Ancient Civilizations

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,004
214,292
Chris said:
I'm not disputing that the Sahara could have been full of lakes and rivers 12k years ago, from rain fall.

I'm disputing that the Med can flow uphill into the Sahara and flood it. If it's flooding the Sahara it's flooding everything else and this is a time period in which sea levels were lower not higher. The water would just flow out by Gibraltar, even of it was blocked up it would still be the path of least resistance.

I'm posting elevation maps to show you that water would have to be flowing hundreds of meters upwards to get to the Richart Structure.
Click to expand...
and i'm telling you that whatever cataclysm happened, caused an "event" which either sunk/raised the ground or pushed the water upwards above its normal levels to overflow into the caldera of the Richat which then emptied everything into the Atlantic. whatever it was, cant be denied that it happened. its literally still there for everyone to see.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,436
-10,732
Chukzombi said:
and i'm telling you that whatever cataclysm happened, caused an "event" which either sunk/raised the ground or pushed the water upwards above its normal levels to overflow into the caldera of the Richat which then emptied everything into the Atlantic. whatever it was, cant be denied that it happened. its literally still there for everyone to see.
Click to expand...
Right so the African plate temporarily sank to hide all evidence of Atlantis? Would there not be insane earthquakes and volcanoes that would be super obvious even today?

Alternatively for the Med to be pushed up 100s of meters up over the Sahara by a mega landslide or meteor, wouldn't there be clear geological evidence of that too literally all around the Med?

Do you not think it's possible that the lines on the desert you saw are either older or caused by something less dramatic?

Can you not just admit that the fucking thing is on top of a hill and is just a dried up lake in some kind of crater or caldera?
 
ziggyholiday

ziggyholiday

<Bronze Donator>
1,406
2,446
Chris said:
I'm not disputing that the Sahara could have been full of lakes and rivers 12k years ago, from rain fall.
Click to expand...

It’s not a could situation though. It was up until about 6k years ago. Brief search shows it’s even got a name: African Humid Period.
 
  • 1Truth!
Reactions: 1 user
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,004
214,292
Chris said:
Right so the African plate temporarily sank to hide all evidence of Atlantis? Would there not be insane earthquakes and volcanoes that would be super obvious even today?

Alternatively for the Med to be pushed up 100s of meters up over the Sahara by a mega landslide or meteor, wouldn't there be clear geological evidence of that too literally all around the Med?

Do you not think it's possible that the lines on the desert you saw are either older or caused by something less dramatic?

Can you not just admit that the fucking thing is on top of a hill and is just a dried up lake in some kind of crater or caldera?
Click to expand...
It still doesn't change the fact that it happened. You can see that it did. Exactly how the water got to the point of the Richat where it flushed everything down to the Atlantic isn't as important. An event happened. That's the cause. The Richat got flooded by millions of gallons of water in a very short time. That's the effect. There is nothing else up for debate. Both are obvious. It's also obvious that the Sahara was still full of water 5000 years ago.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,436
-10,732
Chukzombi said:
It still doesn't change the fact that it happened. You can see that it did. Exactly how the water got to the point of the Richat where it flushed everything down to the Atlantic isn't as important. An event happened. That's the cause. The Richat got flooded by millions of gallons of water in a very short time. That's the effect. There is nothing else up for debate. Both are obvious. It's also obvious that the Sahara was still full of water 5000 years ago.
Click to expand...
What is the evidence that "it happened"?

So far you've said that the aerial map "looks" like water rushed over it because there are lines.
 
TJT

TJT

Mr. Poopybutthole
<Gold Donor>
42,790
109,230
Araysar said:
If it was a trade route there would have been evidence of trade able goods.at Richat but there's nothing there. The only artifacts at Richat are stone axes and stone blades because it's a rock formation were prehistoric people made tools.
Click to expand...
I think this is a misconception.

Any trade routes they had to Europe or whatever would have been with civilizations that predate what is known today. The whole point is that it shouldn't exist and disrupts the 5k years ago Mesopotamia narrative.

Whatever civilizations and whatever you want to call them. If they are "Atlantis" or not predate ancient Greece and recorded history by many millennia. It isn't like they had trade with Athens and the like.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,388
160,936
Chukzombi said:
It still doesn't change the fact that it happened. You can see that it did. Exactly how the water got to the point of the Richat where it flushed everything down to the Atlantic isn't as important. An event happened. That's the cause. The Richat got flooded by millions of gallons of water in a very short time. That's the effect. There is nothing else up for debate. Both are obvious. It's also obvious that the Sahara was still full of water 5000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Im supposed to believe that this mega tsunami poured into Western Sahara with walls of water that would have had to been several hundred feet high, that scoured the landscape and left marks supposedly visible to this day.

1. So how did Richat Structure survive this cataclysmic deluge without itself having been scoured off the face of the earth?
2. Why are these marks everywhere else in Western Sahara but not on the Richat itself?
3. Why would there still be marks 12,000 years later in Western Sahara, a place where everything literally disappears in 100 years due to sandstorms, shifting sands and endless erosion?

When Graham Hancock and that other dude talk about mass tsunamis from melting glaciers in Northwest Pacific, they argue that these tsunamis gouged canyons that are miles deep and miles wide, through sheer rock, thats how powerful water is. These deluges would have been similar to what is being argued in regards to Western Sahara but somehow RIchat survives all of that intact?
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,388
160,936
TJT said:
I think this is a misconception.

Any trade routes they had to Europe or whatever would have been with civilizations that predate what is known today. The whole point is that it shouldn't exist and disrupts the 5k years ago Mesopotamia narrative.

Whatever civilizations and whatever you want to call them. If they are "Atlantis" or not predate ancient Greece and recorded history by many millennia. It isn't like they had trade with Athens and the like.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the point being is that if there was a civ at Richat that was a large trading center, there would have been artifacts to be found at Richat that would speak to that. Broken pottery, buildings, something. It doesnt matter who they were trading with. But there is nothing there except prehistoric stone tool artifacts.

So you're being asked to believe that artifacts that would predate Atlantis somehow survived in the same spot where there is zero trace of Atlantean civilization that would supposedly follow after.

Its pure hopium.
 
TJT

TJT

Mr. Poopybutthole
<Gold Donor>
42,790
109,230
Araysar said:
Yes, but the point being is that if there was a civ at Richat that was a large trading center, there would have been artifacts to be found at Richat that would speak to that. Broken pottery, buildings, something. It doesnt matter who they were trading with. But there is nothing there except prehistoric stone tool artifacts.

So you're being asked to believe that artifacts that would predate Atlantis somehow survived in the same spot where there is zero trace of Atlantean civilization that would supposedly follow after.

Its pure hopium.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you read the "drunk man in the lamplight" argument here but the very reason we have such strong research into the Middle East and stuff is because the Western powers exerted great influence over the area. We had scholars digging around in Iraq, Egypt, etc for centuries piecing things together. This is the drunk man in the lamplight. In that our scholars pieced together the history have based on the areas they were actually able to look and everything else is just in the darkness. Ergo "Hey you drunk why are you looking for your car keys under this lamp? Derr because that's where the light is."

Yet you apply this same level of rigor to an area of the world that hasn't even had 1% of Western attentions in this regard. Why haven't they dug up this place and found the mountains of evidence I need!? Why indeed. Expecting that level of detail is not really a rational argument.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,388
160,936
TJT said:
Not sure if you read the "drunk man in the lamplight" argument here but the very reason we have such strong research into the Middle East and stuff is because the Western powers exerted great influence over the area. We had scholars digging around in Iraq, Egypt, etc for centuries piecing things together. This is the drunk man in the lamplight. In that our scholars pieced together the history have based on the areas they were actually able to look and everything else is just in the darkness. Ergo "Hey you drunk why are you looking for your car keys under this lamp? Derr because that's where the light is."

Yet you apply this same level of rigor to an area of the world that hasn't even had 1% of Western attentions in this regard. Why haven't they dug up this place and found the mountains of evidence I need!? Why indeed. Expecting that level of detail is not really a rational argument.
Click to expand...

But archaeologists did go there and do archaeological expeditions, thats how they found out that this rock formation was used by prehistoric people to make stone tools that predate Atlantean civ.

Yet at the same time, they found 0 evidence for anything Atlantean.

Is this some sort of magic tsunami that erases only fabled civs but leaves evidence of basic stone age stuff intact?
 
TJT

TJT

Mr. Poopybutthole
<Gold Donor>
42,790
109,230
Okay then you feel that sufficient investigation in the area was done? Case closed?

Like I have absolutely zero doubts that some civilization of some kind lived on the Sahara back when it was green and lush. But any actual evidence of them today is most likely under a mountain of sand and being real will never be dug up. Short of IDK a random sandstorm uncovering something interesting and some retards coming across it with enough brains to recognize it for what it is.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,436
-10,732
TJT said:
Not sure if you read the "drunk man in the lamplight" argument here but the very reason we have such strong research into the Middle East and stuff is because the Western powers exerted great influence over the area. We had scholars digging around in Iraq, Egypt, etc for centuries piecing things together. This is the drunk man in the lamplight. In that our scholars pieced together the history have based on the areas they were actually able to look and everything else is just in the darkness. Ergo "Hey you drunk why are you looking for your car keys under this lamp? Derr because that's where the light is."

Yet you apply this same level of rigor to an area of the world that hasn't even had 1% of Western attentions in this regard. Why haven't they dug up this place and found the mountains of evidence I need!? Why indeed. Expecting that level of detail is not really a rational argument.
Click to expand...
Ah OK so the drunk archaeologists shone their lampost on the prehistoric keys they were looking for, conveniently missing all the bronze age cars on top of them?

Oh but if they went and looked for bronze age cars and found none, it's just the 2000 foot tsunami that wipes away cars but not keys or the pavement?

Come on, this is ridiculous.

Have ANY of these YouTube videos mentioned the relatively high elevation of the location?
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,388
160,936
TJT said:
Okay then you feel that sufficient investigation in the area was done? Case closed?

Like I have absolutely zero doubts that some civilization of some kind lived on the Sahara back when it was green and lush. But any actual evidence of them today is most likely under a mountain of sand and being real will never be dug up. Short of IDK a random sandstorm uncovering something interesting and some retards coming across it with enough brains to recognize it for what it is.
Click to expand...

But the Richat structure is exposed, its not buried.

My skepticism is strictly with the Richat Structure being Atlantis.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,388
160,936
Chris said:
Ah OK so the drunk archaeologists shone their lampost on the prehistoric keys they were looking for, conveniently missing all the bronze age cars on top of them?

Oh but if they went and looked for bronze age cars and found none, it's just the 2000 foot tsunami that wipes away cars but not keys or the pavement?

Come on, this is ridiculous.

Have ANY of these YouTube videos mentioned the relatively high elevation of the location?
Click to expand...

They have, I watched some of them. Same videos also claim these tsunamis were super massive and super high. They cherry pick the evidence because they saw 3 concentric rings in the Sahara and then they spend the rest of the videos hammering square pegs into round Atlantean holes.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,388
160,936
Personally, I think Atlantis was in Ukraine. Ukrainian oral tradition states that Ukrainians were basically the progenitors of all civilization.
 
  • 2Worf
  • 1Mother of God
  • 1Double Worf
Reactions: 3 users
TJT

TJT

Mr. Poopybutthole
<Gold Donor>
42,790
109,230
Araysar said:
But the Richat structure is exposed, its not buried.

My skepticism is strictly with the Richat Structure being Atlantis.
Click to expand...
I'll maintain my open minded skepticism on the matter.

Logically, an advanced civilization trading with whoever at the time had to be near some body of water. The Saharan humid period left the area kind of like the US fertile plains with rivers as far as I've read. Lake GigaChad might be a better candidate for such a place.
 
TJT

TJT

Mr. Poopybutthole
<Gold Donor>
42,790
109,230
Chris said:
Ah OK so the drunk archaeologists shone their lampost on the prehistoric keys they were looking for, conveniently missing all the bronze age cars on top of them?

Oh but if they went and looked for bronze age cars and found none, it's just the 2000 foot tsunami that wipes away cars but not keys or the pavement?

Come on, this is ridiculous.

Have ANY of these YouTube videos mentioned the relatively high elevation of the location?
Click to expand...
Dude.

Whoosh.

God damn.
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,004
214,292
TJT said:
I think this is a misconception.

Any trade routes they had to Europe or whatever would have been with civilizations that predate what is known today. The whole point is that it shouldn't exist and disrupts the 5k years ago Mesopotamia narrative.

Whatever civilizations and whatever you want to call them. If they are "Atlantis" or not predate ancient Greece and recorded history by many millennia. It isn't like they had trade with Athens and the like.
Click to expand...
Mauritania's main exports are gold and slavery. thats the way it has always been. both would have been valuable commodities in ancient times
TJT said:
I'll maintain my open minded skepticism on the matter.

Logically, an advanced civilization trading with whoever at the time had to be near some body of water. The Saharan humid period left the area kind of like the US fertile plains with rivers as far as I've read. Lake GigaChad might be a better candidate for such a place.
Click to expand...
the fabled Atlantis was set on a lake. the Richat Structure with its dish shape would be a prime candidate for water collection. its not unheard of that there was once a body of water there before the cataclysm hit the area. if you follow the water line from the mediterranean to the atlantic there seems to be a natural route for trade if there was some sort of city built along the way
iu

iu

iu


also for Chris. yes water levels were much lower back then, but all of a sudden that changed. something happened across the globe that wiped out the mega faunae and mega florae almost instantly. wooly mammoths and other creatures bodies were found while they were in the process of eating. thats how sudden the event was. it also raised global temps and melted much of the ice that was covering the earth. the extremely sudden rise in sea levels must have been of epic proportions and overwhelmed everything in its path. this all happened 12000 years ago.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
You must log in or register to reply here.