What's under Antarctica?

Further up on the postings, someone mentioned why there isn't any "civilization" in Australia... I would have to guess it's because Australia wasn't as near as South America, Africa or India.

As those three land masses contain an extending point to the Antarctic, there would have been a larger/ higher bridge (the ice was gathering further north, drawing the world's waters to it). I would guess that Australia was probably a bit closer to the Asian continent than it is now.

But let's not forget that the South Pacific islands have their fair share of cultural oddities.

Interesting to note that the bisecting submarine canyon between the two continental halves of Antarctica is in fact real... Yet shown in the Piri Ries map...


The continent of Antarctica is divided into two large geologic areas -- East

and West Antarctica. East Antarctica is the large bean-shaped land mass

centered on 90 degrees east longitude. West Antarctica is the area centered

on 90 degrees west longitude and includes the Antarctic Peninsula, Marie

Byrd Lane, and the area east and north of the Transantarctic Mountains.

Because of the thick ice sheet, geologic details are not possible to obtain

for all of Antarctica, an area the size of the United States and Mexico

combined. For the purposes of this module an overview will suffice.


www.globalclassroom.org...

Just a thought but In one of the other forums I thought I saw a map of atlantis being in the mid atlantic region. What if antarctica is this this piece of land that moved out of the atlantic and down to the south pole where we see it now. Maybe this lost continent has been right under our noses the whole time and we haven't found it because its under all that ice.

Heres a link to the Atlantis map in the Atlantic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just drill a hole in the ice... grab some cable and send down a swimming camera to go snoop around.

...

...

lol

As crazy as this may seem I will tell the story that I read a year ago...

A pilot had apperantly flown over the piece of ice and found a "whole" type thing. He said that he flew in and found a civilization living under the ice. He said that the people there aged slowly. And their skind was WHITE..really white.. He also mentioned that a European scientist that was thought to have died in the turn of the century was there living.

I have looked over the net to find the source of this story and the guy who wrote it...I couldn't find anything...

I remeber looking for unsolved mysteries and civilizations and going through many of the results of the search engine I found that story...

I can't find it anymore...

Originally posted by TejanoRey
As crazy as this may seem I will tell the story that I read a year ago...

A pilot had apperantly flown over the piece of ice and found a "whole" type thing. He said that he flew in and found a civilization living under the ice. He said that the people there aged slowly. And their skind was WHITE..really white.. He also mentioned that a European scientist that was thought to have died in the turn of the century was there living.

I have looked over the net to find the source of this story and the guy who wrote it...I couldn't find anything...

I remeber looking for unsolved mysteries and civilizations and going through many of the results of the search engine I found that story...

I can't find it anymore...

You are referring to the flight of admiral Byrd.
I would take that with a grain of salt as it was laced with white supremist garbage including claiming that he was comforted to see a craft with a swastica on it.
It was nazi propaganda if you ask me. the signs are clear if you look.

Originally posted by j619pinoy

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

www.viewzone.com...

Crazy #!

Originally posted by TejanoRey
As crazy as this may seem I will tell the story that I read a year ago...

A pilot had apperantly flown over the piece of ice and found a "whole" type thing. He said that he flew in and found a civilization living under the ice. He said that the people there aged slowly. And their skind was WHITE..really white.. He also mentioned that a European scientist that was thought to have died in the turn of the century was there living.

I have looked over the net to find the source of this story and the guy who wrote it...I couldn't find anything...

I remeber looking for unsolved mysteries and civilizations and going through many of the results of the search engine I found that story...

I can't find it anymore... You are referring to the flight of admiral Byrd.
I would take that with a grain of salt as it was laced with white supremist garbage including claiming that he was comforted to see a craft with a swastica on it.
It was nazi propaganda if you ask me. the signs are clear if you look.

Do you have the link to the story ..

or

anything I can read...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fixed quote

[edit on 6/12/06 by masqua]

www.newscientist.com...

Interesting new development. For those of you with access to the subscription areas, the read is intensified.

There is a 'c' in Antartic...ANTARCTIC



Sorry...just grates on my nerves when people try to be intelligent and they can't even spell or pronounce the name of the place they are discussing.

Didn't really read this whole thing, but a couple things:

1. Clive Cussler, in his fiction novel "Atlantis" had Antarctica as the location for the lost continent . . .

2. I've seen that map of Antartica without the ice and supposedly scientists have said it's an accurate depiction of what the continent would look like, and the only way for it to have been drawn would have been when there was no ice . . . certainly a mystery.

The fourth, never completed Temple of Creation had to rise there but when antartica froze over, our ancestors couldn't proceed ahed their goal.


[edit on 6-12-2006 by L3X]

The fourth, never completed Temple of Creation had to rise there but when antartica froze over, our ancestors couldn't proceed ahed their goal.

if you knew anything about mtdna migration studies you'd know that at no time in our hsitory did any species of human live in antartica
it froze over millions of years ago which is before our race even evolved on this planet
and I'd really love to know where the first second and third temples of creation are supposedly located
I don't recall anyone mentioning thyem lately
are they also all hidden under the ice
or at the bottom of the ocean somewhere
please provide a link to your diatribe
cheers

There is no proof that the Earth is nearly that old, because carbon dating becomes irrelevant once you go far enough back, as any student of the elements could tell you.

As well, you cite the "theory" of evolution as proof that no one could have lived in Antarctica. I don't think it's the best practice to use theories that are based on a relatively small amount of evidence to rule out other theories.

If indeed Antarctica was a part of Pangea and then drifted south, it is very conceivable that at one time men lived there. There have been ancient fossils discovered indicating that it once had a semi-tropical climate. People are fond of saying that the first humans were from Africa, yet Antarctica was at one time joined to Africa, before the cataclysm.

There is no proof that the Earth is nearly that old, because carbon dating becomes irrelevant once you go far enough back, as any student of the elements could tell you.

actually the proof is overwhelming
www.talkorigins.org...
and any student of geology would tell you that Carbon dating is only possible with organic objects and not rocks

As well, you cite the "theory" of evolution as proof that no one could have lived in Antarctica. I don't think it's the best practice to use theories that are based on a relatively small amount of evidence to rule out other theories.

the theory of evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence that proves that its valid
en.wikipedia.org...
the other theories that you chose not to mention have no proof whatsoever

If indeed Antarctica was a part of Pangea and then drifted south, it is very conceivable that at one time men lived there. There have been ancient fossils discovered indicating that it once had a semi-tropical climate. People are fond of saying that the first humans were from Africa, yet Antarctica was at one time joined to Africa, before the cataclysm.

Pangea broke up over 200 million years ago
geology.com...
homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) has been on earth for 100,000 years
homo sapiens archaic evolved 250,000 years ago
do the math

I never mentioned rocks at all. I said "elements". Organic materials are made up of the same elements.

Human evolution is still a theory, regardless of how much evidence is manipulated into being. "Theories" are not a valid basis for refuting other theories. I don't completely refute the theory of human evolution because, though I certainly have another theory which I believe to be true, I don't have irrefutable proof. However, as the theory of human evolution doesn't have irrefutable proof either, I wouldn't use it to discredit any theory, in general.

Actually, you don't know when Pangea broke up. A timeline cannot be established based on current continental drift rates, because that doesn't allow for rapid shifting that almost certainly happened in a great cataclysm. Your Atlantis conspiratists and Great Flood advocates will like that idea. Many cultures have tales of fleeing from a great cataclysm involving flooding, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. This is precisely the kind of thing that would have happened had something caused Pangea to suddenly break apart and drift at a high rate of speed, drastically faster than what we experience today, to the point that it caused volcanoes, earthquakes, and tidal waves all over the planet.

I'm not really saying that you're wrong about anything you say, regardless of what I think, I'm merely pointing out that you're not necessarily right, either.

If the antarctic was not a frozen waste land at any point when humans where exploring and moving around on earth, it would be more surprising to NOT find evidence of ancient people there under the ice than it would be to actually find it.

The real question is weather they are a lost advanced society or not compared to later peoples of earth.

I think there is no doubt that humans where there at some point if we existed at a time when it was habitable.

X

.

I never mentioned rocks at all. I said "elements". Organic materials are made up of the same elements.

heres what you said

There is no proof that the Earth is nearly that old, because carbon dating becomes irrelevant once you go far enough back, as any student of the elements could tell you.

you claimed that carbon dating would be irrelevant when used to date the earth
thats completely right its totally irrelevant and no one who understoof it would make a silly claim like that

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years).
and there is no such thing as a student of the elements, you made that up because you haven't heard of a student of geology obviously
trying to talk your way out of an earlier incorrect statement by making even more invalid claims is not permitted you know

Human evolution is still a theory, regardless of how much evidence is manipulated into being. "Theories" are not a valid basis for refuting other theories. I don't completely refute the theory of human evolution because, though I certainly have another theory which I believe to be true, I don't have irrefutable proof. However, as the theory of human evolution doesn't have irrefutable proof either, I wouldn't use it to discredit any theory, in general.

human evolution is a proven theory
so whats your other theory
please share it all with us and of course the valid evidence that proves it a theory and not a wild unproven hypothesis

Actually, you don't know when Pangea broke up. A timeline cannot be established based on current continental drift rates, because that doesn't allow for rapid shifting that almost certainly happened in a great cataclysm. Your Atlantis conspiratists and Great Flood advocates will like that idea. Many cultures have tales of fleeing from a great cataclysm involving flooding, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.

continents move at a set rate
they don't speed up to account for lost continents such as Atlantis which is described as sinking beneath teh sea 11,500 years ago.
no culture has a tale of fleeing from a great cataclysm involving flooding, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.
if you think they do then perhaps you could name them

This is precisely the kind of thing that would have happened had something caused Pangea to suddenly break apart and drift at a high rate of speed, drastically faster than what we experience today, to the point that it caused volcanoes, earthquakes, and tidal waves all over the planet.

see if you can find something out about a science called G-E-O-L-O-G-Y
I think if you studied it a little you would not be amazed at how little you already know of the subject

I'm not really saying that you're wrong about anything you say, regardless of what I think, I'm merely pointing out that you're not necessarily right, either.

thats exactly what you are saying
you made a series of unqualified statements that were obviously wrong and when i provided credible links to sites that proved they were wrong you disagreed
based on what knowledge I'd like to knowwhat is it that makes you think that you know more than the thousands upon thousands of qualifed people who have actually studied these subjects which give us the information about the formation of the earth and human evolution
who have you been reading ?
Hancock or Sitchin Or Blavatsky ?
perhaps Edgar Cayce was your mentor ?

seriously
who have you been reading I think you owe us all that much of an explanation at least that way you won't be held accountable for your own ignorance

Xeven

I think there is no doubt that humans where there at some point if we existed at a time when it was habitable.

I agree
humanity has occupied every continent that was habitable in the time that we have been here
unfortunately in the time that we have been here the Antartic has not been habitable
so the doubt is extremely tangible

I didn't read all of your post; clearly you have much more free time than I do to sit around and argue with people on the Internet.

However, "proven theory" is an oxymoron. If it was proven, it wouldn't be a theory.


EDIT: Plenty of cultures have tales of fleeing from a cataclysm involving flooding and volcanoes. It'd be easier to name some that don't, actually.

[edit on 12/7/2006 by southern_cross3]

My Avitar is one of those cultures that had flooding, volcanoes and earthquakes involved in their catacalysm.

Can you identify the culture by the style of clothing in the stone-freize?

[edit on 8-12-2006 by lostinspace]