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

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.

ah that explains alot thanks!

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???

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

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.

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?

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?

Not by geologists or paleoclimatologists it isn't.



Not the scientific community, the unscientific community



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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

theres a few, compared to millions that don't

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.

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??

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.

Here, here!

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?

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."

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).

Yes, pole shifts happen regularly about every 100,000 years, which makes us about 40,000 years overdue for one. Pole shifts are strictly magnetic in nature and no evidence has ever been found correlating any of them to any sort of natural disasters or die-offs

Now, for the axis of the Earth to shift (which is what I was getting at with the "Earth tipped over 90 degrees" thing), that would take a force on a galactic scale. Think of the spinning Earth like a gyroscope. If it wobbles, it self-corrects (it is doing so now, as a matter of fact, from the earthquake that caused the Tsunami several months back). To cause the axis of spin to change, you literally have to physically push it over. This would take a massive amount of force, which would leave a corresponding massive amount of evidence on the Earth. And the effects would be catastrophic to say the least. You would find global chaos, both geologically, ecologically, and especially biologically. We are talking about a near extinction event. Such a thing is not subtle at all. There is no evidence that the planet has ever gone through any significant deviation in axis degree, and nothing that we know of that has the physical power to cause it that isn't measured on the planetary scale.

i thought pole shift is the same as magnetic shift which happens evry 650000 years?

Well, the ice around Antarctica did start melting around 10,000 years ago when there was a rapid rise in temperature.......before then it was even colder than today!

Hapgood's theory has been readily disproven by modern geological knowledge.

Simple fact is that Antarctica has been a frozen waste for millions of years.

Worth noting that there have been slight changes in the Earth's axial tilt and orbit around the sun though - these being contributory factors in the expanse and contraction of the Northern Hemisphere Ice Sheets (ie Ice Ages)

Check out the Milankovitch Cycles

Hey all, check this out...

From:http://www.geocities.com/sunkenciv/antarctica.html
Was Antarctica Atlantis?
The first email I received that was apparently due to these pages was from Rand Flem-Ath, coauthor of When The Sky Fell - In Search of Atlantis, a significant recent book. Although I don't agree with the idea that Antarctica was once Atlantis, the anomalous conventional assumptions (e.g., ice-free zones in the Arctic during the supposed Ice Ages) cited in the work of the Flem-Aths trouble any reasonable person who looks at prehistoric or allegedly prehistoric times, regardless of their view on Atlantis. Obviously the authors spent a lot of time and effort to research and write the book, and I have nothing but respect for them. Nevertheless, I feel the need to contribute something to the debate, and so have visited the Flem-Ath website for a second and more detailed look.

Atlantis Rising is a magazine published both in hardcopy and at least partially on the web. It has a discussion of When the Sky Fell. Here's a quote from that article:
"A 1665 map by Jesuit scholar Athenasius Kircher, copied from much older sources, seemed to have placed Atlantis in the north Atlantic but strangely, had put north at the bottom of the page apparently forcing study upside down. The 1513 Piri Ri'is map, also copied from much more ancient sources, demonstrated that an ice age civilization had sufficient geographic knowledge to accurately map Antarctica's coast as it existed beneath an ice cap many millennia old (as pointed out by Charles Hapgood in Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings: Evidence of Advanced Civilization in the Ice Age). What seemed obvious to Flem-Ath was that both maps depicted the same land mass."
This didn't make much sense to me, so it seemed wise to find out what the Flem-Aths wrote about it:
"Kircher believed that this ancient Egyptian map represented Atlantis as an island in the North Atlantic Ocean between Spain and Africa on our right and America on the left. But what if Kircher got it wrong? What if the limited geographic knowledge that he had at his disposal caused him to locate Atlantis in the wrong place? Let's imagine that we have just excavated this ancient Egyptian map from beneath the paws of the Sphinx. It our task to discover how it fits into our planet's geography. If we remove Kircher's labels and symbols we can see more clearly what he must have had at hand in 1665."
Conventional scholars think he got the whole thing wrong, but that's not the problem I have with this. The two dialogues of Plato are the most ancient written records we have of the Atlantis legend. To place Atlantis in Antarctica because Kircher and Plato may have got it wrong is no different than placing Atlantis on Santorin in the Aegean or in Anatolia, and downdating it 8,100 years. Plato quite clearly described the location as just outside the straits of Gibraltar, quite clearly referred to the Americas as encircling the Atlantean island, quite clearly described the lesser islands that lay between the island (not continent) of Atlantis and the encircling continent, and literally referred to the shifting of celestial bodies as being the cause of its rapid destruction as well as the worldwide catastrophes that blotted out almost all record of the events.

What this Kircher map suggests to me is that his Atlantean continent was in the northern Atlantic Ocean. He drew it this way because of what Plato wrote, and if indeed it was inspired by or derived from an ancient Egyptian map, it is not surprising that north is at the bottom. In ancient times the Egyptians lived in the Nile Basin. Even modern Egyptians for the most part still do. Upper Egypt was in the south, and if Egyptians truly made maps, the south would have been at the top.

By the time Kircher made his map, the Americas had been discovered, and Antarctica was known as a region filled with ice. Hunters out for seal and whale spent time in those waters and charted a few islands known today, and some which appear to have vanished (or more disturbing, may have been nothing but large chunks of floating dirty ice that appeared to be islands). The Kircher map puts Atlantis in the place as recorded by Plato, but puts the north pole elsewhere. If the Flem-Aths conclude that this makes Antarctica and Atlantis the same place, this is difficult to accept as a coherent hypothesis - an apparent shift in the axis (via the shift of the crust of the Earth over a supposedly stable mantle) wouldn't change the positions of the continents relative to each other.

While I have no a priori quarrel with the possibility that there may be the remains of very ancient human or hominid settlements in Antarctica (even Homo Erectus built structures and perhaps villages), the idea of an Antarctic location for Atlantis is to me indefensible. It's arbitrary to place it there, it isn't suggested in the ancient sources for the story, and even the medieval sources cited by the Flem-Aths don't put it there. The idea is entirely that of the Flem-Aths.

That said, if this idea or for that matter any other leads to digs on that continent, I'm all for it. A hypothetical culture that traversed the Earth and left enigmatic ruins both on dry land and on the continental shelf could have left its traces anywhere, but the best places to find them undisturbed are places that have no apparent record of human habitation. Humans strip stones from abandoned structures, even grand ones. Over a few centuries whole cities can disappear. Usually the best preserved ruins are those that get covered up by continuous human activity or by natural disaster.

Had Antarctica been ice-free 12,000 years ago, the ice would have to have been somewhere else, otherwise the oceans would have been higher. This is seemingly in the Flem-Aths' favor. Objections that isostatic rebound (actually the opposite) would put Antarctica at even higher altitudes must be mitigated by the possibility of a higher sealevel. If there had been a pole shift, the rise in sealevel would have been less, but not by much, since the western part of Antarctica would still not be particularly balmy even in the Flem-Aths' scenario.

But in the meantime, there would be a shift from landlocked ice to cold thaw runoff, until such time that the polar icecap was able to reaccumulate, so that the actual sealevel would be difficult to determine. The fact that during the glaciations the worldwide sealevels declined by hundreds of feet, makes it obvious that Antarctica's continental shelf would have been at least somewhat exposed. In the case of the Bering Strait in the Arctic, the sea floor is now covered by 800 feet of water. It's not unlikely that a peopling (or repeopling) of the Americas from Scandinavia, southern Africa, and Siberia took place at that time. All other things being equal, it's always warmer at lower altitudes. Watch for my page on glaciation for more discussion of this.

In the meantime, note that the actual significance is that during the most recent glaciation -- which coincides with the era given for Atlantis by Plato -- plenty of other land was available that is now submerged, and we don't need to rely on an unattested pole shift to account for it. Just what caused the glaciation will be discussed on that future page.

Attempts to put unique catastrophes into nice, neat, predictable, periodic intervals is just more uniformitarianism. The pole shift hypothesis is really a crust shift hypothesis - i.e., every time the ice caps get a certain size their weight makes the globe wobble. To relieve this problem the crust gets dragged along with the overburden of ice to a position nearer to the equator, the ice then melts, and areas that may have been warm and populated get dragged to the polar regions. Over time the new poles accumulate icecaps until this shift occurs again. Other than that, the life of the Earth has been steady and uniform.

Neither the pole shift hypothesis, much less the Atlantis-in-Antarctica idea, has credibility to the uniformitarian, because the Antarctic ice sheet is believed to be at least two million years old. But catastrophes are not in fact uniform. Uniformity in geological processes is just a doctrine. It is on the way out, and can't save this pole shift idea. One difficulty for conventional scholars is in the existence of centuries-old maps of Antarctica, older than its presumed discovery. In the view of the current writer, this is a limitation of the low opinion of the navigational abilities of precolumbian and other ancient cultures.

There is an online paper, On The Possibility of Very Rapid Shifts of the Poles by Flavio Barbiero. The agency given for the hypothetical shift is a meteoritic impact, although the inspiration for the paper was the work of Charles Hapgood, so pole shift advocates should find this to be of great interest. Worldwide catastrophes have extraterrestrial causes, because only extraterrestrial causes have sufficient energy and worldwide coverage. "It was Hapgood himself who underlined the enormous amount of evidence proving the high speed at which the shift of the poles appears to have happened; speed which the mechanism he proposes is unable to explain." Of course, the Earth's apparent pole shift would have been simpler before it had a Moon.

The magnetic pole shifts, supposedly over long periods, but until recently no efforts were made to study it closely. The first of the next two links is probably long gone, the other came from another online buddy and is recent (as of Friday, June 7, 2002).
Researchers Find Evidence of Polar Waffling
[U]nder certain circumstances the planet's magnetic field can become so deranged that it moves as much as 6 degrees per day, wobbling around for a week or so before stabilizing, scientists report in the April 20 issue of Nature. Such drastic changes are beyond the limits of conventional geological opinion. But R.S. Coe of the University of California at Santa Cruz and colleagues from the University of Montpelier in France contend they took place 16.2 million years ago, during one of Earth's occasional field reversals in which magnetic north becomes south, and vice versa. No one knows why, just as no one understands exactly what produces the field in the first place.
North Magnetic Pole could be leaving Canada
by Richard Stenger
wandering magnetic pole image
The magnetic pole, which has steadily drifted for decades, has picked up its pace in recent years and could exit Canadian territory as soon as 2004, said Larry Newitt of the Geological Survey of Canada. If the pole follows its present course, it will pass north of Alaska and arrive in Siberia in a half century, but Newitt cautioned that such predictions could prove wrong. The erratic pole can jump around considerably each day, but migrates on average about 10 kilometers to 40 kilometers each year. Friend of navigators for centuries, beckoning compass needles from virtually every point on the planet, the North Magnetic Pole is distinct from the North Terrestrial Pole, the fixed point that marks the axis of the turning planet. The magnetic pole is currently 966 kilometers (600 miles) from the geographic one. Because the magnetic pole lies in the Arctic Ocean, scientists attempting to pinpoint its precise location must visit during a brief window in the spring. The North Magnetic Pole historically is resurveyed about once every decade. But Newitt and colleagues, who last studied the site in 2001, might attempt another trek in 2003 to investigate further its accelerated migration.
There is no known relationship between the magnetic pole and the rotational axis. There's no consensus model for the cause of the Earth's magnetic field. There's good evidence that the magnetic field has increased in intensity and basically reversed during the past 3,000 years, and the idea that the Earth's core is solid iron has recently been questioned. In any case, this magnetic pole shift has nothing to do with the Flem-Aths' scenario.

The Flem-Ath thesis was a valiant effort but ultimately a failure. The complete lack of ancient maps is one big problem. The possible lack of an ice cover on the Antarctica shown in the old maps cited by Hapgood and the Flem-Aths could mean that the ice sheet is not two million years old, or it could mean that the rough outline shown corresponds to the rough coastline created by the ice and mapped during eras in which worldwide navigation is not yet recognized by scholarly consensus.

Thanks for visiting.
http://www.geocities.com/sunkenciv/antarctica.html

I think that the "wobble" you refer to is called "precession" ? I think it takes about 72 years for the wobble to come full circle...a neat book that mentions this is Graham Hancock's " Fingerprints of the Gods"...he is the same author that wrote about the ark of the covenant...hes not a kook, he is really a good researcher. I had a question for you Aquatus...how much did the December earthquake affect the planets "wobble"...do you have a link? I'm just curious...thanks.

Good site, thanks for the info.

very interesting things to hear from you people, maybe there is a hidden thing under antartica, guess we wont know till we excavate into it to see

Well, precession is a natural consequence of rotational force, and it is often referred to as a 'wobble' (what a curious word, that one), but I was more refering to the wobble caused by an external force hitting an inertially balanced object, like a gyroscope. I will have to look up a source for the Earthquake, however, if memory serves, Natural Geographic Journal stated in the March edition that the Earth was wobbling to the tune of 3 millimeters a month. That source could be incorect though, so don't quote me on it.

I thought you was a little off but not as much as this. www.fourmilab.ch/

[quote=dmgspycat,Apr 8 2005, 04:40 PM]
[quote=aquatus1,Apr 8 2005, 12:32 AM]..a neat book that mentions this is Graham Hancock's " Fingerprints of the Gods"...he is the same author that wrote about the ark of the covenant...hes not a kook, he is really a good researcher. [right][snapback]563305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I beg to differ
graham hancock is just as much a kook as the grand negus is

[quote=marduk,Apr 8 2005, 10:14 PM]
[quote=dmgspycat,Apr 8 2005, 04:40 PM]
[quote=aquatus1,Apr 8 2005, 12:32 AM]..a neat book that mentions this is Graham Hancock's " Fingerprints of the Gods"...he is the same author that wrote about the ark of the covenant...hes not a kook, he is really a good researcher. [right][snapback]563305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I beg to differ
graham hancock is just as much a kook as the grand negus is
[right][snapback]564158[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Explain.

Hmm? I thought it's around 12,000 years? According to the zodiac-age cycle that is......(scratches head)

Dictionary :kook (kūk)
n. Slang.
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.

kook

kookier

kookiest

NOVA

Exactly...this is what I believe based on what I've read. I don't think Essan or aquatus are correct when they say certain branches of the science community say all this happened millions of years ago...and there was no civilisation ever except maybe primitive Patagonians...maybe.
I see the maps as you do STIX, as something representative of an older culture...not all of them but the Reis map, that one was a remake of an older one. The geography on the map was very similar to the coastline of present day Antarctica, aquatus thinks it was just a lucky guess?
Some people are forgetting that all of these old cities met thier demise by a flood around the same time frame...10,000 b.c. Mummies found in caves under 200ft. of water in Florida springs...carbon date 10,000b.c. Mammoths died around the whole Siberian circle which used to be a summertime feeding ground. We are talking about over 3000 miles worth of mammoths dying with flowers and grasses still undigested in thier stomachs... all around 10,000 b.c. You dont have to be a scientist to see a connection here...a great cataclysim happened, worldwide. There was also mentioned an old norse tale of the sky falling...exactly what it would look like if the earth changed in its axis. So heres the way I see it...oceans were lower. Siberian peninsula was much more temperate meaning the north pole was probably located closer to what is now Montana or at least within 700 miles...why? Because if mammoths fed on temperate regions there is no way they would have died in mass feeding in a polar region...it only became polar AFTER the cataclysm. Remember the carbon dating on them , around 10,000 years b.c. So if there was a shift in earths axis this would account for massive flooding from what was previously a polar cap, why the siberian peninsula became more colder. And why cities around the world are being discovered under 40-70ft. of ocean. So yes I have a problem when scientists say Antarctica was frozen for millions of years because they don't address these other issues ...they glossed right over them w/o an explanation.
So aquatus and essan...I'm waiting for your reply as to why...if the earth is in a warming trend, why or how did the siberian peninsula go from a steppe, where animals fed in the summer, to a cold and barren wasteland. I say pole shift...what do you say? Don't forget the carbon dating I mentioned...or the fact that they died in mass with food still undigested in thier stomachs.

No...explain what they said that you have a problem with. I know what a kook is but answer the question so we can all decide whether it is you that's a kook.

Graham hancock believed that Mahalipuram dated to 10,000bce. It has since been proved beyond any doubt that it didn't. It was a corner stone of grahams big theory. Which is wrong.

Zechariah Sitchin believes that the gods were from a rogue planet with a 3600 year eliptical orbit called nibiru. He claimed 30 years ago that nibiru would be back in the year 2000. It wasn't. So Zech just revised his date and his fans are now expecting the return of the gods in 2068. That is wrong

Erich von daniken is a saint. everything he ever said has been proved erroneous at best and fallacious at worst. But he is the grandaddy of alternative archaeology.
But I challenge you to find a single sane person who's heard of him that doesn't say he's a kook

See ?

Yet people believe what these people say because they write it in a book.
They don't bother to check the facts themselves
I call that crazy
If you think thats ok then you too are a kook
stands to reason right ?

marduk sets u straight again...

Well he asked

I didn't even know about the other two and I have never even quoted them or would never even support such an outlandish and speculative assumption about "planet nibiru".
Graham Hancock other theories do not revolve around Mahalipuram, I know because I have his book. He brings to light ancient cultures and lays down evidence of thier connections and the timeframe of thier demise based on world events that happened and sometimes he does speculate but don't scientists do that too? And they are just as wrong sometimes. I don't know how you jumped from Graham to these other two bozos but I read Fingerprints of the Gods and I don't remember any of his theories in that book relying on these other two guys.
So you haven't proved to me Graham is a kook, you have proved that Grahams theory clashes with what you believe. These other two you mention are kooks but I never mentioned them anyway. Thanks for the reply.

You seem to be remarkebly uninformed about Graham Hancock in that case
Everything he says is speculation. He is a prime exmple of an author who twists the facts to fit his theories rather than basing a theory on the actual facts.
Grahams big idea is that the ancients were around in 13,000 and at a high tech level because the sphinx was dated to that period by someone he knows.
That person has since revised his data and given a significantly younger date.
Of course by that time graham had his first book out basd on his new theory.
He thinks the sphinx was carved as a lion because the age of leo ended in 13,000 bce
Rather than it being shaped like a lion for a more rational reason.
Lions in the ancient world were guardians of knowledge so to carve a lion is to say "i am smart"
Thats why he makes claims for underwater ruins existing in 10,000bce.
He didi that at mahailpuram and shortly afetr the tsunami his theory was proven fallacious. He responded to this by saying that he felt remorse for the people he met who had died and pushed his book underworld at the same time.
The official toll of dead at mahalipuram was 4. So he thinks its ok to get a few sales by saying how sorry he was to hear about the tragedy. You think that makes him not a kook.
really ?
I could give you a list of the other factual errors he has made in his books
But it would take me hours and hours.
Graham recently admitted taking unlicensed psycocreative drugs.
It shows

Ok marduk why don't you take a stab at the question I posed to essan and aquatus on page 3? I am curious for an explanation.

PS- sorry about the order of precession being wrong at 72 years , it is around 22,500 years. I seem to forget what the 72 years reffered to astonomically.

ok your question on page three as far as i know appears to be asking the question of what happened in 10,000bce.
Firstly the florida mummies dated from 5000bce.
secondly there is no evidence for mass extinctions of mummies around the siberian circle.Most of the frozen mammoths found date from 26,000 - 40,000 years old.

You're lucky that Essan didn't answer this question because he would have blown you out of the water. Three times now i have heard his retort to people who claim things about mammoths. He's the expert there.


Most of your evidence sounds like it comes from earth crust displacement theory arguments.
You need to check your facts I'm afraid as you seem to have based a theory on facts that are wrong at best and adapted to fit your theory at worst.
Seems like you have been reading too much hancock

The only thing of interest that happened in 10,000bce was the date

His book is 565 pages long filled with bibliographed sources and references...it is not a cult book referring to alien contact but a book about earths lost civilisations...lost due to a flood or earth crust displacement. His resourced insights into other cultures history is remarkably interesting and his chapter on "the Machinery of Heaven" , Ch. 28 dealing with earths precessional cycles is no kooks theory.
He states that the earth gradually shifts through all 12 houses of the zodiac spending 2160 years in each sign making a complete circuit in25,920 years...the sun on the vernal eqinox, rose against the stellar background of the constellation of Leo from 10,970-8,810 BC. Today we are at the end of the age of Pisces and entering the constellation of Aquarius. 25,920 refers to precession, 72 years refers to the equnoctal sun to migrate just one degree along the ecliptic.
He doesn't sound like a kook to me...he sounds like an intelligent person using solid astronomy to try and figure out the background and demise of ancient civilisations. Buy the book and read it before you become a critic of it and in the future stay on topic and don't bring in other randoms like those two bozos you mentioned earlier. Yes Graham Hancock speculates...that is ok...so do scientists. Doesn't make his book any less interesting. You say he used recreational drugs? You are pretty low to use that against him...more than 1/3 of the US has smoked pot...a hallucinogen...stay on topic and stop defaming people based on thier personal lives. He never claimed to be a saint you know. So what does it matter anyway? Do you even have the book? So how can you dismiss everything else in it if you haven't personally read it?