Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atlanteans


Duke Wellington

Recommended Posts

To begin with here is a an ancient Greek map of the known world:

image.png.df905172a7682e85474b617b1a40c384.png

Notice the left of Africa? Next Plato does not say Atlantis is opposite the Pillars of Hercules, but beyond them. Next here is the Eye of the Sahara:

image.png.10d774201c7d9cf6c66c1635cfe66a7a.png

Located in Western Africa and viewable from space it looks like Plato`s description. Due to the limitations of file size I can post I cannot insert the next one, so have provided a video if people are interested: 

 

Basically, from space its obvious a vast water deluge went from the Mediterranean and swept down and then across West Africa around 10500BC. The patterns it has left in the sand are undeniable evidence. Plus, with the Eye of the Sahara picture above you can see the white salt deposits from the evaporation of the sea water flood.

Finally in the same video there is evidence of the Mauritanian underwater sea slide off the west coast of Africa which also occurred around 10500BC. That to me looks like all the sand and silt from the flood being dumped into the sea at the end.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have a look at Wiki at Atlas (a famous Mauretanian ruler) look, it even says he took his country to war against Olympus and lost: Atlas (mythology) - Wikipedia

Indicating the Greeks knew of the country, where it was, its leader, and they won their war against them which in Plato`s account of an ancient war between Greece and Atlantis, they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Cookie, the Eye of the Sahara is not the fabled city. If you did a search in the forums you would see where this had been discussed previously. 

So, no.

Edited by Saru
Removed personal attack
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He you go. We have allready done the work for you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those links don`t offer arguments as to why its not.

And it looks pretty compelling to me.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

Those links don`t offer arguments as to why its not.

And it looks pretty compelling to me.

Geology and archaeology much? 

Edited by Piney
Atlantis is a brain fart
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its in the right place, its the right shape, its got mountains to the north, a water entrance to the south, its got salt indicating sea water, and I pointed out a Greek story of the war with Atlas (who they referred to as the King of Atlantis), and winning the war.

Altogether Plato`s story + a Greek map showing its location + Eye of the Sahara in the right place = Atlantis.

Evidence showing the area has sea life deposits that died about 10,500 BC, evidence in the sand of a vast flood in 10,500 BC, even red and block rocks and precious metals in the mountains. A vast rectangular plain, it all fits.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

Those links don`t offer arguments as to why its not.

And it looks pretty compelling to me.

Well then, give this a read;

"Phenomena: The Eye of the Sahara"

https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/phenomena-the-eye-of-the-sahara

"Initially believed to be an impact structure resulting from a meteor, subsequent studies established its true nature as an uplifted geologic dome. It is 40 kilometres in diameter and exposes concentric rings of rock created by erosion with a centre dome nearly 20 kilometres wide."

"The force of erosion has sculpted this structure, forming distinctive circular ridges known as cuestas and creating a remarkable circular pattern with sedimentary and igneous rocks. The rings have different rocks of various ages, and the ridges are mostly made of quartzite."

"While locals have known about it for millennia, it is hard to comprehend fully from ground level. It was the first astronauts who drew scientific attention to the structure, assuming it was a meteor crater."

"On-the-ground research discovered that it was, in fact, formed by erosion over millions of years. The erosion has exposed spectacular scatterings of rhyolites and gabbros – igneous rocks formed deep beneath the Earth’s surface."

 

🧐

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Duke Wellington said:

Its in the right place, its the right shape, its got mountains to the north, a water entrance to the south, its got salt indicating sea water, and I pointed out a Greek story of the war with Atlas (who they referred to as the King of Atlantis), and winning the war.

Altogether Plato`s story + a Greek map showing its location + Eye of the Sahara in the right place = Atlantis.

Evidence showing the area has sea life deposits that died about 10,500 BC, evidence in the sand of a vast flood in 10,500 BC, even red and block rocks and precious metals in the mountains. A vast rectangular plain, it all fits.

Please provide a link to support the bolded.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Well then, give this a read;

"Phenomena: The Eye of the Sahara"

https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/phenomena-the-eye-of-the-sahara

"Initially believed to be an impact structure resulting from a meteor, subsequent studies established its true nature as an uplifted geologic dome. It is 40 kilometres in diameter and exposes concentric rings of rock created by erosion with a centre dome nearly 20 kilometres wide."

"The force of erosion has sculpted this structure, forming distinctive circular ridges known as cuestas and creating a remarkable circular pattern with sedimentary and igneous rocks. The rings have different rocks of various ages, and the ridges are mostly made of quartzite."

"While locals have known about it for millennia, it is hard to comprehend fully from ground level. It was the first astronauts who drew scientific attention to the structure, assuming it was a meteor crater."

"On-the-ground research discovered that it was, in fact, formed by erosion over millions of years. The erosion has exposed spectacular scatterings of rhyolites and gabbros – igneous rocks formed deep beneath the Earth’s surface."

 

🧐

And why exactly does how it was formed have any relevance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Please provide a link to support the bolded.

Everything not linked is covered in the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Trelane said:

 

It has never been excavated due to it being an area of Africa that has problems.

You can link me to your topic if you wish, if there`s 10 posts in it then I`d have read it. If there are 100s I`m obviously not, I`m not spending an hour or two reading through what is mostly arguing and trolling from various different people. If you made valid points then how about summarising them?

Edited by Saru
Removed quote of post that has been removed
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

It has never been excavated due to it being an area of Africa that has problems.

You can link me to your topic if you wish, if there`s 10 posts in it then I`d have read it. If there are 100s I`m obviously not, I`m not spending an hour or two reading through what is mostly arguing and trolling from various different people. If you made valid points then how about summarising them?

Errrr. No There has been archeological exploration and all that was found was the remains of nomadic hunters.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don`t get what the opposition going on in this topic is about.

If people had arguments on other Atlantis topics its nothing to do with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

I don`t get what the opposition going on in this topic is about.

Any reasonable proposition that significantly conflicts with orthodox consensus is taboo, and must therefore be opposed. It's not so much trolls as 'establishment' shills. They do a good job suppressing/discouraging insightful speculation, observation, and theorising.

Essentially, I agree with you. The Richat structure is, head & shoulders, the best candidate so far for Atlantis. It is also near other 'atl' sounds, such as Atlas mountains and the Atlantic sea. Moreover, the Rh-ve Berbers & Basques (linguistically unique) may well be the genetic remnant - having taken shelter in Atlas & Pyrenean mountains.

Cyclic cataclysm (twice a great year), with the latest (YDE) being 10,000BC also ties in with your other observations (mega-tsunami aka oceanic slop).

Because catastrophism is too scary (albeit true), the establishment only supports uniformitarianism/gradualism. Hence catastrophism is termed 'pseudoscience' and lumped in with creationism: https://www.icr.org/article/up-with-catastrophism

You cannot enlighten academia, but you can enlighten yourself, and your fellow 'pseudoscientists', so do continue your research.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zod YinYang said:

Any reasonable proposition that significantly conflicts with orthodox consensus is taboo, and must therefore be opposed. It's not so much trolls as 'establishment' shills. They do a good job suppressing/discouraging insightful speculation, observation, and theorising.

Essentially, I agree with you. The Richat structure is, head & shoulders, the best candidate so far for Atlantis. It is also near other 'atl' sounds, such as Atlas mountains and the Atlantic sea. Moreover, the Rh-ve Berbers & Basques (linguistically unique) may well be the genetic remnant - having taken shelter in Atlas & Pyrenean mountains.

Cyclic cataclysm (twice a great year), with the latest (YDE) being 10,000BC also ties in with your other observations (mega-tsunami aka oceanic slop).

Because catastrophism is too scary (albeit true), the establishment only supports uniformitarianism/gradualism. Hence catastrophism is termed 'pseudoscience' and lumped in with creationism: https://www.icr.org/article/up-with-catastrophism

You cannot enlighten academia, but you can enlighten yourself, and your fellow 'pseudoscientists', so do continue your research.

No.....and keep that Graham Hancock rubbish in the garbage bin it belongs in.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

I don`t get what the opposition going on in this topic is about.

If people had arguments on other Atlantis topics its nothing to do with me.

It's not opposition, its explanation. 

There's nothing to argue or debate really. Only those that choose to ignore the research and findings that has already been conducted does any unnecessary discussion of fabled civilization exist.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Abramelin said:

@The Puzzler

Get him!

lol…gosh, my anxiety is through the roof…

Listen here you Richat amateurs…my topic was earlier and recorded as an original idea…where is keithisco these days…?

So, anyway, apart from all the rest, an idea said here was it was a reference to a geological formation….I agree, my own topic started at the start….

Poseidon, an early Earth God, of “Libya” no less, according to Herodotus…..one of my fave pieces of all his books…and Plato, who says, he cut out this circle, like a lathe….the reference to Gods and geology exists for sure.

I also agree with the references to the land layout…..

But yes, it didn’t seem to work then, but with more archaeological work….which like someone asked, what’s the problem..?

Actually, it’s correct, it’s almost impossible to get access to this area…the Muslims that control it let very few foreigners in.

Edited by The Puzzler
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I did think the Richat structure the closest to what Plato described….except, yeah. Thought it so clever at the time….2008….or is it too clever….? I still don’t discount it entirely.

 

Edited by The Puzzler
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

*sighs* Oh brother. This is topic is growing in blind stupidity levels reserved for Bigfoot and UFOs.

It's been researched. As recently as 2008 there were teams there. Items were found and catalogued. Nothing that would lead any reasonable person to believe it belonged to an advanced civilization.

"The Eye of the Sahara"

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2023/02/the-eye-of-the-sahara/146129

"Archaeological research at the structure has revealed evidence of human activity, with numerous deposits of pre-Acheulian and Acheulian artefacts, characterised by the distinctive oval and pear-shaped “hand axes” normally associated with Homo erectus and derived species such as Homo heidelbergensis."

"Acheulean tools were produced during the Lower Palaeolithic era across Africa and much of West Asia, South Asia, East Asia and Europe, first developed about 1.76 million years ago and derived from the more primitive Oldowan technology associated with Homo habilis."

"Research by archaeologists have found Acheulean sites located along wadis that occupy the outermost annular depression of the structure, where outcrops of quartzite were sourced to provide the raw materials for tool manufacturing. Tool types found in Acheulean assemblages include pointed, cordate, ovate, ficron, and bout-coupé hand-axes (referring to the shapes of the final tool), cleavers, retouched flakes, scrapers, and segmental chopping tools."

"The geographic distribution of Acheulean tools – and thus the peoples who made them – is often interpreted as being the result of palaeo-climatic and ecological factors, such as glaciation and the desertification of the Sahara Desert. The climate of the region has undergone enormous variations between wet and dry periods over the last few hundred thousand years, believed to be caused by long-term changes in the North African climate cycle that alters the path of the North African Monsoon."

So yeah, no sea water during the time occupied by humans or their ancestors. Moving along.😎

"During the African humid period (AHP), much of the Sahara desert was covered by grasses, trees and lakes, where the people of the Lower Palaeolithic lived an existence as hunter-gatherers."

"Signs of Neolithic activity have been uncovered, including sparsely distributed spear points and various artefacts situated to the northwest of the outer ring. However, these artefacts are notably absent within the innermost depressions of the structure."

"The lack of middens or evidence of sustained occupation has led to the interpretation that the structure was only used for short-term hunting and stone tool manufacturing."

 

"A pseudo theory by Fractal Source Research (FSR), proposes that the structure is the remnants of an advanced Antediluvian civilisation, namely the lost city of Atlantis, based on a comparison of measurements from the structure with the descriptions given by Plato."🧐

 

The more you know....

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Puzzler said:

Actually, it’s correct, it’s almost impossible to get access to this area…the Muslims that control it let very few foreigners in.

Is that why Forbes has a travel guide so you can visit it?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Piney said:

Is that why Forbes has a travel guide so you can visit it?

You beat me to that.

"Eye Of The Sahara or Richat Structure"
Modified date: 24/11/2023

https://geologyscience.com/gallery/geological-wonders/eye-of-the-sahara-or-richat-structure/?amp

"In recent years, the Eye of the Sahara has also become a destination for scientific research and tourism, attracting geologists, researchers, and travelers interested in exploring its geological mysteries and appreciating its natural beauty."

"Scientific research and exploration of the Eye of the Sahara have been ongoing to unravel the geological mysteries surrounding this unique structure. Researchers from various fields, including geology, planetary science, and remote sensing, have contributed to our understanding of the Eye of the Sahara. "

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of everything else, marine sand and desert sand are two different things. Geology 101. If there had been a transgression of the sea that far inland in that area as recently as 11,000 years ago you wouldn’t only be finding desert sand everywhere.

Then there’s the idiocy of placing an island continent that Plato said sank off the Straits of Gibraltar and putting it on land in another continent.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Piney said:

Is that why Forbes has a travel guide so you can visit it?

Forbes…maybe if you are a millionaire you can fly directly there…

It’s inaccessible to most…and even if you get near there, it’s extremely hard to get there,…have you watched any YouTube videos on people going there…?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Trelane said:

You beat me to that.

"Eye Of The Sahara or Richat Structure"
Modified date: 24/11/2023

https://geologyscience.com/gallery/geological-wonders/eye-of-the-sahara-or-richat-structure/?amp

"In recent years, the Eye of the Sahara has also become a destination for scientific research and tourism, attracting geologists, researchers, and travelers interested in exploring its geological mysteries and appreciating its natural beauty."

"Scientific research and exploration of the Eye of the Sahara have been ongoing to unravel the geological mysteries surrounding this unique structure. Researchers from various fields, including geology, planetary science, and remote sensing, have contributed to our understanding of the Eye of the Sahara. "

OK, maybe todays eco traveller can access it better, my knowledge is from around 20 years ago.

Edited by The Puzzler
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.