Atlantis, Azores Pyramid, & Ice Age Catastrophes. An Interview with Independent Scholar Randall Carlson


SGI_WDTRG_2This week’s interview on Where Did the Road Go? – Paranormal Radio, with Randall Carlson of Sacred Geometry International. Randall returns to talk about Sacred Geometry, Cycles of Cataclysm, Atlantis, Lost Civilizations, and much, much more… We talk about the recently found pyramid in the Azores, and whether it may be part of Atlantis, what ended the last Ice Age, Pole Shifts, evidence of cataclysm, his online classes on Sacred Geometry, and his part in Graham Hancock’s new book!

Download audio

  • toadboy

    The pyramid only appears to look like that because they are using a map display that draws straight lines between data points. A more detailed image would show a boring, normal mound. But of course, the last thing these people want to do is look at better data. After all, they might be able to turn this into a book or something.

    • Camron Wiltshire

      Source toadboy? Did you bother to listen to the podcast or do you get off on appearing to debunk things without actually saying anything of substance? Do you belong to the church of James Randii? The potential Pyramid discovery is recent news and thus topical and timely. Everything else said is verified by hard geological evidence. Do your homework in the future please. You know, try to look at some, ‘better data.’ Also what does it matter if something is turned into a book, there are books on virtually every topic, your line of thinking is shot with fallacious rhetoric.

      For example. “The Pyramid only looks like that because they are using a map display that draws straight lines between data points.”

      Please substantiate your contention. What software and hardware are they using exactly? How do you know this? Why should anyone believe you?

      “A more detailed image would show a boring, normal mound.” Ok, prove it, where is this higher res image you so confidently point to. You’ve not yet proving your first point so the slippery slope fallacy is all that you are invoking here without evidence.

      “But of course, the last thing these people want to do is look at better data.”

      Which people exactly are you referring too here? You’ve said nothing, just cast an amorphous blob of misinformation here.

      “After all, they might be able to turn this into a book or something.”
      So you are finishing up with yet another fallacy. Ad hominem, insinuating that those seeking the truth about the history of our species must be looking to cash in on a fad without looking at the ‘better data’ that you don’t actually possess.

      • Juan

        Nicely done. But seems like a lot of trouble to go through for some pissant, dweeb.
        Anyway, looking forward l watching this tonight when I get home.

        • Camron Wiltshire

          hahaha! Thanks Juan. Sometimes people don’t realize how they come off because they’ve been indoctrinated by the “skeptic” movement to be smarmy and sophist(icated), so I try to show them the error of their ways.


          • Greg Henrikson

            The burden is on the yahoos claiming there is a pyramid on the bottom of the ocean. Not on those pointing out that it’s probably a result of the display being used. So show me the pyramid. Get an ROV. Otherwise you’re all wet.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            Who said absolutely it is there? They just talk about the possibility of such a thing. Please listen before commenting. See this is why I had to write all of the comments above.

      • toadboy

        My statements are based on 30 years of looking at bathymetric charts and underwater exploration. And not as a hobby. I have not gone to this particular spot, photographed it, and taken core samples. Neither has Mr. Carlson. But a glance at the data Mr. Carlson is using, and I immediately recognized the shape as one I have seen before in some digital charts. It is an artifact commonly seen when a small peak is drawn using software that cannot draw curves. I will try to come up with a better image of the spot. I will post it here. I do not belong to a church. I do believe that if one discovers a pattern in a sat image or nautical chart, the next step should be to mark it as a possible position of interest, then find the best image or survey of that spot available. If the site still looks interesting, you get someone on site to verify your hypothesis. Lots of great ancient sites have been found that way. If you come across such a pattern and simply declare that you have found a pyramid or an alien spacecraft without doing careful follow up, it is sloppy science.

        • Camron Wiltshire

          What do you think of the orientation to true north? The great pyramid of Giza is also oriented in this manner. This is not to say I know conclusively what is there, but it is an interesting correspondence none the less.

          That being said, you have not proven that you actually listened to the podcast and your ambiguity casts doubt on your efficiency as a presumed professional scientists. No need to play coy. What are your qualifications in this regard?

          I’m not trying to rail you out here, just ensuring your on the level. It could be that this is a false positive, but Randall says nothing about his belief one way or the other here, just that it is interesting as he has figured in on the Azores archipelago as the most likely location of the ancient civilization of Atlantis up to 30 years previously.

          No one here has said anything about whether or not this is exactly true so again your continued sloppy ad hominem attack is meaningless unless you’ve an agenda to promote.

          Listen to the podcast, take notes and if you take issue, cite the time code and transcription lest you yourself be accused of sloppy science.

          • toadboy

            The orientation to the north only comes into play If the object is a man-made pyramid. I did download and listen to the podcast, which interested me enough to go to the source material. I read what was published by Diocleciano Silva, who has been credited with the discovery. My comments are only about the raw data used by the authors in their discovery. I do not have an agenda. I would love to find that there is a pyramaid in that location. So when I went to the raw data, I was disappointed to see that the authors were basing their discovery on a chart that uses vector topography, which is a system that draws straight lines between data points. These charts were never meant to be taken as a detailed picture of the topography. With these maps, the whole world is drawn as a series of straight lines and sharp corners. The smaller the peak is, the fewer data points it contains. A very small peak appears triangular. A slightly larger peak will be rectangular. If we knew exactly what software is being used, we might discover that the cardinal directions are used for the first four data points on an object of that size. I do not know if this is the case or not. It should be checked out. My frustration, that I let out a little in my first post, is that anyone with real cartography or oceanography experience should know better than to announce such a discovery on such flimsy evidence. So either they do not know better, or there is an intent to deceive. Honestly, I can’t say what their motivations are. I really hate when someone announces the discovery of something cool, then close investigation reveals that it was all fantasy. And there are lots of people who make a lot of money by regularly making such discoveries. I want to make it clear that I am only addressing the specific issue of the cartographic data used as the basis of the discovery. My background is formal undergraduate study in Anthropology/Archaeology at UT Austin with a specialty in primitive seafaring technology. Graduate work in Underwater Archaeology and Marine Transportation at Texas A&M. I have mostly worked as a Ship’s Navigator since the late 80’s, both on commercial ships and research vessels. My other work has been to aid in the identification of downed aircraft from past wars, underwater and on land. But back to the Data. If this were my discovery, I would first find a detailed, raster scanned chart of the area. Then I would hire an Azorian diver to photograph the site, and collect some samples. The peak is shallow enough to be diveable, and there are lots of dive operators in the area. If the people announcing this discovery wanted to do so, we could probably have hard proof either way within a day or two, weather permitting. If I was at work, I could easily look up high resolution raster-scanned charts of the area. It is harder to do at home with the internet, but I am trying.

          • toadboy

            I wrote a reply, but it got deleted. I will try again. If the other reply show up again, that is the reason.

            Ok, I will try to explain myself better. I did listen to the podcast. I am always excited about new archaeology, so I went straight to the source material for the Pyramid discovery. I looked at the data presented by Diocleciano Silva, who has been credited with the discovery. My comments are only about the cartographic data used as evidence for the discovery. The evidence is based on an image of the sea floor using vector cartography. This means that objects are represented as data points, with straight lines drawn between them. The smallest feature would be shown as a triangle, with three data points connected by three lines. A slightly larger peak would contain four data points, and would appear square or pyramid shaped. This has nothing to do with the actual shape of the object. The lines drawn between the datapoints are not intended to reflect fine detail in the topography. The corners do not reflect sharp edges in the topography. These types of maps are intended only to show a very rough picture of the underwater topography. For detail, you would refer to large scale raster-scanned charts, which are drawn to show the actual details of the features depicted, and can show curves and other shapes. It may be that the particular software used by Mr. Silva would place the first four data points of an object in the cardinal directions. I cannot say for sure. However, I am positive that anyone with any experience in cartography or oceanography would not look at this data and declare that they have discovered a new pyramid. So to me, either the authors truly do not understand the data, or they are being deceptive. I did voice a little of my frustration, because I really hate when someone announces a cool discovery, and when you look closely, it turns out to be fantasy. And the sad truth is, there are people who make a living regularly announcing such discoveries. What should be done when one finds a suspected site like this, is first step would be to look at a more detailed chart. In this case, we have an object where the peak is within easy dive range, and in an area of mostly clear water and in the vicinity of several dive operations. If these people really wanted to look hard at this discovery, All they would have to do is get a local dive boat to photograph the site and take some samples. Weather permitting, we could have a solid answer either way within a day or so. I have been asked what my agenda is. I do not have one, except maybe wanting to know the truth whatever it is. Also, I have been asked how I am qualified to make the statements I have made. Fair question. I studied undergraduate Archaeology/Anthropology at UT Austin with a specialization in Primitive Seacraft. I did postgrad work at Texas A&M studying Underwater Archaeology and Marine Transportation. Since the late 80s, I have been working primarily as a navigator of both commercial ships and research vessels. I have also been active in the identification of downed aircraft from past wars, both underwater and on land, as well as assisting in the recovery of remains from those sites. When I was studying archaeology, I had a professor who was all about Pyramids, and much of his enthusiasm rubbed off on me. However, these discoveries will not become real just because we really, really want them to be. If this discovery is real, then there will be real, irrefutable proof that it is. And anyone claiming a discovery such as this should not be insulted when people want to see proof. I looked at the proof as presented by the authors, and I saw an immediate problem in a specific area that I have enough knowledge of to give an educated opinion. Calling me names is not going to make the data any more believable. But don’t just accept my opinion. look at the raw data, and decide for yourself.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            Thank you for responding. But who are you referring too when you say, “declare that they have discovered a new pyramid.” as well as,

            “However, I am positive that anyone with any experience in cartography oroceanography would not look at this data and declare that they have discovered a new pyramid. So to me, either the authors truly do not understand the data, or they are being deceptive. ”


            “However, these discoveries will not become real just because we really, really want them to be.”

            Surely not Randall and definitely not on this podcast. They are discussing it because it is timely and topical as I advised earlier. Perhaps you mean to attack the authors of the potential discovery, if so please be specific, otherwise you appear to be attacking Randall and giving the illusion that he has made these statements, which of course is not true at all and does not exist in the podcast anywhere.

            Another quote to clear up.

            “And anyone claiming a discovery such as this should not be insulted when people want to see proof.”

            I agree, but if you are not clear about who you are referring too and then lump in that they are just trying to sell a book, you paint a skewed picture.

            Graham Hancock has mentioned possibly heading to the site to dive and examine this potentially amazing find and so there is really no need to cast any aspersions towards him or Randall.

            Just clarifying. I didn’t call you any names by the way. I’m just insuring that we are clear about who you are referring to. So who are you referring too and in the future please quote them to save us all much time and energy.

            Thank you.

          • toadboy

            I guess by “they” I mean the folks promoting this as a great scientific discovery, mostly Mr. Silva and his associates. I do not mean Mr. Carlson in particular. He mentions the discovery, but cannot he blamed for it’s accuracy. If anything, he has some small responsibility because he is a respected figure and his spreading the word about the discovery lends it some measure of credibility, which it has not yet deserved.

          • Camron Wiltshire

            So you can’t even discuss a possibility of something without lending credence to it is your position? That is ridiculous. Please point out where Randall lends any credence to it by just discussing it as a possibility. Time code and verbatim quote please.

            Graham Hancock also says the following about this potential discovery.

            “Looks like I might need to get my wetsuit on again! I wasn’t planning any further diving research for the sequel to Fingerprints of the Gods but if this checks out I’m there! [emphasis mine] In general what we know about rising sea levels at the end of the last Ice Age (see my book Underworld for detail) tells us that lands now under 40 metres/130 feet ofwater were submerged more than 12,500 years ago”

          • toadboy

            I don’t disagree with you, but It seems to me that people are listening to the podcast, then visiting the websites linked to the story, and getting the full “OMG they have found Atlantis” treatment. This is my opinion.

          • Juan

            My apologies for calling you a pissant dweeb. I thought you were a troll.

          • toadboy

            no problem.

  • Ruthy Chandler

    Greetings Disinfo… I remember you from Myspace, its been a long time, I am glad to see you still working to help shed the illusion. Apparently, Atlantis was not a city, but rather was a civilization. Its ancestry can still be witnessed within the brown skinned peoples of Sumeria, Tibet, India and the Americas;