The “Eye of Africa” or Guelb et Richat have been examined from air and land by many scientists. The details of the wheels, clearly evident as geographical features, have never before been presented in the manner by which the present writer describes them here, nor has ever been explained in all the details the process by which they reached the form and formation in which they are today (not only the rings, but also the unusual characteristics of each ring). The present writer had no prior knowledge of them. He simply had the accurately retranslated Platonic texts in hand to follow and subsequently found the wheels there where Plato wrote they would be. This surprising, to say the least, finding is ultimate proof of the accurate conception, logical approach and methodical procedure that culminated in this series of discoveries.
Plato does not provide the information on the wheels easily, nor does he give them in sequential order. Everything in this site has been hyper simplified.
Plato starts by describing how the wheels came to be. He writes that in the beginning, “Poseidon” created three concentric rings of land with alternate wheels of sea around his special isle. Their dimensions and distance from the centre are given.
Plato gives the shape and dimensions of the Sacred Isle of Atlantis which, for brevity’s sake and in tribute to its initial creator whose temples were on it, has been aptly named Poseidonia.
There then follows a description of the way in which the original 2nd wheel of land was reshaped into two “twin” wheels of land separated by a narrow wheel of sea. This sub-system of wheels has never before been described accordingly, because the “twin” condition had never been adequately explicated. Just as there has never before been an analysis and explanation of the adjectives “wet” and “dry” used to indicate their relative position. The “wet” wheel is the outer one, nearer to the sea while the “dry” one is the inner wheel that is nearer the landmass of the hub of the Sacred Isle. Plato provides precise distances and dimensions in all cases.
Plato then describes one of the most distinctive wheels of land. On it is a canal opening at the inner and outer rims of this wheel. It is reminded that in MoM 1 is described a passage in the translation where, for the first time in history, the texts were shown to indicate two canals and not just the one as always rendered in the old translations. This canal is given as a 9,5 km long trench and the width of the 4th wheel as 2 stadiums (360 m). Given the dimensions of the 4th wheel of land and its canal, the only reasonable way for the latter to ‘fit’ on the former so as to provide a waterway connection for the wheels of sea on either side as referred, is for if to run elliptically between the inner and outer perimeters of the wheel of land. And it does! Its length is almost ¼ the circumference of the wheel. Figure 5
In the diagram below are presented the measurements taken onsite on this wheel, because both wheel and canal exist and in the dimensions provided by Plato. What’s more, the orientations are also as he describes them. Image 6.
The top picture shows the location at the “inner” rim of the 4th wheel, at the opening or exit of the “canal” towards the centre of the system. The bottom picture shows the location at the outer rim of said wheel and the respective opening or entrance to the canal. In fact, today, this is the quickest and safest overland route to the centre of the wheel system.
There follows the description of the 5th or Outermost Wheel, which also has defining geomorphological features
WHAT – SCIENTIFICALLY – IS THE GUELB ET RICHAT?
Κατά καιρούς έχουν γίνει πολλές επιστημονικές αποστολές από διαφορετικές χώρες και συνήθως πανεπιστήμια, προκειμένου να αναλύσουν την φύση και τον τρόπο δημιουργίας αυτού του “φαινομένου” (βέβαια, καμία δεν είχε στο μυαλό της την Ατλαντίδα). Μία αναλυτική μελέτη έγινε από μία αποστολή Καναδέζων επιστημόνων και δημοσιεύτηκε στο GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA -August 2005;vol.33, no 8; p 665-669; doi: 10.1130/G21542.1;5 figures. (Guillaume Matton and Michel Je´brak – Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Quebec at Montreal, 201 President Kennedy Avenue, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3P8, Canada / James K.W. Lee Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada).
They mention about Richat:
” Early workers cited the crater-like shape and the high-relief center with its kilometer-scale breccia as evidence of a meteorite impact (e.g., Cailleux et al., 1964). Other researchers have explained the structure as the result of basement adjustments, which acted like a cylindrical piston causing vertical telescopic movements (Destombes and Plote, 1962). Magmatic evidence and domal deformation of the structure have also been used to support a granitic plutonic hypothesis related to lithospheric doming (Dietz et al., 1969; Boussaroque, 1975). The origin of the Richat structure and its breccia therefore remains enigmatic. Our field observations, breccia analyses, and petrological studies, combined with new geophysical and geochemical data, allow us to address the problem from a new perspective. We demonstrate that the Richat structure and its breccia core are the superficial expression of an alkaline complex with an exceptionally well preserved hydrothermal karst infilling at its summit”.
Very important notices as:
” The origin of the Richat structure and its breccia therefore remains enigmatic. Our field observations, breccia analyses, and petrological studies, combined with new geophysical and geochemical data, allow us to address the problem from a new perspective. We demonstrate that the Richat structure and its breccia core are the superficial expression of an alkaline complex with an exceptionally well preserved hydrothermal karst infilling at its summit”.
As conclusion they refer:
” The circular Richat structure appears to be the superficial expression of a buried alkaline complex of Cretaceous age that was affected by cuesta-type erosion. The breccia core is genetically related to plutonic activity, since doming and the production of hydrothermal fluids were instrumental in creating a favorable setting for dissolution. The resulting fluids were also responsible for subsequent silicification and hydrothermal infilling. To the best of our knowledge, karst collapse phenomena at the summit of an alkaline complex are unique, but may be more frequent than previously believed”.
It is important that a magmatic dome exists in a small distance from the surface(15 ΚΜ), and there was hydrothermal activity as reported by Plato.