forum.atlantisinireland.com

[ulferlingsson]

I have been involved in a very lengthy debate with "sceptics" at a "sceptical" website in Sweden. Now that there seems to be nothing more to add, I can make a little summary of my observations.

It over and over happened that the "sceptic" accused me from backing down from my position in the face of criticism. What actually happened, though, is this: The "sceptic" assumed that I had a certain position based on his/her prejudice, and when I did not, he/she accused me of retreating. Hilarious.

In reality, since I did this study several years ago, and published it in a book, presented it at a conference, I have not had to retreat on any point as regards the substance of the hypothesis. On the contrary, the hypothesis has been vindicated in a spectacular way by finding the meteorite impact crater at the exact spot where I predicted the city with concentric rings should be located, based on the hypothesis.

There was some flaw in the statistics but that issue is irrelevant now that the concentric rings have been found. The next step is to investigate the late ice age paleogeomorphology on that spot. Even if the statistics had been dead wrong that is an irrelevant argument by now. The only argument that would be able to overthrow the hypothesis by now, would be if it could be shown convincingly that the concentric circles were not manifest at the ground surface during any period of the last ice age. The University of Birmingham is working with mapping the area. If you want to disprove my hypothesis about the location of "Atlantis", they are your best - if not only - hope.

Good luck with that!

Ulf Erlingsson