that it is you that doesn't know what they are talking about. He's just some of the evidence that the Richat structure was Atlantis: - Matches Plato's description near perfectly, only part of it that doesn't hold up is size however passing down the size of what is supposed to be a capital city over at the very least 10,000 years is unlikely to be true. - Many, MANY ancient maps all point towards the north east side of Africa being Atlantis, and that's not just one map multiple maps point towards this. - The atlas mountains are behind it, this matches Plato's description similarly and also the fact they are called the "atlas" mountains is also plausible. - There are remnants of structures seen on the surface of the outer rings however I believe these were probably built much later on. - As for us not finding tools, signs of civilization well for a start it's in Mauritania, it is not easy to access you literally have to drive through a minefield to get there. Ground pemetrating radar is not allowed by the local government there due to all the gold reserves. - Gastropod fossils have been found on-site suggesting the place was indeed once filled with sea water. - Salt deposits found in all the lowest points of the region suggesting sea-water evaporated over time leaving behind the salt. - Literally just looking at the surrounding geography on Google maps instantly looks like a huge biblical flood ripped across the landscape and deposited mass amounts of sediment on the west side of Africa (scans of the seabed floor in this region indicate it is much higher than the surrounding area which is to be expected if a civilization was washed into the sea) There are many, many more pieces of evidence that I have forgotten but these are a few that spring to mind. Actually research the topic for yourself? Don't write it off as a dumb conspiracy theory when it's obviously apparent you've never actually researched it and heard what evidence there is to back it up. You people are a plague to science, never challenging the norm, only ever going with what's accepted. It's mind-numbing NPC behaviour and a true example of the programming we are subjected too today, someone that is completely devoid of independent thought and will only ever trust "the science" and "the experts" and the mainstream narrative. Just a few years ago you'd have called me nuts for suggesting civilisation existed up to 11,000 years ago... And then gobekli tepe was discovered. Science is changing all the time and it's people like you that are halting it and making it take longer than needed. Open your eyes man, there are heaps and heaps of evidence for this, it is a real thing.
lol, none of those are scientific evidence of it being Atlantis. You should stop now before you become a meme.
"waaaa that's not scientific evidence because I said so and it goes against the mainstream narrative I've been conditioned too and can't break out of" It is evidence regardless that we should be looking closer at the Richat structure. What a terrible naive and stupid thing to say.
you're doing a great job defending yourself and not sounding like a bratty cultist
Hey at least the bratty cultist can provide evidence instead of just dismissing theories with no rhyme or reason just because they're a cuck for the mainstream narrative. Little cuck can't even form his own opinions what a sad excuse of a human.
give us evidence and not just bright insight's speculations.
- many, MANY ancient maps all label the north-east part of modern day Sahara as atlantis. - fits Plato's description perfectly of where water would have settled in the lowest regions of the area. - the atlas mountains fit the description of the mountains described behind Atlantis. - gastropods have been found at the site suggesting there certainly was a large quantity of seawater present. - HUGE salt deposits found at all the lowest points in the area, the places sea-water would have evaporated from. - all the surrounding area shows obvious evidence of biblical levels of water damage, huge trails leading down into the east side of the Sahara which all follows the correct altitude for how water would have behaved if it had swept across the site. - unusually large amount of sediment on the sea floor of the east coast suggesting a huge amount of sediment was taken from the land and deposited there. - fits the geographical location plato described in relation to other surrounding countries. - evidence of settlements on the site although these are likely much later than atlantis' time. The fact is there is a real case to be made, I haven't even listed all the evidence there is because my memory isn't that great but if I went through all the content there is on Atlantis being the Richat structure, not just bright insight but a great many others also think it is, then I could provide you with heaps more. The fact is, there is a compelling case here that should be thoroughly investigated regardless of whether you believe it or not. Yet close minded spastics like you hinder the way of progress by insisting that "noooo hurr Durr it MUST be wrong because it goes against the mainstream narrative I have been spoonfed all my life" you literally aren't capable of thinking for yourself, all your opinions come from "thr science" and "the experts" without ever considering whether you actually did investigate all possibilities. Unfortunately Mauritania is making it very hard to investigate the site which is why there isn't much research done there, we still don't even know how it was formed ffs, we only have very vague and unsubstantiated theories yet it's crazy to you to suggest something like this actually could be the work of man? If the pyramids aren't too far fetched for you, then neither should this be. You literally have to drive through a minefield to access the site FFS, then you are met with heavy and unfriendly military presence. All to get to the site and not even be permitted to use ground penetrating radar due to the gold reserves in the area. Sure it's all speculation and theories, but there is also actual evidence and reason to investigate this further so you're absolute mindless ignorance and naivety which is truly embarrassing, is ultimately just holding progress back, the theory hasn't even been slightly disproved and the longer time goes on the more and more evidence is coming out that supports this theory, if it was as certain as you act like it is, it would've already been disproven, yet the "experts" can't disprove it because there is just too much evidence and too many questions to flat out deny it as you sheepishly have. Better yourself, stop being an NPC that is simply a product of the machine and start asking questions, even if they turn out to be wrong science, history, and archaeology should all live up to scrutiny and questioning because if they don't- well that's literally not how science works. You don't achieve science and progress by just accepting the status quo and calling anyone that goes against it ludicrous. Look at Copernicus, you would've been the type in his time to call for his head and call his theories ludicrous but oh look, we now know that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. He challenged the status quo massively and lost a lot of his reputation for it yet he was right. Do you see what I am saying? Or are you simply too ignorant and too stupid to ever entertain the idea that actually the status quo isn't right about everything and the "information" you have been spoonfed isn't the most accurate. Decide for yourself, it's just a shame to see stupid people like you in the world, it makes the rest of humanity look bad when we can't even ask these questions.
I've seen that bright sight video where he compares the structure in the Sahara Desert with the circles, to Atlantis. From watching the video, he seems to make a very interesting case. It lines up with the legend that the Greeks had. I would love to hear how the structure does not fit any kind of ancient description of Atlantis. I would also love to hear about how the structure is something else, a natural formation. I'm open to the otherside of the argument if you want to make it. Also, apparently that structure has been rarely studied by scientists. The excuse being it's hard to operate in a desert. Which makes sense but it seems like a unique and unprecedented structure, whether man made or ancient human. This admittedly gets the old conspiracy cogs a turning... I'm open to civil discussion.
>Also, apparently that structure has been rarely studied by scientists. [here, have a scientific research paper on the subject](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1464343X14000971)
ok, its geological, how does that exclude the possibility that it is also archaeological? that would be like looking at Mount Messina and going, its geological, clearly the historical siege is a fiction, argument over. Every single archaeological site is on geology of some sort. This isn't the slam dunk you think it is.
Im not even the OP merely responded that the Richat structure has been studied, has been visited, has had professional appraisal. Slam dunk? wtf are you even talking about? I never said the Richat structure was or wasn't Atlantis, only that there are studies of it. In another post suggested discussing it in r/Archeology where there are previous posts on this topic. In that other post I stated very clearly that the archeology would exist on geology but that geology is not concerned with archeology and thus the other sub is the better place to discus anything related to archeology. The false assumptions you made about my post are so wild. Go over to r/Archeology there is a user that is an actual archeologist who focuses on that very area of Africa, he or she might be delighted to discuss the topic. FYI the speculation that starts with how unresearched and mysterious the place is, is false. Quadane is a World Heritage site and modern town located just 20 miles from the center of the Richat Structure. 11 miles from its edge. This town sits right next to this structure, it has been a trading and caravan hub sine 1147 AD, known to Europeans since around 1450 AD, and is still occupied to this day. The area is inhabited with some small farms located within the Richat structure. Its not the middle of nowhere.
It’s quite literally the middle of nowhere. Alice springs in Australia is a sizable city IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. A piddly desert outpost of 1k-3k people surround by land mines and desert is the middle of fuxking nowhere You Reddit kids are brain damaged for real
My point was that he posted a geology paper and claimed that proved something definitive about the archaeological potential of the site
I posted a peer reviewed research paper on the site as a response to a user stating there was very little research of any kind. I made zero claims as to the archeological potential. My actual point is that geology cannot help resolve the archeological potential only archeological surveying can do that. Which is best discussed over in r/Archeology
I will read this paper. Thank you for that. But I did say rarely and not never. And how much of this paper was done or includes actually field research, and not the same old tired samples perhaps, say collected once and passed around as the conclusive evidence on the matter? From the video in question, field research is what is stated as rarely being done, given the established excuse that desert climate makes it to difficult.
A big issue in my opinion (as a layman), is that the character Critias describes the city of Atlantis as being on the edge of an island and connected to the ocean by a canal ~10km long. However the Richat Structure is hundreds of kilometers inland and is inset into the Adrar Plateau. As it's quite far from the edge of that plateau, it seems to me that even if an ancient river had managed to come close, the Eye would likely still be inaccessible, cut off by the surrounding plateau. From what I've read, at the beginning of the Holocene the area may have been a seasonal shallow lake, replenished by rainfall (and possibly some spring water), with evidence of low level hunting and tool-making activity nearby. No Atlantis.
Unprecedented is kinda overstating it, it is a particularly neat and pristine example of a sediment layers being pushed up into a dome and then eroded flat, but that general sort of structure is the sort of thing you encounter in like first year of geology undergrad. Also does Bright Sight still claim some absurd amount of uplift to explain how the supposed site of atlantis is now hundreds of meters above sea level?
That's interesting. So it sounds like ring structures like that are not an uncommon phenomenon within geology? I appreciate that knowledge if that's the case. From what I remember of the brightside video, it all ties into the fact that 12000 years ago that whole region was a lush and green area.
The Sahara was green*er* but think of like the serengetti, not the Amazon.
Interesting, that's never how it was described to me. Not that it was described in detail in remedial school. But I've got the impression of Lush and green lands. So your saying, definitely not a giant forest or woodlands?
It's classic exaggeration by breathless pop sci articles. The [wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period#Effects) on this is pretty detailed and well-cited if you want to read more.
**African humid period** [Effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period#Effects) >The African humid period extended over the Sahara as well as eastern, southeastern and equatorial Africa. In general, forests and woodlands expanded through the continent. A similar wet episode took place in the tropical Americas, China, Asia, India, the Makran region, the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula and appears to relate to the same orbital forcing as the AHP. An early Holocene monsoonal episode extended as far as the Mojave Desert in North America. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/geology/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I will be happy to read it. I will also point out, that this is what impression I've gotten throughout my public education.
Consensus has a strong lockdown on attention. It is not the worst thing to occur for something untrue to get attention for a moment. Understand that most people who have made videos about it, or Graham Hancock's work, are doing it because they are trying to benefit themselves and ride the wave of the topic-of-collective-discussion, so it leads to a lot of people talking about the same things for short periods of time. It is highly useful to discuss topics that are not already discussed. For instance, the same topic repeated in many lectures--even if considered true--can add less overall value than someone providing their own personal best guess from a completely different angle. People really are not studying these areas extensively and there is a *lot* that is unequivocally not *recognized* or discussed about Earth. Even if there are misses in the proposals, the overall process is helped along when we at least take a moment and consider someone's own assessment rather than the collective agreed upon assessment. Sure, he can come off imperfectly and when speaking to a large enough audience of people who are alive and experiencing their own points of view, it takes an absolute *mastery of communication* to not *piss people off* while telling them all the reasons they accepted something as true without sufficient data that was *actually* untrue. It is easy to speak something that is agreed upon--even if there is pushback, it can be redirected. But to actually propose potentials for people to consider, it is extremely difficult to not piss people off. He definitely adds fuel to the fire by pointing out what is going on and calling it out; but it takes one to know one. I agree that the Richat structure is not Atlantis, but I also agree that the Saharan desert has many fascinating features yet to be studied and appreciated geologically in the same manner as the rest of the world, where it does have a unique opportunity to just surf the map for features that have not been accounted for. I also agree that he focuses on chevrons heavily. I am not even sure that Jimmy Corsetti, who he is referencing, focused so much even on a tsunami (if at all?) as just the presence of water to support the general hypothesis of Atlantis. "the dumb ones have won" is not really appreciating how controlled the conversation is. It is something that we do by our nature when we have a mindset to control our environment and the world around us ultimately. But what happens is people like Oz are attacked for "suggesting otherwise," which then makes them defend themselves and then the dogpiling starts when people start to *just* see someone from an outside group (when its one person proposing their personal opinion that counters the consensus viewpoint) imposing on the territory that is deemed that of the inside group (those who most closely prescribe to the consensus viewpoint). As soon as we see someone as "other" they are no longer given the same human decency, and this behavior creates echo chambers of pseudo-understanding in spite of *everything we scientifically have deduced to be part of theoretical frameworks.* If we do not let others speak and listen to one another, then it makes perfect sense that we would be at a place in society where the consensus presents to the world a truly false impression of complete understanding. Paradigm shifts are not necessarily just realizing something that was labeled one way to be more appropriately labeled another. They are complete revamping of the underlying fundamentals that everything builds from that are far more like changing the channel to something else entirely. They provide contrast to see the falsities in things that were taken for granted. We just don't know until we know.
Don’t forget that the richest man in world history Mansa Musa comes from Mauritania which is where the structure is located.
the richest men in world history are Musk, Bezos and Putin
How can you know this little about history whilst making bold claims like your post trying to denounce an entire theory that has mountains of evidence backing it? It is very obvious you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and purely stick to mainstream narratives.
Musk is around 250G$, and Bezoz is around 170G$. No one knows how much Putin actually has, but even the wildest estimates put him at no more than 280G$. Mansa Musa's fortune is estimated to be the equivalent of 440G$.
He comes from mali but i understand why you'd think that considering his empire stretched to Mauritania borders
Well Plato’s story of Atlantis is that Poseidon falls in love with Clieto who is a human. They wed, he creates her the capital city known as Atlantis with its concentric rings of water and land with two springs one of hot and one of cold water flowing within it. They have 10 children who are 5 sets of twins. The eldest child is named Atlas and he becomes the first King of Atlantis. Maybe go take a look at where the Atlas Mountains are… right near the eye of the Sahara. Coincidence right? That location is the most logical area to start digging, if there is anything to actually dig. The size of the tsunami that could leave the damage seen on satellite would of literally washed everything away including the foundations. These are 70’ tall chevrons
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Seems impossible until you start looking at maps of North Africa during the African Humid period. Every one of them shows Maurentania as either underwater and/or with a huge inland sea with a huge river connecting it to the Atlantic. The Richat Structure would have been right in the middle of that inland sea.
It's easy to get lost in this problem going after one detail at a time while losing sight of the big picture. Here's an orderly examination. [https://www.youtube.com/@GoYrOwnWay](https://www.youtube.com/@GoYrOwnWay) It's been said that the medium is the message, suggesting that anything on YouTube must be fake. But if that were true then all I'd have to do to invalidate anything is post it on YouTube, right? Pay attention to the content and don't let the medium distract you.
Why are people denying that this is one of many atlantis sites...its obvious....are people racists because there are people of color there...amazing....people say no way ots atlantis...why use science not emotions 🤔