Could the ‘Eye of the Sahara’ Be the Lost City of Atlantis?
Image credit: NASA/JPL/NIMA
First discovered in the 1930s, the Richat Structure was originally thought to be an impact crater. However, research in the 1950s and 1960s has since eliminated the possibility of it having been made by extraterrestrial impact (a meteor, for example) in favor of terrestrial causes (such as volcanic activity). Eventually, scientists settled for a theory according to which it is a 100-million-year-old dome of molten rock, eroded and shaped by wind and water.
Now, even Bright Insight admits that the Eye of the Sahara is a natural structure, and claims that the Atlantians built their city into the natural formation. This very idea is questioned by Steven Novela on the Neoroligica blog, who rebuts Bright’s Insight’s arguments one by one.
Regarding the YouTube channel’s primary ‘piece of evidence’, according to which the Richat structure is a series of concentric rings that precisely matches Plato’s description of Atlantis, Novela points out that the simple fact that both are concentric rings is not unlikely at all, and since the rings are not discrete and not complete in places, it’s unclear how water would have filled the structure. Also, if you look at the whole formation, you could count four rings of water, instead of the three suggested by Bright Insight. Furthermore, there is no trace of the canal described by Plato, that is supposed to run through all the walls to the inner structure, connecting the rings.
First discovered in the 1930s, the Richat Structure was originally thought to be an impact crater. However, research in the 1950s and 1960s has since eliminated the possibility of it having been made by extraterrestrial impact (a meteor, for example) in favor of terrestrial causes (such as volcanic activity). Eventually, scientists settled for a theory according to which it is a 100-million-year-old dome of molten rock, eroded and shaped by wind and water.
Now, even Bright Insight admits that the Eye of the Sahara is a natural structure, and claims that the Atlantians built their city into the natural formation. This very idea is questioned by Steven Novela on the Neoroligica blog, who rebuts Bright’s Insight’s arguments one by one.
Regarding the YouTube channel’s primary ‘piece of evidence’, according to which the Richat structure is a series of concentric rings that precisely matches Plato’s description of Atlantis, Novela points out that the simple fact that both are concentric rings is not unlikely at all, and since the rings are not discrete and not complete in places, it’s unclear how water would have filled the structure. Also, if you look at the whole formation, you could count four rings of water, instead of the three suggested by Bright Insight. Furthermore, there is no trace of the canal described by Plato, that is supposed to run through all the walls to the inner structure, connecting the rings.
Advertisements
