How did Antarctica end up at the south pole?

Originally published on LinkedIn — April 17, 2021

Well, I just read the final report from the critter research team about the earth’s shifting poles. Following protocol, Spuds submitted the report to Thelma first, for her review, and then she passed it on to me. I will need to lay out some facts, and observations to build on that will lead to our final conclusion about the poles. I will stay focused, and avoid chasing rabbits as best as I can. Everything from here forward will be building to my final conclusion on our subject. You will need to read the whole article carefully, and thoughtfully, or you won’t understand my conclusion. I think you will be surprised at where I’m going will all this. I will also divulge the sources of Spuds, and the Round Mountain research team at the end of the article.

First, a distinction must be made between the magnetic pole and the geographic pole. Anyone who has any experience using a compass knows there is a difference. The magnetic pole shifts around, as is common knowledge, but our focus is on the geographic pole. The geographic pole represents true north, not the magnetic pole. This was Spuds’ initial question. Does the geographic pole shift around? Over the years I have read a lot about the shifting magnetic pole, heck it has even reversed itself, but nothing about a shifting geographic pole. The earth’s spin axis seems to be fixed.

Ancient legends and myths don’t speak of an ice age. They do speak of cataclysmic climate changes, to be sure, but not ice ages, as we seem to think of them. In contrast, there are over 500 myths and legends, brought down to us from ancient lore, about a universal flood. The best known is the Hebrew account found in the Bible. Many of you may also be aware of the account given in the Epic of Gilgamesh. These are just two of over 500 accounts given from ancient peoples from every corner of the earth. Yet, we have this idea that not that long ago the earth was in the throws of a cataclysmic ice age. Why the silence? Interestingly, we speak of cataclysmic ice ages, but deny a universal flood. Thelma and Spuds found this a mite strange. But I digress.

Now, as we look at global geography today we see that massive amounts of ice, as much as one or even two miles thick have formed at the north and south poles. It seems a fair statement of fact, as we can observe in our time, that ice forms at the poles. The rest of the earth is ice free, essentially. Oh, there are glaciers about, and there is an ice sheet in Greenland, but it is fair to say that the earth is not experiencing an ice age as described in earlier periods. The vast majority of the earth’s seas, and landmasses is ice free today. Nobody is saying we are in an ice age now.

I now want to talk about Antarctica. Stay with me, folks. There are seven geographic land masses we call continents; we have, in order of size, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia. I find it interesting that the fifth largest continent, larger than Europe or Australia, is now completely covered in as much as two miles of ice. Would it be fair to say that Antarctica is in the throws of an ice age this very day? Unlike the north pole ice cap, which is primarily over the Arctic Ocean, Antarctica is a massive area of land. It’s having an ice age, folks. Ponder on it pilgrims.

But it wasn’t always so. Antarctica was once in a temperate zone, having a climate that supported vast forests, and an abundant variety of plants, animals, as well as human habitation. It would have had to be about 2,000 to 2,500 miles from the south pole to support the fauna and flora that has been found there in fossil form.

Now, here is a big question. How did Antarctica end up at the south pole? It had to move. “Settled science” speaks of two ways the lithosphere, the earth’s crust, moves. One is plate tectonics, and the other is continental drift. By very definition we would have to assume that it would take many millions of years for Antarctica to move as far as it had to in order to end up square in the middle of the south pole with either, or both forces working. But it seems to have happened quickly. Another important point is, although the time is all over the place when you study this, Antarctica, we are told, has been totally covered with ice for 1.5 million years, or as much as 2 million years.

Now we come to the smoking gun, facts that turn the historical timeline upside down, and demands answers from a variety of scientific disciplines. My studies have shown that Antarctica was discovered anywhere from 1818 to 1822. I get different dates from different sources. Prior to that, nobody knew it was even there. A Russian map of the world, drawn up in the early 19th. Century, shows the south pole area clearly, and there is nothing there. Nothing. Nada.

Now let’s look at some maps. If you are not already aware of them I think you will be as astonished as I was when I learned of them years ago.

In 1737 a French geographer named Philippe Buache drew a map of Antarctica that shows the entire continent free of ice. Not until the International Geophysical Year, which lasted from 1 July1957 to 31 December 1958 did we have any real idea how Antarctica looked under the ice. A seismic survey was taken of the entire continent at that time. The Bauche map proves to be astonishingly accurate in its detail.

In 1531 a French mathematician and cartographer, Oronteus Finaeus published a world map that included Antarctica. It seemed to indicate the build up of ice in the interior of the continent, but a great deal of the landmass is clearly shown to be ice free. Mountain ranges and rivers are clearly seen, and the map is, again, amazingly accurate when compared with our latest knowledge of subglacial topography today.

In 1513 a Turkish naval officer, Admiral Piri Reis, drew a map of Antarctica that shows the entire continent covered in ice, except for a fairly small portion of the northern coast known as Queen Maud Land.

I have referenced just three maps which clearly show that mankind knew of the Continent of Antarctica, had accurately surveyed it in various stages of the development of the ice sheet, and drew detailed, accurate maps. NOW, YOU MUST NOT MISS THE FACT THAT ALL OF THESE MAPS WERE DRAWN BEFORE ANTARCTICA WAS “DISCOVERED”. There are other maps not referenced here. All of the referenced cartographers used sources that go back into great antiquity. Some, perhaps, as far back as 13,000 years. There were successive source maps used by a chain of cartographers, each more ancient. Obviously, the map drawn by Philippe Busche was drawn from more ancient sources than that of Piri Reis. But, the maps cited make my point. It seems that Antarctica was not completely covered in ice until about 6,000 years ago.

The maps show longitude accurately, something we were not able to do until the latter part of the 18th Century. The maps make it evident that the ancient cartographers had knowledge of spherical trigonometry as well. As a footnote, of sorts, I believe the ancient surveyors and cartographers were people who actually lived in Antarctica as the ice sheet began to develop.

Every indication is that Antarctica was ice free about 13,000 years ago, thriving in a temperate climate zone, and then suddenly moved to the south pole where polar ice began to form, and advance. The interesting thing is that we are told that about this same time, 13,000 years ago, the ice age ended, so we are left to conclude that as one ice age ended, another began, just in different parts of the world.

Antarctica was completely free of ice, and not that long ago. This is at total variance with current “settled science” that tells us the continent of Antarctica has been totally cover in ice from this very day back to about 1.5 million years ago.

Now “settled science” has a real dilemma. The people who were the original cartographers of the referenced maps were hunter/gatherers, we are told, still living in caves, and had only figured out how to scratch their butts about 12,000 years ago. This is what we’re told by ‘experts’. Or, they lived 1.5 million years, or so, ago, at a time they tell us, when the descendants of modern man, Homo Sapiens, didn’t even exist. The point is that at no time since Antarctica has been covered with ice has man existed who could have known it, let alone survey it repeatedly over time to show the progression of the ice cap from its initial formation until it completely covered the continent. There was no civilization on earth 6,000 years age, we are told. “Settled science” offers no explanation. Crickets.

I now want to return to our question, “How did Antarctica end up at the south pole?”

The late Professor Charles Hapgood set forth his theory that the lithosphere actually shifts from time to time as a complete unit. Relative to the rest of the earth’s mass, the lithosphere can be compared to the skin of an onion. Hapgood imagined how this could work by comparing the lithosphere to the peel of an orange. If the outer peel of an orange was loose enough to move over the inner mass of the orange, the entire outer layer of the orange could move as a unit over the softer semi fluid layer beneath it. Beneath the rigid lithosphere is the asthenosphere, which is much hotter, and at this point the solid rock gives way to an area molten and ‘slick’. The shift of the crust, if put in motion, unlike plate tectonics, or continental drift, could happen very quickly, and the entire landmasses of the earth would shift to another position relative to the poles.

Folks, I’m just giving you the gist of Professor Hapgood’s theory. Time and space just does not permit me to flesh this out in every detail. Please understand.

But I will say one more thing. Professor Hapgood wrote Albert Einstein, and set forth his theory. Einstein spoke of reading Hapgood’s idea, and said he was “electrified”. He wrote the forward to EARTH’S SHIFTING CRUST, a book written by Hapgood on the subject.

Skeptics have tried to dismiss the theory by demanding an answer to what could cause the crust to shift. Well, we can know something is true, based on evidence, but still not know the cause. I hear this all the time when listening to astronomers tell us “How the Universe Works”. They will often say something like this. “We know it does, but can’t explain why, or how. We just don’t know.” Professor Hapgood has not been given this courtesy.

The cause is probably a combination of events that would take place in a “perfect storm”. It was first suggested by Professor Hapgood, and Einstein that the unequal distribution of ice at the poles would cause tremendous torque within the lithosphere as the earth spins, and, perhaps this could be coupled with a meteor, or comet impact. But, as I said, not knowing the cause of something doesn’t mean something is not true. This can be illustrated in many ways.

If Hudson Bay was at the north pole, and the entire lithosphere shifted about 2,000 miles or so, 17,000 years ago, based on current thinking as to when the ice cap began to melt, Hudson Bay, and Antarctica would have shifted at the same time to their present locations. The landmasses of the present United States, and Canada would have moved away from the pole, with the arctic ice cap going along with them, into a much warmer clime. The ice would begin to melt catastrophically, and the so called Ice age would have ended about 12,000 years ago as we are told. New ice caps would have started forming at the poles creating an unimaginable climate catastrophe that would have lasted for thousands of years. As one ice cap is melting, another is forming, and at one time , in both the north and south, ice covered an area perhaps twice the size of our present time. Evidence shows this did happen at this time. AMAZINGLY, WE ARE TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO ICE AT ALL DURING THE LAST ICE AGE AT THE NORTH POLE. HOW CAN THIS BE? IT CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED BY THE SHIFTING OF THE EARTH’S CRUST. ICE WAS AT THE NORTH POLE TO BE SURE. BUT THE CRUST OF THE EARTH MOVED SOUTHWEST. A NEW AREA OF THE LITHOSPHERE, ICE FREE, MOVED TO THE POLE, AND A NEW ICE CAP STARTED GROWING.

The answer to Spuds’ initial question is, Hudson Bay was at the pole.

NOTES: I encourage you to read my major source books on the subjects discussed above.

Anything written by Graham Hancock, an out of the box thinker, whose books have been a treasure to me. UNDERWORLD, FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS, AMERICA BEFORE, and MAGICIANS OF THE GODS are particularly relevant to our subject. In MAGICIANS OF THE GODS, pay close attention to Appendix II. I believe Hancocks fails to see an ever present contradiction over the the course of his writings, and tows the line on presession, but he is a fountain of information. I have bought and read every book he has written. Nuff said. Always remember to be a critical thinker when you read anything.

Charles Hapgood is the author of three books that I have delighted in. EARTH’S SHIFTING CRUST, PATH OF THE POLE, and MAPS OF THE ANCIENT SEA KINGS. I recommend you read each of them if you have further interest in our subject. Hapgood is a by the numbers scholar, and his work is at times maddenly detailed, but well worth the effort to read.

ATLANTIS BENEATH THE ICE, by Rand and Rose Flem-Ath is also a good read.

I also want to give special kudos to Spuds, who proved invaluable with his research team in helping me put all this together.

Now, y’all git on outta here. Go on now, git. I’m through with ya, and y’all got some readin’ ta do. I’m fixin’ ta go fishin’, and y’all ain’t invited.