Antarctica Ancient ruins visible from Space

Hello

I found this video of Antarctica Ancient ruins visible from Space.

Ancient ruins are visible from the "space" from an orbit, and they are not publish on google maps.
ancient megalithic city larger than some of the current mega-cities found in the photographs from orbit. complex city with a pyramid and a giant megalithic structure in the shape of a swastika, as well as other buildings in antarctica.

Please let me know your thoughts

Video here: youtu.be...

a reply to: Helenamatias

I thought I would do this for you.



I will watch and get back if I have anything of value to add.

Edit- Having watched the video, no solid evidence, probably more pareidolia effect. I am sure that Antartica and the Artic were habitable at some stage, so who knows?

I haven't seen the Antartic this close up previously though, so if it is genuine footage of that, then thanks for sharing.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Thank you very much!

I don't see anything out of the ordinary. Certainly no 'pyramids' or 'swastikas'...

a reply to: Helenamatias

I think these are pretty interesting.

But I'd really just like to know why a satellite can't orbit above both poles for pics to use on Google Earth? Why must it be a distortion of sliced and stretched out images at both poles?

In the 1930's, Nazis exploring the southern extremities of the globe set up a base(called base-211) in Antarctica.

According to a statement by Grand Admiral Donitz in 1943, “the German submarine fleet is proud of having built for the Führer, in another part of the world, a Shangri-La land, an impregnable fortress."
​
If the fortress was in Antarctica, was it built by the Nazis, or discovered there?

originally posted by: Helenamatias
In the 1930's, Nazis exploring the southern extremities of the globe set up a base(called base-211) in Antarctica.

According to a statement by Grand Admiral Donitz in 1943, “the German submarine fleet is proud of having built for the Führer, in another part of the world, a Shangri-La land, an impregnable fortress."
​
If the fortress was in Antarctica, was it built by the Nazis, or discovered there?

Could have been Dora-2 in Trondheim, Norway. They tried blowing up the concrete submarine pen with dynamite, but it wouldn't disintegrate. So they turned it into a nightclub and office instead.

en.wikipedia.org...

But maybe the Germans did something similar in Antartica?

a reply to: Helenamatias

I really don't know what the hell people are seeing in these images, all I see is entirely natural ice/rock formations completely lacking any evidence of Human involvement.

a reply to: Helenamatias

With global warming melting the polar ice caps; all we need do is wait around a few years an we can see everything down there.

Of course, by then we will even be able to row our canoes right up to their front door.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: Helenamatias

I really don't know what the hell people are seeing in these images, all I see is entirely natural ice/rock formations completely lacking any evidence of Human involvement.

To be fair, most contributors to the thread have stated that.

a reply to: Helenamatias

Yes, there are some on the site whom believe it was actually the submarine pen's in France.
en.wikipedia.org...

I though am definitely of the mind that he was indeed calling it the other end of the earth because he was indeed referring to Antarctica.


I remember an image purportedly from a weather satellite over Antarctica which showed what appeared to be a very good rendition of Platos city of Atlantis melting our from under a glacier with the concentric circles visible, it has since vanished from the net however and may possibly have been a hoax.

I find this image interesting due to linear allignement forming square and geometric formations, they can form naturally howver but intriguing nevertheless.

Now think on this, if for example Manhattan was buried in ice for more than ten thousand years (And Antarctica is more like half a million though it has supposedly been at the pole longer than that figure) then under the immense weight of the ice and it's crushing, grinding, moving and shifting there would be extremely little of it left as it would have scoured the site to the bedrock then ground the bedrock down even more, then million's of years later explorers might have reported erratic sighting's of strangly circular tunnels in the deep rock that looked like they might be artificial but worn by time they could not be certain, an explorer might find the overturned side of a subway engine it's metal resisting corrosion over time poking out of a lime stone deposit standing on end like a giant silo.
Something like this,
s8int.com...

Now I would love to find evidence in Antarctica and live in hope but think it is unlikely in the extreme even if an advanced civilization had once existed there and been even more technologically developed than for example the USA, even if they had built metropolis ten time's larger than New York or more sprawling then Los Angeles there would likely be very little left and certainly nothing identifiable.


But keep looking, I once studied an old version of Google earth, it has since been edited out but in the Tundra near the northern arctic on a bay of the Arctic ocean I once saw and studied for hours with the hairs on the back of my neck standing on end what for all the world looked like the grid pattern of what may once have been a huge city that looked just like part's of Los Angeles do from space but it was all green of course with just lighter and darker patched in the tundra, a huge grid of roads, well planned into large block's with other roads leading to and from this patchwork, I did not record the co ordinats and later google earth I installed over it had edited it out or compressed the colours so that this difference in shades was no longer visible.

Near to it was a contigous line that ran near to this site, it was or seemed to be raised above the terrain though I could not tell but it was broken every so often for extended distances and ran a curved path though as it passed that site it was parrallel with some of the road like paterns in the tundre crossing and intersecting it.

The problem it was on the Arctic ocean sea coast, the US and Russians also had massive deployments in the areas though I doubt seriously anything of this scale but they could have left marks and patterns in the tundra for some unknown reason to do with cold war defence and perhaps even mock army build up's to fool the other side's satellite networks but my gut told me it was nothing to do with that and that it was ancient.

Seems interesting and that thing definitely resembles swastika and I dare to say that the odds of precision of the structure as a natural rock formation are pretty slim to say the least.

a reply to: Helenamatias

A Canadian archeologist using satellite imagery may have discovered a 2nd (possibly additional sites) Norse settlement in Newfoundland, CA. From today's Washington Post: Second Norse site in Newfoundland

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Helenamatias

I think these are pretty interesting.

But I'd really just like to know why a satellite can't orbit above both poles for pics to use on Google Earth? Why must it be a distortion of sliced and stretched out images at both poles?

Because whatever satellite images they're using aren't polar orbiters?

a reply to: Bedlam

Probably true as Google are not going to pay top dollar for there data, still the NOAA, METEOR and also the TIROS weather satellites do or did have polar orbits as well as low relative altitude so that they could image the cloud's more clearly so it stand's to reason there is imagery out there even if we don't see it very often.

Shame it has been commercialized so much you used to be able to look at satellite imagery for much of the earth free though it was far more work than zooming in on a google earth map.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Helenamatias

I think these are pretty interesting.

But I'd really just like to know why a satellite can't orbit above both poles for pics to use on Google Earth? Why must it be a distortion of sliced and stretched out images at both poles?

Because whatever satellite images they're using aren't polar orbiters?

I get that. I just wonder why they can't get pics from satellites that do orbit the poles.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Helenamatias

I think these are pretty interesting.

But I'd really just like to know why a satellite can't orbit above both poles for pics to use on Google Earth? Why must it be a distortion of sliced and stretched out images at both poles?

Because whatever satellite images they're using aren't polar orbiters?

I get that. I just wonder why they can't get pics from satellites that do orbit the poles.

You can. You'd have to ask Google. But if YOU want them, you can cough up several thousand bucks and have all you want.

I'd assume it's because most polar orbiters are small, expensive, and tend to be specialized. So they end up being SIGINT spy satellites and specialized weather sats instead of big honkin' ground imagers with heavy reflectors. Also if you launch stuff into low polar orbits with short lifetimes, the expense is ungodly.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Bedlam

Probably true as Google are not going to pay top dollar for there data, still the NOAA, METEOR and also the TIROS weather satellites do or did have polar orbits as well as low relative altitude so that they could image the cloud's more clearly so it stand's to reason there is imagery out there even if we don't see it very often.

Shame it has been commercialized so much you used to be able to look at satellite imagery for much of the earth free though it was far more work than zooming in on a google earth map.

These sats use spin imagers instead of telescopes with big reflectors. They're not designed for high mag ground imaging. Polar orbiters can't be big and heavy. It costs a ton per kilogram for polar orbit, and the launch scheduling is really tough. So polar sats tend not to be the Hubble.

eta: they also tend to put them into medium orbits, and not LEO, because a LEO sat isn't going to last long. But you want ground imaging to BE LEO so it's sort of madly pricey. Also, a lot of what you see on Google Earth is actually from airplanes anyway. There isn't a lot of photorecon over the poles, so you don't have that for GE. So they're stuck with commercial res orbital shots, and those are all equatorial orbiters, so you end up with blank or crappy patches with flat angle shots over the poles.

GE pics of it are dated 1998.
Considering Egypt was once a rainy place
it is logical to embrace the fact of major
socieites existing during and through the
last ice age. Of course continents have
shifted and reversed climactic
conditions over the millennia so it
may be Antarctica was once ice free.


a reply to: LABTECH767

Take a look at this, possibly related-

exopolitics.org...

www.google.com... &bih=649