Atlantis
- Thread starter shijing
- Start date
Meager1
Dagobah Resident
That is very interesting!
I think that any event big enough to sink Mauritania would probably have taken out Spain and Portugal, probably most of
France as well, but the Greeks never mentioned that. And we still have to account for the Native American population being involved with Atlantis. And the African continent is much bigger than the description of the size of the land mass mentioned in the mythology. But who knows, the earth was so much different at the time and so much is deliberately hidden from us that anything is possible. It would be a good question for the C,s next session.
I think that any event big enough to sink Mauritania would probably have taken out Spain and Portugal, probably most of
France as well, but the Greeks never mentioned that. And we still have to account for the Native American population being involved with Atlantis. And the African continent is much bigger than the description of the size of the land mass mentioned in the mythology. But who knows, the earth was so much different at the time and so much is deliberately hidden from us that anything is possible. It would be a good question for the C,s next session.
- maybe btw civilizations even before The Age of Atlantis...
Meager1
Dagobah Resident
At the top of the Mauritania structure in the last band, is a small grid like area that doesn’t appear natural.
It may very well be natural and something I,ve never seen before, anyway here’s the link if anyone wants to have a look.
Google Earth
It may very well be natural and something I,ve never seen before, anyway here’s the link if anyone wants to have a look.
Google Earth
caballero reyes
The Living Force
Thank you Christine, that is the session I was referring to, which is linked to another where a word game is made with "Rhin".
mrtn
Dagobah Resident
I find these large sand patterns strange which cover the area around that structure and Mauritania or north Africa in general. They look like giant mudslides but going west, not towards east from the ocean as it was mentioned in the video. I always wonder if north Africa was (partially) under water and came up during one one the cataclysms, that's how these 'mudslides' look. i don't know if that is even possible geologically. would explain the missing vegetation and also the african isolation the Cs talk about. They also mentioned glacial rebound. That does not just mean that land raises if the ice above melts. I guess it also means that if ice forms quickly on the poles, this landmass sinks and somewhere else in the world land raises.
<edit>I'm using goggle maps, not google earth.
<edit>I'm using goggle maps, not google earth.
I saw the video, too and I'm not very convinced. Some of his arguments sound far-fetched to me and appear to be based on confirmation bias. On the other hand, this structure doesn't look like a typical meteorite crater to me. It would be interesting to see the documentary he mentioned - "Visiting Atlantis".
Added: the documentary (6 parts) is available on YouTube. Here's the first part:
I was reading this article The Sahara Is Millions of Years Older Than Thought | Science | Smithsonian
how do we know that's true? We've been lied about everything there is. You can't trust a climatologist nowadays.
how do we know that's true? We've been lied about everything there is. You can't trust a climatologist nowadays.
Started to watch the documentary and the same picture presents itself to me there. A lot of wild speculations and make believe presented as evidence IMO.
It surely could be that this is the area Plato described, I don't doubt that possibility, since it is indeed an appealing idea, but the points and "facts" they present for it are so weak and filled with conformation biases, that there isn't any hard case they present for it there, that could convince me or anyone, to be a valid argument for it.
Also, I found the suggestive and I would say in places manipulative presentation of the documentary rather annoying (how they put the docu together and the videos and pictures they present); like the picture on an "old paper" (which they probably made themselfs) they continuously show without reference, that looks exactly like their "Atlantis" in the eye of africa they later present, as though to plant the idea in the watching audience later that this really must be the structure. Or the IMO most likely manipulated videos of some guy just putting the hand in the sand and finding right away rings and other human belongings in the sand, while they explain that the region has a absolutely rich amount of remains of such artifacts. Looks to me that they placed those things under the sand for the camera to dig out, to present the image that human stuff can be found there in every square feet and everywhere you look. Such manipulative pictures just annoy me. Or saying things like "although it is clear that those relics are far older then their oral history [which is about 1000 years old]". How do they know that from a couple of stones they visit in a make shift "museum" from the locals? I'm sorry, you can't make such a statement and present it as fact just from looking at stuff randomly in a make shift "museum". Ever heard of archeology and how things must be done to even be able to established a date for stones artifacts? Or presenting round stones as evidence for artillery stones? Or the ground they show as evidence "for water having been here" which is clearly a normal thing to see in very dry desert places.
I could go on since there are so many things like this in there. Not convinced.
It surely could be that this is the area Plato described, I don't doubt that possibility, since it is indeed an appealing idea, but the points and "facts" they present for it are so weak and filled with conformation biases, that there isn't any hard case they present for it there, that could convince me or anyone, to be a valid argument for it.
Also, I found the suggestive and I would say in places manipulative presentation of the documentary rather annoying (how they put the docu together and the videos and pictures they present); like the picture on an "old paper" (which they probably made themselfs) they continuously show without reference, that looks exactly like their "Atlantis" in the eye of africa they later present, as though to plant the idea in the watching audience later that this really must be the structure. Or the IMO most likely manipulated videos of some guy just putting the hand in the sand and finding right away rings and other human belongings in the sand, while they explain that the region has a absolutely rich amount of remains of such artifacts. Looks to me that they placed those things under the sand for the camera to dig out, to present the image that human stuff can be found there in every square feet and everywhere you look. Such manipulative pictures just annoy me. Or saying things like "although it is clear that those relics are far older then their oral history [which is about 1000 years old]". How do they know that from a couple of stones they visit in a make shift "museum" from the locals? I'm sorry, you can't make such a statement and present it as fact just from looking at stuff randomly in a make shift "museum". Ever heard of archeology and how things must be done to even be able to established a date for stones artifacts? Or presenting round stones as evidence for artillery stones? Or the ground they show as evidence "for water having been here" which is clearly a normal thing to see in very dry desert places.
I could go on since there are so many things like this in there. Not convinced.
axj
The Living Force
Well, the idea is that this part of Africa actually rose up - and the vertical movements of the African plate would not necessarily have a big effect on the European plate.
An interesting possibility is that the same event that sank "Atlantis" in the Atlantic ocean also moved up the African coast. If the African plate (which meets the European and North American plates at the Azores) tilted, then this would sink the Azores area while possibly pushing up other parts of the African plate at the same time.
A large asteroid impact might cause this - and in addition to the Younger Dryas impact on the North American ice shield (eg. deduced from the Corolina bays), there is now also evidence of a huge asteroid crater in Greenland which must be between 12,000 and 2 million years old:
Giant impact crater found under Greenland ice, possibly 12,000 years old - UPDATE -- Sott.net
Last edited:
Metrist
The Living Force
I was reading some interesting posts here on this forum, and came up with a theory of the sinking of Atlantis.
The theory is that Atlantis is a civilization that was situated atop a remnent ice sheet from the ice age, that had been long buried beneath volcanic debris and sand, ect. and settled by Atlanteans until the inevitable melting and sinking.
So, like northern regions are still permanently frozen it was like that in equatorial regions, and a ice shelf became covered over long periods with volcanic sediments, sand blown in, and grown over with vegetation.
Then, a meteor hits the ocean, and breaks up the shelf and everything sinks in a cataclysm.
So, it wasn't so much tetonics as it was receeding ice mass under the terrain, or being connected to a continent but still over the ocean, and a tidal catastrophe broke it up.
The theory is that Atlantis is a civilization that was situated atop a remnent ice sheet from the ice age, that had been long buried beneath volcanic debris and sand, ect. and settled by Atlanteans until the inevitable melting and sinking.
So, like northern regions are still permanently frozen it was like that in equatorial regions, and a ice shelf became covered over long periods with volcanic sediments, sand blown in, and grown over with vegetation.
Then, a meteor hits the ocean, and breaks up the shelf and everything sinks in a cataclysm.
So, it wasn't so much tetonics as it was receeding ice mass under the terrain, or being connected to a continent but still over the ocean, and a tidal catastrophe broke it up.
This is an interesting video I found about the sub-races of the Atlanteans as well as the different stages the earth went through after each of the flooding events. He bases this information off of books he had read on the subject that had correlating information and summed it up in an interesting little video. It should be taken with a grain of salt but I noticed some of the information correlating to the info given here.
Hello everyone, I'm sorry but I would like to ask maybe stupid question becouse I've got small amount of time to read all this thema, and I didn't remember It well. Since last year I try to read regullary Secret History of the world and the Casiopean transcripts, and If I remember it well somewhere there was wrote that Atlantis was on the a Antarctica, is this correct?
