The Truth about Atlantis (2019)

Like Howard and Lovecraft among others, loved this sort of stuff. "What if theres an entire missing age where heroes roamed around doing cool shit" yeah bro what if that shit rules.

They formed a lot of their worldview based on books that were already being discredited in their time. But its still amazing fiction.

The problem largely seems that people cant let it live in fiction.

>then the idea that an ancient civilization was wiped out in said cataclysm seems plausible and triggered my curiosity.

Yeah thats how they get you. It activates the neurons. That said, it would have had to atomise a lot of their society to prevent detection.

>That said, I don't appreciate any implication that just because someone is interested in evidence of undiscovered pre younger dryas civilizations they are racist.

The problem is that, since around the 1950s we have had pretty much perfect knowledge of the planet. Small notes of our understanding can change but we have been almost everywhere and done almost everything. Its really sad but its a fact.

There are really 2 strands of archaeology denial.

1. "I really wish there was more to explore, so I am going to make it up\become heavily invested in a made up history"

2. "I dont think those people could have discovered stacking rocks without help"

1. Can be fine in fiction, but 2. is just gross tbh. And terribly, the people in group 1, are largely basing their understanding on work done by group 2. Its hard to overstate how frequently racist nonsense is bubbling just underneath this.

So while yeah, you might resent the implication by some commenters that you are in some way racist, the fault lies largely with the fact that you are standing, possibly blindfolded, in a big crowd thats like 99% racist by volume. It might be rude to assume, but its also generally a fairly accurate assumption that tends to work without issue.

Something to keep in mind. A lot of YDIH people end up as "Mud Flooders" people whose ur-conspiracy involves the entire planet being covered in 20 meters of mud during the YD. These people then spin off everything in that manner. Flat earth, tartaria, etc etc. Its quite a slippery brain slope.

"In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"

Your idea, your concept, is that there's some huge missing gap in history. You haven't met the standard to expect other people to go and investigate things for you. You are free to take your idea, and go and seek approval to dig up the richat structure.

>what evidence falsifies the theory

No evidence falsifies the theory. First there isn't a theory, but second, the capital of atlantis will simply move somewhere else when evidence fails to be located.

>I find it really hard to have a constructive dialog with you about the actual evidence and theory

The chief proponents of the idea, are kind of relevant. They have 20 years or so of history, moving the goal posts all over the planet. Realistically, you should be looking at it like this:

1. Is there evidence to support your claims, if not, why not.

2. Is there evidence to support your intended course of action, if not, why not.

3. Go and find 2, and then seek 1.

I mean we have seen 1 and 2 unravel before you in this comment section. Theres no geologically sound "mud flood" or impact event that would explain why theres no evidence in the richat structure. Theres no visible evidence of atlantean civilisation in the Richat structure. Why do you expect some other person to go do labor when they have no reasonable expectation of results? Its hard enough for archeologists to get permits to dig where they have a reasonable expectation of findings. Putting down digs in the middle of the desert without a single reason to do so seems mad right? Its like asking a physicist to test gravity in the richat structure just in case it works differently there. Or a chemist to double check the atomic weight of helium on alternate tuesdays. If you are burdened with the glorious imagination that will free us from the shackles of incorrect history, why wouldnt you put that amazing talent to work yourself?

We currently have a very static language compared to language drift prior to the 20th, which didn't have endless TV, radio, and other sources of repeated language examples which has ossified usage and drift. The same goes for the massive amounts of written text produced in newspapers, magazines, and now the internet.

Prior to these times, most of the world was illiterate, and accent, and usage drifted significantly.

Yet even today, with all this consistency in usage, we get words shifting usage and idioms appearing.

Then we turn around and presume to understand word usage with great certainty from thousands of years ago.

Sure, OK, some things can be derived. But in my opinion, to use an example, "you know nothing John Snow" is understood now, wasn't 50 years ago, won't be 50 years from now.

According to Plato, there should be an inner island about 1km in diameter, a ring of water about 200m wide, a ring of land about 400m wide, another ring of water about 400m wide, an outer ring of land about 600m wide, and then water.

I don't see that in the structure. I don't see the center island; the structure seems flat in the middle. And if we assume that there was an island there once, and I engage my Pareidolia engine, there's now one ring too many.

Not to mention that this is way bigger than what Plato describes.

>The innermost circle is about 9km in diameter

Plato describes the innermost circle of Atlantis as 900 meters in diameter ("The island in which the palace was situated had a diameter of five stadia").

>The full concentric ring structure is about 50km

Plato describes the size of the whole city as 5km in diameter. He also claims there were walls around all the rings and bridges connecting the rings. This is somewhat plausible based on his measurements, but not the structure's size.

>I don't understand where your confidence in "there is nothing there" comes from.

People find pottery and other artefacts everywhere humans used to live, even if they don't run archeological digs. Plato describes Atlantis as incredibly rich and powerful—there would be stuff there. People would be looting that place like crazy, and we'd see evidence.

I personally chalk that sort of stuff up to living where the climate is set to easy mode.

Compare construction that predates building code in wealthy coastal California to poor rural Maine and you'll find the latter is routinely within spitting distance of compliant with modern code because that's just what you need if you want your project to resist nature for a "worth the effort of building it" amount of time.