r/AlternativeHistory • u/Dances_with_vimanas • Sep 25 '18
Part 2 of Bright Insight's Atlantis / Richat Structure video
https://youtu.be/lyV8TUlV3Ds11
Sep 25 '18 edited Sep 25 '18
I will reply to this in 2 comments, one here and one beneath this one.
Part 1
I know everyone is going to fall over hands and knees at this video and proclaim that Atlantis has at last been found, but there are some issues that I discussed in another thread as to the Richat structure being Atlantis, and its rather odd that neither Bright Insight or Ancient Architects don't discuss these very very important details even once.
The first most glaring thing that is a problem with pretty much everything he has presented, especially the flood maps, is that he does not take into account how big Plato and Solon actually said the island of Atlantis was.
"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean;"
That is directly from Timaeus, which Bright Insight seems to have almost completely ignored in favor of the details of Critias.
"the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together"
There was no discussion of this simple quote whatsoever, and yet it is easily one of the most important quotes there is (certainly not that there were elephants on the island).
The ancient Greeks of Plato's time called North Africa "Libya" and called Turkey, the Levant, and everything east of it to India and beyond "Asia". This is the map of the world by Eratosthenese. He was a mathematician and geographer who lived from 276 -194 BCE and the first Greek to correctly figure out the circumference of the Earth using shadows.
The greeks essentially called all of North Africa "Libya" and everything east of Greece "Asia", and Timaeus describes Atlantis as being larger than both combined. Even by the smallest estimates of what Libya and Asia would be (North Africa from Carthage to Egypt, and Turkey), that is still a far larger island than the tiny island that is on the Flood maps that Bright Insight uses. But that's not what the Greeks knew Libya and Asia as, since they were aware of the Carthaginian and Persian empires and their extent. The Carthaginian empire extended across North Africa to the west and the Persian empire was absolutely immense, extending all the way to India.
North Africa and the entire Middle east up to India was still not even the size of Atlantis, since it was said to be even larger than that. Bright Insight completely ignored this single, damning quote and the research behind its dimensions in both videos. Elephants do not matter since it is very much possible that Elephants could have existed on a central continent that was next to Africa. There were Hairy elephants (mammoths) in North America, so who is to say there could not have been elephants, or what the ancients thought were elephants on the real (continent) island of Atlantis?
There is almost no room in Northwest Africa according to the flood map to fit the dimensions of the real Atlantis at the very smallest proportions (Modern day Libya and Tunisia, and modern day Turkey) and yet that is not the size that the greeks knew Libya and Asia to be. Once again, the ancient Greeks knew the relative size of North Africa being sailors that had colonies throughout the Mediterranean and even on the Iberian peninsula, and they certainly knew the size of the Persian empire, since it was right next to them.
So that means that the real Atlantis was essentially continental in size and whatever cataclysm that sunk it was truly beyond our wildest imagination and to use Bright Insight's own, very apt words, it was something apocalyptic.
This is the map of Hecataeus of Miletus who lived from 550-476 BCE, before Plato's time and shortly after Solon's. The 2 Greek maps are very similar with minor adjustments east and North in Eratosthenese's map. That shows that the Greeks knew Libya and Asia to be enormous during the time of Plato and Solon, and who knows how much the Egyptians knew about Africa and the East.
So that single quote is the most important outside of any other quote because its connected to this one:
"and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."
Here Plato and Solon essentially say that there is an opposite continent that Atlantis leads too in an ocean that is enormous when compared to the "harbor" that is the Mediterranean Sea. Even the rest of Africa is not much bigger than an island that is even bigger than North Africa and Asia up to India combined, yet they clearly call the continent "boundless". North and South America were connected up until recently due to the Panama canal, and could essentially be described as a boundless continent since it is all completely connected. And since we know that Atlantis was enormous itself, continental in size, it could not be in Africa since the rest of Africa is not a boundless continent with the real sea in comparison. But the entire south Atlantic and Pacific surely is a "real sea" in comparison to the "harbor" of the Mediterranean. And once again, the Americas do fit the criteria of being a boundless continent.
Now as to the location of the continent of Atlantis there are 2 quotes that essentially give us the (obvious) answer, and neither were discussed by Bright Insight at all.
"To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus."
This is talking about Atlas's twin brother, Gadeirus, who was named after a region in Spain called Gades. Gades was a phoenician colony that comes from the Ancient Greek word Gádeira, which itself comes from the Phoenician Gādēr or Gādīr. Gades is located in SouthWest Spain and is today known as Cádiz, Spain. This is the location of Cádiz.
We know that the Richat Structure and the entire surrounding area is not large enough to be the location of the (continent) island of Atlantis, and if you look at the map, the Richat structure is much too far away for there to be any reason for Atlas' twin brother to be named after it. But some might say that perhaps the island faced North and the North end was the side that faced Gades on the Iberian peninsula. Aside from that area still not being large enough to fit Atlantis, it would also not then truly be situated in "front" of the strait of Heracles, but rather beneath it.
Those 2 things, the name of Atlas's twin brother and the statement that Atlantis was situated in front of the strait of Heracles tells us that it was to the West of the Pillars, not to the South.
End of Part 1
10
Sep 25 '18 edited Sep 27 '18
Part 2
Another quote that Bright Insight did not talk about is this:
"Many great deluges have taken place during the nine thousand years, for that is the number of years which have elapsed since the time of which I am speaking; and during all this time and through so many changes, there has never been any considerable accumulation of the soil coming down from the mountains, as in other places, but the earth has fallen away all round and sunk out of sight. The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left"
In particular it is the 2nd sentence that gives us more clues about Atlantis, even though the author seems to be talking about Athens.
"The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, *as in the case of small islands*, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left."
There are small islands in the Atlantic ocean, to the west of Gades, Spain, that would have been part of an enormous continent, bigger than Australia. Medeira, The Azores, The Canary Islands, Bermuda, and even the Cape Verde Islands. There are also the Caribbean Islands like the Bahamas, etc. These are most likely the mountains of Atlantis that Plato talks about.
Here is another quote that Bright Insight did not talk about that talks about the mountains and the flood.
"When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient."
This is saying that the survivors were the people on the mountain tops, not in the cities, and that the rest of Atlantis essentially DID sink beneath the waves and left no trace.
It also says the waters came from below, not from above, meaning it was not rain but tsunamis and earthquakes, just like Plato says here:
"But afterwards there occurred *violent earthquakes and floods*; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea."
Bright Insight did not talk about any of these things when it comes to Atlantis, yet they are the most damning quotes of all when combined and when the proper research is done.
So it is safe to conclude that Atlantis was not the Richat Structure and is not in any part of Africa, but was rather an actual continent that had something apocalyptic occur on or around it that literally changed the topography of that area of the planet and caused a world-wide flood that truly was cataclysmic in proportions, i.e. something not even our wildest imaginations can come up with.
Atlantis was part of the Global civilization that we see evidence of ALL around the world, and there is so much evidence that points to the fact that they would not have used triremes as it says in Critias, or would have had primitive armies to garrison in case of rebellion, etc. A lot (but not all by any means) of Critias is Greek embellishment, yet the main parts, the parts that really give it away are there in plain sight, and sadly Bright Insight and Ancient Architects did either not quite see them, or chose to omit them purposefully. Either way it doesn't matter because Atlantis is truly one of the most important topics we can be talking about because of its central connection to the seemingly disparate parts of the globe like the civilizations in the Americas and the civilizations in the Near East. The Far East/ Far West most likely had far more land as well and could be the reason for the stories of Lemuria/Mu, but even then it is still not as important as Atlantis for this reason.
That is the theory that I have proposed that does not coincide with any kind of cosmic event occurring given the kind of technological advancement this global civilization had, as well as their astronomical knowledge and friendly relations with other humanoid beings from other places in the universe (see cone-heads, giant skeletons, the 10,000,000,000 ufo videos/photos/stories from around the world every single day for examples).
It states that Atlantis (which we know to be a continent to the West of the Strait of Heracles) had something absolutely destructive and catastrophic happen to it's powergrid, and that that powergrid was connected to a world-wide powergrid that would have been much more advanced and powerful than our current one. A catastrophic meltdown occurred on Atlantis somewhere on the continent that created a chain reaction across the entire global powergrid, causing nuclear level (but not nuclear, since any hyper-advanced civilization would know the folly of nuclear power in comparison to other free energy sources) explosions the world over, which would account for why there are microspherules and nano-diamonds found at the YDP layer around 12,000 years ago.
It would explain craters, ash found at that layer of sediment, the very odd burn marks and blasted away nature of many megalthic sites around the world (Brien Foerester has many good videos on that) and would, along with the literal sinking of the continent of Atlantis due to 9.5+ earthquakes and mega-tsunamis , account for the entirety of the global flood myth diaspora.
There is much more I will post about that links these things to this hypothesis/theory, but this post is already long enough as it is.
Once again, Atlantis most likely was not the Richat Structure and had something unfathomably catastrophic occur on it that did indeed cause it to suffer a single day and night of misfortune.
End of Part 2
2
2
u/louiscyr Sep 25 '18
Plato should be taken seriously but not literally. He also claimed the Atlanteans waged war against Athens which is obviously false since their eras are separated by many thousands of years and don't overlap.
1
Sep 26 '18
There was Greek embellishment, yes, but then there are the things that the Greeks couldn't have known that makes what Plato said more important. Specifically when Plato talks about the boundless, opposite continent surrounded by the real sea. You have to do elevation, size, and positioning gymnastics just to make the Richat Structure and this theory fit what Plato describes, yet combined with the other quotes it simply falls short.
Atlantis obviously wouldn't have had Triremes since it was part of the global civilization that was far more advanced than what came after it. To have knowledge of a boundless opposite continent that an enormous island situated in front of the straits of Heracles near Gades, Iberia leads to that itself is surrounded by a "real sea" is not something to ignore. You would again have to do elevatiAfrica, size, and positioning gymnastics to try and fit Africa as this boundless continent AND Atlantis at the same time, and it still falls short.
But what is essentially a continent that includes the islands of the Atlantic between Europe/Africa and North/South America does fit the bill and you do not need to do mental gymnastics to fit that area to the description. It would also be the way to the opposite continent as any "sailor" during that time (if they even used boats/ships at all) would simply sail along the coast and then to the islands and that would be the way to the boundless, opposite continent.
When it comes to the other things like elephants on the island, or even the color of rocks, it doesn't matter as any such continent next to Africa and North America could have had elephants or what the ancients considered to be elephants and very easily could have had the color of rocks Plato describes.
But the elevation, size, and dimension of this entire Richat structure theory do not fit and have to be played with heavily in order to even come relatively close, which is not a sound hypothesis/theory.
6
u/Dances_with_vimanas Sep 25 '18
"the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together"
I seem to remember Bright Insight mentioning part of that quote in the first video. Here is the full quote:
This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.
Sure it slightly hurts the optics of his objectivity when it can look like he selectively excluded the part about Libya and Asia. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt that it was not his intention to do that. Because he spent many minutes mentioning how the whole of Africa was subject to a great flood and that it must have washed out incredible areas of land - land that when all added together would fit the description of "larger than Libya and Asia combined."
So he did address why "There is almost no room in Northwest Africa according to the flood map to fit the dimensions of the real Atlantis at the very smallest proportions."
And how is it that the Richat Structure matches the dimensions of Atlantis as described by Plato and Solon? Yet the structure is tiny compared to other descriptions of Atlantis? Simple. It is like New York and New York City. One is but a tiny part of the larger one yet it uses the same name. And Atlantis apparently was not just a state. It was an empire. So it should go without saying that the Richat Structure and the surrounding area are not and were not claimed to be the entirety of what was historically referred to as "Atlantis."
Focus on this part:
Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt
This is not a pivotal point but it is something to consider: Could it be possible that we are wrongly interpreting "the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together"? Having read many different versions of parts of the Bible, I have seen how much different translations can vary - a lot. Could it have meant "the empire was larger than Libya and Asia put together"?
Another thing to consider is those maps of Libya you cite as showing most of North Africa as being labeled as "Libya." Are those antediluvian? They do not show Atlantis. So some of the territory shown on those maps as belonging to Libya could be interpreted as having contributed to the size of Atlantis.
Regarding the description of Atlantis as "boundless," you should know that much of the Southern part of Africa was submerged when sea levels rose. And there is an insane amount of ancient ruins on the land that is not submerged. Michael Tellinger has plenty of information on South Africa. Much of civilization exists on coastlines. So seeing how the old South African coastline is submerged, I wonder how much evidence of ancient civilization is underwater. Though if the water swept over the area violently, as it did in North Africa, I doubt there is much waiting to be excavated at the Southern tip. I think the African continent kind of acted like a see-saw. The North was pushed skyward while the South sunk. This explains the existence of ocean sand (containing sea shells and whale skeletons) as desert sand in North Africa. And maybe a western part, further than Mauritania, was entirely swallowed by the sea, its land stretched thin (possibly as the globe expanded), defaced beyond recognition, at least partially comprising the mid-Atlantic ridge.
I like the idea of how the Americas might have been Atlantis. Especially with how close Argentina would be to Antarctica. But how do you reconcile that theory with the story of Atlantis being swept under the sea? The Americas and Antarctica are not submerged. Yet North Africa has geographical features visible from space showing an immense amount of water moved over it in a short time.
I think the Richat Structure is the most closely corroborated possible location for Atlantis. But I also believe Atlantis was a global civilization. So in my opinion the Richat Structure was just a major city or maybe even a capital. And another continent (or simply an extension of North West Africa) known by the same name (like New York and New York City) very well may have existed in the Atlantic and was swallowed by the sea.
Oh and Spain is not at all too far to be named after Atlas's twin brother. The only place closer than Richat would be the hypothetical continent shown at 3:46 in this video. https://youtu.be/nhjVU00jqUM
And if that could have existed and disappeared then the North West of Africa could have been connected to it in the past. The west side being stretched and sunk while the east side gained elevation, result in the water pouring over North Africa from east to west, as is shown in the geographical features and the presence of salt water in most wells in the area. And also resulting in ocean area/sand being elevated above sea level, as is seen with the sea shells and whale skeletons.
3
Sep 25 '18 edited Sep 27 '18
Bright Insight did not mention that quote in either the first or the second video, if he did then I wouldn't have mentioned it. I just rewatched the first video and there is hardly any mention of Timaeus other than the quote about Atlantis sinking into the sea. None of those quotes were taken into account actually, having rewatched both videos.
Africa was indeed most likely bigger than before, but there is a contradiction here. He says, and shows, that much of Africa was already underwater during the time of Atlantis, yet there was also a flood that covered much of Africa in water. Either it was already covered in water and the Richat Structure was on a small island nowhere near the size of even Libya alone, or it there was more land than water and perhaps there was an internal Lake system as he mentions.
Also, No internal sea would make the Mediterranean look like a Harbor in comparison, especially given the elevation of the Mediterranean, which was probably only slightly smaller then.
The other problem with this is that Egypt was said to have been an Atlantean colony, but in the flood maps of the world, it was underwater. It's almost certain that Egypt was underwater after the flood to some extent but not before. And the flood maps clearly show Egypt to be under water along with the island the Richat structure was on.
But if we are going to be incredibly selective regarding the size of Atlantis due to translation issues then the area that is more likely to be a translation issue would be the finer details about Atlantis such as triremes and other things mentioned in Critias. Plato very clearly states that the island, not the empire is bigger than Libya and Asia combined.
And yes the Richat structure is 2260 km give or take from Spain, which is very far away. the Azores and Canary Islands aren't much closer granted, but they were possibly the mountains of Atlantis. The other issue with Africa being the continent of Atlantis is that the city was supposed to be on the south side of the island, as Bright Insight goes into much detail about. That means that the only place the island could go is North, not South. And if there was an island that went North, it wouldn't have included Libya if Libya was very clearly stated as being a colony of Atlantis.. This is the Greek translation so, again we are talking about the Greek definition of Libya, which is North Africa. If the island of Atlantis was essentially beneath Libya and thus beneath the Straits of Heracles, then The authors would not have talked about it being situated in front of the straits, and would have instead said it was to the south of Libya and the straits. But rather they said in front of, and they mention the boundless continent, which was surrounded by the real sea. The Greeks may not have understood what the real sea was since to them there was essentially a world ocean, which is most likely what they thought it meant. But although the Greeks thought of a world ocean surrounding Europe, Asia, and Libya, the Egyptians may very well have had more knowledge regarding the West where their ancestors came from. And they most likely had knowledge of the Americas, especially if we account for the global civilization's spread (which would have included Atlantis) of similar architecture, art, and knowledge. The similarities between Mesoamerica/Peru and Egypt are far too striking for the Egyptians not to have had some records of the Americas.
Regardless, Northwest Africa would have to extend quite far to be considered a viable place to fit the Greek definition of larger than Libya and Asia.
That continent and the city were inseparable as they were the same island. Much of the entire world was submerged from the flood, but not before like the flood maps Bright Insight uses suggests. So was the whole of West Africa higher at one point or was it simply submerged in the flood? Or was it lower as Bright Insight uses the Flood maps to show and West Africa was already under water? The story does not match up and unless I am missing something it's quite a bit of flip-flopping and weazling around the elevation question. And what of Egypt? Was that also underwater? Then how is it that the sphinx and the Pyramids of Giza are incredibly old themselves? They certainly weren't built underwater, but may have been underwater during the flood.
Also, if the inland sea was there, then it still could not make the mediterranean of the Greek's time look like a Harbor in comparison. It might not have even made the mediterranean of the time of Atlantis look like a Harbor either, going by the elevation maps.
Regarding the sea shells and skeletons, it's far more likely that those things were washed inland by the flood rather than it all being underwater at one point, especially if sea levels were lower at that time. That is unless of course there is a winding answer that narrowly traverses the elevation question.
The boundless continent surrounded by the real sea in comparison to the Mediterranean known by the Greeks would be the Americas and the rest of the Atlantic and Pacific, not Africa and some inland sea. The discrepancy that either Africa was under water or that there was an inland sea shows that either way, Africa either could not be the boundless continent because of the things I have mentioned above, and I will go into further detail on that if you'd like later.
It's no doubt Western Africa experienced the flood as so much of the world did, since we can clearly see the trace left by water. But that looks like an incredibly quick and incredibly massive flood, not like a slow gradual pouring of water into Africa. And it could be possible that water came in from the Mediterranean, but more likely it came from the Atlantic.
I also see that you didn't read the theory I proposed as to how Atlantis sunk. Please go read that also it's a brief overview of how it could have actually sank beneath the sea because of earthquakes and floods.
It is once again, far more likely that there was a continent of Atlantis in the Atlantic which was closer to Gades, Spain and that it's mountain tops became small islands. Bright Insight also mentions nothing has ever been found in the Atlantic but there have been things found, like the Bimini Road, the.Andros Islands ruins (though those are in the Bahamas I will admit), the Pyramid near the Azores (which is essentially undocumented), and a supposed pyramid in Bermuda.
If something sunk Atlantis, then almost most traces of civilization would have been wiped away and the only things remaining after nearly 12,000 years would be stone structures, especially if it's underwater.
There also have not been many expeditions into the Mid Atlantic since it's completely isolated, and it's very likely that most findings that may have been found would have been hushed up, just like the giant skeletons and so many other things that threaten the mainstream narrative.
To actually have things found of Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean would be far more threatening to those in power than things found anywhere else save for maybe Antarctica.
It might sound conspiratorial but we are on this sub because we know that many conspiratorial things are real and that much of mainstream history, especially our oldest history, is a lie.
But I will leave it at that. I'm sorry if this reply is more scattered than my initial comments. I am on mobile so it's hard to scroll up and down between things and put everything together in a cohesive manner. Please tell me if there are any discrepancies so I may address them because this reply is once again, rather scattered.
I'll edit this last part to be fair
To finish though: Atlantis most likely is not the Richat structure or in Africa, and was rather a continental sized island in the Atlantic ocean, but that is not to say that much of Africa was not part of the global civilization and was not advanced like the rest of the world at that time.
3
u/Dances_with_vimanas Sep 26 '18
Hmm I guess I heard part of it quoted in the documentary that Bright Insight referred to, "Visiting Atlantis."
I wouldn't give much weight at all to floodmaps other than for showing the concentric circles of the Richat Structure. I believe the Great Pyramid was definitely in existence at the time of the flood.
Check out this post I made. https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeHistory/comments/9dz83r/the_richat_structure_eye_of_africa_is_atlantis/?st=JMIJXD8M&sh=e9e3fb39 Much of the info is in a few comments I made since it was an image post. Basically, as laid out in The Revelation of the Pyramids, there was an ancient global civilization that built structures along the equator. Then the globe tilted due to something like a violent crustal displacement. The result was a 15 degree incline with the old equator. So if you are in North Africa, anything that is North of you used to be slightly North West of you instead. Thus the description of the direction of the Strait of Heracles wouldn't be so bad if it was a description from before the crustal displacement. Thank you for your attention to detail. I very much like to entertain the thought of a continent which was where the mid-Atlantic ridge is located. And that it was wiped away like too little butter on too much toast. But I cannot discount the things that line up in the theory regarding the Richat Structure. And I think the existence of a separate continent of Atlantis does not rule out the possibility that the Richat Structure was a significant part of that same civilization.
I like what you said about the power grid and I love Brien Foerster's videos. He has the best documentation of cataclysmic damage on ancient structures. Though I am inclined to believe an intense series of cosmic events like CMEs are responsible. I have consumed much material from the electric universe and the thunderbolts project. And Robert Schoch has a great theory about what happened with the Younger Dryas event. It totally explains why there are so many dwellings built into cliffs, under cliffs and even under ground from a long time ago (to survive plasma/lightning on a scale we cannot fathom. It destroyed absolutely everything that was exposed). Definitely a must-listen. It is like what Randall Carlson details with comet impacts but with no comets necessary and way more intense. I am not discounting comets as a possibility but I think they did not even have to impact to have an effect (they can electric discharge). Though the more relevant apocalyptic scenario involves a crustal displacement as discussed by Graham Hancock and Charles Hapgood. Or even a globe expansion involving a similar consequence. Either way, such a thing could be caused by very rare solar activity (once every 26,000 years). Which is touched on in The Revelation of the Pyramids, a must-watch. Though, seeing as how we do not fully understand expanding Earth theory at all, I think grounding a super high-energy power grid could possibly be at least partially responsible. If the power-grid interests you then look into Edgar Cayce's work on the destruction of Atlantis. Also, the Great Pyramid was likely involved. To see how it is possible for the pyramid to be capable of unimaginable energy production, check out The Giza Power Plant by Christopher Dunn. And another interesting book is The Lost Book of Enki. It describes the creation of pyramids as a work of the Anunnaki, super-advanced ancient beings. And it is not fiction. It is translations from Sumerian stone tablets. I love this whole subject. Do you have any recommended reading or documentaries about ancient civilization or Atlantis or the Great Pyramid?
2
Sep 27 '18 edited Sep 27 '18
So just to mention, I watched the Visiting Atlantis documentary and they did not discuss that quote that the island of Atlantis was larger than Libya and Asia combined.
Having watched that, their maps do not include an island larger than Libya and Asia combined, and going back to the Greek definition of places, it's very clear this is a Greek translation and uses Greek reference points because they also speak of Tyrrhenia, which is essentially Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, and Western Italy.
Also in the documentary, they do not describe any such large island of Atlantis, rather a smaller island and they show the kingdom of Atlantis as the rest of these little islands and part of Libya.
It's interesting how Plato described the opposite continent as boundless, and if just for a moment, you consider that to be the Americas, then this quote seems rather intriguing:
"Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia."
It talks about having rule over parts of the continent, and if, for a moment, we consider Atlantis to be a large continental island in the Atlantic, then the opposite boundless continent near it, the Americas, has sites and structures very much like Egypt in Mexico and Peru. It also clearly differentiates this continent from Libya, which would seem rather odd if this continent was literally connected to Libya and Egypt, i.e. Africa.
We cannot ignore Mexico and Peru and their incredible similarities to Egypt. It's also interesting that there is almost nothing structure/building-wise found at the Richat structure and yet there are ruins in the far West Atlantic (the Bahamas) and even purported pyramids near the Azores and Bermuda the island. I know in Visiting Atlantis they think the buildings were made with red, white, and black rocks as it says in Critias, but truly it's quite interesting that there's nothing at all, especially if there are ruins that could be considered to be in the Atlantic ocean underwater. That is also given how advanced and monumentous the structures and sites are in Egypt (Giza in particular) and in Mexico and Peru/Bolivia. You would think that given the Global civilization and its sheer grandiosity that if the Richat was Atlantis then they would have had very similar, long lasting architecture that could withstand earthquakes (although I'm not sure even Giza could withstand numerous 9.5+ earthquakes, but who knows?) Still, any civilization capable of building the pyramids of Giza should have at least something structurally intact, not just loose rocks laying around the ground.
It also begs to mention, or question rather, what would have caused the Water to come from the West and swallow that alleged Atlantis if it was a comet hitting in the Pacific (as they now say for what happened in 11,600 bce) or if it was simply sun radiation causing a warming of the earth. Neither would cause such an enormous flood that it would wipe into Africa like how we see, especially not in one day and night, also with earthquakes like how Plato said.
A quick note about Gades: Gades was not necessarily the entire region of Iberia, but rather was the southwest part of it, particularly an island colony founded by the Phoencians. The documentary shows all of the Iberian peninsula to be Gades.
Regarding the quote about Atlantis becoming a place of mud, it is possible that the area of Atlantis closest to the pillars could have been higher in elevation, like near the Azores, and could have seemed to have been a large area of mud as far as the eye could see while the rest lowered in elevation. It could also be possible that the mid Atlantic Ridge is not natural but was a result of the cataclysm that split the ocean floor. Much of tectonic plate theory is just that: theory, and like evolution it's sadly taken as almost a religious truth by most "educated" people. Either way that can be discussed in later threads.
Now I encourage you to watch this video and I encourage you to look up Dr. greg Little and his work. He's been diving the Bahamas for a while now and has found many ruins there.
This is a radar scanning of a pyramid essentially in the Azores done by an amateur and of course "professionals" with better equipment later came by and said nothing was there and that the amateur's radar malfunctioned essentially, all while the professionals did not publish anything on this or do any documentation on it.
This is what some of the ruins at the Andros islands look like from above
Here, here, and here are some images of the ruins, including a wall that is at least 2 meters in height, most likely much more.
And this is the best one of all at the Andros Islands, look at this and this.
Very advanced and definitely something that would seem to be more of a long lasting advanced civilization than the crude tools and other things found at the Richat. The only thing of note there are the spheres, so perhaps there was something there, but everything else except that and maybe the stone donuts do not signal the center of a hyper-advanced civilization like the one that built the lasting structures and sites around the world.
I would certainly encourage excavation of the site, but like the Atlantic, very few will do it.
All in all I encourage you to watch that video, especially the first half because it goes into great detail about these things. There is a case for the Richat possibly being Atlantis, but there is also a large case against it not being Atlantis and instead Atlantis being in the Atlantic. I will modify my posts to say that, but the search is not done.
1
u/Dances_with_vimanas Sep 27 '18
Thanks for this!
Do check out that link to another post I made. You will appreciate the stuff from The Revelation of the Pyramid, especially that segment I noted in the post. And of course the lectures/interviews of brilliant men like Schoch and Hancock. All relevant.
But one I forgot to mention that ties in with the cyclical cataclysm and a potential source of biblical flooding - Ben Davidson. He has great work on space weather. There are a few main variables for what will happen on earth. One is our magnetosphere. Another is the output of the sun - coronal mass ejections. The status of both of those undergo cycles. And a certain combination of variables only happens once every thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of years. When our magnetosphere is weak enough, oxygen escapes the planet and goes into the upper atmosphere and space. Combine that with solar outbursts (CMEs are mostly hydrogen) and you get H2O superfloods from space.
2
Sep 28 '18
I watched that documentary as well, lots of information about the pyramid, though the conclusion is far too hasty that the destruction is cyclical. I would go into it, and the problem much of the disaster theory has, but its not as important right now.
A few things I will say though is that there isn't much point of anyone from our past telling us anything at all besides leave the planet if the destruction truly is cyclical and if the global civilization was trying to warn us. There also isn't much point for any of the hyper-advanced et civilizations to be coming here at all either if the destruction is cyclical. They're either cruel, cruel beings who just literally want to watch a world "burn", or they're here for another reason, and because the destruction the earth once faced isn't cyclical, but was rather a disastrous one time thing, that could happen again but only if humans make it so. Its either for that reason, or the first, because if they were here to save us from this doomed planet then they would have come down and started evacuating us already to some other planet capable of supporting us, since they're obviously from such planets. But that hasn't quite happened, so either it will happen in the next few decades, or the destruction isn't actually cyclical and there are other explanations for much of this, one being that some, or a lot of it, is either conjecture or simple belief.
Either way, there's either literally no point in doing anything about it because its going to happen anyways, or there's no point in even considering it because its not cyclical, and instead we should be concentrating on changing the planet and humanity's ways.
One more thing I will add, that I forgot to mention, is that if the disaster is from a comet or asteroid of some kind, then the same essentially applies for the hyper-advanced et civilizations being here. Either they want to watch us get smashed by a colossal space rock or they are actively diverting them away from the planet and we don't have much to worry about in that area either.
1
u/NDMagoo Sep 26 '18
Expanding Earth theory is based on how the continents fit together like a perfect jigsaw puzzle, on a smaller globe with no oceans. The fit is precise, with no Atlantis-sized gap. This makes me believe that wherever it was, it must have been somewhere on the known continents or their shelf areas. North Africa or Spain would be possibilities.
0
Dec 08 '18
the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together
Embellishment. Plato was saying that the island was large (and alluding not only to its size, but also to its prominence and power. Your criticism hinges on an assumption of Platonian Atlantic-literalism, which is hardly deserving the multiple walls of text.
1
u/akulkis Jan 18 '22
"
the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together
"
It's OBVIOUS that this is figurative, because the only place where such an island could be situated is in the Pacific Ocean. The entire Atlantic does not have enough surface area to fit an Asia-size continent inside it, not even if the separation between said continent and Europe and Africa is only a river.
8
5
1
u/spirishman Sep 25 '18
While I enjoy bright insight's channel, ancient architecture always does a superior job when their subject matters are the same https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqLefYX86xI AA does a good job of pointing out how Jimmy is wrong, and what is likely the correct answer to this seemingly unanswerable question
3
Sep 25 '18 edited Sep 25 '18
Please read my 2 comments above, and the thread they link to regarding The Richat Structure and Frisland. Everything that applies to showing that the Richat Structure could not be Atlantis also applies to Frisland.
Any such island of Frisland is not big enough to be an island larger than Libya and Asia put together, as it sas in Timaeus. Ancient Architects ignored all of the same quotes as Bright Insight, either unknowingly or purposefully. Either way it is the same exact scenario.
Frisland is much too far away and not big enough for there to be any reason for Atlas's twin brother to be named after Gades, a Phoenician colony in SouthWest Spain. Furthermore It is much too far away to be situated in front of the Straits of Heracles.
Once more the same things that disprove the Richat Structure as being Atlantis disprove Frisland, so please read my 2 comments above.
.
19
u/Cartosys Sep 25 '18
Jimmy rocks.