Antarctica was Atlantis

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
www.world-mysteries.com...



" The official science has been saying all along that the ice-cap which covers the Antarctic is million years old.
The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it. That should make think it has been


mapped million years ago, but that's impossible since mankind did not exist at that time.

Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago. There are still doubts about the beginning of this ice-free period, which has been put by different researchers everything between year 13000 and 9000 BC.
The question is: Who mapped the Queen Maud Land of Antarctic 6000 years ago? Which unknown civilization had the technology or the need to do that?"






You see the earth axis changes. northern canada just recently thawed and antarctica recently froze.

Research this and you will see that this is correct.

How long will it take for us to see it.




Heres a little more, its endless... im lazy, heres the seeds now plant them


Ancient Trees
By Larry O'Hanlon
Discovery News
11-6-4

A quarter-billion years ago, forested islands flashed with autumnal hues near the South Pole ó a polar scene unlike any today, researchers say.

Geologists have discovered in Antarctica the remains of three ancient deciduous forests complete with fossils of fallen leafs scattered around the tree trunks. The clusters of petrified tree stumps were found upright in the original living positions they held during the Permian period.

Some stumps were even poking up through the snowfield in the Beardmore Glacier area, said geologist Molly Miller of Vanderbilt University.

"These were not scrubby little things," Miller said. "These were big trees."

Some are estimated to have attained heights of 80 feet (24.6 meters), based on their trunk diameter.

Miller, Tim Cully and graduate student Nichole Knepprath came upon the three stands of the lost forests in December 2003. Knepprath will be presenting their discovery on Sunday at the meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver.

Unlike any trees today, the long-extinct Glossopteris trees lived in stands as thick as almost a thousand per acre just 20 or 25 degrees from the South Pole, a latitude at which they received no sunlight for half the year.

As for what they looked like, Glossopteris tapered upwards like a Christmas tree. Instead of needles, they had large, broad lance-shaped leaves that fell to the ground at the end of summer. It's unknown if the leaves turned colors, said Miller, but it seems likely.

"These are early, early deciduous trees," said Miller.

They lived at a time when the Antarctic climate was much warmer - although the trees still had to survive an extreme light regime of low sunlight half the year and darkness the other half.

"We don't have any modern analogues to these polar forests," said paleobotanist David Cantrill, curator at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm.

The fossilized tree rings in the Glossopteris trees reveal that they grew steadily each summer and abruptly stopped for winter, as if a switch had been thrown.

"They probably reacted to light (rather than temperature) to switch off," said Cantrill.

Modern deciduous trees slow down and then stop growing when cold weather moves in.

Although fossil trees from the Permian have been found before in Antarctica, this is the first time whole stands of trees have been discovered, said Cantrill. With stands, researchers can now measure the spacing and calculate sizes of the trees to glean information about how much sunlight and energy was available - valuable and rare clues to the Permian climate.

Copyright © 2004 Discovery Communications Inc. dsc.discovery.com...

AFMIN EDIT: Removed "all caps" subject title


[edit on 19-12-2005 by OutoftheSky]

[edit on 19-12-2005 by OutoftheSky]

[edit on 12-22-2005 by Springer]




posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Interseting topic, I have long been intrigued by the Piri Reis map. There are many intresting theories about it.

I'm not sure I would go as far to say that Antarctica was the site of 'Atlantis' but it could have been information gained from an advanced civilization such as 'Atlantis' who mapped the area many years before common history can explain.

I like your theory though... Deff an interesting subject.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
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!

[edit on 20-12-2005 by German Researcher]

[edit on 20-12-2005 by German Researcher]

[edit on 20-12-2005 by German Researcher]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I have always heard this as a fact that Anarctica used to be Atlantis. Well it seems like something that could be very true and i hope it is. The thing i do hope is that someday a group of people will get the funding to go down there to get the evidence to prove this. I have seen the map of Antarctica that was done million and million of years ago i just would like someone to find the evidence to prove this so then when can get some people over there to dig under some of that snow to see if any of Atlantis was saved by being under all that ice for so many years.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I think it's going to be decades- even a century or 2 before we find this place if it exists. Our technology may be more than its ever been but there is only so much we can do. Hell we can map the milky way and our cluster in the universe but our maps and knowledge of the sea is pretty minute in comparison. Even to prove it one would (probably) need the technology to embark on an expodition down there to confirm. Hell L.A. may be a fabled city of true angels and modern marvels a thousand years from now if it drops into the sea and it may just be forgotten w/ the tide.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutoftheSky

Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago.


This common misconception is based on the fact that around 6,000 years ago sea ice around Antarctica began to increase again.

During the Last Glacial Maximum ice sheets extended beyond the current coastal margins. When they ice age ended, rising sea levels pushed the ice sheets back. ANd for the past 10,000 or so years there has, in places, been an ice free continental margin.

There's a comprehensive history of the Antarctic ice sheet here: www.hi.is...

It doesn't leave much room for Atlantis, I'm afraid.....


btw If the Piri Re'is map shows Antarctica, why is Antarctica connected to S America? Where is the Drake Passage? Or the West Antarctic Peninsular? Missing them is like mapping the Meditteranean and missing out Italy......



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Wow, I was just going to post about this. This is highly interesting.

There is no doubt in my mind that Antarctica is in fact Atlantis.

I have just finished reading the book, "The Fingerprints of the Gods", by Graham Hancock. He spells out the theory very well.

What happened (according to him) is that the lithosphere of the Earth shifted due slight changes in the Earths orbit. This caused Antarctica to shift into the Artic Circle, destroying Atlantis.

The book is very long and highly detailed. It also, bring up the fact that some survivors reached Egypt and started to rebuild there.

Anyone interested should check Hancock out: www.grahamhancock.com...

Great stuff!!


-- Boat



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
It may take less than decades. If the saying "history repeats" is at all true, soon enough the poles will be melted for all to see.

Many studies show how global warming is contributing to an increase in over all temps. Take that into consideration with the natural cycle of the freeze thaw pattern, and it should be clear enough.

Lets see FEMA make a contingency plan for that one.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I don't believe (from what i've read) that "global warming" will have an impact on this issue, or did at the time of Atlantis.

I believe that it will be due to a major shift of the lithosphere that the Earth will be changed and mankind will be in great danger.

This happened to Atlantis (I and others think).

Has anyone else read of this?

-- Boat



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I don't believe that Antartica was Atlantis. I believe the source of the story was in the Mediterranean. I have read the Graham Hancock book, Fingerprints of the Gods. It was very interesting. I appreciate the egyptian mythology knowledge I gained from the book. I think Hancock is making a bit of a stretch in correlating the location of Antartica to the location of Atlantis in Plato's story. Plato's story of Atlantis is all we have concerning the myth.

There's much more convincing evidence of destroyed civilizations in the remains of the Islands of Santorini. Now there is intriguing news about structures under the waters near Cyprus. Perhaps Plato wrote his story by combining the two distasters. Perhaps he is merely retelling ancient myths about the disasters. In Plato's story of Atlantis, Gods destroy the civilization because the people became too concerned with power and greed. Santorini was destroyed by a huge volcanic blast. There is evidence that volcanic ash traveled to Egypt. This could possibly explain the biblical story in Moses of fire raining down on Egypt. The estimated times of Moses and the Santorini explosion correlate.

I read the Hancock book enjoying the fantasy of ancient Advanced civilizations. But the fact is that the story of Atlantis as a civilization of super technology in Ancient times is completely void of concrete evidence. All we have is a story. There is absolutely no hard tangible evidence showing an ancient advanced civilization on par with our present abilities existed. There is nothing showing Antartica was Atlantis.

I think some people are missing the boat on an equally interesting mystery. The mystery that Antartica may have been mapped in the past several thousand years is fantastic enough. That mystery doesn't need the Atlantis myth attached to it. If it turns out the Piri Reis map is authentic and is a map of Antartica. That still does not prove that Antartica was Atlantis.

I think it is prudent to consider the intentions behind some of these ancient writers like Plato. Plato was not a holy man or prophet. He was essentially an agnostic. Yet, he mentions the will of gods in the story of Atlantis. One must consider the likely possibilty that Plato intended to entertain and to depict the downfall of immoral behavior with his story of Atlantis' demise.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Was Plato the first to ever have written record of Atlantis? If so, he wrote about it around 6,000 years after it's demise, right? So, how did he know other than by word of mouth?

People tell a lot of stories and I am sure it was the same thousands of years ago. When it goes from person to person it changes just a little each time, until whole points or places are forgotten.

Maybe all the maps are wrong, and Antartica could be Atlantis.

I would like them to find Atlantis a smuch as anyone , I am highly interrested in how smart they actually were.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Wow, I was just going to post about this. This is highly interesting.

There is no doubt in my mind that Antarctica is in fact Atlantis.

I have just finished reading the book, "The Fingerprints of the Gods", by Graham Hancock. He spells out the theory very well.

What happened (according to him) is that the lithosphere of the Earth shifted due slight changes in the Earths orbit. This caused Antarctica to shift into the Artic Circle, destroying Atlantis.

The book is very long and highly detailed. It also, bring up the fact that some survivors reached Egypt and started to rebuild there.

Anyone interested should check Hancock out: www.grahamhancock.com...

Great stuff!!


-- Boat


I just picked up Fingerprints of the Gods and can't wait to get into it. Graham Hancock seems to be a man of extraordinary passion for this type of subject matter.

I am glad you did not go into vast detail about the book! Can't wait to share my thoughts from the book.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inanna
Was Plato the first to ever have written record of Atlantis? If so, he wrote about it around 6,000 years after it's demise, right? So, how did he know other than by word of mouth?

People tell a lot of stories and I am sure it was the same thousands of years ago. When it goes from person to person it changes just a little each time, until whole points or places are forgotten.

Maybe all the maps are wrong, and Antartica could be Atlantis.

I would like them to find Atlantis a smuch as anyone , I am highly interrested in how smart they actually were.



Plato is the only one who has written about Atlantis. Plato was a greek philosopher who lived around 300 bce(before common era) or BC. Plato claimed to have learned about Atlantis from an Egyptian priest. Plato says that Atlantis existed 10,000 years before him. Plato described the topography of the island of Atlantis as being a series of concentric rings. Today we know about the islands of Santorini in the Mediterranean. The mediterranean sea is where many believe that Plato placed the mythological island of Atlantis.

An interesting fact is that Santorini's topography, the shape of the islands was in concentric circles. Another interesting fact is that Santorini exploded in a volcanic blast and sunk 1,000 years before Plato. It is believed that Plato either intentionally moved the decimal point from 1,000 years to 10,000 years. Or that it was a mistake in transference, just a commonly happens in the retelling of stories.

It is believed by many today that Plato was actually referring to the Islands of Santorini in the mediterranean when he spoke of Atlantis. Plato's story may be a fiction based on an actual event like the demise of the Santorini islands. The remains of Santorini show that the people were highly sophisticated for their time and that the place was a higly desirable place to live. Although, they were not sophisticated to the degree that wishful thinking would have them to be. Sorry, no space ships or high tech computers.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

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!

[edit on 20-12-2005 by German Researcher]

[edit on 20-12-2005 by German Researcher]

[edit on 20-12-2005 by German Researcher]


Oh your forgetting crypus and south america, considering it has an abundance of gold. It would be a good point though whether south america wasn't or was atlantis, or just had some sort of connection to it. But I think antartica was closer to south america perhaps? Who knows i guess.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
It will be very interesting to see what is buried under snow and ice in Antartica regardless of any Atlantis theories. There have been cases of flash freezing. There have been wooly mammoths found frozen solid with plants and flowers in their mouths that they were eating the moment they were frozen. I believe it is still speculative as to how this flash freezing occurred. It may be related to the theory Graham Hancock covers in his book Fingerprints of the Gods. The theory is how the outer shell of the earth shifted and caused parts of the world to thaw out and other parts(antartica) to freeze. Just think what perfect specimens we will find there in just animal and plant life. Who knows what kind of human or early human settlements we may possibly find?



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear_
It will be very interesting to see what is buried under snow and ice in Antartica regardless of any Atlantis theories. There have been cases of flash freezing. There have been wooly mammoths found frozen solid with plants and flowers in their mouths that they were eating the moment they were frozen. I believe it is still speculative as to how this flash freezing occurred. It may be related to the theory Graham Hancock covers in his book Fingerprints of the Gods. The theory is how the outer shell of the earth shifted and caused parts of the world to thaw out and other parts(antartica) to freeze. Just think what perfect specimens we will find there in just animal and plant life. Who knows what kind of human or early human settlements we may possibly find?


I could only imagine but to do such great explorations you need money. So to speak, what if a few big corporations (Kraft, Microsoft, etc) sponsor these explorations (if such an exploration ever was planned) and it turned out to be a big cover-up. Only the tops in world government knew what was down there and the rest of the world's 'common people' were left out in the cold on the facts. Remember, discovering something of historical evidence down in Antartica will/could change the history of the world forever.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Add this one to the mystery. Only recently, orbital radar showed that Antartica is really two land masses, with a salt water channel in between. All is buried under the massive amounts of ice, where it has never been seen.

At least one of those old maps that I looked up on the internet, showed the two land masses, fairly accurately depicted. That would date the information on the map, as being prior to ice covering Antartica. Back when it was warm.

What is troublesome, is thinking about a prior civilization having all traces wiped out. No trace left...



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gear_
There have been cases of flash freezing. There have been wooly mammoths found frozen solid with plants and flowers in their mouths that they were eating the moment they were frozen. I believe it is still speculative as to how this flash freezing occurred.


No, it's not speculative at all. It's well known (amongst those who study such matters) that they drowned - after falling in a bog or a swollen river. They had been eating arctic plants.

Forget the nonsense spouted by the likes of Hancock etc. This is what the real experts have to say about mammoths, the climate they lived in and how they died: Results of the CERPOLEX/Mammuthus Expeditions

There is no mammoth mystery, just myth.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Thanks for the info. I had read about the frozen mammoths many moons ago in one of those unexplained mysteries books. I could have said it better. I meant to say that the flash frozen mammoth theories are speculative. As in, unfounded, groundless, unsubstantiated, hypothetical. Nonetheless, I wasn't aware of the rational or scientific explanations for the so-called flash frozen mammoth mysteries. I'm not really a wordmeister even though I can be longwinded, ha ha.

Yeah, the Fingerprints of the Gods is a great fantasy but I enjoyed reading it. As far as the earth shifting idea as mentioned in Hancock's book. Another fellow had proposed the idea. The fellow boast support for his theory by Albert Einstein. Einstein is a smart dude no doubt but is he really the man for this sort of thing? Geology I reckon is the subject. But I guess anyone would boast Einstein's support no matter what. Or perhaps Einstein's support is not true at all. I'm not knowledgable about how reasonable is this theory. I assume it to be speculative, ha ha.



[edit on 4-1-2006 by Gear_]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gear_
Thanks for the info. I had read about the frozen mammoths many moons ago in one of those unexplained mysteries books. I could have said it better. I meant to say that the flash frozen mammoth theories are speculative. As in, unfounded, groundless, unsubstantiated, hypothetical. Nonetheless, I wasn't aware of the rational or scientific explanations for the so-called flash frozen mammoth mysteries. I'm not really a wordmeister even though I can be longwinded, ha ha.


No probs! The flash frozen mammoths story has appeared in books time and time again - and probably will continue to do so for years to come. It's been around sop long that most people just don't bother to question its authenticity.



Yeah, the Fingerprints of the Gods is a great fantasy but I enjoyed reading it.


So did I. It reawakend my interest in 'ancient mysteries'.


As far as the earth shifting idea as mentioned in Hancock's book. Another fellow had proposed the idea. The fellow boast support for his theory by Albert Einstein. Einstein is a smart dude no doubt but is he really the man for this sort of thing? Geology I reckon is the subject. But I guess anyone would boast Einstein's support no matter what. Or perhaps Einstein's support is not true at all. I'm not knowledgable about how reasonable is this theory. I assume it to be speculative, ha ha.


Yes, Einstein did give Charles Hapgood support for his 'earth crust displacement' theory - saying it was "worthy of further investigation". 'Further' being the important word here. It's not the same as saying he actually believed it was true; Einstein knew no more about geophysics than I do about brain surgery.


Nice to meet someone who doesn't take everything they read as being gospel truth





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join