Astonishing NEW details have been uncovered involving the Lost Ancient City of Atlantis, and the Eye of The Sahara. These details are so significant that the Richat Structure should without a doubt, be considered the most likely location of the lost capital city of Atlantis.
This is a butterfly-mind romp through a whole load of "details" (almost all preceded by the promise that each successive one is the clinching argument for the fifty seconds before he presents the next one). The whole lot is presented with colourful graphics, for the most part not attributed to a source and some clearly manipulated. Facts are taken out of contexct from a variety of sources, including popular science magazines and wikipedia. Occasionally scientific papers are quoted, but notably where their titles contain the phrase that the Corsetti is trying to argue for. Yet, if you do a stop-frame and actually read the text around the bit he's underlined in red, the text itself actually says something else than the phrase he took out of context (the hot-springs mineral for example). This is the modus operandi, jump from topic to topic quickly, giving no background to the "details" snatched out of context, or simply misrepresented, giving no time for the viewer to question what they are told. Annoyingly there is some dumbdown like explaining what the word "mollusc" means (though when you look at the comments underneath this video, you realise that the main audience of this sensationalist crap actually needs it).
And the "Roman map"? Tellingly, Corsetti stumbles over the pronunciation of "Pomponius Mela" (who he candidly admits he'd never heard of before!) and "Herodotus" and seems blissfully unaware that the "Roman map"("verifiably authentic, 2000-year old map") he shows as another "clinching proof" of his crackpot idea is NOT ROMAN. He cannot even pronounce the name "Atlantae" on it (he reads it "Atlantia"). The name refers to the Atlas mountains.
Pomponius Mela reconstructed
You have to be a special kind of stupid to listen to Corsetti wittering on about this one word on the map being where the Richat Structure is while looking in the film at the map that shows a river Sardabal (a river in Mauretania mentioned by Pliny) flowing from it north into the Mediterranean to the west of Cartena and Caesarea but east of Siga more or less on the boundary between two regions marked Numidia and the land of the Mauri. The one on the map is almost certainly the river today known as Chelif River (Oued Chelif/ Wadi Sheliff), the source of which is over 1900 km from the centre of the topographical features caused by the erosion of the Cretaceous period Richat Structure.
More damningly, the map he shows as proof that "the ancient Romans somehow knew" that this geological structure was "the real Atlantis" (comes from Wikipedia and is clearly labelled as a) reconstruction of Pomponius Mela's world map by Konrad Miller and is dated 1898. It comes from a book called "Orbis habitabilis ad mentem Pomponii Melae" (Mappaemundi, Heft VI. "Rekonstruierte Karten", Tafel 7). And of course Titus Pomponius Mela's work, written about 44/43 AD shortly before the author's death in Andalusia was called something else "De situ orbis libri tres" [or "Chorographia"].
The notion that this geological site was Atlantis is not Corsetti's invention. It seems to have first been widely publicised as one possible option by American travel writer Mark Adams ("Meet Me in Atlantis: Across Three Continents in Search of the Legendary Sunken City" Penguin Publishing Group, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment