Antarctica Ancient ruins visible from Space

a reply to: Drawsoho

Yes there are estimates that place that latitude of north africa including egypt as a savanah type region as recently as 7500bc, I also agree with the dating of the body of the sphynx probably being very wrong and there having been a probably leonine statue there at the time of it's optimum allignent about 10600 bc, the weathering on the body of the sphynx and it's enclosure even when taking into account argument's about differentail strata densitys in the layers of sandstone is as was argues rain water/flood damage meaning it was likely exposed during a wet climate for a considerable period of time.

The three pyramid's may also be build on the site of earlier structure which may now form there core or at least be at there base and there allignment as Bauval and Co' whom discovered these facts was also alligned to perfectly match up with the three stars of orion also at about 10650 bc so the parrallels are just far too strong though there is a very strong anti bauval movement on this site whom simply don't like there boat being rocked so if they are reading this expect professional level rebuttals aimed at him.

I also DO believe the Bosnian Hill's are actually Pyramid's, maybe shaped from natural hill's by an inter ice age culture for some reason but defintely still pyramids.

Then take the city's off the south coast of india, in order to appease the uproar among western archaeologists they ahve revised the date upward but actually provided no reason for this deliberate post discovery revisal upward in date, they were initially and still technically accurately dated to about 10000 years.
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.hermetics.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The problem with this site is two fold, it is too old for standard models based on victorian idiology which still saturates western historical analysis and archaeology and it is too large to be just a one off, it is well planned, massive and could not have existed in isolation which given it's size also mean's it definitely would have relied upon Agriculture which is a severe kick in the teeth for the fertile crescent theory except of course it could mean that the cataclysmic period at the end of the ice age meant that most agriculture was lost but some survived or was reborn in the fertile crescent (totally ignoring 10000 year old rice fields in Japan of course).

I actually think that there are two thing's we miss out, the argument against them is lack of evidence, I think humanity and it's cultural tendency's is far, far older than anyone would believe and I think there may have been other races of human like being's on earth in the even more distant past (or the human race is even more ancient).
www.hecklerspray.com...
s8int.com...
www.forbiddenhistory.info.../45
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
www.zmescience.com...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
www.messagetoeagle.com... th/

Not all trustworthy but worth a read to glean what you can.

It's not really that unbelievable to think Antarctica may have some ancient ruins. Ancient ruins, pyramids, or w/e doesn't mean aliens necessarily. It means some humans stacked some stones the same way they did in other ancient cultures. The only mainstream scientific theory that would be challenged is the history or specifically age of the human race as an intelligent species. I mean were not talking about pyramids on Mars, this is earth and has had life for millions of years(or billions?)

originally posted by: centrifugal
It's not really that unbelievable to think Antarctica may have some ancient ruins. Ancient ruins, pyramids, or w/e doesn't mean aliens necessarily. It means some humans stacked some stones the same way they did in other ancient cultures. The only mainstream scientific theory that would be challenged is the history or specifically age of the human race as an intelligent species. I mean were not talking about pyramids on Mars, this is earth and has had life for millions of years(or billions?)

Schools are too busy teaching students to pass exams and often fail to emphasize what we know about the Earth. For instance, we know that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old

In all the election and politics noise, you may have missed stories about scientists finding the oldest fossil evidence of life about 3.5 billion years old

News organizations really didn't hype the fact that we've found a member of the genus "homo" (us) that's 2.8 million years ago. Perhaps they're afraid of offending some of the Biblical Literalists. Or perhaps they didn't think that science is that interesting.

If you didn't take any geology courses, you wouldn't know that Antarctica has been under ice for about 45 million years (give or take a few million years)

And if you didn't take any archaeology courses, you probably aren't aware of how civilizations arise... suffice it to say that people don't just wake up in the cave one morning and walk out and start inventing digital watches. Advanced civilizations leave HUGE piles of evidence - and earlier forms of that civilization are also around.

So the "civilization under Antarctica" is unlikely.

a reply to: Byrd


edit:

sorry, misred your comment...