Support NeoGAF

[LordPezix]

I'm terribly sorry for not taking everything at face value what some random youtuber claims in his clickbait videos for financial gain.
"Atlantis is real you guyz, I know because I watched a video on youtube that like totally proves it !!1!!1!"

Skepticism, my friend, is a healthy thing.

I am extremely skeptical individual, but he uses lots of good information and from sources not of his own either. There is a lot of bullshit on YouTube but this is one series that I believe has some good foundation.

If there was an Atlantis this so far is the most believable site yet. I couldn't find an argument against it being the most likely. It's a legit no bullshit series, you should watch it. I mean each video is what, 20 minutes or more. As I said, ton of supporting evidence.

 

[Dr. Claus]

I actually watched this about two weeks ago and yeah I there is no doubt in my mind that site is very much where Atlantis, had it not been destroyed, would've been.


Edit: Did anyone of you actually watch the videos? I've seen them all and the evidence is overwhelming. A lot of the comments against it literally are answered in the video, and the story of Atlantis just didn't come from Plato, but you would know that if you actually watched the video... instead of drive by posting.

I find your use of the term "evidence" more than a little bit annoying. There is zero reason to believe anything he states unless he has published his findings in a peer reviewed journal. This is literally no different than the inane "MAKING FROGS GAY" conspiracy theory from the other nutters on Youtube.

 

[strange headache]

If there was an Atlantis this so far is the most believable site yet. I couldn't find an argument against it being the most likely. It's a legit no bullshit series, you should watch it. I mean each video is what, 20 minutes or more. As I said, ton of supporting evidence.

I watched the first 5 minutes and it's so full of errors that I immediately regret giving that guy some clicks. His first proof for the existence of Atlantis is Plato's fictional allegory in The Republic. That's as far as I got in this video because if you present a literary device as empirical evidence I don't really want to know what else you've got in store. That's like saying Plato's cave is real because he used that in one of his allegories.

As for the Richat structure, well it's nothing more than a geological structure formed by magmatism and natural erosion processes that happened quite literally over millions of years. Considering our species, Homo Sapiens, is 300.000 years old, the idea that the Richat structure is man-made is quite frankly ridiculous. The only "proof" that this youtuber has is that the Richat structure is "circular", just like Atlantis... wow!

The youtuber also claims that the Richat structure is "in a very remote area which is very rarely visited" when in fact there is a frikkin' tourist hotel smack in the middle of the structure in Ouadan:

The structure is accessible from Oudane by land rover or sports utility vehicle. There is also a hotel smack in the middle of the Richat Structure. It's nothing luxurious, but offers adequate accommodations to tired tourists and "Mad Max" kind of explorers.

There's also a gigantic iron mine like 100 miles from the structure. You'd think if Atlantis was such an advanced civilization that crumbled a mere 12.000 years ago, you'd find some civilizational artifacts. Despite people digging around there for iron like crazy, none have been found. The Youtuber then goes on to cite the "brilliant" works of Graham Hancock, who writes pseudo-scientific dribble for the gullible masses much like Erich von Däniken who preceded him by a couple of decades:

One theme of his works proposes a connection with a 'mother culture' from which he believes other ancient civilisations sprang. An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals.

He also claims that the geologists are all wrong because the Richat structure "cannot be seen anywhere else throughout the world". That's complete and utter bullsh*t, since this dome-like geological structure is far from being unique:

A dome is a feature in structural geology consisting of symmetrical anticlines that intersect each other at their respective apices. Intact, domes are distinct, rounded, spherical-to-ellipsoidal-shaped protrusions on the Earth's surface. However, a transect parallel to Earth's surface of a dome features concentric rings of strata. Consequently, if the top of a dome has been eroded flat, the resulting structure in plan view appears as a bullseye, with the youngest rock layers at the outside, and each ring growing progressively older moving inwards.

Ohmygawd, I found Atlantis you guyz, it was right there in Utah all along! Nah, just kidding, it's called the "Upheavel Dome":

Here's another called "Burke's Garden":

Here's a lava dome in Hawaii, live in action:

That's only the first 5 minutes of that video, and I'm already tired pointing out the factual errors. I won't bother any further.

 

[Ray Wonder]

Holy shit fuck atlantis I found Junkrat

 

[cr0w]

I'm pretty interested in what they've found in the Donana Plains so far, personally.

 

[Tevious]

As for the Richat structure, well it's nothing more than a geological structure formed by magmatism and natural erosion processes that happened quite literally over millions of years. Considering our species, Homo Sapiens, is 300.000 years old, the idea that the Richat structure is man-made is quite frankly ridiculous. The only "proof" that this youtuber has is that the Richat structure is "circular", just like Atlantis... wow!

Again, who said anything about the Richat structure being man-made? This evidence for Atlantis actually suggests that it was built there because it was a natural formation, but you would know that had you actually watched the videos or even just read some comments here. So just like with CatholicGamerGuy, why are you even arguing against evidence without out even knowing what said evidence even is?

Now, I understand being highly skeptical. This youtuber, Bright Insight, is not a very credible source at all. He's just an amateur youtuber piecing together things he comes across or "researches" on the net. He makes click-baity titles/thumbnails and jumps to conclusions. But you should also keep in mind, that this isn't even his discovery and he doesn't even claim it to be, despite some people repeatedly giving him credit for it. Most of his information for these Atlantis videos comes from a documentary called Visiting Atlantis and youtube comments directing him to additional information. That said, I'm always someone that takes things with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism, but there are just too many variables that all add up here that I'm fairly convinced that this site was probably Atlantis, had it ever existed.

The connection with Atlas makes it all the more convincing. Northwest Africa was clearly associated with Atlas. You have the "Atlas mountains" and the "Atlantic Ocean", meaning Sea of Atlas. Keep in mind that the known world of the ancient Greeks was the Mediterranean Sea, parts of Europe, the Middle-East, Northern Africa and not far beyond of the Pillars of Hercules (Straights of Gibraltar). Herodotus describes a people called the "Atlantes" who are the last people whose name he knows along the westbound road from Libya. Here's his map. Plato describes Atlas as being the first king of Atlantis. Guess who also has a legendary king called Atlas? The Mauri of Mauretania. In fact, Atlantis means Island of Atlas. So looking for Atlantis in north-western Africa seems like a good place to start since the ancient Greeks seem to associate the area with Atlas. And it just so happens that there's a nearby site, albeit not currently an island, that seemingly fits with Plato's description; the Richat structure. We found Troy, so certainly finding Atlantis isn't completely out of the realm of possibility? At the very least, the site is worth further investigation.

 

[strange headache]

You're picking on one argument while conveniently ignoring all the other factual statements that I made, only to follow it up with two whole paragraphs of weak tangential evidence that has nothing at all to do with what I said.

Again, who said anything about the Richat structure being man-made?

It says so right in the video! Going back to my original statement, I even quoted it:

He also claims that the geologists are all wrong because the Richat structure "cannot be seen anywhere else throughout the world".

Asserting that the Richat structure cannot be seen anywhere else in the world implies that it is not a natural phenomenon and therefore must be man-made. Even the website of that shoddy Visiting Atlantis "documentary" claims that the structure is man-made:

(Taken straight from their gallery, which also features "the surfboard of the Gods" and "Mermaids"... yes Mermaids!)

Speaking of that particular website, it is full of factual errors, egregious claims and mostly stands out for its severe lack of sources. Heck, the owner of that website even flat out admits his lack of expertise:

What qualifies you to make statements about Atlantis?
George: Nothing really – I do not make statements about Atlantis. Plato does. I only repeat them. I have studied economics and I think the main lesson from my studies was how to do proper research. And I love research. I enjoy ancient scripts and the writings of our early historians and philosophers.

Also, I've already explained why Plato's writings cannot be taken as factual, since his stories are to be understood as allegories, not empirical evidence. As somebody who holds philosophy dearly, screw that guy for dragging it into this pseudo-scientific eyewash. This is a dude who has no expertise, no knowledge, no idea of history, philosophy, geology and archaeology, but who's merely trying to make a quick buck on a gullible audience by shilling his silly book that nobody gives a crap about because it's not even worth picking apart. Just like that youtuber who's reheating that old bullcr*p in order to get clicks.

...why are you even arguing against evidence without out even knowing what said evidence even is?

I think to have given sufficient factual evidence to refute the erroneous claims made in that video. Considering the amount of false information I'm not going to waste any more time on this pseudo-scientific tomfoolery. Feel free to hit me up when any of this has been corroborated by actual experts in the field.

 

[Tevious]

Asserting that the Richat structure cannot be seen anywhere else in the world implies that it is not a natural phenomenon and therefore must be man-made.

I think that's quite a stretch. That only implies that it's a unique structure, but I'm not defending every word this guy says. Regardless, Bright Insight actually specifically points out this exact criticism in the 2nd video and addresses how given the size of the Richat structure, that the amount of digging required to make the rings would be an insurmountable task and that it's much more likely that it was a natural site that proved useful for defense, by not only the rings, but also being an island. So what I'm saying is, you're making assumptions having not watched it and then arguing against points that aren't even being made.

Also, that image you showed says absolutely nothing about being man-made. I think your idea/definition of man-made is not what you think it is?The city is obviously man-made, but the site that it's built on with the rings is most likely natural.

You're right though that this site (Richat structure) does have the attention of pseudo-science people and the visitingatlantis.com website has some oddities for sure, but that in itself doesn't dismiss all the evidence. It'd be great to have experts take a look at the site and give their insight, but unfortunately Atlantis is a subject that no expert really wants to touch for fear of loosing all credibility.

You're picking on one argument while conveniently ignoring all the other factual statements that I made, only to follow it up with two whole paragraphs of weak tangential evidence that has nothing at all to do with what I said.

Well fine then:

The youtuber also claims that the Richat structure is "in a very remote area which is very rarely visited" when in fact there is a frikkin' tourist hotel smack in the middle of the structure in Ouadan:

He's probably unaware of the hotel, but this doesn't dismiss anything.

There's also a gigantic iron mine like 100 miles from the structure. You'd think if Atlantis was such an advanced civilization that crumbled a mere 12.000 years ago, you'd find some civilizational artifacts. Despite people digging around there for iron like crazy, none have been found.

You're wrong here. There are several artifacts found around the Richat structure from an unknown civilization. Many of said artifacts are collected in a small "museum" (hut) near the site. But let's be realistic, what kind of artifacts would you really expect to see if we're talking about 11,500+ years ago? Only stone would have survived and given the site could have been wrecked by a mega tsunami, much of that would have been destroyed too.

He also claims that the geologists are all wrong because the Richat structure "cannot be seen anywhere else throughout the world". That's complete and utter bullsh*t, since this dome-like geological structure is far from being unique:

I'm not sure what point you're even addressing here. I don't recall anything about "geologist are all wrong". A dome-like geological structure may not be unheard of, but one that forms the concentric circles that you see at the Richat structure certainly makes it unique, especially given it's size.

And as for my "two whole paragraphs of weak tangential evidence", I wrote that as a separate paragraph because I wasn't specifically replying to you any longer, however I think what I said about Atlas does give at least some credence to Plato on Atlantis. Ancient Greeks clearly attributed Northwestern Africa with Atlas. Herodotus was at least aware of an "Atlantes" people (the Mauri), the same people who have a legendary king called Atlas. It seems to me he wasn't pulling everything of this out of his ass. Even as an allegory, it's not outside the realm of possibility that he was writing about a lost civilization of these people from the knowledge passed down to him. Not everything he says is necessary factual either. For example, Atlantis having been defeated by Athens, yet the civilizations are apparently thousands of years apart from each other is certainly suspect. He could have also been influenced by Minoan civilization too when writing about Atlantis. Solon apparently got his information from a temple in Egypt in the Nile delta that's since been lost. It'd be interesting to see what that temple depicted if it were ever found and excavated.

Anyway, I guess I just find it strange that you are as passionately against this theory as you are without even knowing much of anything about it. I mean, there's nothing to debate if you don't know what you're debating against. I dare you to watch all 3 videos and still come back and say that you're 100% convinced everything is complete bullshit and without a doubt the Richat structure could not ever have been the site of Atlantis. Use ad-block if you're concerned about giving him money (which you should be using on youtube anyway).

 

[LordPezix]

Anyway, I guess I just find it strange that you are as passionately against this theory as you are without even knowing much of anything about it. I mean, there's nothing to debate if you don't know what you're debating against. I dare you to watch all 3 videos and still come back and say that you're 100% convinced everything is complete bullshit and without a doubt the Richat structure could not ever have been the site of Atlantis. Use ad-block if you're concerned about giving him money (which you should be using on youtube anyway).

Thank you for stating this. I tried to convince him and he said he watched 5 minutes of it and stopped.

It is hard to debate with someone when they only have a fraction of the information.

I'll say it again, but IF Atlantis was real, this is the strongest case I have seen of its actual existence. His theory is sound in all three videos and if I were of a scientific committee that was involved in these sort of things I would petition for further inquiry to this subject.

But I watched all three so if you would like to discuss it with me I am more than happy to chat up about this.

 

[Neo_Geo]

"The Flood" happens when an ice age comes to an end.

 

[strange headache]

I think that's quite a stretch. That only implies that it's a unique structure, but I'm not defending every word this guy says. Regardless, Bright Insight actually specifically points out this exact criticism in the 2nd video and addresses how given the size of the Richat structure, that the amount of digging required to make the rings would be an insurmountable task and that it's much more likely that it was a natural site that proved useful for defense, by not only the rings, but also being an island.

It's not a stretch, it merely underlines the blatant inconsistencies and contradictions in these videos.

So what I'm saying is, you're making assumptions having not watched it and then arguing against points that aren't even being made.

If the first couple of minutes and the shoddy documentary it is based on are already full of factual errors, there's really no need to keep watching that crap.

Also, that image you showed says absolutely nothing about being man-made. I think your idea/definition of man-made is not what you think it is? The city is obviously man-made, but the site that it's built on with the rings is most likely natural.

Even if Atlantis is a man-made structure built upon a natural landscape, the amount of construction work required to create such a civilization would leave abundant artifacts that could still be found today. So far, there is zero evidence for that. Also there has been zero evidence of landscaping or constructional remains. Geologists and archaeologists are very good at detecting civilizational remains.

This is Göbekli Teke in Turkey, it is a UNESCO world heritage site and 12.000 years old.

This is Skara Brae in Scotland, it is 7-8.000 years old.

You're right though that this site (Richat structure) does have the attention of pseudo-science people and the visitingatlantis.com website has some oddities for sure, but that in itself doesn't dismiss all the evidence.

Uhm yes, yes it does. It's snake-oil pure and simple, but feel free to believe that pseudo-scientific eyewash.

It'd be great to have experts take a look at the site and give their insight, but unfortunately Atlantis is a subject that no expert really wants to touch for fear of loosing all credibility.

Don't be silly. Science requires a lot of theorizing, but even speculation requires a modicum of serious empirical evidence if it wants to be taken seriously. No scientist would deride a theory that is rigorously based on the scientific method.

IHe's probably unaware of the hotel, but this doesn't dismiss anything.

His unawareness of even the simplest facts merely underlines his shoddy research method and severe lack of expertise and knowledge.

There are several artifacts found around the Richat structure from an unknown civilization. Many of said artifacts are collected in a small "museum" (hut) near the site.

Please provide evidence for that claim because so far I could not find any academic sources on that (by academic I mean experts in the field of archaeology, not some random youtuber or some silly economist on a tourist tour to Mauritania).

If such artifacts of the fabled Atlantis would have been found, you could be sure they would be worth quite a lot and be rigorously studied and stashed away in a serious museum, not rotting away in some random "hut".

But let's be realistic, what kind of artifacts would you really expect to see if we're talking about 11,500+ years ago? Only stone would have survived and given the site could have been wrecked by a mega tsunami, much of that would have been destroyed too.

You accuse me of a lack of expertise concerning this matter, yet you lack even the most basic knowledge about archaeology. 12.000 years is nothing, considering that we found tools that even predate the human species. The tools found at the shores of lake Turkana are 3.3 million years old.

You'd think that an advanced civilization such as Atlantis would leave at least some tools lying around.

Anyway, I guess I just find it strange that you are as passionately against this theory as you are without even knowing much of anything about it.

I am against this "theory" because it is shoddy research and pseudo-scientific snake-oil presented as fact, not because I'm inherently against the idea of Atlantis being real. The stuff you're trying to defend here is actually hurting the work of real scientists and researchers while lining the pockets of the self-serving bullsh*t peddlers that you're dredging up in this thread.

I mean, there's nothing to debate if you don't know what you're debating against. I dare you to watch all 3 videos and still come back and say that you're 100% convinced everything is complete bullshit and without a doubt the Richat structure could not ever have been the site of Atlantis.

I know very well what I'm debating against for the simple fact that I'm familiar with the scientific method. I really don't need to waste my time watching these videos, when it is quite evident from the beginning that everything is based on shoddy "research", discredited sources and strenuous pseudo-evidence.

I don't care about that youtuber and his clickbait videos, I'm only here so that other people reading this forum don't fall for that crap and take it for granted. I think to have sufficiently demonstrated that the "sources" are not to be taken seriously and that the assertions in these videos are factually wrong simply because they convey no understanding of the geological and archaeological expertise required to make such claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

...so far, I've seen none of that.

 

[John Day]

This all makes for a 2 season Netflix series atleast.

I mean it all reads of pure sci fi wishfull thinking.

 

[kingbean]

I too can say things on the internet.

Interesting videos. Not saying he's wrong but I ain't saying he's right either.

 

[Tevious]

It's not a stretch, it merely underlines the blatant inconsistencies and contradictions in these videos.

If the first couple of minutes and the shoddy documentary it is based on are already full of factual errors, there's really no need to keep watching that crap.

Yes, it is. I'm sorry, but I cannot wrap my head around your assertion here. Saying something "cannot be found anywhere else in the world" does not equate that said thing is "man-made". Are you seriously doubling down on this statement? The Everglades in Florida is a unique site, a vast form of wetlands unlike any other place on Earth, but it sure isn't man-made. There are unique places throughout the world that are not man-made and we call these places natural wonders. The only point the youtuber is making here by this statement is that the Richat structure is just that; a natural wonder. And by Richat structure, we're talking about the land formation of this site, not the city of Atlantis that may have been built on top of it. You're reading way too much into that statement in your desperate attempt to find and label things as errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions in your 5 minutes of watching so that you can dismiss the entire argument being presented.

And yet, here you are still going on debating against said argument without even knowing what arguments are being made. How much time have you spent replying here that you could have just watched the damn videos and returned to debate it so that we're on the same page? You're effectively showing up to a book club without having read the book.

Spoiler

And just in case you try to reply to tell me that the Richat structure is not unique because there are other domes throughout the world, or that there are other wetlands throughout the world, so the Everglades are not unique; the uniqueness of these sites is that they are unlike the others in the world. The Richat structure is unique with it's concentric rings and size. In fact, it's formation is still disputed by scientists.

I am against this "theory" because it is shoddy research and pseudo-scientific snake-oil presented as fact, not because I'm inherently against the idea of Atlantis being real. The stuff you're trying to defend here is actually hurting the work of real scientists and researchers while lining the pockets of the self-serving bullsh*t peddlers that you're dredging up in this thread.

If you're only here to warn against pseudo-science and that it should be taken with a grain of salt, then that's fine and I'd agree with you, but then you're not doing a very good job of that by then pointing out and arguing against assertions that aren't even being made. The Visiting Atlantis documentary isn't as absurd as it's website. I watched it over a month ago, but from what I remember, they mostly just traveled to the site and pointed out consistencies between Plato's writings of Atlantis and the Richat structure and surrounding area; no talk of mermaids. I've already mentioned before that this youtuber is not credible and he jumps to conclusions. Despite that, the evidence presented makes a pretty good argument that this site could be Atlantis.

Even if Atlantis is a man-made structure built upon a natural landscape, the amount of construction work required to create such a civilization would leave abundant artifacts that could still be found today. So far, there is zero evidence for that. Also there has been zero evidence of landscaping or constructional remains. Geologists and archaeologists are very good at detecting civilizational remains.

This is Göbekli Teke in Turkey, it is a UNESCO world heritage site and 12.000 years old.

This is Skara Brae in Scotland, it is 7-8.000 years old.

First of all, again, we're talking about a site (Atlantis) that was seemingly destroyed by a mega-tsunami. The sites you bring up are still largely intact. The Richat structure is heavily eroded. Secondly, there are remnants of structures, such as this ~65,000 sq. ft foundation in the center island/circle, but I don't know if it's been determined who built it and when. It could be anything. I can't find any information on archaeological studies on the Richat structure. As far as I can tell, as of now, the site has only been hypothesized on it's natural formation and not closely examined or excavated by experts.

Please provide evidence for that claim because so far I could not find any academic sources on that (by academic I mean experts in the field of archaeology, not some random youtuber or some silly economist on a tourist tour to Mauritania).

If such artifacts of the fabled Atlantis would have been found, you could be sure they would be worth quite a lot and be rigorously studied and stashed away in a serious museum, not rotting away in some random "hut".

You accuse me of a lack of expertise concerning this matter, yet you lack even the most basic knowledge about archaeology. 12.000 years is nothing, considering that we found tools that even predate the human species. The tools found at the shores of lake Turkana are 3.3 million years old.

You'd think that an advanced civilization such as Atlantis would leave at least some tools lying around.

You're asserting here that these artifacts are identified as from Atlantis, when I specifically told you said artifacts are from an unknown civilization; therefore unidentified. We don't know who made them, but there are man-made artifacts scattered throughout the area, including numerous spherical balls with a flattened side, arrowheads, sewing needles, and rings. There is video evidence of this in the Visiting Atlantis documentary that toured the site, including the make-shift "museum" they visited with a collection of these artifacts. At the very least, watch that timestamp that I just linked. Unless you're prepared to argue that these are all planted objects and the filmmakers are conspiring with the locals, I think it's fair to say that civilization has existed here a long time ago.

I know very well what I'm debating against for the simple fact that I'm familiar with the scientific method. I really don't need to waste my time watching these videos, when it is quite evident from the beginning that everything is based on shoddy "research", discredited sources and strenuous pseudo-evidence.

I don't care about that youtuber and his clickbait videos, I'm only here so that other people reading this forum don't fall for that crap and take it for granted. I think to have sufficiently demonstrated that the "sources" are not to be taken seriously and that the assertions in these videos are factually wrong simply because they convey no understanding of the geological and archaeological expertise required to make such claims.

I'm not talking about your familiarity with the scientific method. You literally do not know what you are talking about because you're completely unfamiliar with the arguments being presented here. You've made ignorant claims such as there are no artifacts or evidence of structures at the site. You've claimed that the youtuber believes all geologists are wrong in how the Richat structure was formed and you seemingly keep insisting that he claims that the Richat structure is "man-made", yet I gave you a time stamped link to him arguing just the opposite of that. You'd have known these things had you just watched the videos.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

...so far, I've seen none of that.

No kidding, because you refuse to watch it and see what evidence there is! I mean, come on...

At least for me personally, I'm not claiming this site is without a doubt the site of Atlantis and never was, but what I am saying, and others that watched it, is that this site does have some evidence making it the most likely site of Atlantis (IF it existed) that's been presented so far and that the Richat structure is worth further study, examination, and excavation, which doesn't appear to have happened yet. This is a site that fits several elements of Plato's description of Atlantis in an area ancient Greeks attributed to Atlas and "Atlantes" people. Just maybe it's worth checking out, no?

 

[John Day]

Plato spoke allegory.

 

[strange headache]

I've already mentioned before that this youtuber is not credible and he jumps to conclusions.

Secondly, there are remnants of structures, such as this ~65,000 sq. ft foundation in the center island/circle, but I don't know if it's been determined who built it and when. It could be anything. I can't find any information on archaeological studies on the Richat structure.

We don't know who made them, but there are man-made artifacts scattered throughout the area, including numerous spherical balls with a flattened side, arrowheads, sewing needles, and rings. There is video evidence of this in the Visiting Atlantis documentary that toured the site, including the make-shift "museum" they visited with a collection of these artifacts.

Clickbaity youtube videos, something from googlemaps that could be anything really, a shoddy pseudo-documentary made by an absolute amateur and a frikkin' makeshift "museum" to attract gullible tourists... after applying occam's razor what's left is a whole lot of absolutely nothing. Yeah, I think we're done here.

 

[Tevious]

So basically you've got a whole lot of absolutely nothing. Yeah, I think we're done here.

At least we can agree on that. You asked for evidence for artifacts found around the Richat structure, I presented you with exactly that, and then you have nothing to say since I'm assuming you couldn't bother to even look at it. You can also easily search google for documented Neolithic arrowheads from Mauritania and neighboring Algeria. When do you think was the last time there were trees in Mauritania to make bows and arrows? Now I'm not saying any of this is evidence of Atlantis, but it is evidence of civilization existing at and around the Richat structure a long time ago. Your claim that there is zero evidence of artifacts isn't true. They are only as of yet unidentified as to who they belong to.

and a frikkin' makeshift "museum" to attract gullible tourists

As far as I know, this "museum" does not make any claims about Atlantis. So I don't know what you're getting at here about gullible tourists. They've just collected some of the artifacts that were found in the surrounding area/desert.

 

[Dr. Claus]

At least we can agree on that. You asked for evidence for artifacts found around the Richat structure, I presented you with exactly that, and then you have nothing to say since I'm assuming you couldn't bother to even look at it. You can also easily search google for documented Neolithic arrowheads from Mauritania and neighboring Algeria. When do you think was the last time there were trees in Mauritania to make bows and arrows? Now I'm not saying any of this is evidence of Atlantis, but it is evidence of civilization existing at and around the Richat structure a long time ago. Your claim that there is zero evidence of artifacts isn't true. They are only as of yet unidentified as to who they belong to.


As far as I know, this "museum" does not make any claims about Atlantis. So I don't know what you're getting at here about gullible tourists. They've just collected some of the artifacts that were found in the surrounding area/desert.

Lol, no you didn't mate. You weren't even in the same solar system.

 

[Tevious]

Lol, no you didn't mate. You weren't even in the same solar system.

Then you're clearly blind? You can see with your own eyes arrowheads and other artifacts from this site, as well as ones that are documented to come from Mauritania and Algeria. I did not say that it's evidence of Atlantis, if that's what your point is supposed to be. He asked for artifacts from the Richat structure.

 

[Makariel]

[...] Now I'm not saying any of this is evidence of Atlantis, [...]

I just checked and this is still the thread "Atlantis found", if you're argument has nothing to do with Atlantis, what exactly are you arguing about? That ancient humans would have been firing arrows in and around natural occuring structures? Well that's trivial and adds nothing to the discussion. That's what Dr. Claus means with "you're not even in the same solar system".

 

[Tevious]

I just checked and this is still the thread "Atlantis found", if you're argument has nothing to do with Atlantis, what exactly are you arguing about? That ancient humans would have been firing arrows in and around natural occuring structures? Well that's trivial and adds nothing to the discussion. That's what Dr. Claus means with "you're not even in the same solar system".

Sorry, I guess I should have said proof of Atlantis. I'm saying there is evidence of a civilization here, but given the infancy and lack of research, there's no proof that it's connected to Atlantis. That's something that would require further study and excavation of the area.

Anyway, I assume you're just jumping in at the end of our debate, but strange headache asserts that if a civilization existed here, that you would have remnants of a civilization. He falsely claims that there is zero evidence of this, yet there is evidence of ancient artifacts and even foundations to a large structure. A structure, by the way, that is potentially far larger than any in the neighboring medieval towns of Quadane or Chinguetti. Due to his ignorance of the claims that are even being made, he's been making false assertions in his desperate attempt to discredit a theory for this site being a contender for Atlantis that he refuses to even familiarize himself with.

 

[Makariel]

Anyway, I assume you're just jumping in at the end of our debate, [...]

Your assumption ignores that I already posted on page 1 of this thread and have been following the discussion ever since. But it seems to be your modus operandi to jump to conclusions? You equate the fact that there have been arrowheads and other bits and pieces with it being clear and unquestionable evidence that these arrowheads are directly related with the mythical Atlantis? And it's this jumping to a conclusion that strange, Claus and myself simply don't agree with.

 

[strange headache]

Anyway, I assume you're just jumping in at the end of our debate, but strange headache asserts that if a civilization existed here, that you would have remnants of a civilization. He falsely claims that there is zero evidence of this, yet there is evidence of ancient artifacts and even foundations to a large structure.

That's not what I ways saying at all. Finding a couple of arrowheads in a place that was largely populated by Berbers, a tribalistic people whose ancestors are Capsian Mesolythics and their Neolithic descendants, is not evidence for the existence of Atlantis. You are merely working your way back from your conclusion, when in fact it should be the other way around.

Which leads us back to my original statement, that all of this is wishful projection based on correlational assumptions presented as fact. That's not how science works and none of that stuff is proof that Atlantis existed. Yet here we are, discussing this nonsense ad nauseam because people fell yet again for a shoddily researched and badly sourced clickbaity video that went viral on the internet.

 

[Hudo]

Dunno, man. I mean they it back up as documented, factually, in Poseidon: Master of Atlantis, a factual simulation of what really happened.


Factually speaking however, it's pretty much fact that Arkantos fucked up Atlantis when he got back with the head of Gargarensis, as documented in Age of Mythology, a factual game about facts.

 

[Marsellio23]

I do not believe in this. First, it can be a photoshop. Secondly, it may be a trace from a meteorite, and not from a UFO.

 

[pawel86ck]

Extremely interesting, he connected the dots on many similarities (very specific details) between Plato’s description of Atlantis to that of the Richat Structure and everything fits perfectly in my opinion. I dont believe in so many coincidences, so it's more likely a true story.

We know there was a drastic climate change around 10 000 BC and what's interesting there are remains of ocean flora and fauna around Richat Structure (for example whale skeletons in very good condition), so there was an Ocean there for a fact not so long time ago. Also it doesnt matter if Richat Structure is natural formation or not, because people would live there even if it was a natural formation so it doesnt contradicts Atlantis story in any way.

What's also interesting The Sphinx water erosion clearly suggest it was build before 10 000 BC so maybe it was Atlantis civilization who build these ancient structures in Giza. One thing for sure, the Great Pyramid in Giza wasnt a tomb as people thought but machine build with purpose, so these people had insane knowledge

Great Pyramid Hydraulic Pulse Generator and Water Pump

Working models of the suberranean section of the Great Pyramid. A hydraulic pulse generator and water pump built with the subterranean chamber.

sentinelkennels.com

 

[Fuz]

We all know Atlantis is Sardinia.

 

[DESTROYA]

Interesting video for sure. Not saying any of it is true but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Chittagong]

Fascinating theory, thanks for the bump.

While any theories online about anything should face sceptical scrutiny, what I find compelling about this is the specificity of the ring amounts and sizes matching. If the story was an allegory, why would it specify such an exact size? That’s like the cave story specifying that the cave was 78m deep, with three turns left and two right. Did Plato actually state a size?

 

[AlphaMale]

Fascinating discovery. Perhaps someone famous can look into this further by creating a Netflix series or documentary, so there's more exposure?

 

[GhostofBabel]

I think theories that Atlantis existed in Greece before that huge volcanic eruption, which it was sunk by, are more plausible.

 

[Cleared_Hot]

Deleted

 

[Cleared_Hot]

Man, I love how these random ass youtubers have figured out something that actual archeologists, actual scientists, actual *researchers* haven't. Man, we should just have youtubers do all the jobs. Clearly they know more than the people who dedicated their lives to research this shit.

I watched it all and he presents some very compelling evidence.

 

[Cleared_Hot]

It's not a stretch, it merely underlines the blatant inconsistencies and contradictions in these videos.



If the first couple of minutes and the shoddy documentary it is based on are already full of factual errors, there's really no need to keep watching that crap.



Even if Atlantis is a man-made structure built upon a natural landscape, the amount of construction work required to create such a civilization would leave abundant artifacts that could still be found today. So far, there is zero evidence for that. Also there has been zero evidence of landscaping or constructional remains. Geologists and archaeologists are very good at detecting civilizational remains.

This is Göbekli Teke in Turkey, it is a UNESCO world heritage site and 12.000 years old.

This is Skara Brae in Scotland, it is 7-8.000 years old.



Uhm yes, yes it does. It's snake-oil pure and simple, but feel free to believe that pseudo-scientific eyewash.



Don't be silly. Science requires a lot of theorizing, but even speculation requires a modicum of serious empirical evidence if it wants to be taken seriously. No scientist would deride a theory that is rigorously based on the scientific method.



His unawareness of even the simplest facts merely underlines his shoddy research method and severe lack of expertise and knowledge.



Please provide evidence for that claim because so far I could not find any academic sources on that (by academic I mean experts in the field of archaeology, not some random youtuber or some silly economist on a tourist tour to Mauritania).

If such artifacts of the fabled Atlantis would have been found, you could be sure they would be worth quite a lot and be rigorously studied and stashed away in a serious museum, not rotting away in some random "hut".



You accuse me of a lack of expertise concerning this matter, yet you lack even the most basic knowledge about archaeology. 12.000 years is nothing, considering that we found tools that even predate the human species. The tools found at the shores of lake Turkana are 3.3 million years old.

You'd think that an advanced civilization such as Atlantis would leave at least some tools lying around.



I am against this "theory" because it is shoddy research and pseudo-scientific snake-oil presented as fact, not because I'm inherently against the idea of Atlantis being real. The stuff you're trying to defend here is actually hurting the work of real scientists and researchers while lining the pockets of the self-serving bullsh*t peddlers that you're dredging up in this thread.



I know very well what I'm debating against for the simple fact that I'm familiar with the scientific method. I really don't need to waste my time watching these videos, when it is quite evident from the beginning that everything is based on shoddy "research", discredited sources and strenuous pseudo-evidence.

I don't care about that youtuber and his clickbait videos, I'm only here so that other people reading this forum don't fall for that crap and take it for granted. I think to have sufficiently demonstrated that the "sources" are not to be taken seriously and that the assertions in these videos are factually wrong simply because they convey no understanding of the geological and archaeological expertise required to make such claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

...so far, I've seen none of that.

I've heard these shitty ass dismissals in the past and it's pathetic. When was the last time you went to literally any building or house and noticed all of the tools and blueprints to build it were fucking laying around?

 

[Dr. Claus]

I watched it all and he presents some very compelling evidence.

Strange Headache said it best:

Clickbaity youtube videos, something from googlemaps that could be anything really, a shoddy pseudo-documentary made by an absolute amateur and a frikkin' makeshift "museum" to attract gullible tourists... after applying occam's razor what's left is a whole lot of absolutely nothing. Yeah, I think we're done here.

Critical thinking is truly a lost art in schools today if you are genuinely giving credence to anything this wackjob says.

 

[MMaRsu]

I don't know why this thread is so heated, but I love this kind of stuff, lost civs and all that. Ancient history that is lost to us more or less.

I found the theories presented in these two videos very probable, I wish someone would actually do excavations there.

 

[MMaRsu]

You're picking on one argument while conveniently ignoring all the other factual statements that I made, only to follow it up with two whole paragraphs of weak tangential evidence that has nothing at all to do with what I said.



It says so right in the video! Going back to my original statement, I even quoted it:



Asserting that the Richat structure cannot be seen anywhere else in the world implies that it is not a natural phenomenon and therefore must be man-made. Even the website of that shoddy Visiting Atlantis "documentary" claims that the structure is man-made:

(Taken straight from their gallery, which also features "the surfboard of the Gods" and "Mermaids"... yes Mermaids!)

Speaking of that particular website, it is full of factual errors, egregious claims and mostly stands out for its severe lack of sources. Heck, the owner of that website even flat out admits his lack of expertise:

What? No man, what he means is that such a site is not visible anywhere else on earth, because it is a natural formation that cannot be replicated.

The fact that they built the city on the natural formation only makes it more plausible?

 

[MMaRsu]

Strange Headache said it best:



Critical thinking is truly a lost art in schools today if you are genuinely giving credence to anything this wackjob says.

I dont think you watched any of these videos to be honest if thats your conclusion to this theory

 

[Dr. Claus]

I dont think you watched any of these videos to be honest if thats your conclusion to this theory

I don't think you used any critical thinking while watching the videos to be honest if that's your response to my statement.

 

[MMaRsu]

And to which of his theories should I apply them exactly?

It's a theory. Nothing has been proven. But it seems a logical conclusion based on what information is available.

 

[ResilientBanana]

Science likes to play dumb with these. What, do they think parts of places just fell off into the water and they now remain submerged? Even when you look at satellite images of the world, you can clearly see what land masses were left covered by water. It’s obvious because it is. Stop trying to complicate everything. 5 year olds could figure this stuff out. I wonder what’s down at the bottom of the Bermuda Triangle.



It was the entire planet. Lake titicaca is another fascinating one.

All of these places were more than likely left covered after the flood.

Africa literally looks like water ran off of the continent from east to west.

Wind does that also.

 

[haxan7]

I came to watch this video tonight going down a random YouTube hole. While it seems unlikely he’s right, I think it’s valuable in the sense that it’s a thought provoking fantasy. We shouldn’t forget that there are quite a few cities believed to be purely mythological in the past that have since been discovered and accepted to be real by mainstream science.

wouldn’t surprise me at all if the biggest and most ancient myth turned out to be rooted in Africa.

 

[Rentahamster]

Or underwater. The sea level today is a lot higher than it was thousands of years ago.

 

[Stouffers]

This guy is WAAAAY off.

 

[V4skunk]

This guy is WAAAAY off.

In Africa?
I don't think so. The mountains are even called the Atlans.

 

[Stouffers]

In Africa?
I don't think so. The mountains are even called the Atlans.

Africa is a large continent. I’ve devoted much of my life to the study of Atlantis and various artifacts not known to the public. If you want to find Atlantis, Madagascar is your starting point.

 

[V4skunk]

Africa is a large continent. I’ve devoted much of my life to the study of Atlantis and various artifacts not known to the public. If you want to find Atlantis, Madagascar is your starting point.

I'm going to have to say you talk shit because you provide zero evidence.

 

[Stouffers]

I'm going to have to say you talk shit because you provide zero evidence.

I recommend you read this thread. It might also help if EviLore were to open it back up to replies. This site is sorely missing an Atlantis [OT].

 

[V4skunk]

I recommend you read this thread. It might also help if EviLore were to open it back up to replies. This site is sorely missing an Atlantis [OT].

That thread literally has zero links or any evidence suggesting Atlantis is in Madagascar.
EDIT: Have you not got any more evidence? I am interested and willing to research. I have also duckduckgo searched and nothing comes up.

 

[Stouffers]

That thread literally has zero links or any evidence suggesting Atlantis is in Madagascar.
EDIT: Have you not got any more evidence? I am interested and willing to research. I have also duckduckgo searched and nothing comes up.

This is my biggest issue with Millennials: You want someone to do all the work for you.

I’ve pointed you in the right direction. I shouldn’t have to move your legs for you.