4 ms·

Hey there are lots of reasons to be skeptical of the theory, but I haven't yet seen a reason to claim the theory is false (or the specific theory of Atlantis re

Hey there are lots of reasons to be skeptical of the theory, but I haven't yet seen a reason to claim the theory is false (or the specific theory of Atlantis relating to a civilization occupying the Richat structure as unfalsifiable). If we set aside "Atlantis" and Plato for a moment, and consider that 13,000 years ago the area around the Richat structure was lush with fauna and flora, and that there's geological evidence that around that time there were multiple cataclysmic meteorite strikes in North America (and maybe the Atlantic ocean), rapid global temperature changes, and flooding, then maybe: - Given the very unique geography of the area it would have been a likely place for people to settle and flourish. There would have been both defensive and logistical advantages to the structure. - They could have developed further there than anywhere else in the continent at the time - They might have been wiped out by cataclysmic flooding that makes evidence of their presence significantly harder to detect than the civilizations we do have strong evidence for.

masswerk 2y ago
While I do not doubt that Northern Africa has cradled human civilization for a long time, to me, connecting the Richat structure and Plato is stretching it quite a bit, though. Why not say Plato's Atlantis is actually Göbekli Tepe – it's in the wrong direction and also not an island, but there are concentric structures and is actual man made? If we are to neglect that Plato clearly states that his rhetorical vehicle is situated outside of Africa, but the Richat structure is in the then known parts of Africa, why should direction matter? While we may discuss the Richat structure, we should do so separately. There's no need to connect these things and no indication of why we should do so. Regarding features, given the total population of that time (at least, as far as our estimates go), controlling a circular structure of 25km diameter may have been a bit ambitious. (It may have been pretty disadvantageous in actuality, as you would have to control and defend rather extensive perimeters with what would only account to thousands (in the low single digits). And, if you failed to do so, the very same features would have hosted your enemies. — Compare this to what Plato thought to be a more realistic size for what must have been then a remarkably extensive population.)

masswerk 2y ago

While I do not doubt that Northern Africa has cradled human civilization for a long time, to me, connecting the Richat structure and Plato is stretching it quite a bit, though. Why not say Plato's Atlantis is actually Göbekli Tepe – it's in the wrong direction and also not an island, but there are concentric structures and is actual man made? If we are to neglect that Plato clearly states that his rhetorical vehicle is situated outside of Africa, but the Richat structure is in the then known parts of Africa, why should direction matter? While we may discuss the Richat structure, we should do so separately. There's no need to connect these things and no indication of why we should do so. Regarding features, given the total population of that time (at least, as far as our estimates go), controlling a circular structure of 25km diameter may have been a bit ambitious. (It may have been pretty disadvantageous in actuality, as you would have to control and defend rather extensive perimeters with what would only account to thousands (in the low single digits). And, if you failed to do so, the very same features would have hosted your enemies. — Compare this to what Plato thought to be a more realistic size for what must have been then a remarkably extensive population.)