It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impossible Antarctic Ruins

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune
Howdy.
The area has other light colored outcrops.


edit on 9/26/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Graham Hancock was floating the possibility of a pole shift 11,000 years ago.

He makes one really good point: That most of Northern North America was under glaciers almost as big as those found in Antarctica today. Maybe the North pole was centered there at the time?

Of so, then the South Pole would also be located somewhere to the North of the center of Antarctica, on the opposite side, Meaning some of Antarctica would be further North, closer to the (then) Equator.


It is an interesting possibility. I don't know what odds to give it? It is otherwise a bit hard to explain why there was so much glaciation in North America, while on the other side of the North pole, in what is now Northern Russia, there were Mastodons walking around (some of which have been found in ice formations that indicate they were flash frozen, before they even had the chance to die first.)

edit on 27-9-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: got north and south mixed up. Sorry.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Just because a place is cold, it doesn't mean a lot of snow stays there.
The confirmation bias is strong with Hancock.



(some of which have been found in ice formations that indicate they were flash frozen, before they even had the chance to die first.)
False.

edit on 9/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   
The Mastodon thing is someting I added. He only pointed out the glaciers, and then some of his ancient maps seemed to show less ice in Antarctica.

But for any herbivore, even a Mastodon, to subsist, there must be vegetation.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




and then some of his ancient maps seemed to show less ice in Antarctica.

Which ancient maps? Oh, wait. I bet I know.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 9/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

I believe there are ruin's in Antarctica but this poses an extreme problem for our view of history, they would likely be far too old to be of anthropological human origin so if monkey men did not build them then who did?.
That mean's we are far older and there is evidence - not accepted, locked away, missing after being discovered or even destroyed to suggest this is the case.
Or we are just one of a series of human races and not the first.

Or Antarctica was warmer more recently than is currently accepted and there is something seriously wrong with our dating science.

But what I will say to you, if you use the same criteria, find OLDER satellite map's of the ARCTIC, especially were the tundra regions when the ice is free from them you will find not one but a vast number of artifact's like this, I even found an entire city grid that looked like a modern city grid lay out about the size of los angeles but more regular on the coast of the arctic sea just a little inland with straight and long curved lines leading to it but that was a very old version of Google map's were the data was far less compressed, just like very feint crop mark's in the tundra.

The difficulty with everywhere else is that even if it currently underpopulated human's have been there many time's and there are likely countless lost civilization's from just recent human history that even archaeology know's nothing about so those ruin's you will find there between the polar region's are harder to link to something extremely old BUT then there are the ruin's under the water, of course we can not actually see the bottom of the ocean and only truly huge artifact's would be visible on topographic map's due to how they are made.

So whatever it is nice find, I like it, hey take into account land tilting and mountain upthrust and have a look at Jebel-El-Lawz the mountain of God in Saudi Arabia you will see a potential ruin on that, maybe not as old or maybe even older?.
28 degrees 39'11.62"N 35 degrees 18'22.21"E at an altitude of 2375m which if you take into account the larger area around it starts to look a lot like the temple complex in Jerusalem, a much older temple complex from before humanity was supposed to exist perhaps and if it was then it would have been built when that part of Jebel El Lawz was much lower and flatter, take off your sandal's for this is holy ground upon which you now walk.

Those of us who know believe this is actually the real mountain were Moshe received the ten commandment's, and hey it may just be rock formation's natural but that pattern does resemble the temple of Jerusalem built long after so could it have been a temple from an earlier race to the same God, take off your shoes for this is holy ground upon which you now walk.

Just open it up in Google maps and have a look.
28°39'09.32" N 35°18'24.11" E

Not as clear as your find but you can't miss the temple itself the open sided rectangle.

edit on 27-9-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767
Yeah...ok (you can right click>view)


edit on 9/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes thank Phage, I know you will only see rock's but remember I am a religious dude so look at this through kind of rose tinted spectacles so maybe I lose some objectivity but that area which reminded me was the left side of your image with the enclosure to the upper left diagonally from your marker, I had the map tilted around so that explain's why my location was slightly skewed.
And yes it does just look like bedrock but also a naturally formed temple like formation, it is not perfect like some line's that are identified but then an ancient structure or natural formation that could have served as one would not be perfect and then the alters of the Hebrew's were not to be made of shaped stone.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

So...the less perfect, the better. The less it looks hewn, the better.

Makes sense. God made rocks. Yes, he did. And plate tectonics. And evolution. And everything. Yes he did.

You can believe it if you wish. I have no need to.


edit on 9/27/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ha yup phage that about covers it for what I may see there, there is no need for it to actually be a human made structure for it to be a sacred site, in fact I am sure the hopi would say similar in there sacred places also.

24'You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you. 25If you make an altar of stone for Me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it. 26'And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it.'



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift


fascinating stuff



new topics




 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join