Atlantis has been discovered?!

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Got it. Thank you. Sadly, this map has no information concerning the areas in question.

What Byrd actually said was:

this topographic map ... shows an ancient intermittent roadway near ... Aoudaghost

(Wiki on Aoudaghost).

This mediaeval town seems to be about 15 mi. north of Tamchekket: so presumably the intermittent roadway is somewhere nearby ...

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Got it. Thank you. Sadly, this map has no information concerning the areas in question.

What Byrd actually said was:

this topographic map ... shows an ancient intermittent roadway near ... Aoudaghost

(Wiki on Aoudaghost).

This mediaeval town seems to be about 15 mi. north of Tamchekket: so presumably the intermittent roadway is somewhere nearby ...

I have gone over the area between Tamchekket, Aoudaghost and El Mabrouk, and the surrounding area. I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map. And appears to be older than the middle ages. But, no roads, no road sections, or even heavily traveled game trails. There are modern vehicle tracks in many areas but do not follow any established course. There is nothing here to compare the road sections I have noted earlier in other areas. I'm wondering what information the author of the map used to establish these routs.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

I have gone over the area between Tamchekket, Aoudaghost and El Mabrouk, and the surrounding area. I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map. And appears to be older than the middle ages. But, no roads, no road sections, or even heavily traveled game trails. There are modern vehicle tracks in many areas but do not follow any established course. There is nothing here to compare the road sections I have noted earlier in other areas. I'm wondering what information the author of the map used to establish these routs.

Right: after another look at Byrd's map (part of an OziExplorer series available in 2005), I see that Aoudaghost is the grey splodge northeast of Tamchekket.

I suspect (but could be wrong) that the "ancient intermittent roadway" might possibly be the broken trackway leading from El Mabroûk (beneath Aoudaghost) all the way to Tamchekket; it's marked "Tracé incertain." I couldn't see anything on Google Maps.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map. And appears to be older than the middle ages.

How can you determine age from a satellite photo? You can't. This is all just wishful thinking.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

I have gone over the area between Tamchekket, Aoudaghost and El Mabrouk, and the surrounding area. I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map.

How do you know it's ancient?

So far, you've had a very poor ability to tell the dates on structures as viewed from the air.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
A very unique building design is showing up in multiple locations. Nick Name: "Pie Fort"

The conclusions can be argued anything from jokers going around the desert and planting false evidence, or, these structures are evidence of a lost society, civilization. But to ignore it, does not make it go away.

The Romans, as far as I know, did not operate this far south. Again, history books are silent.

(sigh) I discussed this many pages ago. Even linked to pictures showing what they were. They ARE forts and from the 1700's (if memory serves. I'm hurt (car accident), and not in the mood to look it up right now, but perhaps someone else will go hunting them.)

You can't think "out of the box" until you know the actual size and scope of the box. You can't play with aerial identification until you know how to identify common cultural and geographical features in a specific geographic area. Your labeling of everything you don't recognize as "ancient" and possibly proof of a "cover up" simply doesn't hold any water and your accuracy score is not something that would recommend your services as a satellite observer.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

I have gone over the area between Tamchekket, Aoudaghost and El Mabrouk, and the surrounding area. I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map. And appears to be older than the middle ages. But, no roads, no road sections, or even heavily traveled game trails. There are modern vehicle tracks in many areas but do not follow any established course. There is nothing here to compare the road sections I have noted earlier in other areas. I'm wondering what information the author of the map used to establish these routs.

Right: after another look at Byrd's map (part of an OziExplorer series available in 2005), I see that Aoudaghost is the grey splodge northeast of Tamchekket.

I suspect (but could be wrong) that the "ancient intermittent roadway" might possibly be the broken trackway leading from El Mabroûk (beneath Aoudaghost) all the way to Tamchekket; it's marked "Tracé incertain." I couldn't see anything on Google Maps.

This is the discovery one mile north of Aoudaghost, again, not noted on Byrds map.

Link


Use Zoom Earth to view. Google Earth is good at getting you into the area, and doing outlines and pins. But when it comes to "Seeing" whats actually there, Zoom is a superior product. Thanks goes to Byrd

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye I have found another ancient settlement a mile north of Tamchekket that is not highlighted or noted on the map. And appears to be older than the middle ages.

How can you determine age from a satellite photo? You can't. This is all just wishful thinking.

Actually, there are ways to tell how old something might be. Or, at least put you in the ball park.

Take for instance the "Boat Dock' at Ouadane.



One might argue its some sort of Religious Alter, but when you factor in the ruins on top of what once was a Island just up steam it becomes evident the age of the site has been misidentified.



Boat dock, Island, translates to a wetter period. And if you research the climate in this region you will discover it was far wetter, 6000 years ago. Or, ANCIENT.

There is also a dried water fall that has a segment of road going to it. No reason to build a road to a dry Wadi, but there is , if the water is constantly running, producing a waterfall.





Waterfall with road section

Wishful? Not really. I have no drive to expose Atlantis for what it really was. Just a love in pursuing the truth. And if there is a grand conspiracy to hide pre flood history it really makes no difference to me. One way or the other, I can handle the "Truth".

In stead of fighting Iconoclast's maybe you should take the time to understand them.

originally posted by: Byrd

...

I'm hurt (car accident), and not in the mood to look it up right now,

Sorry about this - hope you feel better soon.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
A very unique building design is showing up in multiple locations. Nick Name: "Pie Fort"

The conclusions can be argued anything from jokers going around the desert and planting false evidence, or, these structures are evidence of a lost society, civilization. But to ignore it, does not make it go away.

The Romans, as far as I know, did not operate this far south. Again, history books are silent.

(sigh) I discussed this many pages ago. Even linked to pictures showing what they were. They ARE forts and from the 1700's (if memory serves. I'm hurt (car accident), and not in the mood to look it up right now, but perhaps someone else will go hunting them.)

You can't think "out of the box" until you know the actual size and scope of the box. You can't play with aerial identification until you know how to identify common cultural and geographical features in a specific geographic area. Your labeling of everything you don't recognize as "ancient" and possibly proof of a "cover up" simply doesn't hold any water and your accuracy score is not something that would recommend your services as a satellite observer.

I discussed this many pages ago. Even linked to pictures showing what they were. They ARE forts and from the 1700's (if memory serves. I'm hurt (car accident), and not in the mood to look it up right now, but perhaps someone else will go hunting them.)

I also am concerned about your health. Are you posting from a hospital bed? If so, stop and heal.
And as I stated some pages ago, put your research on the table.

You can't think "out of the box" until you know the actual size and scope of the box

I left the box 40 years ago and have had time to go around the outside quite a few times. I find there are actually two boxes I can identify. First, this box we call life. You are born to get into it, and die, to exit (very similar to the Hollow Deck). Within that box is another that I call the "Matrix of Lies". It is basically a "hack" of the first box by forces that reside in, and out, of those two boxes. The two main elements of the Matrix of Lies, are the hidden knowledge of the first box, allowing portals to open allowing nefarious agents to enter to create and foster this false illusion we call "Reality". And the second, secret societies who ignorantly run the illusion using "Institutions".

The only ones within the "Box" that actually have any chance what so ever to see this hidden condition, are the "Iconoclast's, not the ones educated, by the Matrix of Lies", for they can only see what the illusion allows them. There is another element involved, but as I have said before, no comment.

This "Hack" goes back to the Great Flood, and the Truth of Atlantis, or rather the truth of the world at that time. The true reason the "Matrix of lies" was created.

and your accuracy score is not something that would recommend your services as a satellite observer.

Well spoken, from inside the "box". I would hope, pray, that my "Score" is held by a higher source, not, by these temporary boxes..... The Real Satellite observers, are watching

Get well soon Byrd, Its going to be getting very exciting

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

I also am concerned about your health. Are you posting from a hospital bed? If so, stop and heal.
And as I stated some pages ago, put your research on the table.

Thank you. I might be an ancient scholar, but I'm hardly on my deathbed. I have many adventures to come.

Well spoken, from inside the "box".

We just showed you photos and other evidence that your idea is not correct. That's hardly a "box." In fact, you conceded that our information was correct several times.

So you agreed that your identification was wrong, then you changed your position as if you decided that these identifications (which contradicted your first ideas) were suddenly wrong and you were right.

And yet we pointed to multiple diverse sources showing that our information was correct.

Now... either there's some sort of huge conspiracy that involves almost everyone in the world except for yourself (for no real reason other than perhaps you exist in a Matrix and we're all just programmed nuisances and the universe revolves around you)-- or your idea is not correct and you've misidentified many things.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Actually, there are ways to tell how old something might be. Or, at least put you in the ball park.

Take for instance the "Boat Dock' at Ouadane.

One might argue its some sort of Religious Alter, but when you factor in the ruins on top of what once was a Island just up steam it becomes evident the age of the site has been misidentified.

It's not an altar... and it's hardly a boat dock. You don't make a "trap" below the boardwalk by enclosing it in walls. Docks all over the world are designed as boardwalks on pilings for many reasons -- one of those is that you have to extend the dock to an area with enough depth to float a boat, which would mean (if you were for some peculiar reason trying to build a wall there) that you have to do a lot of underwater construction.

I haven't checked the topology (don't feel like pursuing that rabbit right now) but I don't believe there's any extended depths in the area. Wadis are generally fairly shallow.

a reply to: Byrd

We just showed you photos and other evidence that your idea is not correct.

Are you Multimedia challenged? Or are you speaking, for me. I have, actually, seen no evidence from "We", or you. You did go as far as to ask others to do your research for you when it came to the "Pie Forts" as so far you have offered nothing to support your 1700s position. I have been the only one posting any images. Did you take a bump on the head during your accident?

So you agreed that your identification was wrong, then you changed your position as if you decided that these identifications (which contradicted your first ideas) were suddenly wrong and you were right.

It is true that I will reconsider any of my observations when good honest research is presented, and either agree or disagree with the findings. I, unlike some, will admit when I'm wrong. But to make such a general statement without quoting the instance is simply, dishonest.

I have not fabricated "Tree Boxes" as a counter to the debate, that was you. Produce evidence for your 1700s Pie Fort explanation/ theory.

And yet we pointed to multiple diverse sources showing that our information was correct.

Your source (1) was not accepted by me because the evidence on the ground does not support what he has written. It was not diverse, and it did not cover the areas in question. Besides, I can not accept his monetary backing, and not credible.

On top of all that you continually refuse to accept that their are structures, IN THE SECOND RING OF THE EYE. I have produced images documenting the discovery. Your (We) position is to simply look the other way, ignore.

Now... either there's some sort of huge conspiracy that involves almost everyone in the world except for yourself (for no real reason other than perhaps you exist in a Matrix and we're all just programmed nuisances and the universe revolves around you)-- or your idea is not correct and you've misidentified many things.

"Johnny, I pick door number 1." Except, I'm not the only one stuck in this "Matrix of Lies".

Wake up call to those on the verge of "Waking Up. Plato did a lot of talking about those "Ancient gods". He spoke of them as being a reality, but admitting mankind knew little of them.

The Bible itself tells you the truth in the following passage. Exodus 20:3

And God spake all these words, saying, 2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Why did this "Lord God" feel it necessary to warn mankind of the "other" gods? "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them". This passage confirms what Plato told us, there are other gods who ruled the earth. The passage also betrays the locations of these 'gods'. This passage is the creation of the Matrix of Lies. For where are the bases for these "Alien gods" being located? D.U.M.B. and deep in the oceans.

There are more things IN heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

It is not I, who has been "Institutionalized".

a reply to: Byrd

It's not an altar.

Obviously. As I stated. You, agree with me!

The Portion of it that jets out into the ancient river is just the northern most point, of the dock.

In total, it runs the entire length of the settlement, a little more than 1/4 of a mile that fronts the ancient river.



The larger question is, why did UNESCO decide not to highlight this fact. Did you know the one source you provided for Aoudaghost, was the VP of UNESCO at one time???

www.theguardian.com...
thenewamerican.com...
thenewamerican.com...
www.innercitypress.com...

A very corrupt "Institution"!

Antlantis Has Been Discovered!!!!



Harte

originally posted by: Harte
Antlantis Has Been Discovered!!!!

Harte

Harte, I have got to give you credit, it does bring out certain mindsets at play. Concealment, organization, and purpose. Those stupid humans wanting to know how things work lol

Not exactly the ringed city, but close enough lol lol

You get a star

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Your source (1) was not accepted by me because the evidence on the ground does not support what he has written. It was not diverse, and it did not cover the areas in question. Besides, I can not accept his monetary backing, and not credible.

It was a traveler's report. He paid money to go to that area, wrote about his adventure on a blog (which hardly got him money) and take the photos. It aligned with other information (in a Reddit thread that I pointed out)

On top of all that you continually refuse to accept that their are structures, IN THE SECOND RING OF THE EYE. I have produced images documenting the discovery. Your (We) position is to simply look the other way, ignore.

So far you've flagged every dark quadrangle that you viewed in the photos as "blocks" with no other evidence that they're anything but ordinary buildings of the type common out there.

And there've been thousands of people traveling the area since the time of the Romans. Nobody's reported any anomalous big blocks of anything. Something that big and that visible would have been ripe for traveler graffiti... yet there's no report of that.

Perhaps you can find some?

Wake up call to those on the verge of "Waking Up. Plato did a lot of talking about those "Ancient gods". He spoke of them as being a reality, but admitting mankind knew little of them.

Not sure how this is supposed to make Atlantis a real place. The Egyptians believed in Ptah and Zep Tepi, but that doesn't make Zep Tepi real. (and so on and so forth for hundreds of other examples from around the world of places that people believed their deities made.) And Socrates, who he makes the narrator, was accused of impiety and of not believing in gods. So... your topic drift and an... irrelevant?... side trip such as you've complained about?

The Bible itself tells you the truth in the following passage. Exodus 20:3

And God spake all these words, saying, 2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

The Hebrews were not enslaved in Egypt (they were enslaved in Babylon, yes. Egypt, no.)

Why did this "Lord God" feel it necessary to warn mankind of the "other" gods? "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them".

To make sure the people followed their religion instead of the religion and not lose their national identity when they were in Babylon. The Babylonians were very accepting of deities from other cultures.

This passage confirms what Plato told us, there are other gods who ruled the earth. The passage also betrays the locations of these 'gods'. This passage is the creation of the Matrix of Lies. For where are the bases for these "Alien gods" being located? D.U.M.B. and deep in the oceans.

Not sure what the above has to do with proving that the dark quadrangular structures are actually some sort of "blocks" and not buildings.

Or the fort that I suppled you with some documentation about.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Harte
Antlantis Has Been Discovered!!!!

Harte

Harte, I have got to give you credit, it does bring out certain mindsets at play. Concealment, organization, and purpose. Those stupid humans wanting to know how things work lol

Not exactly the ringed city, but close enough lol lol

You get a star

I'd point out that it is, at least, a "city."
And there IS a ring around it - it's plain to see in the photo.

Harte

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

... Exodus 20:3

... This passage is the creation of the Matrix of Lies.

...

More likely the work of source J, possibly from about 1000 BC.

(Not too sure what this would have to do with Plato's fictional Atlantis, or isolated Cretaceousalkaline–hydrothermal complex in the Sahara).

Plato describes "Gods" that had assigned allotments globally. The story of Atlantis only discusses one of those gods and his "Ringed City". The Bible passage is conformation that gods were seen to exist, and one of them is declaring a superior position over all of mankind and the other gods.

Fast forward to today, and we find "Alien" bases rumored in the locations mentioned in Exodus, deep in the crust, and deep in the ocean. Not to mention what the Astronauts are rumored to have seen, on the moon (Heavens above).

It might be a leap of faith to say our present UFO phenomenon is non other than those ancient gods, masquerading as aliens. Or, it might just be simple logic. Once you see their "Craft", it is no longer, fiction.

To establish the Richat as the fabled ringed city one would only have to find ruins within its boundaries, and that has been done. The only thing left to do is wait for conformation. But knowing the level of present day corruption, that may take divine intervention to overcome. The gods themselves will fight with all they have to keep it concealed.

Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive

Plato may have exaggerated the level of technology and its dispersal. Though in honesty the story may have been exaggerated when given to him, he did the best he could in relaying to his audience. Common man was nothing more than slaves expected to do the manual labor, nothing more, and as Exodus described "Bondage". They lived with the means at hand in nothing more than stone huts, hobbles, simple stone structures. It was only the gods and their demigod blood descendants that lived in luxury, provided by the slaves physical efforts. And, would have been found in the center island, exclusively.

Buried structures discovered in the second ring. The destruction as devastating as it was, was not perfect.


21° 7'15.42"N 11°16'48.78"W


This structure now has a goggle tag stating "Unknown Structure"

21° 7'12.62"N 11°16'34.51"W



21° 7'4.04"N 11°16'26.18"W



21° 7'22.90"N 11°16'41.08"W



Admittedly, this presently is only circumstantial evidence, but when excavated by honest archeologists I have no doubts it will convert to, direct evidence.

It can not be confused with any other society because, there are no other societies known to have inhabited the region. And since the structures are still buried, they are original with no looting or tampering possible. What might be found inside one of those structures? Is one a treasury? Grain storage? Stable? Store? Or, even a Library! One never knows, until they look...

I would strongly advise to keep UNESCO as far away as possible. It appears Mauritania is virtually owned by UNESCO, and that is sad.