Antarctica was Atlantis

Originally posted by Telos

Have you ever heard about the mechanism of earth-crust displacement? I'm quoting something from Einstein:

Albert Einstein investigated the possibility that the weight of the ice-caps, which
are not symmetrically distributed about the pole, might cause such a
displacement.

Even Charles Hapgood abandoned this theory some 50 years ago - see his book Path of the Pole.

And Einstein himself never investigated the theory at all (at least, not according to Hapgood). He knew nothing about geophysics and simply encouraged Hapgood in a theory which he felt worthy of further study. Where did you get the quote from?

Fingerprints of the God.

I told you in that book Hapgood is quoted all the time.

Originally posted by Essan

It does not show Queen Maud land. Read the link I posted.

Huh I've showed you at least 4 maps that show the same thing. We're not talking about a theory that could or could not be correct but we're talking about a visible fact. You are the only one who's saying that those maps don't show the Queen Mad Land.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Telos]

Originally posted by flighttraumajunkie
Sorry about posting the Graham Hancock book info twice. By the way has anyone else heard about the water erosion marks, on the back of the Sphinx.

Hancock is a money-grubbing, lying fraud.

But if you want to know about the Sphinx, there's an extremely interesting article about it at Tinwiki. I should know, I wrote it!

See the little, tiny "Tinwiki" link at the very top of the page? Click it.

Or, you could just click here:

tinwiki.org...

Feel free to fix any errors you find in the article.

Harte

harte we had that converstation before. I'm suprised by the easines you call other people hoaxer... He had few remarkable points in his books and the scientific community (part of it) didn't agree with his theories and explanations, that's all. Why would he be a hoaxer? What are you trying to prove by bashing and ridiculing a person who spent countles years of his life studying and writing an information that is diferent from the usuall one we're being feed every day?
I'm sorry I'm not trying to insult or offend you but sincerly I can't understand this energy spent to ridicule and bash somebody.

Originally posted by Telos
harte we had that converstation before. I'm suprised by the easines you call other people hoaxer... He had few remarkable points in his books and the scientific community (part of it) didn't agree with his theories and explanations, that's all. Why would he be a hoaxer?

"Hoaxer?" Where'd you get that? I said he is a moneygrubbing lying fraud, I believe. And "why?" For the same reason all frauds are perpetrated - for the money of course!

Originally posted by Telos
What are you trying to prove by bashing and ridiculing a person who spent countles years of his life studying and writing an information that is diferent from the usuall one we're being feed every day?
I'm sorry I'm not trying to insult or offend you but sincerly I can't understand this energy spent to ridicule and bash somebody.

It's really very simple. I actually care about the truth. And please, Hancock certainly has not spent "countless years of his life studying" anything at all, unless it is how better to fleece his willing victims.

I am concerned that somebody like the above poster might fall into the same trap I find you in Telos.

Also, as I've said before here at ATS and elsewhere, Hancock has so wildly mischaracterized archaeological evidence that, if he actually were to somehow accidentally uncover a real mystery, no archaeologist in his right mind could take him seriously enough to do any investigating. This would mean a net loss (at least temporarily) for those of us that are interested in the subject.

Lastly, I fell for vonDaniken's bullfeces back in the early seventies. Dug myself out of that fantasy. This is my way of atoning!

Harte

[edit on 8/18/2006 by Harte]

Hancock has so wildly mischaracterized archaeological evidence

According to whom harte? Because I've read comments about G.H and they were voices contra but also in his favor. You know is easy to shoot word like that; mischaracterized, fraud, etc etc... but that doesn't change things that happened and certainly doesn't stop those from happening. I understand were're you coming from and I also like the scientific point of view (is the best we've got so far) but wasn't Earth flat 500 years ago? Are we so certain that all our conclusions are deffinitely correct and don't require a further analysing? Every day science makes progress and changes things that before they were so sure they had those right. I think you get my point. Hancock and other guys like himn are trying to prove something else and I don't see nothing wrong in their "legacy". Why would I think that they are trying to play and lie to us for the mere of few money and other profits? The medallion has two sides and I think is right to take both of them in consideration.
As far as I'm concerned G.H. uses alot of references in his books (forget the way how he interpretates thing) and this references are credible sources and easy to verify.

There's a saying that goes something like , "be open minded, but don't be so open minded that your brain falls out". Dr. Robert Schoch is a great example of a serious scientist who can investigate and analyze unorthodox sites with a scientific mentality. Unfortunately the charltans who view Atlantis and other mysteries of prehistory as their personal cash cows have put such a stink on these subjects that most serious scientists are loathe to be associated with any mention of prehistoric civilizations. This is the danger of these ridiculous claims. Unscrupulous authors cash in on the what is basically a brand name (Atlantis); hordes of uncritical true believers buy their books swallowing every line as canon law; and ,in fear for their careers, scientists stay far far away from the subject. This is why people that go around making claims as surreal as this Antarctic nonsense are doing nothing more than making these topics anthema to those best able to seperate the truth from the lies. There may be many civilizations out there that lie under the sea, destroyed by the inundation of the oceans at the end of the last ice age. Unfortunately, they may lay there for quite a while more as the topic of lost civilizations is something of an embarassment thanks to the charltans and the true believers.

Originally posted by Telos
Fingerprints of the God.

I told you in that book Hapgood is quoted all the time.

So?

Have you read Hapgood's books? Or do you just reply on what other people tell you he wrote?

The evidence that the Piri Re'is map shows Queen Maud Land is based solely on one persons examoination of the map. Others have then simply accepted it as fact because it supports their own pet theory. Don't fall into that trap of believing something just because you want to. I did that myself long ago - until I started investigating the source material rather than just relying on which others had said.

Many others have examined the map (including myself, though obviously not the original) and determined that it does not shown Queen Maud Land but instead appears to show the continuation of the S American coast, curved to the right in order to fit the hide on which it was drawn. This explanation also means no explanation is needed as to what happened to the rest of S America or the Drake Passage which are otherwise missing

Originally posted by mccainz
.... people that go around making claims as surreal as this Antarctic nonsense are doing nothing more than making these topics anthema to those best able to seperate the truth from the lies. There may be many civilizations out there that lie under the sea, destroyed by the inundation of the oceans at the end of the last ice age. Unfortunately, they may lay there for quite a while more as the topic of lost civilizations is something of an embarassment thanks to the charltans and the true believers.

Well said

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Essan]

Originally posted by Essan


Have you read Hapgood's books? Or do you just reply on what other people tell you he wrote?
----------------------------------
Don't fall into that trap of believing something just because you want to.

I've read Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings by Hapgood (years ago).

As for the second I can assure you is not my case. I don't believe because I want but I want to believe when I see that there is a reason to. I think that the purpoise of the thread to disscus about a subject and to learn from each other. You tell me that there are 10 people who say that Piri Reis does not show Queen Mad and I can tell you there are 100 who say that it does, or the vice verse. But that's not what we want, right?
Is just the pleasure to talk and communicate with each other for different subjects and let's not forget that if we don't "conradict" what we read then what's the point of initiating a thread?

I haven't read all the post because I am to lazy too. I will say some of my points quickly. I don't know if some of this has been said, if so sorry.

1. In 2005 I wachted a show on the Piri Reis map. Acording to it the Piri Reis map is false and was made in theory of another contienet being lower. Antartic was not discovered at the time. It look like it was accurate but after some more detailed satlite maping or something it was proven not accurate.

2. Atlantis was a fictional story made by Plato. So if there was an advanced civilization on Antartic it will be something other than Atlantis.

3. Who's to say an older or of-set race of humans couldn't live in the cold contitions at Atartica. For example of people living in odd conditions; The Bushmen in the kalahari desert are the only people in the world the can live with no surface water. Before discovering the Bushmen, living without surface water was considered impossible. Another possiblity is a city not even made by humans. A different advanced species may have been able to live there. Alien or a species that evolved on Earth and died out before we came around.

Originally posted by German Researcher
Oh come on, i've heard this same thing before. And no offense to you or your theory that you believe in, but come on. Atlantis was Antartica? If Atlantis is anywhere it's probably off the coast of Cyprus in the Mediterrianean sea. Most scientists accept this theory because there have been ancient pillars found deep in the waters, and recently some American research crew discovered that there were tons of buildings or scrutures deep, deep, underwater. And plus, according to the ancient Greeks and Romans, Atlantis was located in that area. So it would make sense for it to be there.

Now I'm not sure if Atlantis really exists at all. Maybe it's just an ancient myth gone wild. Who really knows? I've heard some pretty wacky theories on places it might be. One being Antartica, Two being in the Bermuda Triangle, Three being in the Indian Ocean somewhere. Who really knows... But before you can make assumptions about any theory you at least have to back it up with some logic. Saying that the 15th century map (or a map supposedly made a million years ago) of Antartica is proof enough along with some other people's idea is just not convincing enough. Although here's another small shread of scientific proof backing up what you say about that map being 1 million years old. Recently scientists discovered that the first humans lived 2 million years ago. In Africa, in the Sahara (it was lush and green at that time), and made pictures on the caves of their hunting scenes. And i guess if you believe that these Atlanteans were really that Advanced then i guess you can say your theory has some fact to it. But yet again, Antartica was still pretty much where it is today. Down in the cold, cold, cold. No man could have possibly built a civilization down there. And don't tell me that any Advanced Atlantean could have survived down there, because nobody who was that smart existed back then. Mankind was just in its infancy!

it's never a good idea to dismiss a concept that has not yet even been explored enough. Antarctica was once full of life and lush greenery. Hell, that's where I believe the aboriginis traveled from upon their route to Australia-not Africa. Antarctica holds a world of frozen secrets under its icy terrain.

-DG724

Originally posted by dragongirl724

it's never a good idea to dismiss a concept that has not yet even been explored enough. Antarctica was once full of life and lush greenery.

Yes, it was. 55 million years ago. The concept has been throughly investigated by hundreds of geologists all all concur fully that Antarctica has been glaciated since long before man emerged from the trees

Hell, that's where I believe the aboriginis traveled from upon their route to Australia-not Africa.

Hmmm, all evidence says they travelled from Africa via India and SE Asia Why'd they go via a frozen hell-hole?

Essan you mean thats the accepted view by the learned scholars, anyone who disagrees or has an alternative theory are shouted down. Just like Eygptologists say theirs is the only true account of their subject matter. There has been many occasions in the past that contest the accepted theories but the so called experts all stand together dont they because they have a vested interest to defend their own theories. Its a well known fact that when pieces of the jigsaw dont fit their beliefs they are hidden away or just ignored.

Take the great pyramid we are told it was built by Cheops, well where's the proof, Oh I know its that named that somebody painted inside the pyramid and on that bit of stone in front of the sphinx. Yes conclusive proof of who built it, the fact is we dont know who built it, when it was built, how it was built or by whom. We just have a number of theories that the experts have now turned into facts with a few pathetic experiments and idea's.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Essan you mean thats the accepted view by the learned scholars,

No, it's the accepted view by all the geologists who have studied Antarctica.

The only people who have alternative ideas know as much about geology as I do about brain surgery. Would you trust me to operate on you?

Essan, yes I know what you mean, like when scholars said the earth was flat and the sun moved around the earth and those who said otherwise were persecuted and burnt at the stake. So if eveyone on your street where you live paints the outside of their houses bright yellow then you will do the same because thats the accepted thing to do.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Essan, yes I know what you mean, like when scholars said the earth was flat and the sun moved around the earth and those who said otherwise were persecuted and burnt at the stake.

Not a good analogy. It was the scientists who said the Earth was round and aorbited the Sun. Just as the scientists today say Antarctica has been frozen for the best part of 35 million years. In both cases these ideas are based on empirical evidence rather than blind religious dogma.

Hmmm, guess I'd better watch out for mobs of mad Flat Earthers coming to burn me at the stake!


btw if someone down the pub said that if you painted your house yellow you'd get £1,000 off the council would you go straight out and paint it? Or would you check the story out first, contact the council, and make sure you really were going to get the money?

If everyone in my street painted their hourse yellow, I' be the one with signed documentation from the council in my hand ensuring I would get the money

About the age of the ice in Antarctica, what if the ice at the poles are millions of years old and by means of earth expansion or minor poleshift and at the time of the great floods, is it possible the as earth namely antarctica the continent was submerged then due to some displacement or shift allowed Antarctica to slip under the ancient ice then having the earths water recede then having all that ancient ice come to rest on the great continent?

You can see around Indonesia, india, China, Austrailia, the ancient coast lines that have been submerged. Some ancient cities and structures have been found after the tsunami in Indonesia.

This next video blew my mind for it is what i thought of as a child and was somewhat ridiculed for the notion. The video is about the "expanding earth' theory. Must see. On the topic of Antarctica it is interesting to see where it was.
www.youtube.com...
Click on the pic

heres a 10 minute version , more information about how mountain ranges were formed due to expansion. I dont think this is a theory, i believe it to be fact. www.youtube.com...

[edit on 21-7-2007 by OutoftheSky]

The expanding Earth theory conveniently accepts the existence of Pangea but ignores the existence of Rodinia .... The later of course disproves the theory

In other words, those proposing such a theory haven't done their homework

Wow, lots of compelling information regarding Atlantis being in the Antarctic, though I would tend to think that the map and tree's found is only evidence that the Anarctic used to be warmer. Who created the ffirst map? Possible Atlantians.

Now, here's the new information that I've gathered regarding the lost continent of Atlantis and more specifically the 'city' of Atlantis (as described by Plato) being in South America high in the Andes!
montrealradioguy.wordpress.com...

Plato said that Atlantis was located in front of or opposite the Straits of Gibraltar (Pillars of Hercules) which would point you directly at the Carribean...the only part remaining of that (sunken) continent being the Carribean Islands and what we now know as South America.

If you review the data at the above link it will become obvious that the city of Atlantis as descibed by Plato is indeed in Boliva.

This is not to discount the theory that the Anarctic may have been 'part' of the greater continent of Atlantis at one time but to give greater support that Atlantis did truly exist and that we should dig (or dive in the case of the Carribean) deeper.