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

originally posted by: cooperton

The fact that sea salt is found at the rings is further proof there was saltwater there at one time

No it's not. Especially as it's not sea salt

Even kids know how and why salt flats are found in desert areas and that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the sea

wiki.kidzsearch.com...

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Byrd

Also...there was no mega flood 5,000 years ago. A number of civilizations had writing at that time period and didn't record any such event.

Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.

www.nwcreation.net...

Data Base of Flood Stories.

www.talkorigins.org...

There's a huge problem with that (well, two, actually)
* some are clearly about local large floods
* there is no timeline for the stories. Some of those peoples who told the stories are fairly modern tribes/cultural groups. Some refer to recent floods.
* Copycat stories -- A number of them are clearly retelling the Noah story with local heroes. They don't have an actual tradition of a flood story. The Micronesian stories are clearly riffs on a different story from another group.

It can't be used as evidence for 'a mega flood' without other evidences... and there isn't any. Floods are easy enough to spot in the geologic record. And a worldwide flood would have crashed the human population and made us a lot more consistent looking than we are today. In addition, there would be far fewer species of animals and plants around and far less diversity.

Nor are they evidence for a big flood at one place (like Mesopotamia) in the world. The stories are too inconsistent for that.

The other issue is that, at that time, no human would have been capable of knowing a local flood was "local" if they ended up far enough out to sea.

It's not like "Noah" sailed out to Mount Everest to confirm it was underwater. (He would need to know where it was, and have profound navigation skills, be certain he was looking in the right place with no landmarks to guide him.)

Probably at least one culture somewhere experienced a flood so severe that some member of it believed them self to be the last survivor. In the studies of smaller isolated tribes, it is often found that the tribe's name for itself is also the tribe's word for "human". (Xenophobia is not a modern invention.) So the wiping out of that tribe could be miscommunicated later on to be the wiping out of all humanity.

originally posted by: Mike27
a reply to: Byrd

here's some different imagery;
21.416339, -11.228703
21.120352, -11.279385
21.120331, -11.276208

I'm not seeing anything in the second image, but... I have found a ground level image of the Eye, though it's not clear where this is from

When I look at that second image, I think that the round things in those pictures are desert wells.

This web page from research geologists in Maruitania shows one of those wells, which does seem to be associated with a corral and a lined lip that would match some of those structures.

I haven't got a sense of how big they are (the structures.)

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

No it's not Especially as it's not sea salt

An independent researcher went there and confirmed the white portions that you see on Google maps are in fact salt.

Even kids know how and why salt flats are found in desert areas and that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the sea

wiki.kidzsearch.com...

Lol are you trolling your self? It says that the salt beds form from evaporation that cause mineral deposits. The reason salt is deposited at the richat structure is because it was once covered by salt water

originally posted by: Mike27
a reply to: Byrd

here's some different imagery;
21.416339, -11.228703
21.120352, -11.279385
21.120331, -11.276208

Likely had to do with a trade route

en.wikipedia.org...

The area you marked is known to have wells such as trig tiguidest. Quadane is about 25 miles from the area you marked. Guess where the salt mines they mentioned is?

Depends where the salt is. Looking on Google maps, the Richat structure is at a low elevation surrounded by high elevation. So rain water could, potentially, bring salt down out of the mountains and then evaporate.

However, also I think there was a time like 100 million years ago, when it was under the ocean. It might be left over from that.

The "Green Sahara" period wasn't like a rain forest, or anything extremely severe like that. It was green compared to a desert.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Depends where the salt is. Looking on Google maps, the Richat structure is at a low elevation surrounded by high elevation. So rain water could, potentially, bring salt down out of the mountains and then evaporate.

However, also I think there was a time like 100 million years ago, when it was under the ocean. It might be left over from that.

The "Green Sahara" period wasn't like a rain forest, or anything extremely severe like that. It was green compared to a desert.

That area has not been green for a long time prior to the Egyptians settling in the Nile valley!

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: cooperton

Lol are you trolling your self? It says that the salt beds form from evaporation that cause mineral deposits. The reason salt is deposited at the richat structure is because it was once covered by salt water

The salt flats in the Sahara form the same way the salt flats in America and everywhere else in the world form. Are you now saying half the interior of the USA was under the ocean 10,000 years ago?

The link I provided explains the process. That you refuse to accept it is up to you. You can lead a man to facts, but you cannot cure ignorance.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew


The salt flats in the Sahara form the same way the salt flats in America and everywhere else in the world form. Are you now saying half the interior of the USA was under the ocean 10,000 years ago?

Richat is not a salt flat. It has salt deposits. There's a major difference

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: cooperton

Lol are you trolling your self? It says that the salt beds form from evaporation that cause mineral deposits. The reason salt is deposited at the richat structure is because it was once covered by salt water

The salt flats in the Sahara form the same way the salt flats in America and everywhere else in the world form. Are you now saying half the interior of the USA was under the ocean 10,000 years ago? .

Actually, it was.... during the Cretaceous. And during other time periods as well.

See the Western Inteior Seaway

Ruins discovered so far and general location. Take note that the ruins and their general alignment seem follow the basic radius of the ring.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Ruins discovered so far and general location. Take note that the ruins and their general alignment seem follow the basic radius of the ring.

If those are your tags, then we can't say they are ruins. Quite a few of the structures appear to be modern.

Or are these archaeologically identified ruins?

Edited to add after looking at a number of papers on the geology and archaeology of Richat, the structures you listed are all in wadis (flood channels). Smaller objects and artifacts (as noted in papers on the Achulean in the Richat structure) are found at the bottom of these and mixed with sediment. Large objects (like blocks of stone) would slide with the mud but be farther upstream... and you'd see the original blocks at the top of where the whole flow began.

What I'm also seeing is that sites that are truly ancient aren't really visible on the surface but are detected by infared (changes in the landscape) satellite. (Egyptian city of Tanis) I have seen infared identify structures in England as well as Egypt.

That casts further doubt in my mind, particularly given the wadis in the area. IF (which I doubted all along) there are ruins there, they will be buried under sediment and not visible on the surface. I am becoming more convinced that the walled structures, etc, are probably no older than a few hundred years and possibly even younger than that.

a reply to: Byrd

Large objects (like blocks of stone) would slide with the mud but be farther upstream... and you'd see the original blocks at the top of where the whole flow began.

Depending solely on the nature of the water flood. Again, this is not a normal water flood event.

As can be seen in the center of the eye, the run off patterns are helter skelter and follow no logical pattern as would a natural flood, water going high to low in it course.

If you have ever spent time washing off a area with a garden hose you would know you have to control the water. Not all areas are down hill, some up, and that water has a tendency to back flow into the areas you just cleaned, taking with it dirt you have already moved. If cleaning a area completely you would do a simple sweeping motion to move as much water as will not back flow. If you are just spot cleaning the area, you will only hit the dirt you want to move, leaving the dirt to go where ever. Its a very sloppy and incomplete job.

Im not suggesting someone took a garden hose to the area. What I am suggesting is this area was hit by a column of water generally about 1000 in diameter, directed at certain locations, moved, and redirected, with no real regard for runoff. There are erosion areas that are consistent with being hit by hi pressure water.

The scale of this destruction is in line with what Plato has relayed. Except, no mention of the method of, destruction. I am convinced that within the library of Alexandria there were testimonies as to that method. And very well could have been the core reason it was ordered burned. The second case of "Cancel Culture". The City Capital of Atlantis, being the first.

Now saying all that, the blocks in the runoff zone to the south all generally lay in the same direction, meaning the water flow pushed them on their broad side, and as the water pressure subsided, left them to lay where they are today. The large buildings were the only targets, not, cleaning off of the general area. And yes, there are a few blocks left in the center, where the flooding originated.

In as far as describing that rather large water hose, well, NASA, is going to have to "Come Clean" , first.

I,m not religious by any stretch, but Jesus was correct about the Father of all Lies!

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
So that tells us that, if another ancient nation were to speak of it, they would have called it something else.

Also the Egyptians would have called it something else.

We don't need that info to tell us this. Plato has already told us this.
Again, read the damn dialogues.

Harte

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Harte

Plato is the ONLY ancient source for anything concerning Atlantis.

Just so you know, 4.3 decades for me. And in that time I have learned, nothing is ever "Settled". Every day something new is coming out of the dirt, or new discoveries. Old snake oil is thrown out quicker than I have ever seen it happen before.

Yes, there is another source for information.

Twice now you have made this claim. Twice now you refuse to defend it.
There is no other ancient source than Plato, and you ARE pretending.

However, you're not just pretending, you're also displaying your ignorance - implying some "coincidence" that mountains where the Titan Atlas supposedly stood holding up the sky might be called the Atlas Mountains.

Gee. Wonder where they got THAT name?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Harte

Plato is the ONLY ancient source for anything concerning Atlantis.

Just so you know, 4.3 decades for me. And in that time I have learned, nothing is ever "Settled". Every day something new is coming out of the dirt, or new discoveries. Old snake oil is thrown out quicker than I have ever seen it happen before.

Yes, there is another source for information.

Twice now you have made this claim. Twice now you refuse to defend it.
There is no other ancient source than Plato, and you ARE pretending.

However, you're not just pretending, you're also displaying your ignorance - implying some "coincidence" that mountains where the Titan Atlas supposedly stood holding up the sky might be called the Atlas Mountains.

Gee. Wonder where they got THAT name?

Harte

When studying the past, especially the ancient past, you study ALL the information available. And their is a wealth of information coming out of the dirt! Untouched by human hand for thousands of years, almost as good as out of the horses mouth, directly. The "Horse" had a hell of a lot to say about Atlantis, and the flood. He also talked about the most distant times. But knowing how snake oil salesman like to slime up history, pervert it, turn it into a fable they then turn around and try to make a buck on it, I'm just not interested in contributing to that cause.

Find me a honest (non club member) researcher, and I will share it with him, free of charge.

If you haven't found it by now, well, you might want to reconsider who might really be, ignorant.

Here, study this photo, for no apparent reason.
www.thetimes.co.uk... 01

It is obvious that certain people are not interested in real research for evidence.
They are only interested in confirmation of their phantasies.
A scholar is only welcome when he confirmes their 'theories' otherwise they attack him ad hominem to get rid of the truth.

it has no use argueing. They will just start a new thread next week.
The stupidest nut is the most stubborn.
lol.

originally posted by: anti72
It is obvious that certain people are not interested in real research for evidence.
They are only interested in confirmation of their phantasies.
A scholar is only welcome when he confirmes their 'theories' otherwise they attack him ad hominem to get rid of the truth.

it has no use argueing. They will just start a new thread next week.
The stupidest nut is the most stubborn.
lol.

As I stated I have been at this for a very long time. Not only have I made some very indescribable, unbelievable, discoveries, I have also discovered the intellectual "Box Makers". The enforcers of the illusion's. They are active in all walks of life, politics, law enforcement, security, military, and a very marked presence in the "Sciences", especially, Geology, Archeology, paleontology. As an extension, space exploration.

When you research "Science" and it's origins you will find it was established, manned, and directed by the Box Makers. In this capacity they have been able to direct and control the flow of information and in that, control the limits mankind was allowed to "Look". They use clever catch phrases to enhance the effect. Another phrase they use is "Debunked". For that is generally used to discredit one of their own who inadvertently released too much, or too sensitive of information, a sort of damage control.

When confronted with information that comes from outside the box they create, they first look away, giving them time to consider the fabrication of a cover story. And as you point out, if they can not win a argument, they reach for the emotional attack, the ad hominem.

They were originally instituted to do exactly what they do now, and that is to conceal the secrets of heaven and earth! And that, comes straight from the "Horse's Mouth"!

This is what happens when you think for yourself, outside that box! Obviously, this "Scientist" didn't get the memo on timelines of the box!!!

A recent archaeological discovery that throws a wrench into the conventional theory of evolution has reportedly cost a California professor his job. Mark Armitage, a former scientist at California State University, Northridge (CSUN), was reportedly fired after claiming to have unearthed a dinosaur fossil that still contains soft, flexible tissue, suggesting that it can’t be millions of years old.

helenastales.weebly.com... KXj49C1F9v4Zk_pMPW84o

Yep, things being discovered every day. The club of box makers have their work cut out for them...

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Byrd

Large objects (like blocks of stone) would slide with the mud but be farther upstream... and you'd see the original blocks at the top of where the whole flow began.

Depending solely on the nature of the water flood. Again, this is not a normal water flood event.

As can be seen in the center of the eye, the run off patterns are helter skelter and follow no logical pattern as would a natural flood, water going high to low in it course.

If you have ever spent time washing off a area with a garden hose you would know you have to control the water.

I have actually spent some time helping an Audubon park develop a strategy for controlling and redirecting rain runoff, so I do know a bit about it.

Im not suggesting someone took a garden hose to the area. What I am suggesting is this area was hit by a column of water generally about 1000 in diameter, directed at certain locations, moved, and redirected, with no real regard for runoff.

That doesn't match what's in Plato. And if you're going to throw out Plato, then you have to throw out things like "circular city" and so forth that you're trying to match up. A proposed Atlantis has to match ALL the information that Plato has given and nothing from a later date.

The scenario you describe has happened here on Earth in the the Channeled Scablands in Washington where something like you just described did happen when a glacier failed.

Richat doesn't show that.

I am convinced that within the library of Alexandria there were testimonies as to that method. And very well could have been the core reason it was ordered burned.

I think you might want to take a better look at the history of the Library (which declined and was rebuilt over several hundred years)

The Library was famous for its knowledge... which meant (as was shown many times) that scholars came there and copied books or hired people to go there and copy books for them -- and often stayed to work and exchange letters with other scholars. Those books ended up in other libraries. In addition, the Library got its books by searching every ship that appeared in Alexandria for books. Any books found would be confiscated, copied, and the copies given back to the ship with original books kept in Alexandria.

So any information in the Library was widely shared with scholars.

It's not reasonable to think that "secret knowledge about Atlantis" was the reason the Library was destroyed. It was not important to the history of Egypt (and the Egyptians never heard of it) or any other country. If there had been "secret knowledge" it would have been in the hands of tens of thousands of scholars over its 500 year run.

And where would these books have come from? From Atlantis? Nobody would have been able to read them and they'd have been recycled. From Egypt? (unlikely) - even the very educated Manetho had trouble reading older inscriptions. Nobody could read them. If you get around that by 'they were recopied over time' then you run into the problem of 'a lot of people knew what was in them.' If you wanted to get rid of them, a pharaoh would simply ask for the copies to be delivered to his quarters. Nobody could get them back and they would be gone. No need to destroy a library.

I don't think you can make a workable scenario out of that.

Now saying all that, the blocks in the runoff zone to the south all generally lay in the same direction, meaning the water flow pushed them on their broad side, and as the water pressure subsided, left them to lay where they are today.

Before going off on that, let's see if we can find photos of the Richat that show those blocks so we can confirm they're blocks and not houses.

The large buildings were the only targets, not, cleaning off of the general area. And yes, there are a few blocks left in the center, where the flooding originated.

The wadis show that water flowed into the structure, not out of it.

Also, the archaeologists digging up ancient tools would have to dig through the layers that held Atlantis. Given that Atlantis was heavily populated with people and animals and vegetation... how did they manage to dig through the biggest archaeological find in history (one that would make them famous and wealthy) and come up instead with a small handful of tools from very ancient campgrounds?

Before going off on that, let's see if we can find photos of the Richat that show those blocks so we can confirm they're blocks and not houses.

The 2 objects to the left are hobbles. Possibly 3 The ones to the top and left, appear to be beat up blocks.

Download and zoom in for a better look.



ADDED: For other photos of the area

www.gettyimages.com...