Antarctica home to the legendary Atlantis ?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:40 PM
I always thought that there was something of interest under Antarctica. Frozen dinosaurs, ancient deadly viruses, the garden of Eden ... but Atlantis? Never thought of that one. Here's an interesting quote from an old BBC article...

Many people subscribe to the earth displacement theory whereby the crust of the Earth can move over the core, and what's more, the evidence suggests that it will do so again. Antarctica did exist at a different location from its current home, and that if the ice could be removed, the history of Earth would have to be re-written at a stroke. But then, that's just conjecture.

Albert Einstein also subscribed to this theory. He did not come up with the theory, but he investigated and refined it. As he points out, Antarctica is not fitted symmetrically around the South Pole – it's off kilter. It is fantastically big, covering a landmass of 5.5 million square miles with over seven million cubic miles of ice. This ice is estimated to weigh 19,000,000,000,000,000 tons – nineteen quadrillion tons. What's more, it is growing, with about 293 cubic miles of ice added every year – almost as if Lake Ontario were frozen and added to it every year. Einstein postulated that eventually centrifugal force would force a reaction, in that Antarctica will shift over the crust of the Earth.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Violater1
There is a video out on youtube called the, “ Conspiracy of Science-Earth is in fact growing.”
At about 42 seconds into the video, you can see where Antarctica was a part of Greece.
Plato was born in Athens, very near where the continent of Antarctica was connected. Therefore, it is very possible that Atlantis is Antarctica.
Here is a link to my thread.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Violater1]

At NO point in that LAME video is Antartica part of Greece watch it again this time with your eyes open.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:04 PM
Wow this is really interesting. It seems like it could be true considering how little we know about that continent. On the other hand even if it is not I am convinced there is something under all that ice that will contradict human history as we know it. Has anyone here read H. P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness? Sorry I realize it is a bit off topic but it again goes with the idea that there might be something very interesting on that continent

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:07 PM
how do you explain the age of the ice down there?

why dont we carbon date these so-called maps of an ice free antarctica? they'd be worth so much more if they were dated to be true even if a few pieces were missing because of the tests.and its not like we cant make copies.

are there Atlantian shipwrecks off the coast of it anywhere?

where are the regions of the planet that were flooded 12,000 years ago when all the ice on Antarctica was not there? If anything there was MORE ice back then, not less

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:26 PM
I think that is a really good possibility. I saw an article last week on how they have confirmed underground mountains, lakes, and rivers beneath the ice of Antarctica. After about two days, it seems like all the articles on that are GONE, except for a few. Here's what I could find for now.

Antarctica Underground Lakes and Rivers

Undeground mountains

The images are the result of radar technology, and reveal a dramatic landscape of rocky summits, deep river valleys, and liquid, not frozen, lakes, all hidden beneath the ice. The range itself rivals the Alps in size and cover an area that is roughly the size of New York State.

Edit to add: I feel that this information supports the possibility of Antarctica being Atlantis, as well as other things said about Antarctica.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Good Intentions]

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by Top Hat Boy

Possibly new info to consider:

New UFO photos support 'ancient aliens' theory

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by Mumbotron

Well... as long as it is not found the popular idea is that Plato had a very vivid imagination.

We can;t really ask him.

The idea is that any civilization that could have existed out there is a lost one which IMO is interesting enough. Atlantis is only the one true player IMO.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:59 PM
I study Antarctica (biologically and geologically speaking) at the University of Canterbury, which anyone who knows anything about Antarctica should know is one of the foremost hubs of Antarctic research and information in the world (not to mention the launching point for almost ALL US Antarctic expeditions).

This thread is just plain ridiculous. I won't expound why, the information is freely available and even a quick read would show why these theories are bunk.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:00 PM
reply to post by Totalstranger

It was mentioned in the OP

But I'll post it again for you.

The analyses of ocean-floor sediments deposited recently by melting Antarctic ice sheets reveal that these ice sheets are only about 2,000 years old. The evidence is in the rocky debris scraped up from inland Antarctica and then transported out to sea, where it drops to the sea floor as the ice melts. The grains of rock settle into the ocean sediments which contain biological debris that can be carbon-dated. (Marine life beneath the ice sheets is surprisingly abundant and varied despite the near-freezing temperatures.)

Supporting foregoing evidence are studies of Antarctic lake sediments and ancient abandoned penguin rookeries. Everything points to a warmer, more humid Antarctica
between 2,500 and 4,000 years ago.

This does not say the whole of the continent was free of ice tho.
That would be impossible. The weight of the ice pushes down with such tremendous force a big part is 2500 meter under sea level. I don't think land rises that fast.

There is also evidence that it was partially ice free 250.000 years ago.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:08 PM
Will people PLEASE stop posting "Antarctica is Atlantis" bullcrap! Antarctica has been mostly under ice for millions of years. Homo sapiens have only been around for 200,000 years. It is not a temperate zone. It in no way resembles it's description in Timaeus and Critias. And to everyone everywhere who wishes to deny ignorance...


Edit: The ice-free maps aren't real. Orontius Finneus put together a world map from the work of other sailors; he never traveled. The Piris Reis map, if one were to LOOK at it, shows that Antarctica is a really a poorly drawn South America making a 90 degree right turn.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by AngelHeart]

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by Alushe

When you say it is ridiculous. Please feel free to support that with a link in the right direction.
This would be greatly appreciated.

I show you my source and as I stated before... I don't mind if it turns out to be a hoax.
It is useless to believe that it could be true when it is not. Don't you think ?

However I do not study the Antarctic. Your know how is very much requested.

Here are the links for you to read. They say that it has been in nature magazine ?
I thought that to be a reliable source. Is it not ?

Link ( nature and New york times )

Link ( Science news )

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:20 PM
Regardless of the validity of the information presented, your efforts are greatly appreciated Klaas. In all honesty, I would take 1 of these threads over 1 million threads without source material, without serious academic consideration and most importantly, without the open-mindedness that you have utilized.

If nothing else, this thread has peaked my interest in our most Southern of continents, and I am looking forward to educating myself on the geology, history and climate of the region. While it is easy to sit here and poke and prod at your sources, it is much more beneficial to find my own sources, to do my own research and to become as well educated on the subject as time will allow before trying to negate anything you have said.

Again, I can not stress enough how much I have enjoyed your approach to this thread, and I only hope more members (myself included) will attempt to emulate the way in which you present your findings/hypothesis and lay out a red carpet for your peers to enlighten everyone with any relevant knowledge they have.

Thanks dude.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Shark VA84]

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

First, I want to say great thread and thank you for the topic change from the Gulf and Middle East.

If people can live in Scandinavian and Siberia then they could have definitely lived on the most Northern part of Antarctica (Nearest to South Africa). I think you are really on to something by connecting the dots of Atlantis and an ice free Antarctica of 3000-4000 years ago.

You say we know less about Antarctica than we do the surface of Mars. Have we done any recent ice penetrating radar studies with our most advanced technology near the theorized ancient shorelines? If the ancients lived there when the land was arable, they would have most likely have been seafaring and highly dependent on sea creatures for protein. They would have build their city near the sea. And, If Plato was correct about the people of Atlantis' being highly advanced and intelligent then we should be able to find some resemblance of buildings, ports, and trees for timber.

I think if we could comfirm ancient inhabitants on Antarctica during this window of time then we would have the smoking gun for Atlantis. That would be when the real research and discussions started to paint the whole picture.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:00 PM
Well obviously during the ice age, the oceans would have been much more shallow, exposing parts of the ocean that are currently buried right? How about the oceanic mountain ranges? Those areas would have most likely been above water during an ice age- so couldn't Atlantis theoretically be there?

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by AngelHeart

The theory is that 12000 or so yrs ago the crust slipped over the mantle.
This theory was proposed by Professor Charles Hapgood in his book The Path of the Poles.
The forward to this book was written by Albert Einstein who was in complete agreement with Professor Hapgood.
Now Antarctica is a very large continent and has never been completely ice free.
Only a relatively small portion of Antarctica was ice free and it is in this portion that Atlantis is suspected to be.
The ice samples you speak of come from the deep interior of Antarctica.
Even now there are areas in Antarctica that are completely ice free.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by Cosmic4life

I read the Polar Wander theory, however there would be evidence of a magnetic pole change.

If the magnetic pole has been more or less stationary for over 500,000 years (which it has) and if the outer crust slipped because of the centrifugal force of the disproportionate wieght of the continents over the mantle, magnetized igneous rock older than your 12,000 years would point the North and South fields at least 20 degrees in a different direction.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by AngelHeart]

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by AngelHeart

Actually the magnetic poles drift at an average of 10k per yr.
Lately this drift has sped-up to 40k per yr.
A magnetic field reversal or pole flip has not happened for over 750,000 yrs and is overdue, when this happens the field drops to near zero before flipping.
But this is not what The Path of the Pole is about (bad choice of title perhaps).
Hapgoods theory is that the crust itself moved over the mantle, hence the flood and the demise of Atlantis.
Now lets say this happened during a period of low field intensity, would that register in rocks which incidentally only get magnetized when in a lava state.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Cosmic4life]

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:06 PM
What I am saying is that there would be evidence in the magnetites having been aligned with the previous pole and new ones differing after the outer crust moved.

Take an orange, it's true north and magnetic north are about the same, slip the north part of the peel towards it's equator, leave it there for 12,000 years. Magnetites from 13,000 years ago will differ from those after the crust slip. Methods used in Paleomagnetism should corroborate the theory which it doesn't. And yes it was 750,000 years ago, excuse me.

Also a few miles is not enough to bring parts of Antarctica into a temperate zone for human habitation. Atlantis was pretty warm, no?

[edit on 20-6-2010 by AngelHeart]

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by Cosmic4life

Yes I would think so. You could imagine a build up of ice on on part and maybe ice free land on the other. With sea level 300 ft lower then it is now I assume Antarctica was also a lot bigger.

Islands have been found on maps which are now sub merged.
The idea of Atlantis is maybe off but I would not rule out a civilization. One that was at a cross road that is. This way that would explain the similarities in myth and architecture around the globe.

Slayer69 shows in his thread that there once was a land bridge all the way from India to Australia. We know we were around back then and we were already a modern man. This means we were intelligent enough to do the same as we do now and maybe even better.

I mean they did build a tower once. We were scattered apart do to our working to gether. Who knows ?

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:16 PM
OK, as much as the original poster seems to have tried to shoe horn some facts to represent the Atlantis 'theory' to gain some extra credits, it's been widely accepted now for some time that the following is actually based in fact:

1. santorini is the real place that a civilisation lived and prospered and what was what was/is now accepted as the basis for the Atlantian Society;

2. This Society was in fact, the Minoans;

3. The eruption of the volcanic crest that was (is) Santorini completely destroyed the Minoan society that was then living within the confines of Santorini that bore (bears) a remarkable resemblance to that which Plato described as the 'circular' set of islands which composed 'Atlantis';

4. The Minoans were WELL in advance of the then current standard civilisations inhabiting the Med/Aegean areas it's port(s) being a key nexus for trade routes which in many ways, made it out to be a then latter day Alexandria due to it's cosmopolitan existence;

5. The tsunami that was caused by the eruption and consequent destruction of Santorini caused most of the Minoan outposts on the other Greek/Turkish Ports to be totally obliterated wiping their presence almost overnight, off of the face of the earth. Indeed, fragments of 'Atlantian' pottery have been found many hundreds of feet within the Cretian Mountains, ample proof of the force of the ensuing Tsunami and it's devastation.

The hard, scientific evidence is now mounting up in that Plato was hearing/recording many separate accounts of the destruction of what was at the time, a truly shining civilisation that lived within a time of relative barbarisoum, rather than some super-human civilisation that could command time and space.

Sorry Guys, all the REAL evidence is out there for you to read and digest.

And for this post specifically, the Arctic??!!! Plato clearly states that Atlantis is situated in an area that has weather similar to the Med. I think that clearly puts the Arctic out of the game.

new topics
top topics
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in