Ancient 2500 yr Old Map Shows The Lost City of Atlantis is The Eye of The Sahara

a reply to: lostbook
Thank you for posting something that is not about politics.

I have the feeling we aren't supposed to know....tptb control this information

originally posted by: GoShredAK
I have the feeling we aren't supposed to know....tptb control this information

Yeah this isn't headline news because they don't want us to realize how phenomenal the human potential is. Atlantis being real doesn't fit the narrative that we're mutant cavemen.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GoShredAK
I have the feeling we aren't supposed to know....tptb control this information

Yeah this isn't headline news because they don't want us to realize how phenomenal the human potential is. Atlantis being real doesn't fit the narrative that we're mutant cavemen.

Except that Atlantis wasn't real. That's the point that Harte and others have been making. It was a part of a story by Plato and nothing else.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Except that Atlantis wasn't real. That's the point that Harte and others have been making. It was a part of a story by Plato and nothing else.

It fits Plato's description very well though. An advanced race living on terraformed Concentric rings with proximity to the strait of Gibraltar. It matches the map and detail. If massive concentric rings were a common geological terrain then it could be a coincidence, but this is a very unique geological site that is exactly where Plato said Atlantis was.

Wow! Atlantis solved. Incredible that another ancient mythological site has been found.

originally posted by: cooperton
It fits Plato's description very well though.

So it is an island that is the size of a continent (bigger than Asia) that is "in front of the mouth [of] 'the pillars of Heracles" and it sunk below the sea?

Or when you say it "fits Plato's description very well" do you mean "not at all"?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Except that Atlantis wasn't real. That's the point that Harte and others have been making. It was a part of a story by Plato and nothing else.

It fits Plato's description very well though. An advanced race living on terraformed Concentric rings with proximity to the strait of Gibraltar. It matches the map and detail. If massive concentric rings were a common geological terrain then it could be a coincidence, but this is a very unique geological site that is exactly where Plato said Atlantis was.

Who don't appear in any historical records, or in any archaeology, other than a brief mention by a Greek philosopher who was writing a work of philosophy and allegedly quoting his grandfather's memories of something that an Egyptian said (even though it's not mentioned anywhere in Egyptian mythology either)?
There are too many holes in the whole thing.

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

So it is an island that is the size of a continent (bigger than Asia) that is "in front of the mouth [of] 'the pillars of Heracles" and it sunk below the sea?

Or when you say it "fits Plato's description very well" do you mean "not at all"?

"In the former, Plato describes how Egyptian priests, in conversation with the Athenian lawgiver Solon, described Atlantis as an island larger than Asia Minor and Libya combined, and situated just beyond the Pillars of Hercules (the Strait of Gibraltar)."

Asia Minor*, not Asia. Nice detail you left out there. From Greece, travelling to the eye of the Sahara, the Pillars of Hercules (the strait of Gibraltar) are on the way. From Plato's account, the eye of Sahara was immersed in water at one time, with the concentric rings that were found being the land masses.



Look at that, Atlantis right where the eye of Sahara is according to one of the most reliable historians of all time. The eye of Sahara is about 25 miles wide, making it 10x wider than Manhattan. Huge.

Plato also took truth very seriously. There are massive concentric geological rings exactly where he said they would be by the strait of Gibraltar. I don't know how it could match any more lol.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Who don't appear in any historical records, or in any archaeology, other than a brief mention by a Greek philosopher who was writing a work of philosophy and allegedly quoting his grandfather's memories of something that an Egyptian said (even though it's not mentioned anywhere in Egyptian mythology either)?
There are too many holes in the whole thing.

The Egyptians were apparently getting owned by the Atlanteans, the Egyptians don't like to talk about the times they lost. That's why they don't talk about Hebrew Exodus either.

a reply to: cooperton

That map wasn't from Herodotus, it was only inspired by his writings. Also that doesn't say Atlantis, it says Atlantes as in the mountain range.

If you go read the Critias you'll see that the people of Attica were fighting a war fronted by the island kingdom of Atlantis, and that the disaster the effected the island kingdom also messed up Attica as well. This would mean that the island of Atlantis is on the same side of the Mediterranean as Athens (which is in Attica).

I outlined a good explanation as to where Atlantis could be in my thread: ATS: another thread on Atlantis

To me the area that makes the most sense would be in the Province of Ferrara in Northern Italy. I mean if you look at a global map of the area you can even see how the collapsing glacier from the Alp's would not only cover any bay that might have existed in northern Italy, but also rip apart the whole area down to the Mediterranean Sea.

a reply to: cooperton

That's why they don't talk about Hebrew Exodus either.

Maybe because Moses was Egyptian, and he led the Jews out of Egypt - they were not slaves, and the numbers?

abcnews.go.com...#:~:

Religious historians estimate the Israelite population in Egypt at the time was around two or three million people, but the biblical Exodus route into the Sinai Desert has left no trace other than what the Bible tells us.

"There is virtually no evidence, as the Torah says, that 600,000 Jewish males, with their wives and children and elders, left Egypt in the Exodus," said Rabbi Burt Visotzky, a professor of Talmud and Rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. "Those are big numbers. You'd think someone would notice."

a reply to: cooperton

. That's why they don't talk about Hebrew Exodus either.

How about some honest research, which Egyptians don't talk about it?

You'd think for a advanced culture like the Egyptians who documented pretty much everything would notice Moses and especially after he hit them with plagues


www.google.com...

Is Moses in Egyptian history?
Though the names of Moses and others in the biblical narratives are Egyptian and contain genuine Egyptian elements, no extrabiblical sources point clearly to Moses. No references to Moses appear in any Egyptian sources prior to the fourth century BCE, long after he is believed to have lived.

And even the Jews are embarrassed

www.jpost.com...

The Exodus: Does archaeology have a say?
The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight


You'd think for a advanced culture like the Egyptians who documented pretty much everything would notice Moses and especially after he hit them with plagues

The victor writes the history. The Egyptians probably didn't care too much once they never had to deal with them again.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: cooperton

That map wasn't from Herodotus, it was only inspired by his writings. Also that doesn't say Atlantis, it says Atlantes as in the mountain range.

where do you think the mountain range got that name? They're referred to as the Atlantes mountains, not the Atlas mountains. Although the godlike attribution to these people makes me wonder if Atlas was involved

To me the area that makes the most sense would be in the Province of Ferrara in Northern Italy. I mean if you look at a global map of the area you can even see how the collapsing glacier from the Alp's would not only cover any bay that might have existed in northern Italy, but also rip apart the whole area down to the Mediterranean Sea.

But there's no geological Concentric rings in northern Italy. The Geology of the area that Plato refers to matches the description he gave. It doesn't matter to me if you believe him or not, history is history.

a reply to: cooperton

As right on cue you cherry pick what to respond on, very disingenuous. At least be intellectually honest. WHat about the rest of my quote - I'll hold my breath.

Even the Jews are embarressed

And even the Jews are embarrassed

www.jpost.com...



The Exodus: Does archaeology have a say?The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Well I wouldn't expect Egypt to be like, "Hey remember when a bunch of slaves fooled our chariots and their God drowned our army in the sea?"

So the only culture that would have recorded it is the Hebrews.

But that's not even the topic. Concentric geological rings at the eye of Sahara shows Plato's telling of the story has validity

a reply to: cooperton

Mate you run circles with good arguments in Evolution threads. You've let me down here ignoring such an important bit.

But fair enough I'll see my way out

originally posted by: cooperton

To me the area that makes the most sense would be in the Province of Ferrara in Northern Italy. I mean if you look at a global map of the area you can even see how the collapsing glacier from the Alp's would not only cover any bay that might have existed in northern Italy, but also rip apart the whole area down to the Mediterranean Sea.

But there's no geological Concentric rings in northern Italy. The Geology of the area that Plato refers to matches the description he gave. It doesn't matter to me if you believe him or not, history is history.

Why don't you learn about the Würm glaciation and see why the Ferrara Region makes sense. If the glacial collapsed (which all indications show that it did) then the flat area of Ferrara would have been covered up so any signs of the island and it's rings would have been covered up.

What I don't understand is why do think Plato is talking about Africa and not Northern Italy? Have you read the source, and if so can you explain the war that was discussed? Who Attica was fighting is key in locating where Atlantis is.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

So it is an island that is the size of a continent (bigger than Asia) that is "in front of the mouth [of] 'the pillars of Heracles" and it sunk below the sea?

Or when you say it "fits Plato's description very well" do you mean "not at all"?

"In the former, Plato describes how Egyptian priests, in conversation with the Athenian lawgiver Solon, described Atlantis as an island larger than Asia Minor and Libya combined, and situated just beyond the Pillars of Hercules (the Strait of Gibraltar)."

Asia Minor*, not Asia. Nice detail you left out there. From Greece, travelling to the eye of the Sahara, the Pillars of Hercules (the strait of Gibraltar) are on the way. From Plato's account, the eye of Sahara was immersed in water at one time, with the concentric rings that were found being the land masses.

But Plato would certainly have noted that it far south and west of the Pillars -- 1,800 miles away, in fact. If (and this is not true) the Sahara was covered with water it would take you more than a week to sail there, if the winds were right and if you had enough supplies. That's farther than the distance from Athens to Crete.

Look at that, Atlantis right where the eye of Sahara is according to one of the most reliable historians of all time. The eye of Sahara is about 25 miles wide, making it 10x wider than Manhattan. Huge.

And no match for the measurements given by Plato. It's 50 stades from the sea (around 5 1/2 miles). The total diameter (if you add things up) is 127 stades or about 15.5 miles.

Also, Richat is not an impassible mud flat.

The Egyptians were apparently getting owned by the Atlanteans, the Egyptians don't like to talk about the times they lost. That's why they don't talk about Hebrew Exodus either.

They don't talk about either because neither of these events happened. Remember that Athens supposedly defeated Atlantis... yet the site of Athens was only small villages until around 1400 BC. In 1400 BC, there were many civilizations in the Levant that had writing and recorded their own histories. No such rule of the entire area by a superpower (Atlantis) was ever recorded, no big unifying culture (Atlantis) has ever turned up and Athens doesn't become powerful until after the Greek Dark Ages (around 800 BC)

The Richat structure is heavily eroded geological feature that is the wrong size, in the wrong place. It has not been seawater for the past few million years (there may have been freshwater lakes there ~10,000 years ago) and, indeed, is situated some 400ft above sea level. Archeological digs have uncovered evidence of nomadic peoples using the place, but no permanent settlements.

It fits Plato's description of Atlantis in the same way a polo mint fits the usual description of a Tyranosaurus Rex.

More details here: en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

...

It fits Plato's description of Atlantis in the same way a polo mint fits the usual description of a Tyranosaurus Rex.

...

Best description of the Richat structure in this context I've heard this many a day ...