[saturn_vk]

> this is irrelevant

I think OP mentions this due to your mention of meteor impacts

> What about the tens of thousands of axe heads found all concentrated in one spot?

According to Wikipedia, Stone Age axes. It seems reasonable to believe that the site provided easy access for material

[FloorEgg]

> I think OP mentions this due to your mention of meteor impacts

I thought I was pretty clear about the strikes being in North America, but ill emphasize that point again. The formation is natural and the theory is that human settled in it for its logistical and defensive advantages (back when the area around it was lush), and then got wiped out by floods caused by global climate shifts caused by massive meteorite strikes in North America and possibly the Atlantic ocean.

> According to Wikipedia, Stone Age axes. It seems reasonable to believe that the site provided easy access for material

Sure, but given how little investment has been made into archeological studies of the area, isn't it interesting that we found evidence of some significant human activity?

It doesn't prove the theory, but its an observation that if anything lends to the theory.

The scientific method is a process of making observations, developing a theory, forming falsifiable hypotheses, testing them carefully, and then drawing conclusions, and updating the theory as appropriate.

I don't take issue with people being skeptical about all this, I just take issue with people confidently stating that it's been proven false. Their stance seems less scientific to me than the people who want to pursue experiments that validate or invalidate (or refine) the theory.

I for one just would like to know the truth, whatever it might be.

Edit: To the people who are downvoting this comment, I wish you would respond to it and explain why you think it deserves to be downvoted.

[InsideOutSanta]

>I just take issue with people confidently stating that it's been proven false

There is no need to "prove Atlantis false" since there is no evidence for its existence. The only "evidence" is Plato, but if you read Plato, it's pretty clear that he is not talking about a real place, but making up Atlantis to make a point. So the onus is on the people who believe in Atlantis to provide compelling evidence that they are right, not on everybody else to disprove it.

Imagine you live 3000 years in the future, and you read Harry Potter. You assume that it describes real events and that Hogwarts is real. Most people look at the book and conclude it is fiction, but you disagree. Is it a compelling argument for you to say, "Well, unless they prove that there is no structure like Hogwarts anywhere on earth, I take issue with people confidently stating that Harry Potter is fiction"?

I don't think it is. I think the reasonable position is to state that Harry Potter is fictional confidently, and only reconsider that opinion when people provide compelling evidence that it is not.

[protocolture]

>and then drawing conclusions, and updating the theory as appropriate.

This bit never happens.

What does occur is that the hypothesis just twists to ignore new data. Hancock has claimed that as he isn't a scientist he doesn't need to include the facts that disagree with his ideas. He sees himself as a champion of an idea, and cherry picks facts to craft the best possible case for that idea. IE: Hes a massive fraud and waste of time.

> I just take issue with people confidently stating that it's been proven false.

I take issue with the idea that this entire argument has to happen again, politely and fresh, for anyone who pops up on the internet having read some cherry picked nonsense about atlantis. Why is it our collective responsibility to educate you. Its not even the responsibility of scientists to prove or disprove your claims, if you are making positive claims you should be either presenting or locating evidence for those claims. Also to note, evidence doesnt mean "Hey this sounds a bit like some old folklore".

>I for one just would like to know the truth, whatever it might be.

All offense intended, but the people who go on about this stuff have already arrived at their desired truth, and they are simply defending their truth from the slings and arrows of reality. Get on a boat, go investigate the Richat structure, come back with evidence, otherwise the current evidence stands.