An obvious candidate for a charge strike in north Africa is the Saharan Eye (Richat crater). It is probably not the cause of the 1688 quake, but it may be. I'll show you my reasoning at the end of the post.
The Saharan Eye
is 40km in diameter in North West Africa.
This is a satellite image so the colours aren't exactly correct.
Its location is more West Africa
.http://www.unbelievableinfo.com/2013/12 ... cture.html
It looks like a charge strike. I'm not the only one to think that. Thunderbolts even has the Saharan Eye at the top of one of its articles.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... richat.htm
What was the cause of this uplifted region on the Saharan desert floor cut by a circular crater with concentric terraces? Geologists speculate that erosion by wind and water must have worked its magic on the upraised dome. Electric theorists see something else—the scar left by electric discharge.
The possibility that the Richat Structure was formed by a volcanic eruption also seems improbable because of the lack of a dome of igneous or volcanic rock. Rather, the layered sedimentary rock of the Richat structure is now thought by many to have been caused by uplifted rock sculpted by erosion....Why the Richat Structure is nearly circular remains a mystery."
Advocates of the EU model claim that craters like the Richat were not formed by impacts but were "machined" by electric discharges, Birkeland currents that rotate around a "sticking" point and excavate material by electrically accelerating it upwards without disturbing the surrounding or underlying strata, unless the whole area is raised in a fulgamite blister--hence Rampart Craters. Specific effects will depend on a wide variety of soil conditions including chemical composition, material type, density, moisture, and conductivity. Discharge factors, including diameter, voltage, current, and duration will also affect the crater configuration.
The Saharan Eye also known as Richat's Crater has similarities to Saturn's hexagon:
And the Punumbra of a dense plasma focus charge (aka lightning stirke).http://www.holoscience.com/wp/more-on-m ... mysteries/
There are plenty of articles on the web about craters being more like Plasma discharge events than meteorite impacts. E.g.http://setterfield.org/crater_origins/c ... igins.htmlhttps://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/1 ... raters.htmhttps://duckduckgo.com/?q=craters+are+e ... fsb&ia=web
With certain craters, meteoritic material is there. This is because in concave Earth theory the charge ultimately comes from the sun which consists solely of meteoritic metal, hence some meteoritic fragments of the sun is carried with the charge as it strikes Earth. Because the craters themselves don't match impact strikes, the mainstream has to now say that most of the meteorite broke up before it hit the Earth.
It is also worth noting that researchers investigating the "impact" appear to be moving increasingly toward the idea of substantial fragmentation of the body before striking the ground. Jay Melosh of the University of Arizona, the lead researcher in a recent study (reported in the March 10, 2005 issue of Nature), suggests that about half of the 300,000-ton object was lost prior to impact. But again, electrical considerations played no part in the analysis.
There are lots of other problems too such as crators always being circular or hexagonal with regular spacing etc. It's in the articles if you want to research it. I don't want to go into too much detail here as we have a lot of general ground to cover.
Of course, the debate isn't necessarily either/or, but the absolutely massive craters on the Earth will be electric discharge as I doubt there is enough material from the sun to create such an impact.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/1 ... raters.htm
Richat Crater in the Saharan desert, whose uplifted terrain, circularity, concentric terraces, and layered sedimentary rock defy both the impact and volcanic theories of cratering; Aorounga Crater also in the Sahara, whose parallel grooves and intersecting ridges (which run through the surrounding landscape as well as the crater itself) have been described as "implausible" by geologists; Meteor Crater in Arizona, a 4,000 foot wide depression now regarded by science as an "impact" crater despite the UNDISTURBED rock beds below the crater; and Chicxulub Crater, the famous alleged site of the "asteroid" impact thought to have killed off the dinosaurs. Chicxulub is up to 300 km across, with multiple concentric rings, and the added mystery of Upper Cretaceous fossils found in UNDISTURBED layers -- fossils of the creatures that the impact was supposed to have wiped out.
Lol. So much for meteorite impact causing species wipeout or defining epochs. More like electric discharge from the sun which shakes the earth, changes climate and coastlines, creates mountains, and can even expand the earth (with devastating consequences). Again, all explained with concave Earth theory, sun cycles, and the piezoelectric effect.
The Saharan Eye itself was likely not the charge strike that caused the 1688 megaquake. I say this because it consists mostly of sedimentary rock, to be more exact - limestone.
http://www.unbelievableinfo.com/2013/12 ... cture.html
The center of the structure consists of a limestone-dolomite shelf that encloses a kilometer-scale siliceous breccia and is intruded by basaltic ring dikes, kimberlitic intrusions, and alkaline volcanic rocks.
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/ge ... m=fulltext
The Richat structure (Sahara, Mauritania) appears as a large dome at least 40 km in diameter within a Late Proterozoic to Ordovician sequence. Erosion has created circular cuestas represented by three nested rings dipping outward from the structure. The center of the structure consists of a limestone-dolomite shelf that encloses a kilometer-scale siliceous breccia and is intruded by basaltic ring dikes, kimberlitic intrusions, and alkaline volcanic rocks... The breccia was created during karst dissolution and collapse. Internal sediments fill the centimeter- to meter-scale cavities.
The small part that is volcanic rocks will be the result of the charge strike. Interesting that the limestone is broken up into fragments (breccia) due to karst (limestone) disolution. Karst
is created by water disolution
. How often does it rain in the Sahara?
There is no fused quartz meaning the charge strike didn't hit the sand or what appears to be sandstone to the back of it. Instead it hit the underlying bedrock which also appears to be limestone
. You can also see that a small part of the rim of the crater is covered by the sandstone. The other two crators in Africa that have been recognised as such and look similiar are the Jebel Uwaynat that borders Sudan, Egypt and Libya and The Brandberg Intrusion in Namibia. These two are completely covered by sandstone which means that this giant tsunami creating the sandstone came after the charge strike. Again, probably not the 1688 one.Jebel uweinatThe Brandberg Intrusion
Then there is the Aorounga Crater
in Chad.http://www.amazfacts.com/2016/03/the-mo ... mpact.html
Going back to the Richat crater that is made of limestone; there is limestone
bedrock in certain parts of the Sahara; Egypt for example. The great pyramids' outer covering is made of limestone. The other pyrmaids have marine fossils imbedded in the limestone.https://youtu.be/2JcVMkyJoZY?t=2m37s
https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showth ... p?t=404007
There are coal seams and layers of limestone and even underground lakes and rivers beneath the Sahara.
I suspect I'm the only person on SF who can answer this question authoritatively, because I've been there, done that. I work in oil drilling and spent several years working in the Sahara in Libya, Algeria and Tunisia.
Directly under the sand is rock, usually no more than 30m down.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/dig ... ology.html
A layer of limestone covers most of the surface of modern Egypt. Beneath this lies a bed of sandstone, and this earlier sandstone is the surface rock in Nubia and southern Upper Egypt, as far north as the area between Edfu and Luxor.
That is a major clue. Limestone is calcium carbonate and is said to come from the dead fossils of living creatures (whether true or not I don't know). Notice how limestone covers most of the surface of roughly the first two-thirds of Egypt on top of the sandstone which continues as surface rock for the rest of north Africa. Could this be because this part of Egypt was at one time deep underwater due to a massive Mediterrean Tsunami? And did this occur in 1688 or earlier?
Also, lightning needs moisture to strike the Earth. That is why there are no thunder and lightning storms in the Arctic or Antartica.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 957AAKlphQ
Antarctica never has thunderstorms because it is a desert and no precipitation.
Interesting map of LIVE lighting stirkes worldwide. They are mostly over water or otherwise over "green" parts of land.http://wwlln.net/new/map/
This means that the charge strike at the Richat crater occured before the Sahara Desert was formed... or at least when there was a sufficent amount of water at ground zero. This applies to all the craters in the Sahara
. Does this mean the crater was formed pre-1688? Probably, but not necessarily. In my next post I'll show you evidence for a lot of water in North Africa in the 17th century compared to the 18th - yes, the water disappeared that quickly.
In the meantime, here is a charge strike crater which looks like to have hit the sandstone bedrock, hence a more likely candidate for the cause or part of the cause of the 1688 greatquake:
The Amguid Crater
in South West Algeria.http://www.amazfacts.com/2016/03/the-mo ... mpact.html
Lots and lots of obvious water erosion on this ground. No need to point it all out. A blind man can see it. In fact, if you didn't know what you were looking at, you'd swear this was the bottom of an ocean
. I'd say this is the bottom of a lake originally, or at least lush with vegetation with a big river and lots of streams; right bang in heart of the Sahara.
So, this crater was probably formed post Sahara desert creation, but while there was still a lot of water around and the vegetation that goes with it.
http://www.amazfacts.com/2016/03/the-mo ... mpact.html
Amguid crater is located in a remote and inaccessible region of southwestern Algeria. The crater is about 500 meters across and 65 meters deep, but the actual depth has not been measured as the crater is partly filled with a wind blown sand. The central part of Amguid crater is flat and covered with aeolian silts.
This charge strike was not so big as the crater is "only" 500m wide. This makes it better suited to the 1688 event that disappeared the Mediterreanen coastal regions, rather then the strikes which created the Sahara itself. But, again water is needed. Let's look into that in the next post.
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."