4 ms·

I could take this article more seriously if it were to credibly refute the possibility that the capital of Atlantis was the richat structure, and that the empir

I could take this article more seriously if it were to credibly refute the possibility that the capital of Atlantis was the richat structure, and that the empire of Atlantis covered the saharah, with a port of entry just outside the straight of Gibraltar. I think its accepted that ~13,000 years ago the Sahara was lush forests and grasslands, and around that time there was a significant meteor strike (or several) that hit North America and possibly the Atlantic Ocean. Of course it would be fun to learn that Atlantis was real, so many people will be biased to want to believe it. It might not be true, but to argue it's conclusive either way I think is premature. The article states several times things like "all available evidence", which is both not true, (the article omits available evidence) and also doesn't acknowledge how little evidence is available.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
The Richat Structure is the result of natural geological processes. Other than having concentric circles, it doesn't match Plato's description of Atlantis, and there is no evidence that any large city was ever there.
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  "The Richat Structure is the result of natural geological processes." - this is irrelevant "Other than having concentric circles, it doesn't match Plato's description of Atlantis" - in what way? Be specific. "and there is no evidence that any large city was ever there." - lol, there has never been a thorough archeological survey, and the surveys that have been done have turned up evidence that points to noteworthy human activity. What about the tens of thousands of axe heads found all concentrated in one spot? Assuming that the city was destroyed in a significant flood, we need to assume the evidence will be hard to find, and therefore we have to look hard for it before we can say it's not there.
  - saturn_vk 2y ago
    > this is irrelevant I think OP mentions this due to your mention of meteor impacts > What about the tens of thousands of axe heads found all concentrated in one spot? According to Wikipedia, Stone Age axes. It seems reasonable to believe that the site provided easy access for material
    - FloorEgg 2y ago
      > I think OP mentions this due to your mention of meteor impacts I thought I was pretty clear about the strikes being in North America, but ill emphasize that point again. The formation is natural and the theory is that human settled in it for its logistical and defensive advantages (back when the area around it was lush), and then got wiped out by floods caused by global climate shifts caused by massive meteorite strikes in North America and possibly the Atlantic ocean. > According to Wikipedia, Stone Age axes. It seems reasonable to believe that the site provided easy access for material Sure, but given how little investment has been made into archeological studies of the area, isn't it interesting that we found evidence of some significant human activity? It doesn't prove the theory, but its an observation that if anything lends to the theory. The scientific method is a process of making observations, developing a theory, forming falsifiable hypotheses, testing them carefully, and then drawing conclusions, and updating the theory as appropriate. I don't take issue with people being skeptical about all this, I just take issue with people confidently stating that it's been proven false. Their stance seems less scientific to me than the people who want to pursue experiments that validate or invalidate (or refine) the theory. I for one just would like to know the truth, whatever it might be. Edit: To the people who are downvoting this comment, I wish you would respond to it and explain why you think it deserves to be downvoted.
      - protocolture 2y ago
        >and then drawing conclusions, and updating the theory as appropriate. This bit never happens. What does occur is that the hypothesis just twists to ignore new data. Hancock has claimed that as he isn't a scientist he doesn't need to include the facts that disagree with his ideas. He sees himself as a champion of an idea, and cherry picks facts to craft the best possible case for that idea. IE: Hes a massive fraud and waste of time. > I just take issue with people confidently stating that it's been proven false. I take issue with the idea that this entire argument has to happen again, politely and fresh, for anyone who pops up on the internet having read some cherry picked nonsense about atlantis. Why is it our collective responsibility to educate you. Its not even the responsibility of scientists to prove or disprove your claims, if you are making positive claims you should be either presenting or locating evidence for those claims. Also to note, evidence doesnt mean "Hey this sounds a bit like some old folklore". >I for one just would like to know the truth, whatever it might be. All offense intended, but the people who go on about this stuff have already arrived at their desired truth, and they are simply defending their truth from the slings and arrows of reality. Get on a boat, go investigate the Richat structure, come back with evidence, otherwise the current evidence stands.
seanw444 2y ago
Plus all the details that conveniently line up. The mountains with rivers to the north. Being south of the Atlas mountains – Atlas being the first king of Atlantis. "Atlantis" meaning "island of Atlantis" is interesting because it's likely that if water were present in the rings, it would have the appearance of an island, and there are two forms of evidence that there was: zoom out on Maps/Earth and see the obvious water blast the sand experienced coming from the Atlantic; there is also salt present in the rings. Is it Atlantis? Maybe not, but there a number of stiking coincidences.
- seanw444 2y ago
  Correction: Island of Atlas
protocolture 2y ago
> if it were to credibly refute the possibility that the capital of Atlantis was the richat structure It has never been positively established why would it need refutation.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

The Richat Structure is the result of natural geological processes. Other than having concentric circles, it doesn't match Plato's description of Atlantis, and there is no evidence that any large city was ever there.

FloorEgg 2y ago
"The Richat Structure is the result of natural geological processes." - this is irrelevant "Other than having concentric circles, it doesn't match Plato's description of Atlantis" - in what way? Be specific. "and there is no evidence that any large city was ever there." - lol, there has never been a thorough archeological survey, and the surveys that have been done have turned up evidence that points to noteworthy human activity. What about the tens of thousands of axe heads found all concentrated in one spot? Assuming that the city was destroyed in a significant flood, we need to assume the evidence will be hard to find, and therefore we have to look hard for it before we can say it's not there.
- saturn_vk 2y ago
  > this is irrelevant I think OP mentions this due to your mention of meteor impacts > What about the tens of thousands of axe heads found all concentrated in one spot? According to Wikipedia, Stone Age axes. It seems reasonable to believe that the site provided easy access for material
  - FloorEgg 2y ago
    > I think OP mentions this due to your mention of meteor impacts I thought I was pretty clear about the strikes being in North America, but ill emphasize that point again. The formation is natural and the theory is that human settled in it for its logistical and defensive advantages (back when the area around it was lush), and then got wiped out by floods caused by global climate shifts caused by massive meteorite strikes in North America and possibly the Atlantic ocean. > According to Wikipedia, Stone Age axes. It seems reasonable to believe that the site provided easy access for material Sure, but given how little investment has been made into archeological studies of the area, isn't it interesting that we found evidence of some significant human activity? It doesn't prove the theory, but its an observation that if anything lends to the theory. The scientific method is a process of making observations, developing a theory, forming falsifiable hypotheses, testing them carefully, and then drawing conclusions, and updating the theory as appropriate. I don't take issue with people being skeptical about all this, I just take issue with people confidently stating that it's been proven false. Their stance seems less scientific to me than the people who want to pursue experiments that validate or invalidate (or refine) the theory. I for one just would like to know the truth, whatever it might be. Edit: To the people who are downvoting this comment, I wish you would respond to it and explain why you think it deserves to be downvoted.
    - protocolture 2y ago
      >and then drawing conclusions, and updating the theory as appropriate. This bit never happens. What does occur is that the hypothesis just twists to ignore new data. Hancock has claimed that as he isn't a scientist he doesn't need to include the facts that disagree with his ideas. He sees himself as a champion of an idea, and cherry picks facts to craft the best possible case for that idea. IE: Hes a massive fraud and waste of time. > I just take issue with people confidently stating that it's been proven false. I take issue with the idea that this entire argument has to happen again, politely and fresh, for anyone who pops up on the internet having read some cherry picked nonsense about atlantis. Why is it our collective responsibility to educate you. Its not even the responsibility of scientists to prove or disprove your claims, if you are making positive claims you should be either presenting or locating evidence for those claims. Also to note, evidence doesnt mean "Hey this sounds a bit like some old folklore". >I for one just would like to know the truth, whatever it might be. All offense intended, but the people who go on about this stuff have already arrived at their desired truth, and they are simply defending their truth from the slings and arrows of reality. Get on a boat, go investigate the Richat structure, come back with evidence, otherwise the current evidence stands.

seanw444 2y ago

Plus all the details that conveniently line up. The mountains with rivers to the north. Being south of the Atlas mountains – Atlas being the first king of Atlantis. "Atlantis" meaning "island of Atlantis" is interesting because it's likely that if water were present in the rings, it would have the appearance of an island, and there are two forms of evidence that there was: zoom out on Maps/Earth and see the obvious water blast the sand experienced coming from the Atlantic; there is also salt present in the rings. Is it Atlantis? Maybe not, but there a number of stiking coincidences.

seanw444 2y ago
Correction: Island of Atlas

protocolture 2y ago

> if it were to credibly refute the possibility that the capital of Atlantis was the richat structure It has never been positively established why would it need refutation.