Atlantis Found

Archaeology will be the key to it. So far there is absolutely no archeological evidence of a permanent settlement of any kind.

JohnEmmett said:

artefacts found in and around the Richat Structure

Stone cannonballs…

Click to expand...

Yes, the area is well known by archaeologists as a Paleolithic tool production site, but there is no evidence of permanent settlement, much less a city-state.

JohnEmmett said:

size is a match to Plato's description

Click to expand...

According to Plato, this size of Atlantis - the "city" - is about 5km in diameter, give or take a few hundred meters, depending of what kind of "station" you use as your length measurement.
Now the Guelb er Richat is about 40 km in diameter, and even the innermost "circle" is 10km.

So, no, the size does not match Plato's description. Nor does the position. Or the problem that, according to Plato, Atlantis sank into the sea. But this area doesn't seem very watery... and it hasn't been for a very long time.

The Guelb er Richat is a very interesting geological formation, and its origins are still the subject of speculation. But Atlantis it isn't.
Perhaps you are confusing it with the geology of your reality...

JohnEmmett said:

you ignored the video

Click to expand...

You ignored Plato.

JohnEmmett said:

No…

Click to expand...

"And beginning from the sea they bored a canal of three hundred feet in width and one hundred feet in depth and fifty stadia in length, which they carried through to the outermost zone, making a passage from the sea up to this, which became a harbour, and leaving an opening sufficient to enable the largest vessels to find ingress. Moreover, they divided at the bridges the zones of land which parted the zones of sea, leaving room for a single trireme to pass out of one zone into another, and they covered over the channels so as to leave a way underneath for the ships; for the banks were raised considerably above the water. Now the largest of the zones into which a passage was cut from the sea was three stadia in breadth, and the zone of land which came next of equal breadth; but the next two zones, the one of water, the other of land, were two stadia, and the one which surrounded the central island was a stadium only in width. The island in which the palace was situated had a diameter of five stadia. All this including the zones and the bridge, which was the sixth part of a stadium in width, they surrounded by a stone wall on every side, placing towers and gates on the bridges where the sea passed in."

Do the math. If you don't want to add the claim that the Atlantians were all giants of ten times the size of a human, and thus used different "stadia", your scale is of by a factor of 10.

JohnEmmett said:

cannonballs… used by ships, which Atlantis certainly had a lot of

Click to expand...

Those artefacts are more characteristic of hunter-gatherers than settled communities. Stone spheres are not uncommon at neolithic & paleolithic sites; they were probably used to break bones to extract bone marrow.

If they were cannonballs you'd expect them to be more uniform in size and shape...

JohnEmmett said:

this place matches the description

… in many ways

Click to expand...

Is there anything to actually suggest that this place is Atlantis? So far all you've provided is a link to a map and an unsummarised video. Can you sum up the arguments that this is Atlantis in your own words please?

The thread title reads Atlantis Found, but shouldn't that be Atlantis Foundered?