Questions about the Atlantean Period

[axj]

1. Was the Richat structure (Eye of the Sahara) the location of the Atlantean city with concentric water channels described by Plato?
1a) If so, was it located closer to the ocean at the time?

The C's already answered that the Eye of the Sahara is a natural formation (December 18, 2021):

Q: (Niall) Is the 'Eye of the Sahara', aka Richat, natural in origin? What caused it? [Notes: It's a peculiar geological formation of multiple concentric circles in the remote western Sahara, in northern Mauritania. From space, it looks like an eye. There are apparent 'current ripples' in the land to the south of it. Picture here: The 'Eye of the Sahara' from space]

A: Yes. Comet explosion shock waves.

Q: (L) Must have been a doozy!

Apart from Jimmy (Bright Insight) who has been focusing on the theory that the Eye of the Sahara is the Atlantean city described by Plato, there is also more potential evidence from a very experienced astral traveler. He (Rick Pyle) has been doing out-of-body experiences since childhood for 50 years.

Recently he visited Atlantis for the first time (12 thousand years ago). To his surprise, the city with the concentric channels was situated in Northwestern Africa on the coast - suggesting that the Eye of the Sahara was indeed the location of their main city.

In that case, the question is how the Eye of the Sahara structure ended up so far away from the coast though.

He also fast-forwarded to the moment of the destruction of the city and saw a wall of water (something like 50 meters tall) coming towards it and wiping it out. This could have been done only by a large impact in the ocean or by something like a sudden crustal or axis shift. The C's said that all three happened during that time (see next question).

2. Was the physical north pole located in the Hudson Bay area during the ice age and before the impact event about 12000 years ago?
2a) Are some ancient buildings (temples, towns, etc.) indeed oriented to previous north pole locations (Hudson Bay, Greenland, Norway Sea, Bering Strait)?

The C's already said that there was both an axis shift and a litosphere (crustal) shift in the April 16, 2016 session:

(Pierre) One last question: about the frozen mammoths. During the last session, we suggested that the cause of the flash-frozen mammoths was a Super Derecho like a giant thunderstorm that deflected the jet stream down towards the Earth's surface, and that's what flash-froze the mammoths. You said, "Close enough." So that's not exactly what happened. What are we missing here?

A: Impact sending enormous stream of heat and matter upward, creating a vacuum, followed by induction of super cooled air.

Q: (L) Well, the problem is that the mammoths were frozen in Siberia but not in the Northern part of the Western hemisphere, currently called North America, which is where there are the signs of the impact. If the impact occurred in North America, why are the mammoths that are frozen by this shooting up and falling down of hot air followed by cold air in Siberia and not in North America?

A: It was in the entire Northern Hemisphere, but the shift of the axis and lithosphere gave each area a different outcome over time.

Q: (Pierre) That makes sense. So, they all got flash-frozen, but the hit also shifted the geographic pole and brought Siberia to higher latitudes. So, they stayed frozen there, but the flash-frozen animals in Northern America ended up in lower latitudes away from the poles, and they defrosted.

A: Yes

The theory that a lot of ancient structures around the world are oriented towards former North Poles in the Hudson Bay, Greenland, Norway and the Bering Strait seems to have quite a lot of evidence. The researcher who wrote several papers on this topic (Mark Carlotto) also goes into detail about it on his website. This is an illustration from there:


Meridians of sites aligned to previous locations of the North Pole in the Bering Sea (red), northern Greenland (green), the Norwegian Sea (yellow), and Hudson Bay (magenta).


Order of poles: Bering Sea (BS), Greenland (Gr), Norwegian Sea (NS), Hudson Bay (HB), and the Arctic (Ar).

If the location of the north pole was indeed further away from Siberia as the C's said, then the Hudson Bay north pole theory (and ancient buildings being oriented towards it) is probably a good one to look into. Especially since it shows not just one but 4 other potential north poles before the current one. And the orientation of structures towards either one of those poles can also serve as a way to date their original construction period.

 

[XPan]

If the location of the north pole was indeed further away from Siberia as the C's said, then the Hudson Bay north pole theory (and ancient buildings being oriented towards it) is probably a good one to look into. Especially since it shows not just one but 4 other potential north poles before the current one. And the orientation of structures towards either one of those poles can also serve as a way to date their original construction period.

Didn't the C's say that Mario Buildrep's theory was not accurate ? Or which part of it the C's deemed to be inaccurate ?

Mario Buildrep, the guy who created/defends/researches revolving his theory of that various buildings though time show different orientations towards north, due to poles shifting positions... He also mentions the thickness sediments as a way to define how old structures have been buried (much, much older than previously thought). Albeit i am not sure about how you can create an equation for an the thickness of sediments, because i believe that can vary quite a lot from location to location (across the globe, and dependent on the geological events in such locations, likely varied a lot, too)

Q: (LQB) Mario Buildrep's extensive research suggests that catastrophic crustal displacement due to periods of earth expansions have resulted in apparent displacement of the rotational pole positions, which correlates well with alignments of past megalithic structures. At least five past pole positions have been dated and identified. Are his analyses and conclusions roughly correct?

A: No.

Q: (L) Why is it not correct?

A: No earth expansions. Crustal displacement does occur due to cosmic cataclysms and also to regular heating and cooling of Earth's interior.

Or is it possible that the C's said No, because of "no earth expansions" revolving Mario Buildrep's theory.

Not that i can recall that Buildrep mentions earth expansion (or maybe I missed that part, because it has been 4+ years ago when i often went onto his homepage - because his research highly interesting / compelling).

The main thing (i thought) was that he points out at the shifting poles vs very old buildings built with various North orientations; pointing at extreme old, highly eroded buildings, up to 700.000 years ago by various civilisations. So, each larger period (between cataclysms) seemed to have had different North poles.

So, was Mario Buildrep totally wrong, or just partially (e.g. wrong about earth expansion) ?