Was Atlantis Real?

Prepare to be Astonished by What You Don't Know!

I am an investigative journalist, and people often assume that this means I exclusively focus on political matters. While I do primarily concentrate on political issues, it's essential to clarify that this emphasis arises from the belief that staying informed about politics is crucial for safeguarding the remnants of democracy in our country and the world. However, I am eager to share this particular piece of work to underscore that politics is not the sole subject I delve into as an investigative journalist.

This theory took me quite some time to produce. It's important to note that this is my original theory and hasn't been discussed elsewhere. (To my knowledge) While my research builds upon the work of Graham Hancock and a few others with similar works, I believe I've successfully addressed the unanswered aspects of this theory. I wouldn't dare present this without a strong conviction in its accuracy. After months of painstaking research and numerous discussions with experts, I'm confident in asserting that Graham's theory regarding the Amazon rainforest is valid. Moreover, his analysis indicating that Atlantis, the lost city, once was reality may be absolutely true. Keep in mind I’m an investigative journalist and not an archeologists so I can only give you my theory based on research I’ve done myself and experts opinions I’ve gathered on the matter.

Graham is not the sole proponent of these conclusions; others, like Jimmy Corsetti, have also conducted extensive research on Atlantis. However, my assertion here is that while these two men have cracked the initial mystery, I have unveiled the missing piece. Jimmy Corsetti has conducted impressive research on the city and its potential location, skillfully explaining how it may have fallen victim to a significant flood. However, what Graham and Corsetti overlook in my opinion is the root cause of the flood itself, and this is where I believe I have the answers.

Let's begin from the outset. Atlantis is described as a naval empire that once ruled the parts of the known world. The primary sources for Atlantis are Plato's dialogues, Timaeus and Critias, with all other references to the island stemming from these works. According to Plato, Atlantis was "larger than Libya and Asia combined" and situated somewhere near the Atlantic Ocean. In his research, Corsetti proposes a compelling hypothesis that the most likely location for such a city would be the Eye of the Sahara. Corsetti argues that Atlantis's description in Plato's texts bears a striking resemblance to the Richat Structure in the Sahara. He's not entirely off the mark; a comparison of the two reveals notable similarities. Take a look.

Depictions of possible look of Atlantis and Richat Structure together.


Plato's description of the city composed of three rings of water and two of land this aligns accurately with the Richat Structure. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Corsetti delves into comprehensive explanations of numerous similarities and compelling geological evidence supporting the idea that the Richat Structure could be the remnants of the once-great city of Atlantis. For detailed explanations, you can refer to the link below from his work. In the meantime, here are some key points highlighting the striking resemblance between the structure and Atlantis:

1. Existing Evidence of Saltwater Flow: There is still visible evidence of saltwater flow in the area, corroborating the notion of Atlantis being surrounded by water.

2. Unique Geological Match: Atlantis was described as being constructed with red and white-colored stones, a characteristic that aligns with the geological composition of the Richat Structure.

3. Abundance of Gold and Elephant Ivory: The region around the Richat Structure was notably rich in gold and elephant ivory, which is intriguing given that Atlantis was said to have had abundant elephants on the island. Caves in the vicinity also depict a number of elephant-related markings. Some researchers, constrained by the arid and desert-like nature of the Richat Structure, dismiss these similarities. However, rejecting such a multitude of parallels solely due to our current understanding of the region is shortsighted.

4. Hydrothermal Complex: A study conducted on the Richat Complex in the 1990s describes it as a hydrothermal complex, providing another layer of evidence.

5. Proximity to the Atlas Mountains: To add to this intrigue, just north of the Richat Structure lies the extensive Atlas Mountains range, coincident?

Dismissing all these pieces of evidence to conform to the mainstream archaeological narrative, which was constructed with limited knowledge available at the time, is not only ignorant but also potentially dangerous. Is it possible that the Richat Structure was once a lush, tropical place around 12,000 years ago? Absolutely! This is where Graham Hancock's work becomes relevant and invaluable.


Hancock's argument posits that long before the emergence of ancient Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Egypt, there existed a remarkably advanced civilization he’s talking about something like - Atlantis. He contends that this civilization was almost entirely wiped out. Hancock goes so far as to suggest that the Great Sphinx of Giza, along with its enclosing walls, eroded primarily due to ancient floods or rainfalls, therefore making Sphinx much older than originally dated, there is sufficient evidence to prove this!

Hancock supports his claims by pointing to evidence indicating that the erosion patterns on the Sphinx's body are consistent with the effects of deluges, thus suggesting that the Sphinx's existence predates the timelines proposed by mainstream archaeologists. In fact, at this point Hancock's assertions have gained more widespread acceptance (in my opinion) than the views of a relatively small group of mainstream archaeologists.

Many people find merit in Hancock's arguments, as he challenges the conventional perspectives that are tethered to the limited knowledge previews generations possessed about ancient Egypt. In doing so, he encourages a more expansive and open-minded approach to understanding our history.

Hancock and Corsetti both agree on one thing - Egypt was once a reinforce!

The fate of Atlantis and the causes behind its destruction have remained subjects of speculation, even with theories proposed by Hancock and Corsetti. While both Hancock and Corsetti suggest the involvement of floods, they haven't provided a comprehensive explanation for the why and how of these floods happened. They have theories but not hard core prove. (Including the transformation of Egypt into a desert.) This is where my theory and explanation come into play. I align with Hancock and Corsetti in many aspects but aim to uncover the cause of the flood itself.

Graham Hancock came remarkably close to solving this puzzle, but it's crucial to acknowledge that one individual cannot be an expert in all fields. Sometimes, pieces of the puzzle come from different sources and expertise. Hancock also proposed that the Amazon rainforest might have been home to a great civilization, estimating a population of around 20 million people. He references convincing newly discovered evidence to support this idea. However, a significant challenge arises: how could one sustain such a large population with the notoriously poor soils of the Amazon rainforest?

It's a well-established fact that rainforest soils are generally infertile. Once the rainforest is cleared, the land quickly becomes infertile, making sustained agriculture difficult. Here I agree with Graham who says;

They simply manufactured the soil. The soil they Invented is called Terra Preta -also also known as "Amazonian dark earth’’ It’s a man made soil. so who made this soil? I would argue that the amazonian dark earth was made by the people from Atlantis- let me explain.

Let's consider the possibility that Graham Hancock and Corsetti were correct in their assertion that Atlantis existed - located in Africa. According to Plato, this civilization was not only affluent but also highly advanced. What typically occurs when an advanced civilization expands and grows in size? They embark on explorations. Atlantis is described as a naval empire. Throughout history, we have no records of a naval empire that did not engage in sea travel. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the Atlanteans began venturing across the oceans in search of new lands, just as other civilizations in history.

The idea that the Atlanteans might have contributed to the creation of the fertile black earth found in the Amazon can be supported by the striking similarities between structures discovered all around the world. Despite the renowned reputation of Egypt's Great Pyramids at Giza, the Americas actually boast more pyramid structures than the rest of the world combined. These structures share common characteristics and are often perfectly aligned or connected to one another. So, what are the odds that a single civilization with advanced knowledge constructed all of these sites?

Now, let's discuss the concept of a cataclysmic flood. If we entertain Hancock's claims, it is plausible to assume that Atlantis, being both rich and situated in a rainforest, may have had a hand in constructing the famous Egyptian pyramids. It seems improbable that Atlantis would coexist on the same continent with another advanced civilization.

So, what happened to Atlantis? If we accept the flood theory as true, the key question becomes the cause of this flood.

What are the chances that an advanced and affluent civilization, driven by the desire for more power and knowledge, embarked on a journey to explore new worlds? We've witnessed similar pursuits in history, notably with the discovery of America. Therefore, it is entirely conceivable that a naval power like Atlantis, as advanced as Plato described, would undertake such a voyage.

It's possible that they possessed the knowledge and skills required for successful navigation and had an inkling of what they might find. Interestingly, if one were to sail from Mauritania and take the shortest route towards America, they would end up precisely where these man-made soil in the Amazon thrives today. This could very well have been the path taken by the Atlanteans.

However, my theory diverges from the notion that asteroids or random cataclysms led to their demise. Instead, I believe that they may have brought about their own downfall through their actions. To understand how - you have to understand the strange connection Sahara and AMAZON rainforest have.

The Sahara Desert possesses remarkable power, potentially capable of generating an astounding 2.5 million terabits of electricity annually, through the installation of solar panels. So, why hasn't this promising idea been put into action? would not free energy be something ‘ AWESOME’?

The answer lies in the severe consequences associated with such an endeavor, which would disrupt the climatic balance and lead to the Sahara becoming colder.

Increased rainfall in the desert could trigger massive ocean cyclones, ultimately transforming the Amazon Rainforest into a desert. Scientific studies have confirmed that rainfall in the Sahara Desert contributes to droughts in the Amazon region, while reduced rainfall in the Sahara hinders the Amazon's growth. Astonishingly, despite their vast separation, these two regions are intricately linked.

Simply put - If one is a rainforest that means the other is a desert or the opposite!

NASA's Calypso satellite has revealed a surprising connection – approximately 182 million tons of Sahara sand dust travel a staggering 4,300 kilometers over the Atlantic Ocean each year before settling in the Amazon Rainforest. This dust carries a significant amount of phosphorus, crucial for the thriving of rainforest plants. To put it simply, the Amazon exists because of the Sahara.

Now, consider the intriguing idea that Atlantis/Sahara was once a lush rainforest. If this holds true, it implies that the Amazon must have been a desert at some point in history – a stark contrast. When the Atlanteans ventured from their verdant African homeland, they likely encountered the Amazon as a desert. Given their advanced civilization, they aspired to transform the arid land into a beautiful, green paradise reminiscent of their homeland. Their solution was the use of black earth to cultivate the desert.

However, the Atlanteans may not have been aware of the intricate connection between the Amazon and Sahara. They may not have comprehended the severe consequences of their actions, leading to their homeland's transformation into a desert. Tragically, before this transformation could fully take place, they may have been wiped out by a flood caused by their well-intentioned efforts in the Amazon.

Their actions could have potentially resulted in various consequences, including a tsunami, tectonic shifts, or severe disruptions in the Earth's atmospheric conditions.This makes more sense when we remember our own endeavors in changing our earth and conducting tests than are less then smart!

If you look at the statistic even today to Which nations and their populations are the most vulnerable to the risk of flooding you will see - NETHERLANDS, BANGLADESH, VIETNAM , EGYPT, MYANMAR. This makes sense to why Atlantis most like got destroyed during the flood and how there would be a few left to tell the tale.

Written by Elizabeth lane.

Link to Jimmy Corsetti'‘s channel here
https://www.youtube.com/@BrightInsight

Graham Hancock website:
https://grahamhancock.com