Chapter 13 - Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean
Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945)
The key to this theory is the preposterously unscientific idea that Antarctica used to be tropical (like Atlantis) down to about 12,000 BP or so, but then suddenly switched to a glacial climate, “in one dreadful day and night of pain”, more or less as Plato states in his dialogues on Atlantis. The mechanism of this sudden climatic change is usually held to be the result of Pole Shift.
According to this hypothesis – originated by I. Velikovsky and first espoused by Charles Hapgood and Col. Mallory, but now championed by several researchers such as John White (Pole Shift, New York, 1980), the Flem-Aths and Graham Hancock (Fingerprints of the Gods, New York, 1995, etc.) – the crust of the earth suddenly shifted in relation to the mantle, so that Antarctica was taken from a temperate region down to the South Pole, where it fast became frozen and covered by ice.
Alas, several serious problems invalidate this theory. The pole shift they posit is apparently caused by an imbalance of the ice caps rather than, say, by an asteroidal or cometary impact of large enough proportions, as proposed by Flavio Barbiero and other researchers. But there is no proof or geological precedent of any sort whatsoever for such a remarkable event, one way or the other.
We already expounded in an endnote of the present section the crucial difference between Magnetic Pole Shifts, Terrestrial Pole Shifts, and Celestial Pole Shifts, all three of which are sorely confused by the PoleShiftists just pointed out.
What is more, Antarctica is now known for sure to have been under ice for at least a million years and probably more. This has been conclusively verified by the analysis of ice cores collected in situ in Antarctica itself.
Moreover, ice cores and other data (paleovegetation, lake varves, dendrochronology, paleontology, etc.) have unequivocally proved the fact that Pole Shift did not occur either at the date in question or any other in the past.
The evidence produced by Hapgood and Mallory – and adopted by White and Hancock among others – is now known to be both false and invalid. Their proposal derives from a gross misinterpretation of ancient maps such as the one of Oronteus Finaeus, where the icy continent is shown as far larger than it presently is.
But this is possibly the result of having been originally charted in the Ice Age, when its shelf glaciers extended wide, out into the sea. And Hapgood’s proposals also derive from a gross confusion between Magnetic Pole Shift (real) and Terrestrial Pole Shift (impossible).
What Hapgood and his followers misinterpret as rivers are really large cracks and fissures in the huge ice sheets of Antarctica, and are in fact quite common in its marine glaciers even today. And it is false that these maps provide an accurate rendering of iceless Antarctica. They do not! The size is wrong (by far too large); the shape is wrong (split in two); and so are the other features as well, climate above all.
The case for Pole Shift became hopeless with the definitive establishment of the reality of the Ice Ages and the drastic lowering of sea level they cause. Moreover, it is hard to see how Antarctica would have been covered by ice in the short span of a single day and a night, when it is so extremely dry that snowing there happens at an immeasurably small rate.
So, their proposal that Antarctica got suddenly submerged by ice rather than by water is once again hopeless. The situation is so bad that most if not all of the former Pole Shift champions have now decamped in favor of more viable alternatives such as my own. White has publicly recanted from his former views on Pole Shift and his support of Edgar Cayce’s “channeling”, both of which he now considers untenable.
And Hancock, though somewhat ambiguous in his present stand, has visibly switched in favor of my own proposal of global sea level rise, as can be seen in his latest books such as Underworld, where the issue of Pole Shift is not even mentioned, by the way.
Moreover, as we have been arguing here, Pole Shift is both a physical and a geological impossibility. It is true that some ancient traditions apparently confused Antarctica with the Southern Land Unknown (Terra Australis Incognita).
And it is also true that Antarctica’s continental size roughly fits the one mentioned by Plato in connection with Atlantis. But that is all there is to it. So do (roughly) many places on earth: North America, South America, Australia, India, and so forth.
This view on the Southern Continent was merely the result of the ignorance of the Renaissance geographers and navigators on the actual
0
location and identity of Atlantis, its true archetype. Since both unknown continents were actually known to be located in the Southern Hemisphere, these researchers tended to confuse the two.
The ancient geographers tended to merge both into the enormous southern continent shown in Ortelius’ world map just linked and in several others which I have uncovered.
One should keep in mind that in Science, as in everything, the burden of proof lies with the allegers. So, it is incumbent on the proponents of Pole Shift to prove their case, demonstrating the physical reality of their proposal with more than just words alone.
For instance, they could start by pointing out the evidence registered in the geological or the climatological records. And, of course, we would also like to have direct fossil evidence of human habitation of any kind whatsoever in Antarctica, something that is also sorely missing. Or that its climate was mild in the Ice Age, as they repeatedly claim.
Until then, we should let their case rest and be filed away in the already overloaded cupboards of dead files of odd proposals too badly contrived and poorly argued to be accepted by Science. Moreover, we already have enough proven catastrophes such as recurrent Ice Ages and cometary or asteroidal impacts to require a further cause which is not supported by any physical evidence whatsoever.
Curiously enough, both Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean have often been proposed as possible sites for Atlantis. This curious idea which has been revived over and over again perhaps derives from the ancient traditions which placed the site of Paradise precisely at the Terrestrial Poles, both north and south. Even as late as the Age of Navigation some cartographers such as Ortelius still tended to place Paradise at either the South or the North Pole, four rivers, tropical climate, and all.
It is weird that so many researchers even today place Atlantis at the South Pole rather than at the North Pole, where so many early geographers formerly did.
It is now known beyond reasonable doubt that Antarctica has been under ice for one or two million years. Hence, the idea that it was tropical down to 10,000 years or so ago, when Atlantis went under, is sheer folly which should be quickly abandoned by all sensible persons.
Moreover, as we will see next, Pole Shift is really a scientific impossibility which should be discarded as such by all those common-sensical persons who do not want to make fools of themselves.
This, even in the remote hypothesis that Plato had in mind its sinking under ice when he specifically affirmed that it sank away under the sea.
Why would Plato not say so if this were indeed the case? Why would he lie? The whole idea seems to be preposterous.
And this perhaps explains why, in one way or another, most of the former proponents of this foolish theory have now decamped towards my own one based on sea level rise and the volcanic cataclysms which indeed occurred at the end of the last Ice Age.
At least in one specific thing the Arctic Circle has a clear advantage over Antarctica. It is now under water, even though it was exposed (subaerial) during the Ice Age. In this regards the Arctic region might indeed be said to have sunk away under the sea, more or less as Plato affirmed in his dialogues. So, the Arctic seems a far more apt choice for the site of sunken Atlantis than Antarctica’s folly.
Pole Shift and the Force of Sacred Traditions
The main problem with the polar regions such as the Arctic Circle and Antarctica is that they were both
dismally cool and hence absolutely desertic during the Ice Ages. In all probability, not even the Eskimos would be able to survive in these regions during the Ice Age. Essentially no fish and no game would be available in these dreary, ice-covered expanses at that time. And agriculture would be impossible there, as is now quite clear to all who research the matter.
The force of the traditions which hold that Paradise was located at either or both of earth’s poles is so great that even some great experts such as René Guénon – one of the best mythologists ever – firmly believed that Paradise is hidden somewhere under the Arctic glaciers, perhaps inside the hollow earth itself. So did B. G. Tilak, the famous Hindu guru who believed that the Aryans would have originated there, perhaps influenced by some current Nordic doctrines on this. ↑108
Even today, some Theosophists such as Raymond Bernard and his theosophical adepts piously believe the reality of the Hollow Earth as the subterranean realm of the King of Shambhala, of Agartha, etc.. Moreover, Admiral Byrd is said to have died searching for the passage that would lead him into the inner realm of the King of the World, which he believed to be located at the North Pole. ↑109
It seems to me – though we can never be sure in such mystical matters, as Einstein was wont to say – that these recurrent traditions have to
do with Hindu myths on Mt. Meru, the Holy Mountain of Paradise, being located directly under the Pole Star itself. ↑110
The same thing is also told of the Vadavamukha, the destructive volcano which leads to the interior of the earth, to Hell itself. Even Santa Claus – who lives at the North Pole as we all know – is somehow connected with this mythical polar abode. In our opinion these traditions are actually allegories of Atlantis as the cynosure around which all things whirl. But, who knows for sure?
No matter what, certain extremely popular authors – for instance, Graham Hancock – still defend, against all reason, the theory of Pole Shift which most former champions now execrate and publicly condemn as sheer fallacy.
As I demonstrate in an endnote, Pole Shift is both a physical and a geological impossibility. In effect, what Pole-Shiftists do is to sorely confuse Magnetic Pole Shift with Terrestrial Pole Shift. These are two entirely different things that have very little if anything to do with each other. Geologically speaking, both the mantle and the crust are solid.
Moreover, they are firmly anchored to each other, so that their relative motion is virtually impossible. Physically speaking, the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum prevents the crust from shifting from its actual position in relation to space, more or less as happens with a gyroscope. Earth’s magnetic field is dictated by the earth’s nucleus, which is molten and can hence move freely in relation to the mantle and the crust, more or less as a dynamo would.
In contrast, the position of the Terrestrial Poles is dictated by the motion of the crust in relation to the mantle, both of which are solid, and actually far stronger than steel in their rocky portions.
Mountains such as the Rockies and the Himalayas have “roots”, just like teeth do. These roots firmly anchor the crust to the mantle, more or less as our teeth are fixed by their roots to the maxillas. Even if the asthenosphere were molten, as some experts unduly think, these roots would prevent the crust from slipping over the mantle.
They would serve as some sort of anchor even in the presence of a molten layer of magma. It is also a geological fact that the crust very slowly moves in relation to the mantle, as is now explicitly recognized by Plate Tectonics Theory.
But this motion is almost infinitely slow (a couple of centimeters a year at most). This relative motion is due to a curious phenomenon technically known as “creep”, which we gloss in more detail in the footnote below, dedicated to the explanation of this curious phenomenon characteristic of solids. 15
As is clear from this explanation, the current notion of Pole Shiftists may be discarded as ludicrous for all practical purposes. It is an utterly unscientific hypothesis which results from a most sorry mistake of Charles Hapgood and his many followers, who confused Magnetic Pole Shift and Celestial Pole Shift – which indeed do happen – with Terrestrial Pole Shift, which never does.
Once this crucial fact is realized, there is simply no way in which either Antarctica or the Arctic regions could have been tropical during the Ice Age, when global temperatures were fully 15oC lower than presently. This fact has now been proved beyond reasonable doubt in both Antarctica and the Arctic by direct research of ice cores drilled in situ.
It is indeed true that Pole Shift may indeed happen when the earth is tangentially struck by a huge asteroid or comet, more or less as happened when the Moon was formed some 4 billion years ago. In effect, it seems that such was actually the cause of earth’s equatorial inclination of 23.5o in relation to the Ecliptic Plane, a curious anomaly which is hard to account for otherwise.
But why should one call this type of major cataclysm the effect of Pole Shift rather than the consequence of a major impact, the real event in cause here? Actually, some authors – among them Otto Muck, the great German scientist – postulate precisely this sort of giant impact as the cause of the demise of Atlantis in his famous book (The Secret of Atlantis, New York, 1979). So does Flavio Barbiero, his Italian follower of lesser fame but likewise great physical knowledge.
Muck’s splendidly argued hypothesis is unfortunately rather unlikely to have actually occurred in reality. Such a giant impact would leave unequivocal traces even if it happened in a region presently under the sea. It would leave a layer of characteristic debris (tektites, rare metals, etc.), not to mention the giant impact crater itself, easily detected by its magnetic and gravitational anomalies.
So, for all practical purposes, this fascinating possibility may be simply dismissed and forgotten. The whole conception of Pole Shift apparently arose in deep antiquity. It is mentioned in detail by Plato in his remarkable Statesman. Even older references may be encountered in Herodotus and in the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian beliefs.
As late as 1637, Mercator and his school still drew maps of the North Polar Circle with the Four Rivers of Paradise and the possible entrance to the netherworld, where Paradise was actually said to be located. It is clear that bad habits die hard, if at all. ↑111
This was a prevalent Middle Age misconception which originated from the Hindu traditions of an immense age, including the Vedic ones reported by Tilak. But these were heroic times now long past and long disproved by all kinds of contrary empirical finds.
Even the conception of the two Holy Mountains placed at the two poles of the earth is derived from the twin Merus (Sumeru and Kumeru), four rivers and all. But these are metaphors for the real holy mountains, which are in reality the two volcanoes associated with the two Pillars of Hercules. These two volcanoes are the Krakatoa and the Toba, which are actually both located in Indonesia, the true site of Paradise and hence, of Atlantis itself.
Turning now to the real geography of the Arctic and Antarctica as possible sites of Atlantis, let us apply the results so far obtained to both the Arctic and/or Antarctica, just as we did above for the other proposed sites of Atlantis. These results are summarized in Table III.5 below, in connection with Plato’s lesson on the Lost Continent summarized in Table III.1 above.
Referring to the map of the world which we have been using here, it can hardly be said that either Antarctica or the Arctic Circle lie in front of Gibraltar Strait. But there is no better alternative choice here for the “Pillars of Hercules” than that of Gibraltar, which is the one these researchers themselves adopt. ↑112
This frontal location affirmed by Plato does not seem to be the case either for the Arctic or for Antarctica in the map just given or any others. This, despite the efforts of Rand Flem-Ath and Graham Hancock and other proponents of Antarctica as the site of Atlantis. These researchers often choose distorted projections in an attempt to enhance their case, but all in vain.
Really, America seems to be interposed between Gibraltar a
nd Antarctica, more or less as required by Plato. The Arctic seems to be located somewhat behind Gibraltar Strait, rather than “in front of it”. But these distortions are the result of the cartographical distortions which have been used here, and really mean nothing much.
However, anyone taking the trouble to look in a globe of the world will readily see that both regions are not located “just in front of the Pillars of Hercules”, as affirmed by Plato. Nevertheless, both regions indeed lie outside Gibraltar and hence may roughly be said to obey this requisite. It all depends on the person’s opinion. As for myself, I do not think they really fit this requisite. But the reader may be more lenient.
Antarctica is a vast continent, and hence roughly fits the huge size specified by Plato. The same cannot be said of the Arctic region if we confine ourselves to the region which was actually exposed (subaerial) during the Ice Age. But then, someone might contend that the coterminous lands of Siberia and Alaska, etc. were part of the Lost Continent which sank away then.
Table III.5 - Results for Antarctica and the Arctic Region
Two Pillars of Hercules
(Gibraltar)
Sunken
Lands of the Region
Larger than Asia & Libya ???????
Many Islands
Beyond
???????
In True
Ocean ???????
Outer
Continent Beyond (America) ???????
The Arctic region is shallow and was in fact subaerial during the Ice Age. But can one say that Antarctica is “sunken” under the ice, as some of its proponents allege? We do not think so. In no way can Plato’s words be interpreted in this way. Plato affirms that Atlantis sank beneath the sea. Had he meant ice, he would have said so, we believe.
Atlantis the Lost Continent Finally Found Page 28
