Can You See What I See?

I lost patience with this video less than a minute into it. After a minute and a half I didn't know what it was about, so I decided to move on. Maybe you could expound on what the content is about?

If you can see that I see what you see, then yes, I see you seeing me seen what you had seen.

i don't know what this is about. when the guy speaking sounds so boring, so unimpressed with what he is saying, then i don't know why i would watch it. ever watch the comic steven wright?


his voice reminds me of him.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Mike, you are funny!! Actually every response is funny.

I think all of us would need some decoding to understand any of what was said in the video, I lost patience too. lol

@the op-- you can't just post a video of some guy's feed where he sounds more confused than informative. and then not come back. can you give us a clue what this is supposed to be about or tell us what you see?


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

K… he's speaking about the discovery of Atlantis


also… the Mandela Effect


(the Mandela Effect is about timelines)

John,

How are we supposed to answer the subject title for this thread?

There is nothing to draw upon.

Not a pun.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

i don't see how those are related. is there a shorter more to the point video, with a person with a more upbeat voice. even someone with a conspiracy voice that connects strange things would grip me better.

and i don't know what the mandala effect is. or why that would be time related. because that's not what think of when hear mandala.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

that's also 20 min long. anything like 3-5 min, that's all the attention span i have. i think if it takes 20 min or more to prove a fabled island still visibly exists, it sort of fails. like one shouldn't have to convince others by showing a lot of random locations and arrows. right now i can't even watch it because youtube is maxed again. quickly going over the timeline of the movie, all i saw were wikipedia entries.

can you yourself explain something about this? other than showing videos of conspiracy ideas?


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

“Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden.”

― Phaedrus

now we are just talking in riddles. can you explain what they are talking about in the above. because i don't have 40 min to invest on this. and i can't see how it would take 20 min to explain something.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

some observant people noticed what others couldn't see


they traveled to Atlantis and made a documentary


sometime later…


another insightful person found the truth by seeing the documentary


then took the time to summarize the issue on YouTube


whereas I saw his video (saw the truth, was amazed, and shared it)


which brings us to this post, about the discovery of Atlantis

the thing is, everything on youtube, in general, is a bunch of nonsense. its fun to watch, but impossible to believe even if they try connecting some kind of dots. just listen to the ancient alien theorists on the history channel. the only only aliens on that channel are the people talking about the aliens.

if there was a real discovery, there would be evidence of some kind, but thus far all evidence usually leads to a chasm, a lake, a pond, a section in the ocean etc. there would be solid proof and a real investigation and not a browsing history of people's you tube choices or wiki entries.

and though you shared this truth, you offered nothing about what it was about and it took an entire day and asking you directly what this thread was about.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

well…

Huh?

just some crazy ideas

i agree on the last statements. still unless it can be summed up in a paragraph, then it loses my interest. one shouldn't need a bunch of videos to prove something. i bet i can find on you tube, where to find a real smurf city, and there will be compelling evidence they were real. and if its not there now, there will be.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

nope, not yet, so far the only thing i could find is they were related to the klan some how.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Mike this might clear things up for you... LOL

The Richat Structure is a deeply eroded, slightly elliptical dome with a diameter of 40 kilometres (25 mi). The sedimentary rock exposed in this dome ranges in age from Late Proterozoic within the center of the dome to Ordovician sandstone around its edges. The sedimentary rocks composing this structure dip outward at 10–20°. Differential erosion of resistant layers of quartzite has created high-relief circular cuestas. Its center consists of a siliceous breccia covering an area that is at least 30 kilometres (19 mi) in diameter.[3][4][5]

Exposed within the interior of the Richat Structure are a variety of intrusive and extrusive igneous rocks. They include rhyolitic volcanic rocks, gabbros, carbonatites and kimberlites. The rhyolitic rocks consist of lava flows and hydrothermally altered tuffaceous rocks that are part of two distinct eruptive centers, which are interpreted to be the eroded remains of two maars. According to field mapping and aeromagnetic data, the gabbroic rocks form two concentric ring dikes. The inner ring dike is about 20 m in width and lies about 3 km from the center of the Richat Structure. The outer ring dike is about 50 m in width and lies about 7 to 8 km from the center of this structure. Thirty-two carbonatite dikes and sills have been mapped within the Richat Structure. The dikes are generally about 300 m long and typically 1 to 4 m wide. They consist of massive carbonatites that are mostly devoid of vesicles. The carbonatite rocks have been dated as having cooled between 94 and 104 million years ago. A kimberlitic plug and several sills have been found within the northern part of the Richat Structure. The kimberlite plug has been dated to around 99 million years old. These intrusive igneous rocks are interpreted as indicating the presence of a large alkaline igneous intrusion that currently underlies the Richat Structure and created it by uplifting the overlying rock.[3][4][6][7]

Spectacular hydrothermal features are a part of the Richat Structure. They include the extensive hydrothermal alteration of rhyolites and gabbros and a central megabreccia created by hydrothermal dissolution and collapse. The siliceous megabreccia is at least 40 m thick in its center to only a few meters thick along its edges. The breccia consists of fragments of white to dark gray cherty material, quartz-rich sandstone, diagenetic cherty nodules, and stromatolitic limestone and is intensively silicified. The hydrothermal alteration, which created this breccia, has been dated to have occurred about 98.2 ± 2.6 million years ago using the 40Ar/39Ar method

The Richat Structure is Atlantis

JE that distillation is to easy.

I want Mike to get lost in the scientific gobbily goop word salad... lol

@ed, see that wasn't so hard, now i totally understand.... this explains why the atlantians were so advanced or something. it was that that richat thing. and why they aren't here now, they got tired of explaining what their town is and made of, and left the planet.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Plato said why Atlantis was destroyed…

oy

This thread needs a clear warning on top of the door.

"All Who Enter are Doomed"

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery