Very unusual holes/openings/entrances found in Antartica

I'm finding all types of crap. Stonehenge in Anarctica? Possible Sumarine port?

Stonehenge?

66°33'7.10"S
99°52'7.90"E

Port?
66°33'3.00"S
99°52'6.98"E

I have lots more but will not post now.

I zoomed in really deep and found this:

Wow. Kenny from South Park is there. Cool. What is this ring?
89°59'60.00"S
87°41'0.13"E

reply to post by likeabull



I tend to think the ring is simply a displayed artifact basically because there seems to be no imaging data available for that particular area of the Antarctic.

To me that seems strange indeed, considering that the entire northern hemisphere including the Arctic region has been completely imaged ... so why should there be a considerable chunk of Antarctica remaining undisplayed BY GOOGLE EARTH as the United States Geological Survey has a complete mapping of Antarctica ?

Source: terraweb.wr.usgs.gov...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63564a836619.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by tauristercus]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by tauristercus]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by tauristercus]

I happen to study volcanoes in college and I have visited a lot of basalt lava tubes. These pictures look to be nothing more than lava tubes, even the metallic looking one because basalt will look very shiny and metallic for a very long time just like that.

It is featured with a different color than the material it is buried in because that material probably came from a cinder cone eruption after the initial basalt eruption. This would explain the redish color of the surrounding material.

I did not see any indication that suggest unrest because there appears to be no gas emissions coming from these vents. This is probably a single volcanic complex or single volcano and a quite large one by the size of these lava tubes.

I don't see anything strange here dude.

Hmm.. I'm not an expert on the geography of Antartica, and I doubt you are either.. But I'll give you an S&F for the research.

You seem quite enthused, and I think this is causing you to hype the story up a bit.

Ice melts, water flows, harsh winds blow, etc..

While it is somewhat plausible for these openings to be anomalous, it is likely it is more easily explained by natural occurances.

Still, props for remaining vigilant.

Originally posted by Grumble
I zoomed in really deep and found this:

I zoomed in really deep and found that your comment was completely irrelevant.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by thegagefather]

Originally posted by Angel One
I happen to study volcanoes in college and I have visited a lot of basalt lava tubes. These pictures look to be nothing more than lava tubes, even the metallic looking one because basalt will look very shiny and metallic for a very long time just like that.

It is featured with a different color than the material it is buried in because that material probably came from a cinder cone eruption after the initial basalt eruption. This would explain the redish color of the surrounding material.

I did not see any indication that suggest unrest because there appears to be no gas emissions coming from these vents. This is probably a single volcanic complex or single volcano and a quite large one by the size of these lava tubes.

I don't see anything strange here dude.

I understand what you're saying regarding these opening being the result of lava tubes associated with a volcano, and this possibility has actually been discussed at the beginnings of this thread.

However, lava tubes or any other volcanic association appears to be highly improbable as the closest known (active, dormant or extinct) volcano appears to be Gaussberg approx 470 kms away.
And anyway, if this WAS to be a lava tube and measuring approx 90m wide, 60m high, it would probably qualify as THE BIGGEST known lava tube !

So, it's fairly safe to assume that a volcano was NOT the agency responsible for the creation of these two openings.

Originally posted by thegagefather

You seem quite enthused, and I think this is causing you to hype the story up a bit.

It's not difficult at all to become enthused when locating so many strange and unusual anomalies that don't appear to have an associated rational and straightforward explanation to account for their existence.
I'm not denying or disputing that such explanations MAY exist ... in the meantime, I'm just highlighting these curiousities and opening up an opportunity for others to discuss them and toss around possibilities.

I zoomed in deeper and found no brain.

reply to post by Grumble


I honestly have to say I don't see the need or the reason that motivated you to post that ridiculous cartoon image in this thread ... were you trying to make some point ?

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Grumble

 

I honestly have to say I don't see the need or the reason that motivated you to post that ridiculous cartoon image in this thread ... were you trying to make some point ?

His Motivation? To disrupt the thread.
His Point? Stop revealing hidden things.

Conclusion: If he took the time and energy to post his idiotic bull#, it means you must be close to the truth. Therefore keep doing what you are doing, because the louder they yell the closer you are.

Originally posted by tauristercus
so why should there be a considerable chunk of Antarctica remaining undisplayed BY GOOGLE EARTH as the United States Geological Survey has a complete mapping of Antarctica ?

The part blacked out on your image is an extremely EXTREMELY tough part of the world to take ground level pictures of. Lots of clouds there from space to block vision, and its too windy and cold to do much arial observation of that section. Its also the section where the geomagnetic south pole is located.

reply to post by SlasherOfVeils

The part blacked out on your image is an extremely EXTREMELY tough part of the world to take ground level pictures of. Lots of clouds there from space to block vision, and its too windy and cold to do much arial observation of that section. Its also the section where the geomagnetic south pole is located.

I understand what you're saying but that was the so-called "purpose" of Operation Highjump back in 1947 ... to perform an intensive aerial mapping of large parts of Antarctica and to fly over the southern polar region. So theoretically there should be some degree of low level mapping available even if it's 60 years old !

Just seems unusual, thats all.

reply to post by WhiteWash


No, you're wrong. Its where the Ice Giants live.

And you know, they're always at war with the gods, over whose turn it is to borrow the lawn mower, yadda, yadda...

Originally posted by Matyas
reply to post by WhiteWash

 

No, you're wrong. Its where the Ice Giants live.

And you know, they're always at war with the gods, over whose turn it is to borrow the lawn mower, yadda, yadda...

Considering that all we seem to be getting now is ridiculous posts such as the above ... and the one a few posts back by TheGageFather ... guess that means it's time to let this thread die a natural death and just fade away.
Such a pity as there's so much of interest contained within

reply to post by tauristercus


That was a nod to Sir Terrence.

It was a prime opportunity. Now we may go back to discussing holes in the rocks, and no digressions, promise!

These were brought to my attention about 2 weeks ago, been fascinated ever since.




I was going to post an article about them on Poke The Eye.ORG, but lack of information pretty much stopped me from finishing it and posting. I thought I would try to gather more info, so I emailed the USGS to ask what they are. Still no answer, but it's only been a few days.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by PatriotG]

Originally posted by PatriotG
These were brought to my attention about 2 weeks ago, been fascinated ever since.




I was going to post an article about them on Poke The Eye.ORG, but lack of information pretty much stopped me from finishing it and posting. I thought I would try to gather more info, so I emailed the USGS to ask what they are. Still no answer, but it's only been a few days.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by PatriotG]

That image has to be one of the most unusual and intriguing images to be found in Antarctica. It's been tossed around whether it's a natural artifact or one that's been purposely constructed ... but with no clear consensus so far.
So definitely would be great to have a response from the USGS and their take/explanation of it. But then again, if it WAS manmade, would they actually admit it ?
Please keep us informed of any response you receive from them.

reply to post by Phage


I just followed your link and your reference picture is regarding the gully below the entrance, correct?

You aren't trying to explain with your picture what looks to be a basalt awning above the cave mouth, correct?