Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Antarctica home to the legendary Atlantis ?

page: 4
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Only I thought they still thought Antarctica has not been Ice free for at least 250.000 years.


well, according to ice cores, drilled from various sites all over Antarctica, it has been covered in ice for at least 800 thousand years!

even though the glaciations have been quite varied, over all this time, it was never warm enough to melt the ice at the poles.

which is a good thing, i think.

i think Atlantis was truly in the southern Atlantic ocean but now is under the sea except for some unrecognized ruins of what might have been the outermost settlements in the circular-shaped civilization - i just put my ideas into words a few days ago. look down below in my signature and click on "Atlantis and the Slippery Lithosphere" if you want more information.

i will read the rest of your thread now, and the link about Lemuria?
before i say any more.

P
E
A
C
E




posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
The one thing that is very clear is that pole shifts have not happened in 200Ma. There is a controversial claim for a pole shift 84Ma. Those shifts took millions of years to complete.

The expanding earth theory is old and long ago disputed by real science.

Is everyone aware that Plato and Solon were 200 years apart? Plato has a character in a story telling a story of Solon hearing a story in Alexandria.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Hi folks

The picture in the link from the 2005 thread was was this one :




It looks as the ice sheet around the continent.
The OP from the other thread talks about the low sea level which would make it land
Any ideas ?

Because I don't have any on this one.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


It would make it ice covered land.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


The sources posted say it were once ice free in the not so distant past.

I'm not in the position myself but I did not see anyone proof the sources lie.
That would not be so difficult if that is the case.

So...

For all those big shot "We know it all" people. Please proof the sources wrong ?
Until then I will keep speculating further. My imagination has an endless supply of speculative thoughts. :p



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Ice core samples are collected by scientists for a reason. I thought that reason was, to get a glimpse of the history of the Earth's climate as far back as possible. Right ?

Obviously this makes them get their samples from places where the Ice sheet is as thick as possible. Don't you think ?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Dear Sinter Klaus-
I see we have some common theories!! I too, have studied the "Peiri Reis" maps, and some of the other source material.
I have my globe, mounted up-side-down. From THAT perspective, the is ONE Ocean- the WORLD OCEAN. From Ground-Penetrating Radar, the ACTUAL SURFACE of Antartica, looks very much like the Greek/Egyptian descriptions, of that ancient, "fabled" land.
I have often wondered why only the major powers, ALL have research stations, there- and why it is almost impossible, for a "civillian", to go there- and NEVER without being part of a supervised group.
YES- I understand the physical difficulties- I am a scientist. I ALMOST spent a year there, 25 years ago, at a research station. If I had not been so young, and missing my family, I would have gone.
I am also a beleiver, in "crustal shifting", as a chaotic extinction tool. Given that, I would love to spread Carbon Black, over the continent of Antartica. THAT, would quickly melt the ice (100-200 years?). Then, we could see what is there. And, answer some important questions, about OUR history. Of course, it would flood the coastal cities. They WILL flood, at SOME point, anyway. THAT is how the geological weather works. Humans have such a TINY vision of time. I want to know, what was going-on on this planet, 12,000 years ago??? Besides- getting-rid of places like NYC & LA, would be a nice start, in cleaning-up the planet!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Ice core samples are collected by scientists for a reason. I thought that reason was, to get a glimpse of the history of the Earth's climate as far back as possible. Right ?

Obviously this makes them get their samples from places where the Ice sheet is as thick as possible. Don't you think ?



EXCELLENT POINT!!!! Of course, the actual moutain-top glaciers, have been there, a very, very, long time! It is the VALLEYS, that I'm interested in!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Patriotgal
 


Hi

25 years
at that time I was about 2 years old.

I see pyramids everywhere lately and flood stories around the globe.
A flood that covers the whole Earth seems impossible to me. Unless the Earth was significantly smaller of course.

The first civilizations had to start somewhere instead of popping up just like that.
The similarities lead me to think there was a common origin, impossible according to some.
Antarctica is in a geological position to reach both the new and the old world and is even now not totally covered in ice. The sources I found say it has been ice free. They do not claim that the entire continent was ice free. A piece the size of the Netherlands is enough, as long as they can grow food every year. The Inuit only eat fish for a long time.

Scientists keep coming with new discoveries. Neanderthal man was not so stupid after all kind of things. Modern man is also walking the Earth since long before the first civilizations are documented. There is no reason whatsoever to think they could not form an unknown civilization as they were just as intelligent as we are now.

Major docks in South America and Africa will not exist if they escaped a cataclysmic event. They wanted to survive and would have settled where they thought this would make survival most likely. Maybe in Egypt, Sumeria, Quetzalcoatl or something.

The thing is... We only know what we found in the ground. Everything else is speculation. I believe there is still a lot of circumstantial evidence that proofs speculation is going to stay for a long time.



200 years how do you plan to see the results



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


yes, but it is pretty thick all over the continent and they've got at least a dozen sites from which they take their cores.

when they talk about it being ice-free in recent (relatively speaking) times, i'm pretty sure they are referring to the ice shelves and not the ice covering the mainland.

that last image you posted illustrates what i mean - with the ice shelves intact, all around the continent, it appears to be land and of a much larger area with a different contour to the shoreline.

and so once again, the ice shelves are disappearing. but they might reform very soon after they've disappeared - it seems that is the pattern, from what you've shared with us as well as what i have read about, on my own.

since the ice shelves rest on the water and not the land, they are much more vulnerable to changing temperatures and consequent meltdowns and major calving of super-huge icebergs.

water melts ice fast, even freezing temperature water, since the melting and freezing temperature is the same. on land, there is a much colder and more stable temperature underneath the ice - land that has been frozen for millions of years stays very very cold all the time, especially covered with such thick ice!

check this table out, on thickness statistics of the ice sheet down there.

so......when the ice shelves are gone, or nearly gone, it is much easier to determine the true shoreline, when making maps.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
here is a map showing the locations of the ice core sampling sites.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Well that map rules out future use of the ice core drillings as proof Antarctica was covered in Ice completely. It does proof that we simply don't know.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


There are places in Antarctica that are relatively ice and snow free. These are the Antarctic deserts.
Antarctic deserts
McMurdo Dry Valleys

What is clear though is that Antarctica is cold and there is no evidence for anyone having lived there in ancient times. Even today it is a challenge for people to provide any sort of a base to stay there.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


The first civilizations were in warm climates such as the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Antarctica has been cold and an impossible agricultural place for hundreds of thousands of years if not millions of years. It's hardly in a good position to get between the New and Old world. Icebergs are a constant threat as are storms. It is much better to sail the warmer oceans where the trade winds get you going in the right direction.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Well that map rules out future use of the ice core drillings as proof Antarctica was covered in Ice completely. It does proof that we simply don't know.

Thank you.


exactly!

we have no true idea except how DEEP the ice is...but that doesn't serve as an invariable benchmark. and if it is used to measure somehow, and proves to be inaccurate, then everything else is inaccurate, too, in relation.

what a mess!

i do *feel* in my gut, though, that the ice has been there for a good long time.

remember, too, that the antarctic is actually the biggest desert on the planet which means that the snow that is there was hard-won and took even longer to pile up than it might appear.

to be considered a desert, an area must receive less than 10 inches of precipitation in a year. it is dryer on the interior of the continent but even at the coasts, it only gets about 8 inches a year. the interior actually averages 1 - 2 inches LESS than the Sahara!

so, considering it is a desert but yet holds such a large percentage of the world's fresh water in its icy mantle, a long time span is required just for the accumulation, at



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I see.

No evidence means it never happened.

Makes sense to me.

reply to queenannie38
 


The Sahara has not always been a desert you know.
There is evidence that shows it was a green heaven during man's existence.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 
Hiya QA. Don't underestimate the intelligence and dastardly ways of Antarctic science! The continent has been subjected to a battery of tests and analyses. Radar, satellite imaging, ice cores and all manner of techno-babble processes have provided a fairly accurate assessment of ice shelf depth. How else do they know of the existence of sub-glacial lakes?


During the 1999-2000 Italian Expedition, an airborne radar survey was performed along 12 transects across Lake Vostok, Antarctica, and its western and eastern margins. Ice thickness, subglacial elevation and the precise location of lake boundaries were determined. Radar data confirm the geometry derived from previous surveys, but with some slight differences. We measured a length of up to 260 km, a maximum width of 81km and an area of roughly 14 000 km2. Along the major axis, from north to south, the ice thickness varies from 3800 to 4250 m, with a decreasing gradient.

From west to east the ice thickness is fairly constant, except for two narrow strips located on the western and eastern margins, where it increases with high thickening rate.
Airborne radar survey above Vostok region, east-central Antarctica: ice thickness and Lake Vostok geometry



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I see.

So no evidence means it did happen.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by stereologist]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


There is a difference. I do not claim anything happened.
I found sources who make it plausible and speculate.

I read a lot of your posts and I see you dismiss theories and ideas. Which is great of course. I notice you ask for proof but you do not provide proof when asked for.

Personally I would appreciate if you did.

To me it looks you deny something when there is no evidence because there is none.
However you could be the most open minded guy out there and you happen to know a lot.

Please the majority of people does not share your knowledge so please share what you have ?



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
was watching a show on the science channel that showed how antartica looks underneath all that ice and I have to say that the first thing that came to mind was Atlantis.

Looks like the Nazis got it right after all.





new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join