Antarctica is now the coldest place on Earth. The Katabatic winds howl around Antarctica’s gale thrashed coast. But once its green valley’s were filled with thriving Glossopteris Pine and Beach forests. How do we know this? “Scott of the Antarctic” was the first to discover telltale fossils on the Beardmore Glacier in 1912. Since then petrified tree stumps and leaves; bones of dinosaurs and marsupials; and fossil rich coal has been discovered in the now hostile environment.
According to classic geology, this previous lush environment thrived millions of years ago in the Permian age. The shifting Antarctic continent, inexorably plodding at millimetres per year, gradually moved into icy hibernation. The flora and fauna were iced over and slowly fossilized, just as in Greenland!
But wait! This formation of a three kilometre thick ice sheet is no meagre feat. Antarctica contains ninety percent of the world’s ice, yet some of Antarctica’s valleys are the driest places on earth. Antarctica is technically considered a desert. Incredibly little snow falls in the interior (five centimetres per year rain equivalent) where the ice sheet is considerably thicker. Katabatic snow storms occur only on the coast where there is thinner ice. Is this a contradiction? Nevertheless, classic Geologists argue that, eons of time can explain away these ice sheet anomalies.
Curiously, ice core studies contradict the millions of years of ice cover necessary to fit the continental drift paradigm. For instance, the Vostok ice core station asserts that the continent’s average three kilometre deep ice sheet is only around 250,000 years old. How can this be? The ice sheet should indicate millions of densely layered ice rings if the slow continental drift theory from tropics to cold is correct. Surely the ice sheet would be significantly thicker where a slowly drifting continent first entered the Antarctic pole?
Even this low geological age is now being questioned. Is it possible the Antarctic ice sheet is only a few thousand years old?
There are three intriguing contradictions that challenge the hoary age of the Antarctic ice sheet. They seem bizarre and hard to explain. Two antique maps, that of Piri Reis and Oronteus Finaeus (circa 1500 A.D.), weirdly show Antarctica ice-free. But this was a time before Antarctica was discovered! Even more curious, Turkish Admiral Piri Reis’s map, was apparently sourced from the Pharaoh’s libraries in Alexandria 2000 years ago.
Investigating cartographers from the U.S. air force were puzzled. The map portrayed the Antarctic coastline free of the three kilometre deep ice sheets. These buried coastlines were only recently outlined by the British polar expeditions. Even ice sheet buried rivers and mountains were shown. The Oronteus Finnaeus maps were even more comprehensive and show the whole of Antarctica ice free! How could the sailors of antiquity know a coastline now buried by ice? Is it conceivable that it was ice free when mapped? How could they even have sailed around its vicious katabatic storm riven coast? Is it possible that it was mapped at the time of the Pharaohs a few thousand years ago? These possibilities would require a revision of geology and history!
The second curiosity comes from “the lost squadron” of the second world war. Lockheed Lightnings were abandoned in Greenland in 1942. Fifty one years later, Patrick Epps reclaimed them 250 feet under the ice cap! But this very feat revealed that the layers of ice were not annual, as is presumed by modern science. Each layer was a reflection of ice melt boundaries after each storm.
Ice core studies from GISP, Camp David, Vostok and all others, rely on the paradigm of one layer equals one year. All isotopic and chemical analysis assumes this fundamental delineation. The revealing quote comes from expedition organiser “Richard Epps”. He puzzlingly remarked, “Who told you one layer equals one year? We dug down through fifty years of time and found thousands of layers in 250 feet.”
The Vostok ice sheet proposes an age of 250,000 years! Yet if we divide the total rings by the number of storm events the total age drops exponentially. Especially when eras such as the little ice age, with its chaotic scenarios, produced myriads of rampant weather events. Could the ice sheet be as little as 6,000 years old? To add to this scenario, Charles Ginenthal in his paper on ‘ice core evidence’ explained, that summer melt and the deposition of thousands of layers during chaotic eras totally falsify the year per layer paradigm on which this theory is built. He contends that ocean core and bore hole results contradict the ice core data. Staggering.
But if this is true then comes the bigger question! How and under what conditions, was this recent Antarctic ice sheet formed? Even more fundamentally, was it the result of an ancient destruction? Petrified fossils may hold the clue.
The classic interpretation that these fossils came from the Permian age is disputed by many revisionist geologists. New laboratory experiments are showing that fossilization is a rapid process under certain conditions. This concept has generally been ignored. Could high voltage electricity, either from within the earth or from cosmogenic effects such as comets, coronal mass ejections, or planets in disturbed motion be the rapid tool of petrifaction and fossilization? Normally, what dies is quickly recycled biologically, unless some catastrophic geological intervention occurs. Judging by the agonizing positions of most fossils, the catastrophic intervention that petrifies is almost always connected to the cause of death.
At the bottom of ice sheets have been found flora. Does this suggest that Antarctica was covered by snow in one rapid event? Was it a sudden catastrophic move from the tropics to ultra cold? Certainly the snap frozen mammoths of Siberia suggest a similar worldwide event.
From tropics to paralyzing cold with flora and fauna locked in death throes seems insurmountable evidence for global catastrophic events!