It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 25
61
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2021 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye


You notice anything missing?

No one builds settlements in the desert without water. No one stays, without it. Its just that simple. Regardless of whatever they had to trade with. That's why there were Caravans in the first place. Temporarily go into the area to harvest what they could, then leave.

If the waters dried up in 5000BC, then that is what you have. Pottery or no pottery. Salt, or no salt.



So the question is whether the area had available water after 5000 BC.

Of course, structures can be built without an actual settlement living there, like if they were military and the area had strategic importance.

Even for that, though. You still need a water source. A small one perhaps, but something.






A person can survive weeks without food depending on their body composition, environment, and sex.
Meanwhile, the human body can only survive two to four days without water.

www.insider.com...

Trading salt is not required to live...

It is absolutely ridiculous to even consider establishing a community of 400-500 souls without sufficient amounts of fresh, clean water.

Agree with who ever you wish.....


Trading salt would help explain Atlantis, though.

I'm not siding with Byrd in saying Atlantis can't be there. But I must agree with him that structures don't prove it. Not unless they can be shown to use megalithic sized blocks, and there are a lot of them.

If Atlantis were founded along a big river that leads out into the ocean somewhere, and had abundant salt to trade, then they would have had a reason to venture forth and interact with the rest of the world.

Once you've got enough salt for your own people, then the only value in having more of it than that, is if someone will give you something in exchange for it.

That would drive them to focus their economy on sea travel, and possibly become famous for their large navy.



posted on Sep, 9 2021 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

First, I would like to say that I have no bias one way or another concerning this site being the "Ringed City". I have no bias, for, or against this. Now, in saying that the evidence being discovered points to a lost civilization being present in the ancient past, that could not have thrived, without sufficient amounts of water. The structures found buried in the second ring that follow the radius of the ring are substantial in size and would require a substantial effort and resources to build. And the fact that they are buried in mud, reflect large amounts of water required to accomplish this.

The evidence is the only thing that should be considered, as old story's have a way of being "mutated" over time. The very fact these structures exist in the location and condition are direct evidence that a civilization did exist in this location, regardless of being in, or not, in history books. It is indirect evidence and circumstantial, not direct, of it being the "Ringed City".



Of course, structures can be built without an actual settlement living there, like if they were military and the area had strategic importance.

Even for that, though. You still need a water source. A small one perhaps, but something.


One of the structures noted in the second ring is of a pie shape I have Nick Named "Pie Fort". This, I would consider as a military outpost because of its spartan design and lacking any quarters that would be present for civilian use. It is defensive in design because the 3 side design allows for the greatest field of unobstructed view. This design is very unique. There are what appear to be updated forts with 4 walls but do not appear to be from the same mindset, timeline of the Pie Forts.

These Pie Forts are scattered around Mauritania and because of the unique design, tie them all to the structure buried in the second ring, and would suspect, the same timeline, mindset.

So, our lost society required defensive outpost. This alone would suggest the size of this lost civilization was much larger than what is seen, and required protection.


I'm not siding with Byrd in saying Atlantis can't be there. But I must agree with him that structures don't prove it. Not unless they can be shown to use megalithic sized blocks, and there are a lot of them.


There are possibility 3 large blocks in the center of the Richat, which viewing a poor photo suggest they are not buildings. If you read Plato he states there was a central pillar that had the "Laws" written on and where the "Blood Oath" was recited every 5th and 6th year. There is no way to confirm what these objects are until examined in person as to whether they are building blocks or the pillar of laws. One thing for certain is, they do not appear to be naturally forming.

Plato tells us there were large buildings in the center (Island) and plated with Orichalcum (Copper tin alloy). He does not tell us how large the building blocks were that were used. But, we do find large blocks of stone scattered about the southern entrance (Flood exit). This is not the only place these blocks are seen. There is a site just north that display the the same type of block. Generally 8-10ft X 18-20ft. I would consider these to be considerable in size. These blocks might be confused with built structures, except, they all have a flat top, generally rectangular in shape.


Trading salt would help explain Atlantis, though.


Orichalcum, or suspected, was recently recovered from a shipwreck in the Mediterranean. It would be more logical that copper was the main trading commodity, or, alloys of it, seeing how this area is very rich in copper, and can be seen in the amounts of green, green blue colors seen in the Richat. Plato is silent when it comes to trading Salt, even though, they may have. One note about the salt present in the area, its all surface deposits. If there are any Salt mines, I'm unaware of them.


If Atlantis were founded along a big river that leads out into the ocean somewhere, and had abundant salt to trade, then they would have had a reason to venture forth and interact with the rest of the world.


We know this area was a wetland just 7000 years ago. From other sources the ringed city was known as the "City of Locks", meaning to have the ability to raise and lower water levels to aid in boat navigation from higher areas, to lower and the reverse. Just replace copper with salt, and the evidence fits.

Now for the ramifications in exposing the Ringed City...........................



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

One of the structures noted in the second ring is of a pie shape I have Nick Named "Pie Fort". This, I would consider as a military outpost because of its spartan design and lacking any quarters that would be present for civilian use. It is defensive in design because the 3 side design allows for the greatest field of unobstructed view. This design is very unique. There are what appear to be updated forts with 4 walls but do not appear to be from the same mindset, timeline of the Pie Forts.


You have just made a conclusion... BUT...
* you don't know that it was 'Spartan' inside... you haven't done any digs or found any photos. It could have had housing that was elaborately decorated and had rich textiles. It could have been a caravanserai with strong walls for penning in camels and defending from marauders. It could have been the walls of a castle or a hundred other things.

Until you have actual evidence, you can't say what the thing is or how old it is. Satellite photos aren't evidence of anything on the ground.



These Pie Forts are scattered around Mauritania and because of the unique design, tie them all to the structure buried in the second ring, and would suspect, the same timeline, mindset.

Along major routes through the interior of the country, I suspect.


So, our lost society required defensive outpost. This alone would suggest the size of this lost civilization was much larger than what is seen, and required protection.


Structures dating from the 1500's are hardly those of a 'lost civilization.'

You have not proven that these are that ancient... and by the way, their fairly crude design (walls are not straight nor are the angles perfect) does not suggest a civilization capable of subduing the ancient world (or even a civilization with very sophisticated knowledge and decent stonework. Compare those "pie forts" with the far newer triangular structures you found where the walls are strong and straight in spite of the terrain.

And you're inventing a history by galloping to cover points rather than looking at the whole picture and seeing how empires actually collapse (Rome is an excellent example, but there's also many others.) That kind of thing works out well in fiction but isn't plausible in reality.



There are possibility 3 large blocks in the center of the Richat, which viewing a poor photo suggest they are not buildings. If you read Plato he states there was a central pillar that had the "Laws" written on and where the "Blood Oath" was recited every 5th and 6th year. There is no way to confirm what these objects are until examinPeopled in person as to whether they are building blocks or the pillar of laws.


People have been visiting the area for thousands of years. So they'd have noticed weird markings on the rocks and invited others to come look at them (while charging a nice fee.) If it'd been anything of vast importance you would have had the great powers of the world fighting like mad over it. See Jerusalem and the Temple Mount as an example.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I'm really very sorry, but until you can explain how 7 structures were buried in dried out mud in the second ring of the Richat Structure, that follow the radius, that are not in the history books, I'm just not going to waist my time in a pointless argument.

I see, you read my other post. Good for you...

Oh, did you know one of the structures has been partially dug out? Looks like they got about 2ft down before it was halted. No photos, no record. Welcome to the world of UNESCO re-education!



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 01:39 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 04:18 PM
link   

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

I'm really very sorry, but until you can explain how 7 structures were buried in dried out mud in the second ring of the Richat Structure, that follow the radius, that are not in the history books, I'm just not going to waist my time in a pointless argument.


They're half-buried in sand. Not mud.


Oh, did you know one of the structures has been partially dug out? Looks like they got about 2ft down before it was halted. No photos, no record.


So how do you determine a 2 foot depth change from a satellite photo that's not detailed enough to show branches on individual plants? And how did you determine it was "dug out" and isn't instead the result of sand piling up on one area of a structure? That kind of behavior of sand against buildings and walls is seen in deserts all over the world.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


Artifacts are found, typically redeposited, deflated, or both, in Late Pleistocene to early Holocene gravelly mud, muddy gravel, clayey sand, and silty sand. These sediments are often cemented into either concretionary masses or beds by calcrete. Ridges typically consist of deeply weathered bedrock representing truncated Cenozoic paleosols that formed under tropical environments. The Pleistocene to Middle Holocene sediments occur along wadis as thin, meter- to less than meter-thick accumulations in the interior annular depressions to 3–4 meters (9.8–13.1 ft) thick accumulations along the wadis in the outermost annular depression of the Richat Structure. The gravelly deposits consist of mixture of slope scree, debris flow, and fluviatile or even torrential flow deposits. The finer grained, sandy deposits consist of eolian and playa lake deposits. The latter contain well-preserved, freshwater fossils. Numerous concordant radiocarbon dates indicate that the bulk of these sediments accumulated between 15,000 and 8,000 BP during the African humid period. These deposits lie directly upon deeply eroded and weathered bedrock

en.wikipedia.org...

Theodore Monod in 1974, says, its mud. He also says there are no structures in the eye, but again, Satellite imaging was not available in 1974, and it has taken this long for the tops to weather through to be seen.
















Half Buried? The last one is the only one that has been disturbed.

Now, again. Where do you think all that MUD came from...to bury those structures?



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Byrd
Theodore Monod in 1974, says, its mud.


He says the alluvial deposits are (as expected) in the wadis...the muddy sand is in the old riverbeds. The higher ground, he says, is "deeply weathered bedrock representing truncated Cenozoic paleosols that formed under tropical environments." That's not mud.

The water flow patterns don't seem to show any of those things in the middle of a river or stream. They are on higher ground.


He also says there are no structures in the eye, but again, Satellite imaging was not available in 1974, and it has taken this long for the tops to weather through to be seen.


They could have been erected in the late 1970's or 1980's. Those are not impossibly precise structures and look (in form and construction) very similar to the modern ones you flagged in a previous post.

Now: We don't know that they WERE built in the 70's...but we don't know that they weren't. Your satellite photos wouldn't prove either case.




Now, again. Where do you think all that MUD came from...to bury those structures?

The same place the clay under my house came from... it was there first and contractors built on top of it. Those structures were built on top of older soils. Anything that had been inundated in a flood would look very different (floods exert a tremendous amount of force.)

You haven't presented proof here that the structures are older than the Middle Ages; a time period when there was a lot of travel in the area.
edit on 10-9-2021 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I feel like you have to apply a lot of imagination to those pictures in order to see anything in them.

Some of the shapes look square enough that they would be unlikely to happen in nature. But from the picture, I can't tell what they are. They could be crude shelters, or attempts to dig a well.



Naturally it would be fun to find Atlantis here. I could see a culture that was heavily invested in maritime trade getting mis-described in later legend as having its own continent, or being an island, or something like that.


But I don't want to interpret every dot and shadow on every satellite picture as being a 10,000 BC ruin. I'd end up looking at a satellite photo of my own backyard and thinking it was part of Mu or Lemuria.



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


I feel like you have to apply a lot of imagination to those pictures in order to see anything in them.


Not all that much, some. The real imagination comes in, in considering Plato was being honest in his retelling of the story. In other words, imagining the story was fact, not fiction.


Some of the shapes look square enough that they would be unlikely to happen in nature. But from the picture, I can't tell what they are. They could be crude shelters, or attempts to dig a well.


I guess it all boils down to possibilities and probabilities. I have taken quite a bit of time studying the geology of the area. For instance there is a natural feature that look man made but actually is normal when compared to other examples. There are bubble like features that have rings around them. The center appears to be raised with a lower perfectly circular outer ring. Is it possible its man made? Yes. Is it probable? Because of the other similar examples, not really.

As far as the use of any one of these structures its anyone's guess. If Plato's correct about the second ring he described temples, guard posts, and I believe horse racing which would require stables. Anyone's guess what might be discovered.


Naturally it would be fun to find Atlantis here. I could see a culture that was heavily invested in maritime trade getting mis-described in later legend as having its own continent, or being an island, or something like that.


It is interesting that the ones who wish (Demand) this to remain a myth, fiction, demand that what Plato shared be followed exactly, and refuse to allow any deviation. Its almost Religious in that they try to influence others to follow every word, but believe it to be fiction. Most folks are capable of being open minded when it comes to a story that is over 2000 years old, not them. First, since we know nothing about how many times it was retold before Plato ever received it, how could we be sure of any detail. Then you have the translations after he received it. We, in reality, are very lucky to even have the half we have today. And that is another major point, we only have half the story.

No, it wouldn't be fun in Confirming the world Plato shared was real. It would be the end of the world that those Demi gods created, and hopefully a end to the Royal order of gate keeping box makers those demi gods created to rule the world, covertly. Why, I even imagine the oldest "Royal Temple" is located, in Mauritania, scattered all over the desert...



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Go there i think you will quickly realize you can't do satellite archeology you lose scale.


Most of your circles are only about 4 feet high



Here this is fun he follows the old trade routes through the desert.



At least try to understand a region before you start making claims about its history.



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

...

It is interesting that the ones who wish (Demand) this to remain a myth, fiction, demand that what Plato shared be followed exactly, and refuse to allow any deviation. Its almost Religious in that they try to influence others to follow every word, but believe it to be fiction. Most folks are capable of being open minded when it comes to a story that is over 2000 years old, not them. First, since we know nothing about how many times it was retold before Plato ever received it, how could we be sure of any detail. Then you have the translations after he received it. We, in reality, are very lucky to even have the half we have today. And that is another major point, we only have half the story.

...



Plato insrted detail to his fictional story in order to add verisimilitude, like Tolkien designing Middle Earth..

It doesn't mean Middle Earth really exists ...



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 12:52 PM
link   

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

Go there i think you will quickly realize you can't do satellite archeology you lose scale.


Most of your circles are only about 4 feet high



Here this is fun he follows the old trade routes through the desert.



At least try to understand a region before you start making claims about its history.



?????

You really must stop watching youtube!



Umm, okay



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

Go there i think you will quickly realize you can't do satellite archeology you lose scale.


Most of your circles are only about 4 feet high



Here this is fun he follows the old trade routes through the desert.



At least try to understand a region before you start making claims about its history.



?????

You really must stop watching youtube!



Umm, okay



Go there i think you will quickly realize you can't do satellite archeology you lose scale.


Most of your circles are only about 4 feet high


So, how did those structures get buried in Mud? 4ft now, but what about before those structures became buried?



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

Go there i think you will quickly realize you can't do satellite archeology you lose scale.


Most of your circles are only about 4 feet high



Here this is fun he follows the old trade routes through the desert.



At least try to understand a region before you start making claims about its history.



?????

You really must stop watching youtube!



Umm, okay


Seeing it up close like that, makes it hard to imagine the water between the rings ever being deep enough for a large boat to pass through it.


Sadly I may have to let go of my hopes for this one. (Even though the Berbers are starting to look like both the tellers of the legend, and perhaps the left over descendants of Atlantis itself.)



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

Go there i think you will quickly realize you can't do satellite archeology you lose scale.


Most of your circles are only about 4 feet high



Here this is fun he follows the old trade routes through the desert.



At least try to understand a region before you start making claims about its history.



?????

You really must stop watching youtube!



Umm, okay



Go there i think you will quickly realize you can't do satellite archeology you lose scale.


Most of your circles are only about 4 feet high


So, how did those structures get buried in Mud? 4ft now, but what about before those structures became buried?


Upon what evidence are you making the claim of being buried in mud? Have you personally surveyed the site? Can you show us a citation that makes such a statement? You are throwing out a S#t ton of conjecture laden hyperbole as if it were all well supported facts but have yet to back any of it up with actual science.



posted on Sep, 11 2021 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


Upon what evidence are you making the claim of being buried in mud?


What? What is buried in mud? I'm not buried in mud, are you. What exactly are you running on about. Do try to be specific. Please point to the offending mud.. Err, what ever.
edit on PMSaturdaySaturday thAmerica/ChicagoAmerica/Chicago44911 by All Seeing Eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2021 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

Go there i think you will quickly realize you can't do satellite archeology you lose scale.


Most of your circles are only about 4 feet high



Here this is fun he follows the old trade routes through the desert.



At least try to understand a region before you start making claims about its history.



?????

You really must stop watching youtube!



Umm, okay


Seeing it up close like that, makes it hard to imagine the water between the rings ever being deep enough for a large boat to pass through it.


Sadly I may have to let go of my hopes for this one. (Even though the Berbers are starting to look like both the tellers of the legend, and perhaps the left over descendants of Atlantis itself.)



Seeing it up close like that, makes it hard to imagine the water between the rings ever being deep enough for a large boat to pass through it.


Those are things to consider and "Imagination" is key in being able to see "How it was", not how it is presently. You can see patterns in the soil that reflect man made objects. Some of the objects are actually protruding out of the soil and others are producing a "Ghost" image I can only imagine are produced by dissimilar building materials interacting with components of the soil. The one thing there is no indicator of, is how tall are these structures. Are they 8, 10, 20 ft tall? Are they all the same height, or similar height?

If you accept structures buried in 10 +- feet of mud, then the big question is how did they come to be buried in this way/ manner. We know of many natural disasters of this magnitude within certain conditions. Tsunami's, mountain mud slides,
and floods caused by large rain events. I have personally seen large amounts of real estate moved by large flood events. Small canyons where the ground is just missing, washed downstream to "Fill In" lower areas. I have seen rather large boulders being swept down stream by flood waters. The force and power of water can not be argued.

I'm sure its not unreasonable to imagine the lowest areas filled in first then back flowed over any higher areas. An awful large amount of real estate was rearranged that night.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join