I added six screenshots of radial measurements of the concentric ring pattern, which conform to Plato’s dialogue pertaining to the measurements of each ring of the city of Atlantis; this can be verified by converting miles to stadia, there being 8.8 stadia to 1 mile.
I also created a Facebook page with all of these screenshots. The city was described as having a radius of 13.5 stadia in Plato’s dialogue Critias, which is equal to 1.53 miles. This is precisely the radius of the pattern found in the screenshots, as can be seen in the photo first linked to on the Facebook page.
I don’t really care about it. Are you serious about thinking this is Atlantis? Can you really not tell how much of that data is subject to noise and other corruption?
I am actually 100% sure that it is Atlantis. As for noise and other corruption, the burden of proof lies on the side that claims it is noise. The visual data that you dismiss as noise and other corruption is in actuality irrefutable evidence of a human civilization’s transformation of its natural environment to suit its needs, the most visible of which are canals for irrigation and terraces for agriculture.
Good luck with that. You’re not going to be taken seriously when all you have done is looked at some pretty patterns on Google maps. You haven’t even taken the trouble to research the limitations of the imaging technology used to create this mapping.
Here’s a free clue: no system of human agriculture or engineering has ever produced so regular a grid, across so large an area.
In the context of the Google Earth program, say a random point in the ocean is picked. For all objects that are shown in that view that are larger than the resolution size for that area of the ocean floor, the burden of proof is certainly on the side that says what is being shown in the view is not actually there, as that side would be arguing that what is being displayed is an error, the reason being that errors are exceptions to a rule (of there being no error, at least to a certain resolution size).
If this is not a self-evident truth for you, then our views of what we consider empirical knowledge are different, and we’ll have to agree to disagree.
So, on the one hand, we have people who actually work with this sort of data saying that not only is it just noise, but that similar noise is visible all around that area.
On the other hand, we have you claiming that these apparent rings are PROOF of a long-dead super civilization that sank under the ocean thousands of years ago.
And you’re seriously attempting to claim that the burden of proof is on them?
Okay, everyone here who’s found an amazing product, or discovery, or perpetual motion machine …I wasn’t asking for a show of hands, Kozmik, but everyone appreciates your enthusiasm… put down the mouse and back away from the message board.
Get outta here, for the sake of your bankroll and the good of all humanity! That cold fusion contraption isn’t going to power supery00n’s ‘Atlantis Express’ Sub/Train if you don’t get it built in time.
If someone organized an expedition to explore the area, and they returned with no evidence of anything unusual - no lost city or sunken island - what would you conclude?
The thing that convinced me of the underwater pattern being the city of Atlantis was not that it vaguely resembled a target with a bullseye in the middle - that, as has been pointed out here, can be attributed to the imperfections of Google Earth’s sources and their tools and data-acquisition methodologies. To the contrary, it is that the measurements and width, as well as their number, of each concentric ring, whatever these rings may be, if anything at all, match precisely those written down in Plato’s dialogues. (What is more, the ringed structure is cut through by a rift, and strongly suggests that an earthquake damaged it…which would jibe with Plato’s description of the swallowing up by the sea being presaged by a sequence of “portentous earthquakes.”)
It is my opinion, and only that, that the simplest explanation at this point of what the pattern is, is that it is Atlantis, as absurd and ridiculous as this sounds.
I’m actually a very sane and reasonable person…although I am not very good at communicating this through the Internet.
It is not that I deny that noise is always present to a certain extent in every data-gathering process, which it is. I fully acknowledge this fact, as I am sure every sentient being does as well.
I just think in this particular case, that it is not noise, for reasons which I have given and which I feel are justified with solid arguments.
Utterly irrelevant to the point you raised - the question of burden of proof. The burden of proof is on YOU no matter how good you personally think your evidence is. The burden of proof is always on the person who seeks to overthrow the status quo. So for you to blithely pronounce that it’s up to those who disagree with you to prove you wrong, well, that indicates that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
It just seems too detailed to be a made up story. And besides that, I am in no position to say that he is right or wrong, as he is the only reliable source on Atlantis. (Diodorus Siculus, in The Library of History, mentions Atlantis also, but it is not an authoritative source on Atlantis). I can only say that if Plato intended the story of Atlantis to be true, and based on actual historical records, which were themselves “correct,” then the pattern underwater in the Caribbean Sea matches that description given. If Plato is wrong, then what I am asserting has no basis, though this does not mean that the underwater pattern does not exist. What is down there is down there, if there is anything down there, regardless of what anyone has said or done.