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.

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 .

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

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.

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...

READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL!

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.