Back to start

Copyrightprotected material in illegal use.

( Examples of illegal use of my material. Scientific rejection of the Atlantis-myth but little respect and illegal use of knowledge based on the theory.)

The website, with  "Noa, refugee of Atlantis" has been public since aug. 2008. A pp-presentation with 19 pictures and text is since then sent to a huge number of scientists, institutions, magasinzes and others that in some way have historical, geological, archelogical, genetic etc interest of my solution. It has also been public in press, radio and as public exhibition. The article in Nature by  Daniel Garcia-Castellanos, F. Estrada, I Jimenez-Munt, C.Gorini, M Fernadez, J.Vergas & R. De Vicente is sent to Nature 17/4 2009 and presented 10/12 2009 is therefore an illegal use of my copyright protected material. Their institutes in Barcelona and Paris are also responsible for their illegal use. 

The conclusions and the new description done is very different to former scientific accepted theory. Instead of a refill during about 1000 years it says about 2 years. That is a very dramatic change in conclusion. The whole concept in my writing is to present a logical solution to myths based on scientific facts. This conclusion is the most advanced of them all where knowledge is used based on my graduation engineer. There are a huge number much easier to solve that should have been solved and presented before this most advanced. Example:  It would have been much harder to give evidence for illegal copyright use if Nature had presented the facts about the Black Sea. Scientific accepted theory is that up to some thousend years ago the Black Sea had lower surface then ocean, freshwater and was cut of by a ridge  from Mediterranean Sea. With netflow out bigger than two Nilestreams evan 10-year old childrens understands that scientific is wrong and the historical topic has a very low logical and intellectual level. The distance from 10-years childrens intellectual level to present conclusions based on my master engeneering competence is far to wide and can not have been done without copyright illegal use. My calculated average netflow is 350 km3/h . In Nature presented 100 000 000 m3/s. That is just a change to try to avoid accusement for copyright illegal use. That figure is the same as average netflow of 360 km3/h and is almost identic with mine. Probably is in order to steal is the explanation with osmotic interchange that repetitively cuts of of the Mediterannean Sea. That was now explained as not yet solved. To do both at same time had been too obvius copyright illegal use.

Even maps are copied and rewritten. The evidence for that illegal use is that my maps are based on the conditions that Black Sea river has excisted with more then twice bigger flow then todays Nile. That is new material and only presented by me. If not my material has been illegal used the waterbasin in eastern part of Mediterranean Sea would have been presented Mediterranean Sea with almost no water in basins at all. My conclusion for a refill just 5500 years ago is possible due to that just a raised saltconcentration in water is hard to detect as that do not give any saltlayer. My map is also during a period with a melting continental ice north of the Black Sea that evan caused about twice bigger lakes, Aral and Caspian Sea, then they are today. Similar twice bigger into Black Sea gives 4-5 Nilestreams out at that time. ( Compare the most accepted conclusion with a cut of presented above.) The period descriebed in Nature is the period that has left a saltlayer and therfore must the basin have been almost dried out. Climaconditions are opposite. Therefore if logical thinking has been used my maps and their would impossible have been identical. Only without own logical thoughts it is possible for them to use same maps. If they had understod the topic they even had understod that they not could write and use identical maps as mine. By using my maps they by them self evidence for their illegal copyright use. The named and accused has been presented a cooperate solution but has chosen not. This page has been presented for them about 2 month before published on internet. Penalty for illegal use is set to 40 miljons SEK.


Solution given by auther for cut of at Gibraltar.        Map based on 4-5 nilestreams  netflow from Black Sea. 

Text and pictures and the costs to use them illegal has been presented since aug 2008. See startpage/ Pictures and prices.



The 6/8 2010 did I send a mail to and told them my explanation of what has happened to Ötzi. My explanation is that he and his group was refugees due to the flood. As there was many in the same situation there was to fight for possible agricultable new land or find some new far away without fighting. Ötzi and another man was selected for the mission. The partner wanted to give up the mission and turn back. Ötzi refused and had decided to go futher. The partner understod that if Ötzi then later came back with good news and he as partner had left the mission,  his situation would be impossible. He would be the man who had risked all others in the group by leaving Ötzi alone with the mission. He then wounded Ötsi and took some of his belongings that he needed for his survivel. The bronzeaxe that was Ötzis most valuable tool could not be brought with as it would cause him problems back home. His story back home was to explain the mission as impossible and that Ötzi by his own had fullfilled the meaningless search. His honour among his people was dependend of that Ötzi never returned. Ötzi was therefore deadly wounded by his partner.

In issue of Illustrerad Vetenskap, 11- 2012,  tells Iceman museum scienties new theories is that they believe that Ötzi was killed by a partner. Two years after my theory was them told and from me a stolen copyrightprotected theory.

Carl Festin. Graftagrand 45,831 71 Ostersund, 063-85086.

Tillbaka till förstasidan