While looking for information on prehistoric antarctica, I stumbled across this:

http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/Atlantis.htm

Which is basically speculation on a strangely accurate map of the continent produced in the 1500's from even earlier sources.. I've heard about this map (chariots of the gods) but never thought too hard about it because of the so called 'alien origins'. bullshit to the core..

But the implications of rediscovering a lost civilization could be huge! Certainly, one from the southern hemisphere which has always been under-represented could tell us volumes about the development of humanity, science, religion, language etc. What I want to know is-- how thoroughly has this idea been explored? What evidence is there? Is it possible for an advanced civilization to just *dissapear*?

Dinosours (what I was ORIGINALLY looking for) have been extinct for about 65 million years and we've only discovered their existence about 150 years ago (about the developmental age that these guys supposedly dissapeared.) Could this be atlantis, lemuria, ancient sumeria? seriously :m: What are your thoughts?

Nonsense. Ice-core research shows that the ice on antactica is in excess of 150.000 years old. Wisely, the site does not show this allegedly very accurate map. Have you seen a picture of it? I have, and it could be anything. It leaves LOTS of room for interpretation. In the 19th and 20th centuries, cartographers left unexplored areas of maps white, but earlier catographers had a different tradition: They filled in unexplored areas with speculative features, coastlines, rivers, and mountain ranges, sometimes even names. This was not considered fraud at the time, it was just artistic freedom. This is the explanation of how old maps can show parts of the Antarctis, etc. And their amazing precision is a myth.

Han

Sounds like a rational explanation. But was the entire continent covered by the of the icecap for 150 000 years, or just the center? I find it harder to believe that people could even *get there* than survive in such a climate.

what about the theory that the earth is made up of rings, one inside the other and you can enteor the next ring through craters at the poles, the first satellite pictures of the poles seemed to support this theory until it was proven the black patches were actually the area of total darkness during the winter,

there is always the possibilty that these people came from an underworld and traded from antarctica

I asked you to consider seriously the possibility, gringo. This is no different than speculating on the existence of life outside of earth, or even small populations of prehistoric species still alive today:

-coelocatnth
-palamino (?) pine in east australia
-mars rock in antarctica.

In these examples sometimes right, others not. The naysayer dickheads have never been 100% right

what if the phoenicians threw people overboard, would they not swim to the nearest land(could be to the south). also, with antarctica being so close to south america there may have been a land bridge there last ice age

Nonsense. Ice-core research shows that the ice on antactica is in excess of 150.000 years old. Wisely, the site does not show this allegedly very accurate map. Have you seen a picture of it? I have, and it could be anything. It leaves LOTS of room for interpretation. In the 19th and 20th centuries, cartographers left unexplored areas of maps white, but earlier catographers had a different tradition: They filled in unexplored areas with speculative features, coastlines, rivers, and mountain ranges, sometimes even names. This was not considered fraud at the time, it was just artistic freedom. This is the explanation of how old maps can show parts of the Antarctis, etc. And their amazing precision is a myth.

Han
I believe the maps were called the Peis Reis maps, or something like that, and that they accurately showed Antartica to be three islands. It may not be too far-fetched to think that there might have been civilizations and technologies as great as ours covered in layers of time. Check some of the Hindhu stories of airships, missiles, and nuclear war - written thousands of years ago. Let our human mind stretch and search. Who knows what we might find? Just to say something is nonsense because it doesn"t sound "politically correct" (academically correct) could be construed as its own form of nonsense. :)

Antarctica has been completely ice-covered for at least the last 150,000 years - it had significant ice cover 50 million years ago (during the Miocene), once the breakup of Gondwanaland was essentially complete & the circumpolar currents had developed. Either way, the earliest dates we have for Homo sapiens are just 150,000 - 200,000 years ago, in Africa: colonising the icy continent was not going to be an option for them!

What about all them marsian rocks they found in Antarctica, meteors, just laying on the ice?

Hmm. Wonder why that is.

Maybe this "lemuria" was in, what we today call, Sahara desert. What if all the buildings are covered with sand, just like the Sphinx was when they found it. But no one would ever want to try dig up anything in Sahara. 'Nothing sounds here but the wind, and nothing moves here but the sand.'
Why is it that nothing lives there? Did a great asteroid fall there :(

it is just infertile, there is much life along the nile in what is known as the fertile cresent, but out in the desert, there is little to no water and the sand is too loose to maintain plant life, and without plants, no animals can exist

Why is it 'infertile'?

Because it doesn't rain. Strangely enough the clue is in the name. Sahara Desert You don't need any strange meteorite strikes or alien interference or lost civilisations bringing down the wrath of the gods. A simple absence of moisture will do nicely.

Vslayer, most of the desert is not sand, but pebbles and rubble and dust. Less than 25%, I think, is made up of the Hollywood style desert with rolling sand dunes.

Why doesn't it rain there?

Atmospheric circulation patterns, whose dominant effect is to carry heat from the equatorial zones to the pole, lead to a zone of high pressure at the latitude of the Sahara.

Why is the high pressure at the spot of Sahara? Because there are no plants/life? But is that an answer? No, we have just 'looped' ;)
People say that an abrupt change of climate made 'Sahara' a desert but I would say that 'abrupt change of Sahara' changed the climate!

The 'extreme' dryness of Sahara started about 5400 years ago, that is, the time of 'the great flood' in the Bible, so something happened in 'Sahara' that created the flood. Also this was the date when the pyramids were built, but the Sphinx was built around 12500 years ago.

Does anyone have a link to this map of Antartica?

Why is the high pressure at the spot of Sahara? Because there are no plants/life? But is that an answer? No, we have just 'looped' ;)
People say that an abrupt change of climate made 'Sahara' a desert but I would say that 'abrupt change of Sahara' changed the climate!

The 'extreme' dryness of Sahara started about 5400 years ago, that is, the time of 'the great flood' in the Bible, so something happened in 'Sahara' that created the flood. Also this was the date when the pyramids were built, but the Sphinx was built around 12500 years ago.
Yorda, I wondered how many 'simple' answers to your loaded questions I would have to give before you posted your agenda. You cracked earlier than I predicted.
If you want a discussion on this then let me know, specifically, which aspects of established meterological and climatalogical thiinking you consider to be faulty.

Maybe the high pressure cracked Yorda, like it did with Sahara. I don't know much about the meteorlogical and climatological thinking, all I know is that there are four winds and they make the weather. I'm still sure there was a great civilization and nephilim in Sahara before the whole place dematerialized :)

You may well be correct (about the civilisation), but does it not verge on the presumptuous to suggest as evidence matters about which you disarmingly confess almost total ignorance?
Would it not be more effective to present concrete evidence, or at least a little more substance as to the nature of your thinking on the matter.

Does anyone have a link to this map of Antartica?

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Blown up:

http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/engr321/preis/pirimap3.jpg

You may well be correct (about the civilisation), but does it not verge on the presumptuous to suggest as evidence matters about which you disarmingly confess almost total ignorance?
Would it not be more effective to present concrete evidence, or at least a little more substance as to the nature of your thinking on the matter.

I have no evidence for it, I just know it - but I don't know how I know it either. You see, there's no need for more evidence, because I am the evidence. You can just think about something, and you'll find the truth, it's so simple.

I have no evidence for it, I just know it - but I don't know how I know it either. You see, there's no need for more evidence, because I am the evidence. You can just think about something, and you'll find the truth, it's so simple.
Ah, I understand. A leader without followers. Bon voyage.

About the Piri Reïs map, some people (http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/data/art/LUNDE01.ART) have their feets firm on the ground.

There may, in fact, be an even simpler explanation of the presence of "Antarctica" on the Piri Reis map. To start with, as Hapgood admits, about 900 miles of South American coastline are missing from the map: below the Rio de la Plata the coast simply turns eastward. And, interestingly, if this eastward section of coast is looked at vertically--that is, as continuing south instead of east--it does bear a remarkable resemblance to the actual east coast of South America from below Rio de la Plata down to Tierra del Fuego. Some of the smaller coastal features, moreover, jibe with a modern map as well, and the small group of three islands (Isla de Sara) could then be identified as the Falkland Islands, and the wedge-shaped projection at the most easterly point of the line could correspond to the tip of South America.

To put it more simply, Piri Reis, or the scribe who copied his work, may have realized, as he came to the Rio de la Plata, that he was going to run off the edge of his valuable parchment if he continued south. So he did the logical thing and turned
the coastline to the east, marking the turn with a semicircle of crenelations, so that he could fit the entire coastline on his page. If that was the case, then the elaborate Hapgood hypotheses--or at least those elements based entirely on the Piri Reis map--would have no foundation whatever.

Which does not mean that some mysteries may remain.