It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Antarctica Discovered in our Ancient Past?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Is this the proof that Antarctica was discovered in the ancient past and that an unknown advanced civilization was exploring the oceans in our ancient history.....

socyberty.com...




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
It wouldn't necessarily have to be an unknown advanced civilization that explored it. There's also evidence that the vikings had discovered North America already even earlier than that.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
our maybe our ancient past discovered in antartica...arent they driulling into some giant preserved river under the ice?
hmmm interesting
edit on 7-2-2011 by NWOnoworldorder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


Oh hell, I'm sorry, but a) there is a search function OP, and b) it's a lake called Vostok, not a river.

How can we deny ignorance when it's seemingly ubiquitous lately?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
This comes as no great surprise. I already don't trust the history we are taught. We were basically lied to (indirectly) at school.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HexagonSun
This comes as no great surprise. I already don't trust the history we are taught. We were basically lied to (indirectly) at school.


I wouldn't say indirectly. There's a number of times my classes were flat out lied to by teachers in high school, whether they knew it or not.
edit on 7-2-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


oh puuuhlease get off your high horse!

firstly river/ lake...who cares its a large body of water under the ice and secondly stop being so rude!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOnoworldorder
reply to post by aorAki
 


oh puuuhlease get off your high horse!

firstly river/ lake...who cares its a large body of water under the ice and secondly stop being so rude!


There is quite a bit of difference between a river and a lake, so I do care. It is important. If one can't get the details correct then how can one approach anything from a standpoint of validity. Just because this is the internet doesn't mean we give up our grammar, or our credulity, or exchange fact for fiction and remain unaccountable.

At this stage, from now on I will take what you say with a grain of salt.
It IS an important distinction to make. just think, for a moment, the consequences of a river flowing beneath the ice where Lake Vostok is situated.

I'm hardly being rude, or on my high horse. These are important distinctions about an important aspect of physical geography (at the least).

Regarding the Piri Reis Map. There are other threads, but I can't comment further than that at this time.
edit on 7-2-2011 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
This isn't new information and has been discussed many times on ATS. In fact, I first read about this on ATS many years ago.


Originally posted by warbird03
It wouldn't necessarily have to be an unknown advanced civilization that explored it. There's also evidence that the vikings had discovered North America already even earlier than that.


It is not evident that the vikings reached North America...it is fact. The Viking expansion, during the reign of Leif Ericsson, reached Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, there is a legend of a Welshman reaching America too. There were claims made of uncanny similarities of language between Welsh, or Briton, and Native American tribes but there have been no facts presented. Still, it's a nice legend.


Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


Oh hell, I'm sorry, but a) there is a search function OP, and b) it's a lake called Vostok, not a river.

How can we deny ignorance when it's seemingly ubiquitous lately?


Personally I think you were being obnoxious and rude. A simple "No, it is actually a lake called Vostok under the ice." would have been suffice. Really, think about your words. There is no need for such an attitude toward fellow ATSers for making a mistake in recollection in something rather insignificant when all you needed to do was politely correct them. You mention deny ignorance... you should start too.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
.


Personally I think you were being obnoxious and rude. A simple "No, it is actually a lake called Vostok under the ice." would have been suffice. Really, think about your words. There is no need for such an attitude toward fellow ATSers for making a mistake in recollection in something rather insignificant when all you needed to do was politely correct them. You mention deny ignorance... you should start too.


In my opinion, it's not an insignificant mistake. There is quite a difference between between a river and a lake, especially in such an environment,and both possibilities would have different outcomes, so it IS important.

I thought I was rather reserved, actually.
edit on 8-2-2011 by aorAki because: n



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


Woe behold those that make a gross error then. Of course there is a difference between a lake and a river. The clue is in the name. A polite correction would have been suffice instead of scathing, patrionising words. What was wrong with telling the OP this has been covered or correcting the other poster? It's a simple question. Deny ignorants....in my opinion...

How can we build a friendly community when there such mannerless, aggravated posters like yourself? THAT seems ubiquitous lately.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
There is a theory that a group of ancient sailors travelled the world and gave the natives of many countries their building ideas, ie the Egyptians and other pyramid building civilisations got their idea from these guys, and whoever built the easter island figures, and similar statues round the world also got their design plans from these ancient sailors. There are a lot of similarities between the different cultures designs. So it's not hard to believe the whole world was covered long before modern civilisation.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Funny this should be at the top of the newest threads right about now because just yesterday someone introduced me to the work of graham hancock that im sure some here are familiar with.

www.youtube.com...

This is a recording of a radio interview with Hancock. Its pretty long but definately worth a listen theres like 11 different parts but he talks about the piri reis map and how it was compiled from different maps from before the 16th century.

Whats really strange about the map is it accurately shows islands that are under the Antarctic ice! How could people in the 16th century and before possibly know about these islands???



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by chimaybliss
Is this the proof that Antarctica was discovered in the ancient past and that an unknown advanced civilization was exploring the oceans in our ancient history.....


No. It's the Piri Reis map. It doesn't even show Antarctica.

Harte



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

No. It's the Piri Reis map. It doesn't even show Antarctica.

Harte


I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out.
look at the image provided below, it is a comparison of the southern part of the piri reis and the western part of Antarctica.

The circles show parts where I believe there is correspondence, the red circle is where I think that the piri reis shows south america connected to Antarctica, maybe the people who compiled the map piri reis used to make his map thought south america and antarctica where joined from the left side of the red circle.

The Blue circle shows a group of islands in a bay next to a peninsula on the piri reis map and also a group of islands (although connected by ice) on the Antarctican map which also shows the islands in a bay next to the Antarctic Peninsula (orange arrows)



In my view whoever made the map that Admiral Piri used in his southern ocean section believed that South America Was connected to western Antarctica and Knew of islands that were encased in ice.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by roasted aliv3
 


So where does Africa fit into it?
Looking at the map I see parts of the coastlines of South America (Brazil) and Africa, but it appears you've 'conveniently' left out the African coast from your diagram.

Anyway, knock yourselves out: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 8-2-2011 by aorAki because: link

edit on 8-2-2011 by aorAki because: s



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by roasted aliv3
 


So where does Africa fit into it?
Looking at the map I see parts of the coastlines of South America (Brazil) and Africa, but it appears you've 'conveniently' left out the African coast from your diagram.


Africa is across the Atlantic ocean Im not saying I think south america and Antarctica were joined at the time the source map for piri reis's was made I think the people who made it believed they were.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I've made a thread once called Antarctica home to the legendary Atlantis ?

I concluded that the land on the Piri map you see is not Antarctica.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Antarctica Discovered in our Ancient Past? As a general idea -- Yeah, why not? (Although I'm not convinced of any specific ancient Antarctic discovery story).

There were plenty of sea-faring peoples in the past (such as the ancient Polynesians and others), so I don't find it to be unbelievable that one of these ancient sea-faring peoples came across Antarctica.

It's a big place.


edit on 2/9/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I think the reason for aorAki's answer lies in the fact that this HAS BEEN DISCUSED BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (thanks carl) OF TIMES HERE. And it is part of the "forumetiquette" to SEARCH before posting something.
And a river and a lake are two very different beasts, with different implications. (Scientifically speaking)

So, to sum up:
1) No, the Piri Reis map does not show antartica.
2) Lake Vostok is a Lake, otherwise it'd be called Vostok River.

No offense taken.

Drakus



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join