Antarctica was Atlantis

Finally! If u believe then read the Atlantis Blueprint

I suppose if Atlantis ever existed, then it could have been on Antarctica. Would've been damn cold, and it's not according to Plato (the only ancient Atlantis reference source) but, whatever.

But it's preposterous to think there would be any remains at all left there today. Ice don't just sit there folks, where do you think icebergs come from?

No, glaciation doesn't cover up ruins, it grinds them into extremely fine powder then carries the powder away.

Harte

Greetings Fellow Believers,

I skimmed the first posting. To try and take some of the "mystery" away from all of the Fellow Believers...allow me to expand upon her thoughts.

Atlantis exists below the ice of Antartica: true. Scientists funded by Nazi Germany were the first to find it using Pheonician maps.

To test the age of Atlantis: examine an ice-bore that would penetrate the 9,000+ feet of ice.

How Atlantis became covered in ice: The Earth's crust "shifts" every 35,000 years--up to 21 1/2 degrees latitude. There has NEVER been an Ice Age. At least seven "centers" of Ice Age activity have been discovered. To translate: these centers were seven points on the surface of the Earth that were either located at the geographic north pole or south pole.

Why would an advanced civilzation build in Antartica if the crust-shift theory cannot be supported? Two reasons: 1) the area is heated geothermally and they may have expected the heat from below to help sustain their civilization if they wanted to be isolated from the rest of the Earth; 2) they may have chosen the location not realizing their plight, and like Pomeii (though much more slowly) the city was covered in ice.

I suspect that Atlantis did indeed succumb to a sudden crust-shift. Pheonician maps showed it existed, and they may have been Atlantis's link to the outside world for trade. I do not know how long it would take 9,00+ feet of ice to cover the city.

Could I be wrong and Atlantis is actually over a million years old?

Originally posted by Jack of Scythes

To test the age of Atlantis: examine an ice-bore that would penetrate the 9,000+ feet of ice.

The EPICA ice core, taken from Dome C, is the deepest so far at 3,270m

How Atlantis became covered in ice: The Earth's crust "shifts" every 35,000 years--up to 21 1/2 degrees latitude. There has NEVER been an Ice Age. At least seven "centers" of Ice Age activity have been discovered. To translate: these centers were seven points on the surface of the Earth that were either located at the geographic north pole or south pole.

Although there is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever to support such a conjecture, and all palaeoclimatic data indicates that the poles have been exactly where they are for the past few million years.

I suspect that Atlantis did indeed succumb to a sudden crust-shift. Pheonician maps showed it existed, and they may have been Atlantis's link to the outside world for trade. I do not know how long it would take 9,00+ feet of ice to cover the city.

But the Phoenicians didn't exist until around 1,000BC ..... And unless you know where the city is, how would you know how much ice covers it? The depth of the various ice sheets and glaciers varies from place to place. And in the Dry Valleys there is no ice cover at all!

Could I be wrong and Atlantis is actually over a million years old?

Yes and no


(edited to correct quotation endings)

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Essan]

Originally posted by EssanAlthough there is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever to support such a conjecture, and all palaeoclimatic data indicates that the poles have been exactly where they are for the past few million years.

I suspect that Atlantis did indeed succumb to a sudden crust-shift. I do not know how long it would take 9,00+ feet of ice to cover the city.

(edited to correct quotation endings)
[edit on 27-2-2006 by Essan]

Of course, if Antarctica had the same level of precip. as Greenland had, which buried WWII planes 260+ feet deep in 50 years, then it would not take long at all. At 5 feet a year, in 1800 years you'd have 9000 feet.

www.aetn.org...

In a polar region there is a continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth's rotation acts on these asymmetrically deposited masses [of ice], and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth's crust over the rest of the earth's body, and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator." - Albert Einstein,
From ‘The Path of the Pole’ by Charles Hapgood

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

In a polar region there is a continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth's rotation acts on these asymmetrically deposited masses [of ice], and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth's crust over the rest of the earth's body, and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator." - Albert Einstein,
From ‘The Path of the Pole’ by Charles Hapgood

Yeah, well Einstein was wrong. He bought into the entire stupid crustal displacement theory at a time when no better idea was available. Decades later, the plate tectonic theory came out, and it's been verified using satellite imagery, among other methods.

Harte

I don't see why plate techtonics and crustal displacement theory have to be mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible, in fact probable, that the volcanic processes at work within the earth can be, and are, effected by the major environmental conditions affecting the earth's surface, especially when it comes to the build up of massive amounts of ice over long periods of time. The moment of inertia represented by all that ice build up, or the kinetic energy release of a real fast melt, for that matter, could at some point become a significant factor in plate movement. I wouldn't exactly call it a balance of forces as much as forces in flux over time.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Icarus Rising]

I think Antarctica is a good bet for Atlantis.
I can recommend a couple of books on the subject:-
WHEN THE SKY FELL. by Rand and Rose Flem-ath.
MAPS OF THE ANCIENT SEA KINGS. By Charles Hapgood.
FROM ATLANTIS TO THE SPHINX. By Colin Wilson.
All good entertainment whatever you believe.

I thought atlantis was made up by some victorian crackpot to try and explain why pyriamids were found in africa and south america.

This is interesting.....I wonder if it is actually Atlantis. I wonder if anyone knows about the city that was discovered when the water receded after ther Tsumani in ASIA.

There were many ppl that saw it as the water retreated after the wave... scientists are now researching it, no one knew it was there before...

I know it's a bit off subject, but thought it might go along with this topic...
Cheers!

This is a theory that i believe in. antartica is antlantis most likely. one large point is that it is said that atlantis lay in the one world ocean. If you take the water into effect where antartica is would be t he largest ocean in the world if all the ice was gone, and all other oceans would be fingers branching off from it.

I don't think it had been mentioned thus far (forgive my skim-reading if it has), but there is pretty interesting reasoning that the coastline thought to be Antarctica on the Piri Reis map is actually the coast of South America, missing from it's actual place on the map, done to save on parchment.

A thread about that here, with supporting pictorial evidence from ATS member, The Vagabond:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Further reading on Piri Reis/Hadji Muhammad: en.wikipedia.org...

I don't know which theory to go with they are all quite convincing. Te documentory on the Andes was awsome you must watch it if you have a chance!




[edit on 05012005 by Earth Angel]

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
I don't think it had been mentioned thus far (forgive my skim-reading if it has), but there is pretty interesting reasoning that the coastline thought to be Antarctica on the Piri Reis map is actually the coast of South America, missing from it's actual place on the map, done to save on parchment.

A thread about that here, with supporting pictorial evidence from ATS member, The Vagabond:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Further reading on Piri Reis/Hadji Muhammad: en.wikipedia.org...

www.geocities.com...
That is what I said, here is the thread!

Ok, what if the time period that science says that the continents split is wrong? Lets say that in the time of the Antlantian Empire that the Earth's continents were still all connected. Now lets jump ahead to Edgar Cayce, know as the sleeping prophit, damn near always correct as well.He stated that in 1969 the road to Atlantis would be found off the coast of Biminy. In 1969 divers off of the coast of Biminy find a "stone road" under water. Now the ancient roads through the Andes Mountains were built very similar in style. So who is to say that these "roads" were not connected at one point in time and did lead to the Atlantian Empire which could very well be Antartica? This is a possibility that I have run through my mind many times in the past.

This was a very interesting read.

I'm not sure if it was Atlantis or not, but it's definatly a good read. I always like reading something that proves Science (as we know it) might be wrong.

Atlantis was an Island next to Crete destroyed in a Vulcanic eruption. It was beautiful, with gardens forming a cross around the Volcano. The eruption ranked right up there with Krakatoa or Mount St.Helens, and the island was caught off guard and never recovered.

Originally posted by OutlawRider
Ok, what if the time period that science says that the continents split is wrong? Lets say that in the time of the Antlantian Empire that the Earth's continents were still all connected.

This is impossible. The ages of the rocks on the sea floor of the Atlantic Ocean has been proven. And that sea floor was created as the Atlantic opened - it was the primary cause for the split. As for the other continents, the med has been closing for millions of years, while India is still moving north into Asia, driving up the Himalayas. If the continents split at the time of this so-called Atlantean Empire (which isn't mentioned anywhere else apart from the writings of Plato, even in Egypt where Solon was supposedly told the story) then plate Tectonics must have moved a blindingly fast speeds and then slowed down to the present crawl.
So, in a word, no. Your theory lacks legs.

it can be true if in the past the earths poles shifted positions and therefor creating a different gravitational flow and that will lead to the flow of our oceans to chance rapidly and the flow chance leaded to a mayor tsunami and cooling chanced because of the gravitational force created by our earth changed and when it happened so quickly that the atmosphere and uper layeres hadden't the time to alter accordingly and there for creating surcumstances which would have lead to rapid freezing temperatures from upper layers to the lower layers freezing the water on antartica to freeze with in minutes.

Originally posted by Darkmind

Originally posted by OutlawRider
Ok, what if the time period that science says that the continents split is wrong? Lets say that in the time of the Antlantian Empire that the Earth's continents were still all connected.

This is impossible. The ages of the rocks on the sea floor of the Atlantic Ocean has been proven. And that sea floor was created as the Atlantic opened - it was the primary cause for the split. As for the other continents, the med has been closing for millions of years, while India is still moving north into Asia, driving up the Himalayas. If the continents split at the time of this so-called Atlantean Empire (which isn't mentioned anywhere else apart from the writings of Plato, even in Egypt where Solon was supposedly told the story) then plate Tectonics must have moved a blindingly fast speeds and then slowed down to the present crawl.
So, in a word, no. Your theory lacks legs.

plato could have heared found evicence (written evidence) of an earlier civilisation . we all believe we are the greatest civilisation but even 100.000 years ago or more there could have been a time of a great human technological civilisation . we are to close minded.