It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Latest Antarctica Survey. Mountain Range Should Not Exist At Centre

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:07 PM

Should be interesting to found out what the results of this expedition reveal.

Posted it here since any revelatory findings could add weight to theories suggesting Antarctica was once ice-free and habitable.

Could Antarctica have been part of another continent or positioned elswhere on the globe in the past?

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by logicalview

It was once ice free and habitable, millions of years ago at least. It's not really a "theory", it's established fact. Antaartica wasn't always at the South Pole.

This expedition isn't looking into that anyway, they are trying to look at this mountain range which is anomalous when compared to how other ranges have formed. They are trying to discover why this range exists where it does.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:26 PM
Thanks for the info.

Any theories why or how they were created if not by known forces of nature?

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by logicalview

I'm 99.9% certain they were created by nature, it's just that they don't fit current models, apparently. Hence why they are going there to study them so they can, if necessary, modify theory to explain them.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:34 PM
Sorry i think i could have worded the question better. My fault.

What forces of nature or processes created them if not by known forces or processes?

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:37 PM
Who says they were made by Nature?

Lots of other scenarios out there in regards to the center of the Antartic

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by logicalview

From the BBC article:

The Gamburtsevs were discovered by a Soviet team making a traverse across the ice in the late 1950s. The rocky prominence was totally unexpected; scientists thought the interior of the continent would be relatively flat.

"There are two easy ways to make mountains," explained Dr Robin Bell, from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, who is a lead US researcher on the expedition.

"One is colliding continents, but after they collide they tend to erode; and the last collision was 500-million-plus years ago. They shouldn't be there.

"The other way is a hotspot, [with volcanoes punching through the crust] like in Hawaii; but there's no good evidence for underneath the ice sheet being that hot.

"I like to say it's rather like being an archaeologist and opening up a tomb in a pyramid and finding an astronaut sitting inside. It shouldn't be there."

That explains why they are "unusual". The expedition is going there to see what they can discover. Asking for an answer before hand is impatient!

I'm not a geologist and have only touched upon it in my studies, so I wouldn't want to offer up any theory for why there is a mountain range there.

The only thing I can think of is that the range formed during an original continental collision, then being buried under 4Km of Ice has prevented them from being eroded like any other range of that age.

[edit on 14/10/08 by stumason]

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:50 PM
ha ha! Impatient is my middle name.

I confess i know absolutely nothing about geology. I was checking to see if there were any other known theories than the classic continental collission produced mountain ranges. Thanks for being patient with me!

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:25 PM
There are actually 4 ways to form mountains,


By direct tectonic collision, the method by which most mountain ranges are formed, and in the case of the california coast range a chain of volcanoes that ran into the north american plate.

Or by indirectly by collision, like the rocky mountains.
They were formed by the collision that formed the california coast range.

Or by a frighteningly large impact event, an event large enough for the earth to actually spall out on the opposite side of the planet.
The energy of the impact pushes all the way through the planet and almost breaks out the other side, pushing up a mountain range in an instant.
And for all those who will poo-poo such an idea, there is such a mountain range on mercury, it is exactly opposite a gigantic crater.

As for the mountains in question, it seems they are around 3,500' tall
pretty darn small actaully.

I dont understand, why they "shoudnt be there", thats a silly assumption.

Look at continental north america or central russia there are mountains in the continental interior.

I would suspect that the mountains are just a remnant of a much larger mountain range that has all but erroded away.

The appalachian mountains once towered, but are now just worn away.
The sierra nevada of california, are mighty mountains today but are only about half as large as the were in the past, they are over two hundred million years old.
They might have been as large as the himalaya at one time.

Its not such a stretch to think that mountains that were formed a hundred million years ago would be worn down to nothing after all these years of being scoured by ice.

The land mass that is now antartica has always remained near its present location.
As pangea broke up the other continents moved away from antartica.
and its only been under ice for 15 million years.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:01 AM
Thanks for your input.

A couple of slightly conflicting views here already. I for one will be reading up on this topic ahead of the results of the survey.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:07 AM
I believe that some of the more recent geological activity has been shown to be less weathered by the climate than comparitive formations in more temperate areas of the world.
But I'm probably wrong... it's beeen a good while since I looked at erosion patterns in that part of the world...
If I remember correctly, then it's likely that the erosion of the mountains could have been stunted enough to have preserved them.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:14 AM
Here are a couple of completely outrageously imaginative possabilities.

The interior of the earth being I believe a solid iron core, was yanked suddenly by an extremely large and closely passing magnetic field, causing the crust to be uplifted from the inside.

The inside of the earth is not consistantly solid, and an oblong chunk was caught by the spinning core and thrust up into the crust.

The Earth's crust was pulled and puckered by a massively large and heavy object which had strong gravitational interaction.

Time runs slower at the poles.

Researchers made the whole thing up either as a joke, or to get grants.
Who would ever be able to prove it?

I promise you the real answer will mostly be about rocks, so enjoy the speculation.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 07:54 PM

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by logicalview

Great post, Its very interesting to speculate about what lies underneath the ice in Antartica,especialy when you look at the Piri Reis map's depiction of Queen Maud land free of ice.
As for tectonic activity and mountains,I found this interesting paragraph in a book written by conspiracy author David Southwell:

In 1998,a vast earthquake was reported to have occurred in Antartica measuring up to 8.1 on the Richter scale.
The fact hit global news services,preparations were made and the entire East coast of Australia was put on alert-the authorities feared it could be hit by huge tidal wave.
Medical authorities ,the police and the army called the alert off when the expected tsunami did not arrive.
What makes all of this mysterious is that there are no plates at the South pole and there is,therefore,no logical explanation as to what could have caused such a massive quake

Great Antartica Pics:
Cheers Karl

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 07:59 PM

Unfortunately the Piri Reis map doesn't show "Queens Mauds land".

Do a search here and your find abundant information about the PR map being of great interest - but not extraordinary.

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by karl 12

It could very well be that they're mistaken about there being no plates moving beneath antarctica. It could also very well simply have been caused by the Antarctic plate grinding against the Pacific plate.

top topics


log in