Civilization in Antarctica (with source)

Many believe that there were many civilizations before us, in this very same planet. We all have heard of Lemuria and Atlantida, but what some suggest is that many civilizations walked on Earth before us and who knows how advanced they were.
Now it seems even mainstream science is starting to come into terms with that theory. In this 2005 article, published by Pravda, I was astounded to learn of that reality.

Lots of surprises may be hidden under the Antarctic ice and are waiting to be discovered by humans
The existence of the prehistoric civilization in Antarctica started drawing attention of professional historians after the World War II. The hypothesis can be proved by the medieval maps and research of the Western paleogeologists and glaciologists.


Source: english.pravda.ru...

Well, I for one believe that our science knows pretty much nothing. And how are we supposed to know about the Moon and other planets when we don't even know, or disclose, our own planet's history.

Well it's quite simple really how we know more about the moon and other planets than we do about our own, we look at them more these days.

I would also say there is a human nature reason to seek space travel over deep-sea or Antarctic exploration. We seek the biggest horizon we can find, and space is the greatest one there is. For that reason of course we are drawn to space, we want the biggest picture we can find, and we will overlook more finite frontiers to get it.

Now as for a prehistoric Antarctic civilization, it's possible, especially if climate was different at that time. However, your insinuation that this civilization was very advanced I find hard to swallow, and it is not touched upon at all in your source article beyond a hypothesis that there was some civilization here at or above 18th century technological development, which would put them on the verge of the Industrial Revolution.

I personally do not buy this hypothesis mainly because I think the evidence for it, were it true, would be overwhelming and undeniable. A large reason why the Age Of Exploration was possible what the increased cohesion and population of Europe at the time. City-states had begun to be folded into nation-states again by the time Columbus sailed which allowed for much larger populations to be applied to advancements.

Any advanced ancient civilization in the time in question would have indeed needed a large population, and populations of that size leave tons of evidence of their existence. What we have found so far are scattered and incomplete flashes of absolute brilliance, but nothing to give hard evidence to the theory that well before our history records civilization that there was some monolithic proto-civilization, and there is the same complete lack of physical evidence for any alien interaction.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


I think you're mistaken. We're talking about a civilization that would be buried under a MILE of ice. Do you really think that evidence would be plentiful?

The only reason we know about ancient civilizations at all is because we just happen to build modern cities on top of older ones. In most cases, there are little remains of once-great civilizations.

The other main point you need to understand is that most civilizations are located near bodies of water, rivers, lakes, oceans. These change over time. For instance, did you know that over 10,000 years ago, the Nile flowed west across the Sahara into the Atlantic? If you want to look for evidence of a civilization that existed 12,000 years ago, as circumstantial evidence seems to suggest, you have to figure out where these ancient shorelines USED to be.

Archaeologists don't do that, and never have. That's why there is such little evidence - we haven't been looking in the right place.

I think it's almost a certainty that there's no civilisation to found beneath the ice of Antarctica...not human anyway. The last brief warm period was around 125, 000 years ago. We've got ice-core samples that back this up. The place has been too cold to sustain agriculture for hundreds of thousands of years.

Not many people know that Antarctica isn't entirely covered in ice and snow. Some areas and shorelines are classed as desert...wide open ground with no rain. A couple of members suggest that we know very little about the place? There have been research stations littering the place for decades. At any one time, over 60 bases are manned. Hundreds of research scientists and personnel spend most of the year out there. The continent has been mapped and explored, been extensively imaged by satellite and radar, thermal etc.

The article linked is from Pravda and not even close to being a good news source...they make stuff up. This is one of the better articles as it makes a couple of references to real objects. The news link next to this article is breaking news of a cat with four ears!

@SonofWill

Archaeologists don't do that, and never have. That's why there is such little evidence - we haven't been looking in the right place.

I can see how this statement makes sense on the surface, but it isn't true. It isn't a focus of archaeology to source ancient rivers because others already provide that data. For example, we have a reasonable idea of the major river courses in N America 18 000 years ago. Check it out...here.

Archaeologists use evidence like that to look for ancient river beds. For example, in Africa we've found 'bone beds.' These are layers of earth with high amounts of bone going back 2 and 3 million years old...or less. As the bodies of animals and early 'us' were swept by long-gone rivers...there'd be a build-up of bones in certain places (beaches for instance). As the river changed course or vanished over time, the bones became fossilised.

When it seems likely that archaeologists haven't gotten round to looking in some such place or other...guess again. Those smartass SOBs have already thought it and done it!

Ugh..

Pravda...

Don't even need to read the story to know it's bunk!

pravda?

oh well.

Then how do we explain the Piri Reis map which shows the coastline of Antartica without the ice cap?

If it so, then why can't we keep an open mind of past civilizations living there?

Seems a little closed minded to me. Just because evidence hasn't been found (YET)?

reply to post by Julie Washington


This is one of the better threads about this here on ATS:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Son of Will
If you want to look for evidence of a civilization that existed 12,000 years ago, as circumstantial evidence seems to suggest, you have to figure out where these ancient shorelines USED to be.
Archaeologists don't do that, and never have. That's why there is such little evidence - we haven't been looking in the right place.

...and where do you get that little gem of knowledge? Cuz I personally know of one who scouts ridges on Ontario's archaic Lake Iroquois shoreline for paleo-Indian sites.

It's being done everywhere.

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

you have to figure out where these ancient shorelines USED to be.

Archaeologists don't do that, and never have. That's why there is such little evidence - we haven't been looking in the right place.

Ever heard of Australia's "Mungo Man"? His remains were found on the shore on an ancient lake.

en.wikipedia.org...

You clearly don't know a whole lot about archaeology, yet you speak like somebody who does. Such a silly thing to say when anybody with even a hint of a shred of knowledge on the subject can tell you differently.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Monger]

I have no doubt in my mind that there were hundreds of civilizations before us, Like some sort of cycle or something.

(sigh)

One more time.

Pravda is a spoof news source like "The Onion."

Their information is made up (and like the Onion, they drop in the occasional news bit or editorial.) Citing a news story from Pravda is like citing "Mad Magazine" or "The Onion" as proof of something.

You guys are bashing Pravda, but where else are we supposed to get non-mainstream news?
And by the way, ancient maps show that there was no ice covering Antarctica during that time. I'm pretty sure there are things hidden under all that ice, if some of it was found perhaps we shall never know.
One thing I know for certain is that "scientists" dismiss whatever evidence they find that contradicts their "theories" when that theory concerns something really big.

And by the way, its easy to look to the big horizon, just to blur the idea that we could so easily be looking into our own backyard, meaning Antarctica, the Moon, Mars, Venus...! We can get to those, take pictures and so on, but the far away places we can't, so it's easy to just make people wonder.
I for one know for certain that there is indeed life, people, traffic on the Moon, Mars, Venus and all the planets in this solar system.
This planet is not allowed to know, not ready.

When we can take pictures of galaxies light years away, why aren't there pictures of the surface of the planets in our own solar system?

Anyway, i went off topic but you catch my drift.

I do believe Earth is older than we think it is and before us there were many civilizations, some more advanced for sure. Who else would have built the pyramids? 6th and 7th Egyptian dynasty tried to build similar pyramids and all they could build were worthless copies. HAH

Originally posted by Soulshock
You guys are bashing Pravda, but where else are we supposed to get non-mainstream news?
And by the way, ancient maps show that there was no ice covering Antarctica during that time.

And by the way, not they don't show any such thing.

Just making stuff up doesn't make a thing true, Soulshock.

I'm pretty sure there are things hidden under all that ice, if some of it was found perhaps we shall never know.
One thing I know for certain is that "scientists" dismiss whatever evidence they find that contradicts their "theories" when that theory concerns something really big.

Really?

Then I suppose you don't consider quantum theory, relativity, the Big Bang to be "something big?"

All of these "contradicted their theories." Why weren't they "dismissed?"

Did you read the thread about the date of primate tool use being pushed back 800,000 years? This "contradicts their theories." Why hasn't this been "dismissed?"

When we can take pictures of galaxies light years away, why aren't there pictures of the surface of the planets in our own solar system?

You don't understand too much, do you.

Who else would have built the pyramids? 6th and 7th Egyptian dynasty tried to build similar pyramids and all they could build were worthless copies.

Right. Advanced civilizations built the pyramids, since they had a vested interest in stacking stone?

The fact that the Old Kingdom Egyptians built the pyramids has been proven beyond all doubt. Not just beyond all "reasonable doubt;" it is an established fact.

If you were not aware of this, I suggest you spend a few hours (at most) doing a little reading on the matter before you resume posting complete and utter claptrap phrased as if it were factual.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


The fact that the Old Kingdom Egyptians built the pyramids has been proven beyond all doubt. Not just beyond all "reasonable doubt;" it is an established fact.
Is this really a fact?
Can you give me a link to that?

I noticed Admiral Byrd was mentioned in the article.
I`ve read a few articles about him.
I don`t know how to post links but if you check out his fourth expedition to the Antarctic you`ll find it really interesting.
Its called "Operation Highjump"

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by Harte

 

The fact that the Old Kingdom Egyptians built the pyramids has been proven beyond all doubt. Not just beyond all "reasonable doubt;" it is an established fact.
Is this really a fact?
Can you give me a link to that?

It's been known for many long years, since a full understanding of the hieroglyphics in the relieving chamber over the king's chamber in the great pyramid that were found by Howard Vyse was acheived.

Giovanni Battista Caviglia had blasted on the south side of the stress-relieving chamber (Davison's chamber) on top of the Kings chamber, a chamber discovered by Nathaniel Davidson in 1765, hoping to find a link to the southern air channel. But while Caviglia gave up, Vyse suspected that there was another chamber on top of Davison's chamber, since he could thrust a yard long reed though a crack up into a cavity. He therefore blasted straight up on the northern side, over three and a half months, finding four additional chambers.

Just as amazing as the chambers were Vyse's discovery of numerous graffiti in the chambers, in red paint, dating from the time the pyramids was built. Along with lines, markers and directional notations were work gangs names, including cartouches of several pharaohs, concentrated in Lady Arbuthnot's & Nelson's chamber, but all four chambers contained graffiti. The previously discovered Davison's chamber contained no graffiti.

The now famous single instance of Pharaoh Khufu's name, compounded in a work gang inscription is found on the south ceiling towards the west end of Campbell's chamber. Today this chamber also contains a fair amount of 19th & 20th century graffiti. The other similar famous "Khnum-Khuf", also part of work gang graffiti, is found in Lady Arbuthnot's chamber. Several other compound cartouches can be found in this chamber too.

Source: Wiki

This post will help you find out more about it.

Harte

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


I think there are many ancient civilizations that have "gone away" due to natural disasters, war, wrong Financial policies etc.
No really why not Antarctica? Even Europe has had Pyramids

www.bosnianpyramid.com...

I love it when people source WIKI as a verifiable source! I could make a wiki source, dosn't make it factual in any way! The first thing we learn in college is to verify our sources and the professors DO NOT ACCEPT WIKI as a source. PERIOD!

I'm not saying that all sources from wiki are false, but it's gonna take a little more than a wiki source to impress ME or the rest of the world. (just saying)

Also I think until the ice melts, or we have some way of looking through to the bottom we will never know. I like to think we as people have been around for a long long time, and we are just in another cycle that will die and then restart yet again.

Wiki may not be the greatest source, but surely you can't deny that it will do for a brief bio on a famous person.

At any rate, practically every wiki article has it's sources posted at the bottom of the page.

I'll bet that among those sources you can find several that your old professors would deem perfectly acceptable.

In fact, it is not contested anywhere that Vyse found the chambers as described. Nor is the wording of the glyphs within contested by anyone other than Zecharia Sitchen. At least, he once did. These days even he might admit them to be valid.

You could, of course, make a wiki article. It would be reviewed and removed within minutes if it was found to be not factual.

Wiki reviews now in real time.

Harte



[edit on 8/14/2010 by Harte]