Civilization in Antarctica (with source)

Originally posted by Harte
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.

Harte

[edit on 8/14/2010 by Harte]

Yeah, just look at wikileaks and all the controversy there

Originally posted by Soulshock

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.

knowing more about the moon than we do the ocean does not imply we can't possibly know about the moon. While our current knowledge is indeed finite, it is amazing to reflect on the vast knowledge that we do hold. I suggest taking some courses in astronomy and reading some more books about space and the objects outside of the earths sphere, you may become utterly fascinated by what you find. With that said, Surely I agree that we should know more about our planet, but given the scientific and actual data that exists, I find it highly questionable that there were very advanced civilizations that existed previously such as the ones suggested in your OP. I see no indication in the article that main stream science is accepting the possibility of such civilizations.

reply to post by Soulshock


It's been documented that Chinese ships sailed around Cape Horn as well as across the Pacific to South America and the Cape of Good Hope since at least the 5th century.

Europeans have made similar voyages since at least the 12th.

Some people claim there are "ancient" maps depicting an iceless Antarctic continent. Some of these travelers are claimed to have have left behind relics and landmarks along the route.

If there was any evidence of Antarctic civilization to these ancient mariners and explorers, it would have certainly been noted, as some of these "ancient maps" are claimed to show incredible detail.

So who's right; the explorers who actually or allegedly traveled there and reported NOTHING, or you?

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Now as for a prehistoric Antarctic civilization, it's possible, especially if climate was different at that time.

The only difference in climate was that it was colder with more extensive coastal ice .....

The last time parts of Antartcica may have been neary temperate - sufficent for humans to live there without relying on supplies brought in by aircraft - was the Pliocene. About 4,000,000 years ago (though there evidence for this is by no means conclusive - it may not have been as mild as some suggest).

We currently have Antarctic ice cores going back 800,000 and couples with other geological data have a pretty good idea of the continent's paleoclimate

See, for example: Quaternary Glacial and Climate History of Antarctica

As for maps depicting an ice free Antarctica: they were made up. Hence they all look so very different! Although some later ones may show parts of Australia and, in the case of Piri Re'is, Argentina.

reply to post by Essan

As for maps depicting an ice free Antarctica: they were made up. Hence they all look so very different! Although some later ones may show parts of Australia and, in the case of Piri Re'is, Argentina.

MOST people ought to know that these are fakes and mistakes.
MOST people ought to know that Antarctica has been ice covered far longer than man has existed on Earth.

But, there are now competing threads here:

Some would have you believe that it was empty of ice, but barren and uninhabited.
Some say it has been inhabited by various "civilizations" over different periods before Amundsen, Byrd, Scott, Shackleton, et al began establishing outposts.

They cannot BOTH be correct.
I was hoping to eliminate one of them.
For a while.

(Did you hear that they've successfully thawed Shackleton's Scotch?)

jw

Just a note on many map makers of relative antiquity such as the infamous Mercator; these guys used to make a lot of stuff up. Mercator was a pioneer map maker who created some of the very first relatively accurate 'globe' maps, and global maps, yet he never personally left Flemish Germany despite mapping the entire earth. Unashamedly he took personal liberties in filling in the blanks and uncertainties of the maps from which he borrowed all of his source material.

This was a common feature of map making of the time and before; taking established sources and intellectually filling in the blanks, including rivers, winds and mountains, to unfinished and intellectually inaccurate maps.

So by seeing these illustrations in a map such as by Reis does not imply that there is a first hand account of such geographical features.


The other point I would like to make is regarding the coastlines of the continents besides antarctica. Because if there was no glaciation on that continent then there would have been sufficiently higher ocean levels as there are today, altering the continents coastal outlines. To what extent I am not sure, but something to think about nonetheless. Because if the outlines of South America and Africa appear as today then the map is almost guaranteed to be a mere amalgamation and approximation of ancient knowledge rather than an accurate reproduction.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Soulshock

 

It's been documented that Chinese ships sailed around Cape Horn as well as across the Pacific to South America and the Cape of Good Hope since at least the 5th century.

Since you express an interest in this subject, you ought to look at the following essay on the Hall of Maat website, It might clarify the issue a tad.

www.hallofmaat.com...

Bottom line, while there are a lot of tantalizing threads...the metaphorical kind...out there regarding Precolumbian European contact with North America, the only proven site at this point is Lans Aux Meadows. By all means, keep looking but don't let the concept of proof scare you.

Originally posted by jdub297
It's been documented that Chinese ships sailed around Cape Horn as well as across the Pacific to South America and the Cape of Good Hope since at least the 5th century.

No it's been speculated, but never "documented."

In fact, there's really not a single shred of physical evidence that would indicate that the Chinese ever sailed that far before the modern era.

Harte

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


except the last few decades we haven't done much noteworthy to get us into space, and now it's up to the independant projects who're more focused on space tourism than any real space exploration.


Antarctic civilization though, I'm willing to beleive it, Antarctica wasn't always covered in ice and glaciers afterall

Originally posted by Gren
Antarctic civilization though, I'm willing to beleive it, Antarctica wasn't always covered in ice and glaciers afterall

One thing to consider is that glaciers don't gently plop two miles of ice upon the landscape and chill it like a fishbowl of sea monkeys in a chest freezer. They scour the surface like a rasp. One would be hard pressed to find anything but compressed rubble in a few pre-glacial ravines and valleys.

Still, the ice-free valleys have always intrigued me.

Originally posted by Gren
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Antarctic civilization though, I'm willing to beleive it, Antarctica wasn't always covered in ice and glaciers afterall

OK, let's "poke" this a bit.

Antarctica became "isolated" (separated) from other major land masses gradually. Africa broke free around 160 mya (million years ago), India at around 125 mya, Australia (along with New Guinea) at around 40 mya and South America at around 23 mya. Now, following the breakup of Australia, climate in Antarctica became gradually colder with the first ice appearing (on a permanent basis but not widespread). After South America broke free, Antarctica became became enclosed by ocean currents that isolated it completely from the flow of warmer ocean waters, thus it became frozen. This started around 23 mya and the glaciation covered the entire continent by around 15 mya. The ice has reached its current level by 6 mya.

To find remnants of a civilization UNDER the ice suggests the following "prerequisites":

• There were humans around to form a civilization at any of the aforementioned dates
  
• There are still material remnants under a mile of ice (or two miles), ice that is not static but "travels" and thus erodes the surface like no other force can
  
• If Antarctica was reached at a later date, there was the capability of open sea traveling (please suggest this later date)
  
• Whoever went there, went for a reason AND they had the capability to withstand the climate there, especially during the antarctic winter. Please provide a reason.
  
• Where did whoever formed this Antarctic civilization come from? It will shed some light as to when they did get there - if at all!
  

Believing in something just to appear "cool" is one thing, answering the questions that emerge from such beliefs is another. Is this belief based on anything that holds any amount of water or is it purely religious?

I wouldnt trust wiki if my life depended on it. As to Vyse there are a lot more than one Z Sitchen who question Vyse. Robert Schoch, Flinders Petrie and Anthony Peratt immediately come to mind. I take Sitchens books and lectures with a dose. Though his theories make as much sense as anyone's. Its most apparent there is a massive missing link between humans and? It appears we popped up ready to build with absolute perfection at specific points in out past. Maybe the current megaliths were built before the last pole shift, it helps explain why salt and sea creatures were covering the ancient megaliths, or the whale graveyards littering utah, nevada and other inexplicable inland places. We are a mystery wrapped in an enigma no doubt. It appears Pluto and Neptune (and local stars that have gone nova past two decades plus) are telling us we should be preparing for the next pole flip, and our stars Nova, instead of worrying about what a broke fame seeker was or wasn't tagging 150 years ago. a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: ProjectJimmy

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.

Well also go back 500.000 to 1 million and it wouldn't be humans, so if we suggested 200k ago I think we would see signs of it.

a reply to: Harte

We are supposed to be modern human beings, our skill sets are simply the observations within our terms of reference.If we go out of our terms of reference, but still use what we know to be true. For instance dolphin communication, many of the species know more about this planet than we do, as the majority of it is in their environment. So logically if you wanted to know something and you actually had a good relationship with a dolphin how long would it take for the dolphin to learn that for valid information from the dolphin, the dolphin would get easy fish . Or that having a good relationship with an elephant in exchange for placing a heavy object, the payment would be better than foraging.Which has been done. Suddenly ancient human muscle power and information would be greatly enhanced. Humans have the flaw of thinking they are the special ones. It also makes us one-eyed, especially nowadays that some of our achievements are staggering.

Humans have the flaw of thinking they are the special ones.

Well we skipped dolphin communication because we built machines that let us dive 200 times or so deeper than your average dolphin in a habitat we cant survive more than seconds in, can you blaim us?

Now, if we suddenly discovered a dolphin built city in the mountain range of Himalaya populated by millions of them in landsuits I would be very interested in talking to them and compare technical notes.

a reply to: merka


Throw in a good Carrington event and all you have left is a landfill.

I have said in the past if the smartest lifeform in the universe is a sponge who cares...lol There is more to all this than just raw intelligence, and for us it is physical capabilities to use that intelligence. The dexterity and configuration of our thumbs is amazing compared to other species, we can throw a rock, or build, or do fine detailed work. Our brains maybe not the biggest, but boy do we feed it more than any other species. Huge amounts of our calories go to our brains, and add in complicated speech /communication and this is what gets us that step up.

Dolphins act more like savants than anything else, so yes they can do crazy things like savants can, but I bet they are also limited like savants are. Elephants are also smart, but seem to be very limited even with some areas great abilities. Humans is the only species on earth to get to the moon in 4.5 billion years, so there is a rare uniqueness to us.

originally posted by: The_Modulus
Just a note on many map makers of relative antiquity such as the infamous Mercator; these guys used to make a lot of stuff up. Mercator was a pioneer map maker who created some of the very first relatively accurate 'globe' maps, and global maps, yet he never personally left Flemish Germany despite mapping the entire earth. Unashamedly he took personal liberties in filling in the blanks and uncertainties of the maps from which he borrowed all of his source material.

This was a common feature of map making of the time and before; taking established sources and intellectually filling in the blanks, including rivers, winds and mountains, to unfinished and intellectually inaccurate maps.

So by seeing these illustrations in a map such as by Reis does not imply that there is a first hand account of such geographical features.


The other point I would like to make is regarding the coastlines of the continents besides antarctica. Because if there was no glaciation on that continent then there would have been sufficiently higher ocean levels as there are today, altering the continents coastal outlines. To what extent I am not sure, but something to think about nonetheless. Because if the outlines of South America and Africa appear as today then the map is almost guaranteed to be a mere amalgamation and approximation of ancient knowledge rather than an accurate reproduction.

Another possibility is that the North Pole could have been more or less centered on Greenland.

Anyone who thinks for them self, and doesn't need every idea in their head spoon fed to them by an "expert", can look at a map of the glaciers during the last glacial maximum, and plainly see that today's North Pole was not located in the center of the glacier.

(Using this link to let you see a map of what I'm talking about)

www.smithsonianmag.com...

www.geology.wisc.edu...


This theory also aligns extremely well with the natives coming across the Bering Straight to Alaska, but being at first unable to enter into the (now ) lower latitudes of North America. Alaska would also be further South than it is today, and so they could have lived off of that land. (Otherwise it would have been tough living. Not impossible, given that eskimos live far North. But tough.)

Otherwise I'm forced to do mental gymnastics as I attempt to understand how a polar glacier could be located South of a viable settlement.




If the North Pole were located in Greenland, then the parts of Antarctica that are nearest to South America might be far enough North to be ice free (even during the ice age). The South Pole would be on the far side of the continent from there.


Here's a map of an ice free Antarctica. It's a fairly large continent. So if the pole moved far to one side of it, the other could actually be pretty habitable.

www.google.com... gao%2Fantarctica_without_ice%2F&tbnid=CL6aI1Ruz5cIZM&vet=12ahUKEwiooOGXtLTxAhUBqlsKHXucCHEQMygCegUIARC2AQ..i&docid=9aflCtHzhBlERM&w=1500&h=1303&itg=1& q=antarctica%20without%20ice&ved=2ahUKEwiooOGXtLTxAhUBqlsKHXucCHEQMygCegUIARC2AQ#imgrc=CL6aI1Ruz5cIZM&imgdii=bnrSsMzpuMPJ4M

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

If there were trees in Greenland when the Vikings got there, which they quickly felled, and then imported timber from Markland, it must have been a warmer place than it is now. Same for Iceland and possibly the Antarctic peninsular. If the polar vortex stays tight which is usually when there are plenty of sunspots the Antarctic peninsular could have been ice-free. The Trade winds would have been steady. But when the sunspots go down like at the present, the polar vortex seems to be able to wobble down to Texas on the other hand the tropic air gets pulled up as far as Alaska. So at the moment, we are getting a lot of fresh water pouring off of Greenland, and this is desalinating that part of the Ocean, and slowing the gulf stream down, which will cool down Northern Europe. It could be a repeating cycle, where you have vastly different temperatures on the same lines of latitude.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Does that map of an ice free Antarctica take into account the rise in sea levels due to melting of the polar ice caps?