What's under Antarctica?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Fry2
Maybe because you don't know the difference between antarctica and the north pole?

Sigh Fry, you need to keep up! I stated that they used to live in the north pole, but they were run out by the purple polar bears. Man, enlightening the public is hard work

posted on Aug, 8 2003 @ 11:23 PM
I think that rocks are under antartica.

posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by FreeMason
In fact it's dumber than the flat earthers because anyone can tell how long it takes to pile up 9000 feet of ice, however it is hard to tell at human height that the world is round.

How can you be so sure when we're still just 'guessing' approximatly the age of our planet? Why couldn't the ice have melted and refrozed a hundred times before OUR civilisation emerged?

posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 01:54 AM
Taking the age of a glacier or "ice sheet" is the same as taking the age of a tree.

You take a core sample and you can monitor the growth over the years.

The growth of Antarctica's ice is some...2 inches a year I think. Can't look it up at the moment.

That is...like over the entire surface area, thousands of tons of Ice move in Ice rivers from the center to the bays of Antarctica where they break off and float away as those gigantic Ice Burgs...some the size of nebraska.

Antarctica has an ice sheet 9,000 feet thick.

Far too thick to be created in 15,000 years, which would mean .... ok in order to build an Ice Sheet 9000 feet thick in 15,000 years you'd have to have 7.2 inches a year, which is more than the current precipitation values, and that's ignoring how much ice you're losing to evaporation and to the ice sheets melting during the summer.

There's no way that that Ice Sheet could logically have built up within just the last 15,000 years, which at the least blows the theory in this thread out of the water.

It could take far less time than 30,000,000 to be made, but the ice sheet has been found to exist there for over 30,000,000 years...the ice's weight is so vast that it has literally sunk the continental shelf so that it is about 1000 feet below the surrounding techtonics.

Which makes it impossible for some "technology" to be on the ground under the ice.

posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 01:58 AM
At the current rate of growth, we'll say that's averaged for all the years as it has been growing, because there is less moisture in the cold air there now than there was say 50thousand years ago.

But at a constant rate of 2 inches per year it would take 53,000 years to build up, providing none of the ice was lost any during that year.

I think I'm over-estimating the 2 inches of precipitation per year, and I must note that's precipitation, I said some places "Ice growth" but no, that's just how much snow (really it's ice crystals...) fall per year.

posted on Aug, 9 2003 @ 02:05 AM
Ok sorry, for some misinformation. I finally found a good source I've been going off the top of my head...but here it is.

First off the continental shelf is not 1000 feet below the surounding techtonics, it is an average of 1300 feet deep, which is 3 times deeper than other continental shelfs.

The Earth's Crust is depressed 3000 feet by the weight of the ice.

And at Vostok Station a 12,000 foot core sample was taken, which recorded over 420,000 years of climate data.

So the Ice on Antarctica, is at least as old as humans. Let alone civilization.

posted on Aug, 10 2003 @ 01:36 AM
I think Santa Claus lives here... That's why noones found him on the North pole... because he's down South in the warmer coldest spot in the world...

But seriously... I never really have thought about what might be under there...

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 06:04 PM
Sorry Freemason you are wrong the age of the ice sheet is somewhat irrelevent anyway about 20,000 years ago the theory goes a shift in the earths crust r-posistioned the landmass of antartica from its place around the 40th parallel to its current location. The science to back it up is actually at the North pole where geological records (something to do with the arangment of magnetic particals in cooling rocks) shows that the PHYSICAL north pole was at one time around the Hudson bay. This is not the magnetic pole but the physical pole itself. The crushing of the plates could be due to the sudden surge of the ice sheet over the landmass of Antartica. Read a book by Charlse Hapgood called the "path of the poles" Pay close attention to the forward By a man who supported the theory his name is ALBERT EINSTEIN Sorry chief but I place a little more weight in ALBERTS thoughts than yours!!!

[Edited on 26-8-2003 by GRENADIER]

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 06:11 PM

1. You are talking to ghosts, unless FreeMason has become possessed of another entity on the Board. He is the most oft-banned member of ATS, although that title has come into a phase of heavy competition.

2. According to my reading of the most legitimate historical sources (particularly Messrs Lieber & Adams, during the mid 1960s) it is the Savage Land that can be found under Antarctica.

I caught up with an old friend recently who just spent 12 months on the ice. Very interesting stories indeed.

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 06:18 PM

BTW Santa used to live in the North Pole, but they had to move - the polar bears that turned purple developed an unhealthy hunger for Elf flesh

Those polar bears that started chowing down on elves soon became the delacasy of choice for thier former prey. Dont by the hype, the reason purple polar bears no longer exist is because the Elves ate them into extinction.

Ans Santa Claus is dead,. thats why your parents have to dress up like him, because he was kileld in an Elf revolt, hung, and fed to the polar bears and timber wolves for his crimes against the elfkind.

Read up on your history first!

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 06:20 PM
Although this story is nice and tidy, the fact that Antartica is so far away from Mesopotamia makes it fanciful.

If people were fleeing Antartica then they could settle in a heck of a lot nicer places well before arriving there, such as Australia, Africa, South America... etc.

As Australia is closest and very old, there should be indications of civilization from a very old age, there isn't any.

The only indication of old civilizations are some rock paintings, hardly overwhelming evidence, no structures, or mysterieous ruins at all. heck there STILL isn't a civilization there

Originally posted by j619pinoy
I thought this was interesting.


"First, that the Flood was a real event around 13,000 years ago. Secondly that a culture survived and built the Pyramids, Sphinx and so on. And thirdly, that there is a missing link between 11000-4000 BC, where we cannot fully identify where this culture was based. That is where Antarctica comes in, because it was ice-free during this period. Then, around 4000 BC, when Antarctica froze over, we suddenly find signs of cultural transfer to other parts of the globe - to Mesopotamia, where the Sumerian civilisation began; to the tin mines of the Zagros Mountains; and to Tiahuanacu in Bolivia, which was almost certainly a centre for the production of bronze."

There is allegedly an ancient of Antarctica that shows the continent before it was covered in ice....


posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 06:28 PM
Here is a bit more credible information regarding the Piri Reis Map...

The Piri Reis Map, which is a genuine document, not a hoax of any kind, was made at Constantinople in 1513 CE. It focuses on the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. Piri Reis could not have acquired his information on this latter region from contemporary explorers because Antarctica remained undiscovered until 1818 CE, more than 300 years after he drew the map. The ice-free coast of Queen Maud Land shown in the map is a colossal puzzle because the geological evidence confirms that the very latest date that it could have been surveyed and charted in an ice-free condition is 4000 BCE. It is not possible to pinpoint the earliest date that such a task could have been accomplished, but it seems that the Queen Maud Land littoral may have remained in a stable, unglaciated condition for at least 9,000 years before the spreading ice-cap swallowed it entirely. There is no civilization known to history that had the capacity or need to survey that coastline in the relevant period, i.e. between 13,000 BCE and 4000 BCE.

In other words, the true enigma of this 1513 map is not so much its inclusion of a continent that was not discovered until 1818 but rather its portrayal of part of the coastline of that continent under ice-free conditions that came to an end 6,000 years ago and that have not since recurred.


posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 06:36 PM

White believes the Piri Reis Map (a Renaissance map found by Charles Hapgood in the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS in 1959) and a map drawn by Oronteus Finaeus in 1532 are not accurate maps of an ice-free Antarctica.

Modern subglacial topographic maps indicate the ancient maps are not exact renditions of what actually lies beneath Antarctica's ice, nor do they account for what the subglacial topography of Antarctica would actually look like if massive amounts of ice and snow were removed and the land rebounded from the weight (isostatic rebound):

Antarctica would be raised as much as 3,100 feet in the interior and 160 feet along the coasts. Thus, while both of these maps may have been efforts to guess at what the land mass of Antarctica looked like, neither was drawn by someone who actually saw an ice-free Antarctica.

Some researchers believe that the maps are based on observations of early Portuguese sailers who may have discovered Antarctica before 1513.

The Piri Reis map even contains comments that strongly suggest it drew at least part of its inspiration from early, possibly secret, Portuguese records.

If these maps are, indeed, based on Portuguese voyages, then the idea that Antarctica was mapped by ancient, technologically advanced civilizations (from earth or elsewhere) is also effectively discounted.

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Netchicken

Modern subglacial topographic maps indicate the ancient maps are not exact renditions of what actually lies beneath Antarctica's ice, nor do they account for what the subglacial topography of Antarctica would actually look like if massive amounts of ice and snow were removed and the land rebounded from the weight (isostatic rebound):

Antarctica would be raised as much as 3,100 feet in the interior and 160 feet along the coasts. Thus, while both of these maps may have been efforts to guess at what the land mass of Antarctica looked like, neither was drawn by someone who actually saw an ice-free Antarctica.

Your point about Isostatic Rebound is well taken, and accurate: If Antarctica DID NOT have 2-5 km of ice on it, it would indeed "rebound" and uplift several kilometers, as you state.

However, I would point out that our modern topographic maps do NOT show this uplift (because there is 2-5 km of ice on top of it), because it was mapped (most extensively using phased array radar), and the provided data looks strikingly like the Piri Reis map...

In other words, Piri Reis may well have been mapped while there was 2-5 km of ice on Antarctica... but it was done so with a technology that was able to map UNDER the ice...

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 07:05 PM

From what I have read stories about the map twist it to fit the theories that the writers hold. There are heaps of articles here, of which only 2 I quote that show that the claim the map is a sign of advanced technology is just a farce.


read this article on how the map has been distorted

The accuracy that the Piri Reis Map has results from his "source maps" being reconstructed with the
assumption that original source maps were accurate and any errors in it came from copying and compilation. Thus, any errors in the Piri Reis map were eliminated by fitting the Piri Reis to modern maps and accounting for the misfits by adjusting the boundaries and separate grids of his hypothesized and unproven "source maps".

Second, the Piri Reis Map lacks any topographic contours. If contours are lacking on the Piri Reis Map, the topographic data needed to compare the topography shown by the 1949 seismic
data with the topography of the Piri Reis Map on a scientific basis are completely lacking.

Without this data, the claims of
Lt. Colonel Ohlmeyer and Dr. Hapgood are nothing more personal opinions, certainly not proof, that cannot be scientifically tested.

Finally, the single seismic line, i.e. the seismic profile of the Norwegian-British Swedish Expedition of 1949, is insufficient evidence to determine if the subglacial bedrock topography of
Antarctica resembles the Piri Reis map.

The problem is that the comparison is being made along one essentially randomly chosen line. Neither Lt. Colonel Ohlmeyer, Dr. Hapgood, nor the 8th Reconnaissance Technical Squadron could know whether the topography outside of this line, a good 99.9 percent of the area resembled the Piri Reis map because they lacked any other data in addition to the seismic profile.

Even the map of the bedrock geology of Antarctica compiled in 1972, Heezen
et al. (1972) shows that even by that date the bedrock topography lying beneath Queen Maud Land was largely unmapped and unknown. Thus, even in 1961, because of insufficient
information, it would have been impossible for anybody to make any positive claims about whether the Piri Reis Map and the subglacial topography shows any resemblance.

.. heaps more...


For 1513, this map shows an astonishing amount of detail. The notes on the map explain that the map was synthesized from about 20 maps, many of which were captured from Spanish and Portuguese ships in the Mediterranean. It was also supplemented by accounts given by captured Spanish and Portuguese sailors.

Not a map from some ancient Atlantean civilization, not a map created by extraterrestrials, but a first class piece of naval intelligence. Considering that it was created by a sailor whose country never participated in the age of exploration, and that it's drawn wholly from second-hand sources, it's an astonishing piece of work. It seems to contain up-to-the-minute details derived from enemy maps, many of which would have been tightly-guarded secrets.

There's a class of crank that hates the idea that other people might have real accomplishments, because they never accomplish anything themselves.

So Shakespeare didn't write his plays, other people did; Robert Peary didn't reach the North Pole as he claimed, and so on. And Piri Reis wasn't a gifted admiral and good intelligence analyst, but had to get help from ancient lost documents. Get a life, folks.

[Edited on 27-8-2003 by Netchicken]

posted on Aug, 26 2003 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Abraham Virtue
Ever think that the whole of Earth might have once been the Atlantis we know???

You mean sort of like a whole earth encompassing empire?

posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 12:49 PM
With regards to the Ice Age and Great Deluge, here are my opinions concerning Antartica.

In order to have as severe an Ice Age as historians expect, there would first have to have been a large amount of water or moisture in the air... the ice just couldn't happen by itself, it needed a source. Wether or not the world has a more humid place or the sea levels were higher, the earth as a whole had to be a much warmer place to live.

Something had to happen to effect that ecology; a comet strike creating a "nuclear winter", an axis shift, something had to wreck the natural balance to turn the earth from a warmer epoch into something colder to generate that much ice creation.

*the reason I mention the Great Deluge is because of the extra water/ moisture needed for the ice was already here... possible connection to the Flood*

Anyway, since people were already here when the Ice Age started, and were rather wide-spread, why not have a society on the Antartic? Taking into consideration continental drift and the whole Pangea concept, the Antartic was origionally along the equator... since the tip of South America and Antartica was a land bridge similiar to the Siberian/ Alaskan connection? If life forms were able to cross from Siberia to the Americas via this route, why not a seperate incusion into the Antartic?

It would nieve of us to assume that because the Antartic is a cold, desolate place that it has always been so. Magnetic fields in certian rock layers show that the poles have shifted. American Indian stories and East Indian tales account for the sun staying in one place for days on end, the sun changing directions, and eventually rising and setting in the opposite directions. And, again, in order for an Ice Age, there must have been a readily available source of water.

So. If the Ice Age is within human history, and the sun/ poles shifting within recorded human history, wouldn't it be possible that Antartica became frozen well within the time span of human existance?

Couldn't it be possible that there is, within the Antartic, human remains or settlements? They don't need to be primative... Egypt, and Incas, even the Indus valley, all had seperate civilized human growth. Considering the whole continental drift theory, is it any coincidence that the Antartic was central to the other civilization "hot spots"?

Granted, the drifting started much earlier than the appearance of man, yet again look at the modern world. The island of Madagasgar and Aulstralia had their own unique and individual ecosystems, with animals and plant life found only in those isolated areas. Maybe, perhaps, humanity rose in the Antartic, and spread out... reaching the tips or bridges of South America and India.

With the Antartic drifting further south, the warm ecology of the earth changing, the water and moisture gathering at the poles... I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there was indeed something spectacular within that frozen wasteland.

posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 07:12 PM
There have been several forum topics started from this. I wil try to summate:
there is more interest than should be about the wettest desert in the world. (antartica is a desert, very little precipitation falls there)
Raytheon is doing a lot of research on what it below the ice. Ratheon usually is associated with big money ventures tied to the government/military complex.
It would be easy to drill thru the ice and even make large open spaces for underground research
It is one of the suspected places for ancient knowledge/civilization ie. Atlantis.
Geophysical studies have shown that its climate could change rather suddenly (on a geological time scale) based on its location on the continental plates.
I think this was also the location of an ancient antennae that a submarine discovered on the sea floor (side sonar image).
For Some reason Raytheon projects replaced several previous independant research projects going on at the poles...
There has been a lot of unusual illness on the research sites.(i don't know how much is normal)

there are many more strange connections that all seem to come from reliable sources...(staff and subcontactors)
again i think the evidence of calculated dis-information (stories of Nazi alien battles) lends to something being hidden there.

posted on Oct, 5 2003 @ 07:22 PM
whats under the antartic? a little land but mostly freezing ass cold water!

posted on Oct, 6 2003 @ 02:06 PM
It makes a lot of sense and actually acts like a central hub for the lost civilizations.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in