mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== When we look at Lesser Antarctica through the lens of ice core dating we get one set of "facts" but when we compare these results with the evidence of the antipodes to Lesser Antarctica then other, contradictory facts emerge. What we find from the ice core dating is that Lesser Antarctica has been covered in ice for at least 122,000 years, if not more. But when we shift our attention to the opposite side of the globe and look at Siberia, Beringia and Alaska we do not find equivalent ice sheets. Instead we find evidence of many large mammals such as horses, bison and rhinoceros swarming over grasslands. How can one part of the globe be under ice for at least 122,000 years while the exact opposite of the globe has no ice and large mammals (dating from 11,000 to 70,000 carbon-14 years ago)? This does not compute. Either the evidence from the north is wrong or the evidence from the south is wrong. What the 'ice core experts' are proposing is something for which we have no experience in the present: they claim that at one time, one side of the globe was under ice while at the same time, on the exact opposite side of the globe, large mammals were roaming on ice-free grasslands. Where on Earth today can we find such a combination? We can't. If Siberia/Beringia/Alaska demonstrates evidence from a wide variety of dating methods and they all point to this area being much warmer before 9,600 B.C. then we have every right to assume that the same must have been the case on Lesser Antarctica. It is simple logic as old as Pythagoras. [1]NEXT References 1. file://localhost/www/sat/files/stws4.htm