Altantis and Antartica Fact or Fiction

Atlantis in Antarctica and hapgood's theory of Earth crust displacment as part of The Mysterious Origins of Man

So I think that the theory about Atlantis being located on the Continent of Antartica dosent really add up.

The theory of crustal displacement has a few holes in it.
1. You have to consider the North Atlantic Current that we all know is due for earths warm tempure climate.
This Current -The North Atlantic Current: is a very fragile system that depends on both salt water and fresh water to converge and form heat. Now take the "Theory of Crustal Displacement" it is proven that our earths outa layer is under soft pockets of magma, or lava and were not due for another shift for 29,000 years. But the catch to this is if the pre Alaskian/Canadian area had suddenly shifted with antartica due to this theory then The North Atlantic current would have been severly dissolved and in doing so, we would have witnessed the entire planet thrown into chaos, between weather anomolies and ice glaciers forming. To vast tsunamis and hurricanes. Weather science proves that if and when this flow is altered our climate suffers and every time it changes we get pushed that much closer to a cataclismic climate shift.

SO HOW, could this theory possibly come to pass without the entire planets geography and climat shifting as well ?

This theory backs itself up by saying that the poles just
"shifted and changed" - and the temperatures drasticly dropped and froze. they state that very suddenly the antartican continent was just "thrown" into a climate change. Stated that this happened due to the crust of the earth just shifting enough to throw antartica into chaos, these are claimed top happen every 41,000 years and were due for another one in 29,000 years so where do we see things changing ? What do you suppose will then happen. Perhapse now that we can depict and record things we will finally have an answer to this anomilee, but at the moment I believe that Atlantis is lost to history, and this theory may be a scientific explenation but not enough to back credintial proof that the earths crust lead to Atlantis's demise.

If it is true, and this theory is proven fact what holds for bard for our civilization 29,000 years from now ? Complete destruction or a new begining shrouded amongst glaciers of ice?

Originally posted by djtrpz
So I think that the theory about Atlantis being located on the Continent of Antartica dosent really add up.

No, it's just another wacky notion with nothing much going for it. Our only source for information about Atlantis, Plato, was pretty clear about where it was, if it existed. In the Atlantic, due west of the Straights of Gibraltar. That puts it on the mid-Atlantic ridge, right where the Azores islands are right now. The sunken Azores Plateau would match up with the description pretty well if it was above water. No need to look as far away as Antarctica.

Yeah, I think that Hapgods theory has no bias on Atlantis, the only credible source he has is from Einstein, who said and i quote

"Shfiting of the continents is a topic in need of exploration and I beleive these facts to be accurate"

Keyword phraise believe these to be

not they are accurate.

If atlantis exists then its at the bottom of the ocean where plato describes it. If Atlantis does not exist and it was fictorial than it's the most famous Fictional story in the history of Mankind.

Atlantis and the question of its existence. I

gnatius Donnelly’s 1882 book:
Atlantis: The Antediluvian World
(revised 1949)
set the standard for 20th century Atlantean research

This is the most credible source and has been highly apraised by the scientific world when it comes to searching for the lost city of atlantis through direct accounts of Plato's reports, biblical analigies and modern myths.

The theory of "Relative Displacement" by hapgood is a sound theory when describing how the tetonic plates and vocal points of our planet move but I find it hard to believe that his theory has any real evidence about Atlantis the finding's of Mammoths preserved while grazing does lead to the proposed fact that Antartica was once a temperate climate, and even is this was true why would Plato's own storys and every myth from the founding of Atlantis and greece to todays modern universe all have the same conjuncture that "Atlantis sunk" - Sunk to the bottom of the ocean most likely due to a violent volcanic eruption, or the shifting of a tetonic plate that opened a chasm in the bottom of the oceans floor, the truth is there is no true theory but to bring Antartica into the Atlantean myth and claim he has supstantional proof to support it I find truthfully had to swallow.

"a geologic theory, Earth Crust Displacement, which claims that a catastrophic shift of the earth’s lithosphere around 10,000 BC. resulted in the continent of Antarctica—Hapgood’s site for the lost continent of Atlantis—moving from a temperate latitude to its current polar position."

even if this event occured somewhere in history there has to be evidence of it. The lost map of Antartica dosent even resemble the continent, yet researches claim it to be evident that this map was created by the atlanteans? Where is the proof to back these claims.

I would love to see the myth of Atlantis de-bunked for weither it is truthful fact or fiction that Plato carried over as entertainment it is trully a legend that will be handed down through time and outlive us all.

Although the research on what was happening on the earth on or around in 10000 BC is still in its infancy. We do know a few things. Poor old Hapgood wrote at a time when plate tectonics were not fully understood, pollen in sediment-and what it could tell you- was decades away and the Greenland glaciers and Antarctic ice cores hadn't been drilled.

All of those point away from Hapgood's theory, especially the Antarctic ice cores which show the ice has been there for at 740,000 years.

Hapgood's theory has been placed on the scrap heap of history by evidence he didn't have.

The best one can do for Atlantis is to either find evidence for its existence, or speculate on whether it existed or not. One cannot prove it didn't exist.

Einstein, while very bright in physics, was not a polymath. He didn't, for example, know much about medicine, music, biology, engineering (he couldn't have done what Tesla did), anatomy, paleontology, or any of a number of other subjects. Quantum mechanics, yes... automobile mechanics, no.

So while he found the book very appealing, the truth is he knew absolutly nothing about geology and couldn't tell gneiss from muscovite.

Kinda off topic, but one of Clive Cussler's books take place with this idea in mind. Good for semi plausible fiction, not very good for real world mechanics though.
As for a civilization existing in the Antartic... there's no evidence. Not even grainy, jpeg converted, drastically resized pictures.

There are strong indications that a predilluvian advanced civilisation existed, but it is absolutely unclear where the cradle of that civilisation was.

Hi djtrpz,

The Antarctic-Atalantian myth was first postulated by Rand Flem-Ath, following Hapgoods 'Earth displacement theory'.
He then produced his book (which is being updated for 2009)
"When The Sky Fell"

He was interviewed on this site by Soothsayer in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Further information and some good/interesting links are provided on his own site:

www.flem-ath.com...

Don't know if this will help with any research you may be going, but worth a look to see another persons perspective.
Cheers
H

Edit 'cause I forgot something!

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Havalon]

If you'd like to see an excellent example of convulted thinking connected with horrible logic read Flems reasons why he rejects the ice core dates.

The explaining away------------

I read it twice and I still have no idea what he was talking about, he appears to have used the "come up with lots of reasons, don't explain any of them in detail and hope people don't think about this subject to much", method.

reply to post by djtrpz


I lean to the theory that Atlantis is the America's, Mexico or Peru. The discoveries of Peruvian plants (coca) in the old world predating Columbus and Erickson, has convinced me that there was travel long long ago. The currents between the continents make it possible for prehistoric simple rafts and boats to make the trip. Last but not least, the Mayan temples look very similar to the pyramids. Which came first? Both occurring without some kind of connection just does not seem possible. If it is merely natural human development, why is there no pyramids every where civilizations have sprung up?