Antarctica - once a tropical paradise - video

[ancientd]

Julian

I assume you are talking about the U tube introduction . The DVD runs for 52 mins and unless you know something I dont cannot be downloaded and has to bought off MIKAMAR at the thunderbolts website or off http://www.ancientdstructions.com.
However you are right the forests are fossilized( which means a cataclysmic event) see the movie.Also remember the scope of the 2 maps travels well inland showing rivers and mountain ranges Also when they dig down they have discovered that 30 percent of the bottom of the ICE CORE is meltwater reconstituted .In other words worhless data ( see the video ).This site is also well inland on a plateau and so you might be pushing to discover vegetation on a mountain range . Also check the topograhy without ice in the video. Much of the continent ( unlike Greenland ) was a series of islands . My opinion, really drawn from Anthony Peratt, is that Antarctica was the center of a vast plasma discharge event.This means fossilization and destruction not freezing as in Greenland,Siberia etc. He concludes this from the orientation of the worlds petroglyphs which when programmed in 3D show the origin of the discharge as Antarctica. ( Google Anthony Peratt and the paper from the IEEE) If short of a quid Ill send you one gratis if you give me an address .
all the best
Peter Mungo Jupp

[Julian Braggins]

Peter, thanks for the information , yes it was just the intro, I shouldn't judge a book by its cover, although these days by the time you see the trailers of a film you know the plot and most of the best bits!

That is the first time I have heard that the lower third of the ice cores is frozen melt-water, , very interesting.

I do recall the evidence from petroglyphs in TPOD a few years back and other indications from Worlds in Collision that point to four(?) plasma streams across the skies that went N/S and were dramatic enough to record for posterity, and a body in the polar southern skies.

Your kind offer is appreciated, but on this subject mine is just an idle curiosity and am quite happy to accept Anthony Perrat over any mainstream doctrine. My main interest now is alternative medicine, particularly cancer cures with which I am conducting a personal experiment with seeming success

[Aveo9]

^ Good luck with the personal experiment

There are some topographic maps out there of what Antarctica would probably look like without ice, which I've got here for anyone interested:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... gure-title
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H6XW_a4TYus/S ... ce+map.bmp
http://jonbowermaster.com/blog/wp-conte ... drock2.jpg

Although you have to bear in mind a couple of things when looking at them:
1) The continent would sit a bit higher with the weight of the ice removed, and so an ice-free Antarctica wouldn't be quite as submerged as what's shown in these maps.
2) The sea-level and/or height of the continents was probably different in the days that the ancient maps were drawn, and the coastline shown in them is probably much closer to the continental slope than the current coast-line. ie. even with all the ice removed the ancient coastline would still be well out under the sea

[ancientd]

Aveo9. You raise an interesting topic ISOTASY e.g. land sinks with the weight of ice. To me this is yet another theory that I find a bit dubious. A bit like GONDWANALAND . I think land probably rises and falls quite independently if ice weight. Similarly water levels.Such has been the case with the BLACK SEA and many other areas of the world quite independantly of shore level changes. I believe Lake Van in Turkey has changed it;s levels dramatically as has the sea of Azov.

Any thoughts anyone ???
all the best Peter Mungo Jupp

[starbiter]

Hola ancientd: If the Earth stopped rotating as Dr Velikovsky suspected, the equatorial waters would rush poleward. The equatorial landmass might sink. If the equatorial landmass sinks, areas predisposed to rising might rise. Peru seems to be the most obvious example. See Earth in Upheaval for details.

http://www.fulldls.com/torrent-ebooks-1837301.html Got this from a Google search, hope it's cool. Always good to buy the book!


Anyway, for every action, etc. etc.

[moses]

Such has been the case with the BLACK SEA and many other areas of the world quite independantly of shore level changes. I believe Lake Van in Turkey has changed it;s levels dramatically as has the sea of Azov.

Any thoughts anyone ???
all the best Peter Mungo Jupp
Well I think that change of land or sea levels only strongly supports the case that putting a lot of ice on top of some land would make it sink. Simply because the evidence suggests that the land is quite moveable up and down.
Mo

[reka]

The reason there was no ice nor was it cold, the earth was not in the same position as it is today. It was not tilted 23.5 deg, which means there were no SEASONS. The year was 360 days, that is why the circle is divided into 360 degrees. There are no accidents.
Also the earth was positioned farther from the sun, between Mars and Jupiter.
The earth traveled to the position it is today because of the additional water it received from the moon.

[ancientd]

Re ice weight pushing land masses up and down or ISOTAY. One objection to this not well thought out theory is that as it oushes down it must therefore ( if indeed it happens) push out the other side of the earth sphere which since it is diametrically opposed on the other side of the world seems unlikely.It is of equal weight to the this opposing pressure. To me this seems illogicalWhy do mountain ranges such as the Himalayas contain evidence of once being much lower and indeed seem to have risen in modern times? No I need more convincing on ISOTASY

[moses]

Re ice weight pushing land masses up and down or ISOTAY. One objection to this not well thought out theory is that as it oushes down it must therefore ( if indeed it happens) push out the other side of the earth sphere which since it is diametrically opposed on the other side of the world seems unlikely.It is of equal weight to the this opposing pressure. To me this seems illogicalWhy do mountain ranges such as the Himalayas contain evidence of once being much lower and indeed seem to have risen in modern times? No I need more convincing on ISOTASY
ancientd
If you make a ball of mud and then put a lead weight on this ball, then the weight will sink into the mud. The mud on the other(down) side of the ball will be unaffected whereas the mud next to the weight gets shifted somewhat. Take the weight away and the hole may begin to fill in and actually rise somewhat as the mud returns to the region below the hole where there was more pressure that squeezed water out, and so now can let water return and thus expand.

What raised the Himalayas. I say it was due to another planet coming close to Earth. One would then expect the Himalayas to be dropping, but the inrushing underneath land might have built up a momentum, or other factors are involved. But whatever raised the mountains, it was not isostasy.
Mo

[Julian Braggins]

Re Post by reka » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:37 am

I can go along with the idea of the no inclination, or seasons, and the 360 day year that fits early historical records, not sure about the date, about 4500BP as I recall. The big problem is the 800,000 years of ice core records which have distinct isotope annual deposits. If there was a civilization that long ago that explored Antarctica, it's a bit of a stretch to think records survived.

The only solution that I can think of is that the interior didn't melt, and that temperatures were warm enough for a large ice free coastal strip as per Greenland in the MWP. Even a possibility that the undersea volcanoes of the South Sandwich Islands were active then, and the ones near the Western Peninsula more active than now, warming the polar current.

The fossil forests must have been millions of years ago, when the whole continent was ice free, being in another position relative to the pole.

[vatek1]

[quote="Julian Braggins"]Re Post by reka » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:37 am

I can go along with the idea of the no inclination, or seasons, and the 360 day year that fits early historical records, not sure about the date, about 4500BP as I recall.The big problem is the 800,000 years of ice core records which have distinct isotope annual deposits. If there was a civilization that long ago that explored Antarctica, it's a bit of a stretch to think records survived.

Could you cite where you are getting the 800000 year figure from, please? Dr. Paul LaViolette has done Ice Core Studies in Greenland and he has considerably different dates of the Ice Core samples in Greenland. His studies state closer to 15 to 16 K years dates for his Ice core samples. That is a huge difference of dating. Thanks in advance!

(reason for edit, reread of LaViolette's data)

His oldest core samples stated approximate dates of oldest core samples to be 30K years, but questioned reliability of current dating methods, due to compression and deformation of the samples. Reliability of his samples ranged ~ 25K years to present. His studies were derived for the observation of evidence of Gamma Ray bursts or cyclic Galactic waves hitting the Earth. From his study, he arrived at a conclusion that the Earth has had significant Galactic waves on a cyclic recurrance of ~ 5 to 6 K years and a prominent event at ~ 13K years ago. Which would be at the last cycle that the Solar system passed through the Galactic equator....i.e. the supposed Dec, 2012 event about to occur. Whether you buy into his Galactic Wave bombardment is up to the reader. But this does tie to EU theory and Polar Flip. If a huge Galactic Wave or Galactic wind struck the Earth with significant Proton V, would this pulse or Wave be significant of a Shock to cause a Pole Flip? Or the other theory of Pole flip may be worth examining.

If the Earth(solar system) Magnetic Field alignment matches the Galactic field alignment..i.e. North polarity alignment in the Galaxy currently matches Earths North Polarity Alignment. Lets say for this discussion it is up direction. As the Earth passes to the other side of the Galactic Equator then would there be a realignment of the Earths and Solar systems Magnetic Fields as the Predominant polarity of the Magnetic Field would begin to predominantly be more of a South Polarity of Magnetic Field alignment and progressively grow stronger as the planets move further down or South in reference to the Galactic Equator or Plane. Hence the predicted or theorized magnetic Polar flip would occur, not dramatically but a gradual flip. First to 90' then eventually in 6000 years 180 degree change in the Earths Poles. Thought I would just throw that out there for the EE's to contemplate.

regards,
Forrest

[Julian Braggins]

Hi Vatek1,
Greenland and Antarctica cores are very different, as you can see from the Wiki page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

as you can see the ~3200mtrs core from EPICA Dome C goes back to 800K years. Magnetic pole reversals do not result in physical pole reversals, only a close encounter with a similar size planetary body would have the energy to do that.
Have you come across the http://iceagenow.com/ website? Felix there has a book on magnetic reversals and its effect on climate over the ages.
There are maps that show the magnetic stripes of the mid ocean rock intrusions that show the stripes of reversals, I think the present view is they change about every 50Kyrs.

It is interesting that drilling in the Canadian arctic have come up with fresh vegetable matter and parts of palm fronds, something mighty strange must have happened very quickly! Sorry, didn't save that ref. but I'll have a look for it. When one Greenland core reached the ground there were vegetable traces and pollen too.

[nick c]

How reliable is ice core dating?
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... s/ice.html

[Julian Braggins]

Hmmm, not very, when you look at the arguments put forward.Zbigniew Jarowoski has some very authentic criticisms of ice core reliability although I don't remember him querying the 'annual' bands as a means of dating.

In my search for reliable references for frozen vegetation in ice cores the ones available gave no source, and those in papers were behind a paywall, but there was one anecdotal statement about frozen Mammoths that brings up a new dimension to the catastrophe that caused their deep freeze. A refrigeration engineer said that an Elk, shot dead and left for five days in minus 20°F only froze for 6 inches from the outside, the core, from body heat, had started to rot.

His estimation, that for an animal the size of a mammoth to be frozen throughout the temperature would have to be in the minus 300°F region. And it seems that enough autopsies have been done on them to say they died of 'suffocation'.

Absence of air, temperature close to that of outer space, what could cause that? Something far larger than the mid air explosion of the1908 Tungusta event, but similar, as it seems sphericules of similar matter that peppered some of the mammoths were found below the 1908 event. All the air must have been blasted away for hundreds if not thousands of miles because if not the returning air would have been heated by compression and undone the freezing. It probably returned as a snow storm that changed the climate almost to the present.

The fact that both events occurred in Siberia seems a bit of a coincidence, perhaps the 1908 event was caused by a remnant of that enormous blast, on a multi-thousand year orbit.

[mharratsc]

Sort of a side note- a bit of confusion regarding the bringing of mammoths into this discussion: why *only* mammoths? Where are the other animals, and early humans also caught in these catastrophes? And just what the heck were the mammoths eating in this stark, frozen tundra, anyway? o.O