Antartica

[Conspiracy]

I heared that a long time ago Ancient maps show that Antartica was free of ice im just wondering if this is a fact that it was once free of the ice and snow and was once a regular continent, but i dont remember where i heared this from so i just wanna know if it was true lol, and if it WAS free of ice and snow then one quesiton.... how did the ice and snow cover it? if it was once free then why is it now full of it? i just want answers for this topic hehe

/Conspiracy

[aquatus1]

Antartica, several million years ago, was closer to the tropical belt than it is now. It was indeed free of ice, much like anything in that area is now. As the continents moved over the planet, it gradually headed South and froze over. Now, the ancient map you are speaking of is the Piri Reis map, from the 15th century (Antartica was officially discovered in the 19th century). It is claimed to be an exact map of the Antartic coastline, sans ice. Research has found, however, that the coastline on the map and the actual coastline don't match up with any high degree of precision. While the map is considered authentic, it is thought to be of Portuguese origin and basically, is a 'best guess' by the sailors who were traveling of the Antartic coast.

[Conspiracy]

ah that explains alot thanks!

[Austin987345]

Antartica, several million years ago, was closer to the tropical belt than it is now.  It was indeed free of ice, much like anything in that area is now.  As the continents moved over the planet, it gradually headed South and froze over.  Now, the ancient map you are speaking of is the Piri Reis map, from the 15th century (Antartica was officially discovered in the 19th century).  It is claimed to be an exact map of the Antartic coastline, sans ice.  Research has found, however, that the coastline on the map and the actual coastline don't match up with any high degree of precision.  While the map is considered authentic, it is thought to be of Portuguese origin and basically, is a 'best guess' by the sailors who were traveling of the Antartic coast.

557228[/snapback]

I don't understand?? How could they have a map of the coastline if the continent wasn't discovered yet? Or was it discovered, but not "officially" until the 19th century???

[aquatus1]

You got it. Discovery tends to refer more to the first press conference.

[dmgspycat]

Actually, there was a high enough degree of the geography to suggest that they could see land...if you look at the map you will notice details ofthe coastline...if it was covered in ice then they would not have just "guessed". The map was a copy of a much older map...to suggest the map that was copied was several million years old is a little far fetched because obviosly after all of that time there would be nothing left to copy. It is suggested that portions of Antarctica were free of ice as little as 10,000 -20,000 years ago.

Also there is talk in the scientific community of a pole shift. The last one made Antarctica totaly uninhabitable. There used to be a land bridge between the tip of S.America and Antarctica before the oceans rose...similar to the one between Russia and Alaska.

[Austin987345]

There used to be a land bridge between the tip of S.America  and  Antarctica before the oceans rose...similar to the one between Russia and Alaska.

559244[/snapback]

I know of that land bridge (penguins crossed from Antartica to South America), do you know when the land bridge was around??? Probably around the same time as the one between Russia and Alaska - Bering Strait, which would be 10,000 years ago about, right? I ask because I am wondering why humans never crossed this land bridge into Antarctica. If it was around the same time as the Bering Strait though, then I'm guessing people weren't in South America yet at the time of the land bridge between Antarctica and South America. Can anyone clear that up?

Edited April 6, 2005 by Austin987345

[dmgspycat]

10000 years of glacier ice-flow would wipe away any evidence of a civilisation. Our only hope would be to stumble upon a cave deep beneath the ice...untouched by glacial scarring. If we found something deeper in the interior of Antarctica then it would mean a much older civilization then one foun d on the coast. I wonder what the electromagnetic anomaly was around lake vostok as recorded by Columbia University scientists near the S.Pole?

[Essan]

It is suggested that portions of Antarctica were free of ice as little as 10,000 -20,000 years ago.

Not by geologists or paleoclimatologists it isn't.

Also there is talk in the scientific community of a pole shift.

Not the scientific community, the unscientific community

There used to be a land bridge between the tip of S.America  and  Antarctica before the oceans rose...similar to the one between Russia and Alaska.

Antarctica broke away from S America during the Late Eocene, around 35 million years ago. There has been no landbridge between the continents since. The break, forming Drakes Passage (which curiously for such an allegedly accurate map is notable by its absence from the Piri Re'is map) allowed the Circum-Antarctic Current to form. This , in turn, led to the cooling of Antarctica and the beginnings of the Antarctic Ice Sheet which has covered much of the continent ever since.

[aquatus1]

Excellent research, Essan.

Just to clarify, The scientific community does recognize the pole shift phenomena, but the consequences of such an event are not the catastrophic, Day after Tomorrow, type of things in popular culture. Chances are pretty good that the average person who doesn't own a compass will notice nothing worse that some mild changes in expected whether.

[STIX]

yes i watched a show on this on PBS, according to the show most ancient civilizations (all over the world) are based on a cataclysmic event, oddly enough they all contain refrences to flooding. This FACT is disturbing, because once you realize that these people were no different from you or me you begin to understand what might have happened.

They talked about the map your might be reffering to and they said that recently readings we're took of the land under the ice @ antarctica and they were supprisingly similar to the map, not identicle, but supprising.

Next they said that one particular map written in the time of alexander the great, possibly by one of his captians, stated that the map was not a direct representation of the land, it was a representation of an old map which they had re-made since it was old and fading.

Then, this is what astounded me, they related the map to platos account of atlantis, showing how a depicted island on the (ummm...) northern coast? fit his descriptions and how if there was a shift in the earths crust that antarctica would be in a temperate zone, allowing many animals, lakes, rivers, mountains.

[unknown]

yes i watched a show on this on PBS, according to the show most ancient civilizations (all over the world) are based on a cataclysmic event, oddly enough they all contain refrences to flooding. This FACT is disturbing, because once you realize that these people were no different from you or me you begin to understand what might have happened.

559682[/snapback]

Yes, this is refering to poleshift. Every 12000 years or so the earth shifts, reversing it's rotations and shifting the poles, causing them to melt. If you think about noa's ark and the location of where it is/was the land there would force more water into that region in comparison to the surroundings(sry bad explanation) But you get the point.

http://alienshift.com/id1.html

[aquatus1]

The location of the poles has nothing to do with the local climate (it might affect the pattern a bit, thegeneral climate will remain the same). In as far as all the flood legends go, I think you will find with a bit of research that the only cultures with flood legends are coastal or bank dwelling civilizations. Floods are the most common natural disaster, and it is not a surprise that ancient people would use them in an Armageddon scenario, much as we use meteors in our modern day stories.

[Conspiracy]

it be nice if antartica wasnt so cold then we can go there and such more often but now we cant -.- and screw the idea of swimming cause the water there can freeze and kill someone in like 3 mins

[Essan]

Excellent research, Essan.

Just to clarify, The scientific community does recognize the pole shift phenomena, but the consequences of such an event are not the catastrophic

Of course, you're right Aquatus - I meant pole shift in the 'earth crust displacement' sense rather than magnetic pole reversals

[The Roswell Man]

is pier reis map the only one that has antartica free of ice?

[marduk]

wassat, did I hear right then, did somebody almost mention correctly a scientifically recognised phenomena in the same thread that atlantis was mentioned in.

get out

[marduk]

is pier reis map the only one that has antartica free of ice?

561366[/snapback]

theres a few, compared to millions that don't

[Essan]

There are 2 other well known maps that, supposedly, depict an ice free Antarctica. Both are different. Neither show an accurate depiction of Antarctica, with the West Antarctic Penninsular particularly notable by it's absence.

Buache map, 1737

Most probable conclusion is that it was believed there must be a southern continent, but no-one knew what it looked like so they made an educated guess. Alternatively, it's possible that these maps were based on reports of - or even maps made of - the pack ice surrounding Antarctica.

[STIX]

YAh, the second map with the island is the one they had on that show.

And they were talking about a displacement of the earths crust... possibly a consequence of a major pole shift??

Edited April 7, 2005 by STIX

[aquatus1]

Okay, seriously, get over the pole shift. All it is is a re-alignment of the magnetic field. Nothing more, nothing less. No disasters, no tsunamis, no earthquakes, nothing but a few temporal changes int he weather. There has yet to be anything like a die-off associated with a pole shift, much less any sort of catastrophic phenomena.

[Adramaleck]

Okay, seriously, get over the pole shift.  All it is is a re-alignment of the magnetic field.  Nothing more, nothing less.  No disasters, no tsunamis, no earthquakes, nothing but a few temporal changes int he weather.  There has yet to be anything like a die-off associated with a pole shift, much less any sort of catastrophic phenomena.

562111[/snapback]

Here, here!

[dmgspycat]

Okay, seriously, get over the pole shift.  All it is is a re-alignment of the magnetic field.  Nothing more, nothing less.  No disasters, no tsunamis, no earthquakes, nothing but a few temporal changes int he weather.  There has yet to be anything like a die-off associated with a pole shift, much less any sort of catastrophic phenomena.

562111[/snapback]

Well that might mean that when the poles change then what was previously a polar circle now becomes temperate. There would be an intense melting of the ice-caps...speaking of the Flood of around 10,000 years ago, something caused the ice to melt, raising the level of the oceans. Some say a pole shift...it doesn't sound like an unreasonable theory. Do you think outer edges of the continent were inhabitable within the last 30,000 years?

[aquatus1]

I'm really not sure how many different ways I can say this.

A pole shift does not, in any significant way, shape, or form, affect absolutely any of the macro systems on the planet. The poles do not now regulate any of the weather patterns, they do not regulate crustal movements, they do not govern ocean currents or tidal flows, and they will not after they flip over either. It simply isn't something they have anything to do with.

There are only two ways that I can think of that Antartica would melt would be if the continent drifted back into the temperate zone, or if the entire planet did a 90 degree flip, barring an entire planet-wide temperature rise of about a hundred degrees (In which case you'll be wishing for a flood).

Now, I'm not sure which flood you are referring to. There have been millions of floods throughout human history. In regards to the continents habitability, I suppose it is possible, however the only people who would have inhabited it would have been the tribal societies of the Patagonia region, and their sea-faring technology wasn't enough to get them from the tip of the continent to Antartica (there is a very good reason this pass was, and occasionally still is refered to as the "Sea of Fear."

[dmgspycat]

Aquatus...maybe Im just not saying this right, let me try again. What I am implying is that the axis changed somehow putting what was once a polar ice cap out into more temperate regions where it would melt at a faster rate than if it were in a polar region. Maybe the North and South poles shifted a little maybe alot...who knows. Is a pole shift or a pole reversal responsible? It is just one of many theories.Check out the name Charles Hapgood(maybe Habgood).