Youtube ~ The Lost City of Atlantis - Hidden in Plain Sight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDoM4BmoDQM

This video makes some very fascinating and intriguing claims ~ that the ancient city of Atlantis, mentioned by Plato in some of his works, is really the Richat Structure. He goes over Plato's descriptions of Atlantis, and compares them both to pictures created by artists, and images of the Richat Structure as seen from Google Earth and different angles of it. The similarities are very striking.

At the end, he mentions that the Wikipedia pages for Atlantis and the Richat Structure make no mention of the relationship, and that the Atlantis page is locked from public editing. This would seem to me to be the work of those who wish to control the public narrative of Atlantis by making sure that the public believes that it is supposedly "pseudo-historic". It is also the only subject that Plato has been accused of lying about, despite Plato's descriptions being quite reminiscent of a real historical place.

So... we know that mainstream science is corrupted by pseudo-sceptical materialists. This suggests that the study of history and even maybe archaeology is also deeply corrupt. I think Graham Hancock has mentioned archaeology being corrupt more than a few times in his books and speeches.

Discuss!

The Richat Structure is located where - deep within the continent of Africa? Novel, I suppose.

(Sorry, I didn't watch the video, I prefer to know what the video is about, before spending time on it).

At the end, he mentions that the Wikipedia pages for Atlantis and the Richat Structure make no mention of the relationship, and that the Atlantis page is locked from public editing. This would seem to me to be the work of those who wish to control the public narrative of Atlantis by making sure that the public believes that it is supposedly "pseudo-historic".

Apparently in order to edit the Atlantis page you have to have be an "autoconfirmed" user, which means having had an account for a certain number of days and having made a certain number of edits - usually at least four days and ten edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...rmed_users

That looks more like prevention of vandalism than an effort to control public narrative about Atlantis.

The Richat Structure is located where - deep within the continent of Africa? Novel, I suppose.

(Sorry, I didn't watch the video, I prefer to know what the video is about, before spending time on it).

I should probably provide a little more info, then:

Richat Structure: https://www.google.com.au/maps/@21.08345...a=!3m1!1e3

Atlantis: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Atl...7B44500455

They do have certain similarities.

The diameter of the Richat Structure is known to be roughly 23.5 kilometers, according to the video author's averaged, repeated measurements using Google Earth.

Plato stated that Atlantis was 127 stadia, a Greek unit of measurement. 1 stadia has been stated to equal 607 feet.

127 x 607 = 77089 feet, and that just so happens to equal 23.497 kilometers. The closeness of the measurements is quite curious, then, and seems to give weight to the video author's arguments.

Apparently in order to edit the Atlantis page you have to have be an "autoconfirmed" user, which means having had an account for a certain number of days and having made a certain number of edits - usually at least four days and ten edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...rmed_users

That looks more like prevention of vandalism than an effort to control public narrative about Atlantis.

True. It just seems a bit odd to me, though, considering that vandalism can be easily reverted. Wikipedia does seem like a good place to push a false narrative by unethical actors, considering that it is often one of the first sites in search engine results.

I watched the video, but I'm afraid it didn't convince me.

Atlantipedia has a page on this theory, which includes the comment:"However, Ulf Richter has pointed out that it is too wide (35 km), too elevated (400 metres) and too far from the sea (500 km) to be seriously considered as the location of Atlantis."
http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/richat-structure-the-n/

The Atlantis theory I find most convincing is Peter James's proposal of Tantalis in modern Turkey:
http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/tantalis/

I always considered the first requirement for a possible location is that it should be "beyond the Pillars of Hercules", (i.e. the Strait of Gibraltar). That means outside the Mediterranean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDoM4BmoDQM

This video makes some very fascinating and intriguing claims ~ that the ancient city of Atlantis, mentioned by Plato in some of his works, is really the Richat Structure. He goes over Plato's descriptions of Atlantis, and compares them both to pictures created by artists, and images of the Richat Structure as seen from Google Earth and different angles of it. The similarities are very striking.

At the end, he mentions that the Wikipedia pages for Atlantis and the Richat Structure make no mention of the relationship, and that the Atlantis page is locked from public editing. This would seem to me to be the work of those who wish to control the public narrative of Atlantis by making sure that the public believes that it is supposedly "pseudo-historic". It is also the only subject that Plato has been accused of lying about, despite Plato's descriptions being quite reminiscent of a real historical place.

So... we know that mainstream science is corrupted by pseudo-sceptical materialists. This suggests that the study of history and even maybe archaeology is also deeply corrupt. I think Graham Hancock has mentioned archaeology being corrupt more than a few times in his books and speeches.

Discuss!

Anyone with eyes can see from photos the structure is of a natural origin. I wonder if he's blind.

I always considered the first requirement for a possible location is that it should be "beyond the Pillars of Hercules", (i.e. the Strait of Gibraltar). That means outside the Mediterranean.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I assume that if we insist on matching every statement Plato made about Atlantis, the conclusion will be that no such place ever existed.

Otherwise perhaps Plato's account was partly legendary, but was partly inspired by historical events. In that sense I think the Tantalis theory is the strongest I've read about.

Otherwise perhaps Plato's account was partly legendary, but was partly inspired by historical events. In that sense I think the Tantalis theory is the strongest I've read about.

Tantalis was relatively adjacent to Greece, I find it unconvincing that it would follow a sociocultural development that made it that much advanced so as to fit the glove of a pseudo-utopia in Plato's time.

Personally I lean towards Atlantis being used to illustrate a point, let's remember that the one that made the first claim that it was made up was Xenocrates, who was much closer to the source than we are, not some contemporary academic. However... If it ever was a real place, the only logical bet would be somewhere in the Caribbean. It's the next stop "beyond the Pillars of Hercules" after you ride the Canary Current, its next to the most practical way back to the Old World (the Gulf Stream), and the region is rife with islands. Volcanic activity + an enormous trench can provide the mythical tsunami. The Bahamas (and the whole Bimini Road thing) seem unlikely IMO, not enough resources or landmass to support a civilization matching the story, but the bigger islands are more viable.