Antarctica was Atlantis

Originally posted by Essan
Nice to meet someone who doesn't take everything they read as being gospel truth

Same here. As a teenager I was really caught up in the ufo stuff. It is fantastic stuff and it's no wonder people are interested in it. It's great to think about and the thing is, you never know what kernels of truth there might be in such things as visitations from extraterrestrials. Or what we will learn by investigating these things. At the same time, there are many people that put too much stock in these stories. I love the flights of imaginations but you have to keep grounded, keep a reasonable perspective. There's a lotta lies and fake stuff out there.

Hey Essan, what about this horsetit thing? Ever think about that? I mean, like, do horses have tits? Y'can't see em, can ya? I mean, I never seen em. What's the scoop on this? Do horses have tits?

www.ourhollowearth.com...
www.ufoarea.com...
www.thule-italia.com...

Thoughts to ponder.

Originally posted by Thirdeyemind
www.ourhollowearth.com...
www.ufoarea.com...
www.thule-italia.com...

Thoughts to ponder.

Hmm, interesting. Perhaps Antarctica really was Atlantis.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasnt. We would have to go down several miles (through ice for those that dont know....) to find anything. But maybe there was more than one advanced city. Why have one right? Why would you build just 1 city on a whole planet when you could have 2-10,000 with great ease. That is unless your doing experiments..

Firstly how do you loose a continent? that is to the extent that no trace whatsoever can be found in the space of 10000 - 15000 years?

Secondly Plato related that it was beyond the pillars of Hercules and that it was a continent in the "real" ocean. We can estimate from the geomagnetic records that the poles have reversed/realigned roughly 180 times already. Below is a pretty picture of the polar region featuring a continent centered in the middle of an ocean, not the Indian, Atlantic or Pacific oceans for that matter.




If this was a current aerial view of the Earth the equators would be the polar regions placing this section of the globe in the tropics. The sleeping prophet also related that its destruction was attributed to atlanteans bending natures natural laws to suit their own egotistical needs with the use of crystals, much like were doing now with the HAARP system in Alaska except were using microwaves to alter weather patterns and induce earthquakes.

Whatever they did, the consequence was a polar realignment placing them at the south pole and displacing a few peacefull wooly Mammoths grasing in the tropics as close to the north pole as possible. This event in all probability occured within a few nanoseconds which is why these beasts are found all mangled in Syberia with fresh buttercups still in their mouths and digestive tracts. They did not have time to swallow what they were eating!!

It is remembered in ancient cultures as the day that the sky fell and it sure must have appeared this way to the ancients looking at the sky. This is also why the last polar shift does not tie up with the theory of hyperdimentional cataclysims which are based on the cycle of precession of which the Giza necropolis is the sliding scale indicator as to where we find ourselves in the cycle. The event was induced by intervention and did not involve tetrahedral physics.







[edit on 10-1-2006 by Gmall101]

Originally posted by Gmall101

Whatever they did, the consequence was a polar realignment placing them at the south pole and displacing a few peacefull wooly Mammoths grasing in the tropics as close to the north pole as possible. This event in all probability occured within a few nanoseconds which is why these beasts are found all mangled in Syberia with fresh buttercups still in their mouths and digestive tracts. They did not have time to swallow what they were eating!!

One mammoth - that at Berezoyka - has been found with minute traces of buttercup (a plant currently common in arctic places like Svalbard) in its stomach. It died 39,000 years ago, apparently as a result of a fall (it had a broken leg and pelvis) and was immediately buried by debris which, being as the climate was subzero at the time, and permafrost has persisted there ever since, preserved the body.

Meanwhile, how does your scenario explain the presence of ice sheets covering most of Antarctica for the last few million years? Or, indeed, the ice sheets which waxed and waned across N America abnd Scandinavia over the past 100,000 years?


Edit: to correct quotation marks

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Essan]

Meanwhile, how does your scenario explain the presence of ice sheets covering most of Antarctica for the last few million years? Or, indeed, the ice sheets which waxed and waned across N America abnd Scandinavia over the past 100,000 years?




Millions of years, based on what evidence?

As for the last 100,000 years, the north and south pole have not been where they currently are for the last 100,000 years but have fluctuated with every pole realignment. Apart from reversals the poles also drift and at one stage was pretty close to Canada in the last 100,000 years with ice sheets obviously extending several hundred/thousand km's over North America.

Originally posted by Gmall101

Millions of years, based on what evidence?

Geological, what else?

Try reading through this: www.hi.is... for more info

As for the last 100,000 years, the north and south pole have not been where they currently are for the last 100,000 years but have fluctuated with every pole realignment. Apart from reversals the poles also drift and at one stage was pretty close to Canada in the last 100,000 years with ice sheets obviously extending several hundred/thousand km's over North America.

What pole realignment?

The last magnetic reversal was 740,000 years ago, and in any case the position of the magnetic poles has no bearing on the geographic poles. And if the north geographical pole was situated in Canada, how does that explain the simultaneous advance of glaciers across Europe? Or, indeed, the fact that Siberia was a cold, arid steppe? Climatic modelling of the last ice age only works if the poles and continents were all as they are today.


Edit: to change link

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Essan]

Hey, come on now! Those mammoths were frozen in their tracks! Heh,heh. Okay, I'll stop.

If you look at the map of the supposed Atlantis continent drawn by that Plato guy, you can match it up in a part of Antarctica. Whoever said that Antarctica was two serperate land masses was right.

Check this out:


Plato's map of Atlantis



Oronteus_Fineaus



The Two seperate landmasses of Antarctica shown here.

Compare and Contrast. Antarctica without the ice:-

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
What is troublesome, is thinking about a prior civilization having all traces wiped out. No trace left...

First and foremost, I contend that the Giza Pyramid is the best calling card that they were able to leave. If so, they may have known that a global extinction level disaster was coming, and wanted to preserve as much of their knowledge for the possible survivors. That pile of rocks is the most durable structure ever built, bar none...
If Antarctica was the location of a prehistoric advanced civilization, the few thousand foot thick ice sheets likely ground up their cities into a fine dust. Unlikely much would escape being crushed with such a massive weight on it. But, who knows?
I like the theory, from Antarctica, the worlds oceans appear as one, the Piri Reis Map is oriented to the south pole instead of the north pole.
Atlantis is said to be underwater...........Antarctica is under water, frozen water.
The other big trace that I find interesting is the legends about the first times, the times of the Gods.... most cultures seem to know the story. Ancient people, very advanced, wiped out.... It is a common tale.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

If Antarctica was the location of a prehistoric advanced civilization, the few thousand foot thick ice sheets likely ground up their cities into a fine dust.

And they've had millions of years to do it.....

You are probably right, but I wasn't around a million yrs. ago, and I have seen scientists make conclusions on distant past time periods. They seem to be pretty adamant they're right on this one, but for me, after 10 000 yrs., it's all best guess, cuz that's all the recorded history we have. Anything that has a longer periodicity than that last 10 000 years is forgotten, and will be a new discovery if it happens.

100 000
1 000 000
100 000 000
These sizes 0f numbers of years are not within my certainty zone, 100 000 yrs., or 100 000 000 yrs.? I couldn't tell if they are accurate or interchangeable, I probably wouldn't notice if they were swapped in a paleontology text.

Shouldn't one consider just how solid the idea is that antartica has been under ice for a million years? It seems to be an accepted concept within science. Is there any carbon dating data that refutes the million year idea? I don't mean people with atlantis agendas, I mean actual test that show carbon dating to be 10,000 years or any other smaller number than a million. This seems like the crucial fact to establish. If antartica has been under ice for a million years without a doubt then there's no point in any atlantis theories. What could cause the carbon dating of the antartic ice to be misread? It just seems like the odds are way against any one saying antartica has been under ice for 10,000 years. You need some overwhelming hard empirical data to show something other than a million years.

I don't know. The legends said that Atlantis sunk, but if Antartica was Atlantis it would have moved very gradually. In those times it is unknown how they would interpret it, but probobly not as sinking.

Plus where not even sure that humans existed in that time. =/ I really doubt it was Atlantis if the Greeks new about it, there not even that old.

Atlantis was destroyed 9 000 years before the time of the ancient Greek accounts, according to the accounts themselves. If I said that the Mongols invaded Europe, the fact that I am Canadian, and Canada didn't exist then, does not mean that they didn't. Whether Atlantis was real, and if so, regardless of where it was, is not a critical piece of information. The interesting thing to me is how adamant some are that it did not exist. Why is it so hard to believe? I find it quite possible that an advanced culture was destroyed long ago. Since our recorded history goes back 10 000 years, and modern humans go back 20 times that far, there could have been 19 of them, easily. But what does it matter?

Sure it's possible advanced civilizations lived long ago. But what proof is there of that? I think it's interesting to look at how much we underestimate how advanced technologically the ancients were. Consider the object found in the waters of Antikythera. Some guess that Archimedes may have had a hand in designing the object. The object is dated to be from about 65 bce(before common era) or bc. Some say the object was possibly used to run a town clock.

Recorded history(unless there's been an update) begins approximately 5,000 years ago with the Egyptians. The Egyptians were avid recorders of history. I recall reading that they had recorded several thousand years of their history previous to 5,000 years ago. But I doubt that all or much of that history survives today. It is amazing to think how all their knowledge survived and was passed along for so many years. Their educational system must have been pretty sophisticated for many years to allow their to be such things as advanced mathematics and architecture. Some would attribute that to space aliens. But I think that's a cop out because there is no evidence of that. Besides, I think human beings are perfectly capable of the sophistication that ancient people show. There is much about the past that we don't know about. The frozen 5,000 year old man recently discovered shows tattoos indicating the knowledge of acupuncture theory in Europe. Outside of this frozen man, there is no evidence that this eastern knowlegde ever made it into europe 5,000 years ago. The feathers on his arrows were angled to allow for faster spinning, thus more speed. This piece of knowledge was not known till the early days of bullets, probably around the late 19th century. Much has been lost. Consider that humanity has a natural desire and talent for creativity, invention, law and civilization. We have many bad traits that destroy our civilizations but we have many good ones too.

I believe Cro-magnon man(us in our present state) began to show their presence in Europe and Africa around 60,000 years ago. Neandertal man inhabited much of the same lands before Cro-magnon man arrived. They were another form of human being. Apparently not genetically compatible with us(the jury may still be out on this). They were intelligent just like us. Possibly smarter in some ways. Their presence in Europe, the Middle East and Africa is established as having lasted for about 150,000 years. Unfortunately, they died out about 30,000 years ago. Some say Neandertal man mixed in with Cro-magnon man. Some evidence shows they often inhabited the same living spaces. Some think the story may be darker and that we,cro-magnon man cut off their livlihood or killed them off. Although intelligent, neandertal man was markedly different than cro-magnon man anatomically.

I'm not saying that space aliens don't exist or that visitations are impossible. There's just no hard evidence of them. There's no point in putting a lot of stock in attributing things to them. The truth may be that they stood back and watched. Perhaps they gave the initial push and that was it. All of this is very wild speculation. It's best to build a solid foundation on the hard facts as meager and dull as they may be in comparision to other fantastic stories.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by Gear_]

I’ve read somewhere that Antarctica, just 12-15,000 years ago was nowhere near the place that it is today. The placement was closer to the equator and had tropical climates. Due to either a massive catastrophic event or the shifting in the plates, it slid south to where it is today. With that said, I do believe that if there were to be any archaeological digs that ventured under the miles of ice now covering Antarctica, something could be found. There are maps of Antarctica thousands years old where there is no ice covering at very least on the shoreline and scientists have proved that it is in fact accurately drawn.
However, with the statements made by Plato, I do not believe that Antarctica has any claim of being Atlantis. I’m not in any way trying to say that Antarctica isn’t an important place and I believe that someday any number of possible things could be found there, including an ancient civilization but for Atlantis to be located there, in my opinion, is not possible.

Plato speaks of it being located outside the Pillars of Hercules (a.k.a The Straits Of Gibraltar), which to me proves that any search for the lost civilization within the straits will be fruitless. There is nothing said within Plato’s dialogues that says it is located in the Mediterranean and if we are basing the location of Atlantis off of what Plato had said in the Timeaus and Critias (which is the only place that Atlantis’s location is written), then I believe that altogether it shouldn’t be searched for in that region.

If you go by what Plato stated in the Timeaus and Critias, I think that there is sufficient evidence pointing to the Greater Antilles (i.e. Cuba, Jamaica, Hispaniola, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. Hispaniola and Puerto Rico in particular have promising aspects of the lost continent, as well as the now sunken Great Bahama Bank.

Also noted in the Dialogues, Plato states that there is an impassable sea. If you have done your research this statement points to somewhere beyond the Sargasso Sea. Even Columbus on his journey to the Americas had noted implications of the Sargasso Sea having been this impassable place. Because of the vast coverage of seaweed in this region, it makes travel thru extremely slow and difficult.

The massive size of Plato’s Atlantis also proves that it could not be located within the Mediterranean. 3000 by 2000 stadia, including mountain ranges that came right down to the sea would be impossible to fit there. Plato also wrote that it was an opposite continent obviously meaning it was not “close by”. I feel the search for Atlantis (if it had existed), will not be found in the Mediterranean and hopefully some or all of the info I noted will help some to realize just the massiveness of the lost continent and that the location can not be anywhere near the Mediterranean.

As for the theories proposed by Graham Hancock (an author that I absolutely love), I feel that there is no basis for the belief that Antarctica could be Atlantis. There is not sufficient proof that the place Plato describes could be located in this region. Not only due to the fact that we have no idea whatsoever of the flora and fauna of this region at that time but also because of the way the islands of Atlantis are positioned. Also the fact that there is still no evidence that Antarctica had any major catastrophic event (i.e. sinking, losing part of its landmass, etc). Except for the ice sheets taking over which wasn’t exactly catastrophic, due to it taking thousands of years to produce the amount of ice coverage that now encompasses the continent.

This is only my opinion and I myself would love to someday conduct a dig on Antarctica but it just isn’t plausible for the location of the legendary lost continent of Atlantis.