- is there evidence for ancient civilisation?

©Peter Thomson 1999/2002

An ice age civilisation may well have occupied, and left their traces on the continental shelf exposed for the duration of the ice age and now submerged, but there is another vast depository of technological activity on this planet – the ice fields of Greenland and Antarctica that have collected the atmospheric dust year by year since the last ice age started. The ice that formed at the time of the Roman empire stores the lead and copper dust of its smelters and mines, but what of the many centuries and millennia before that?

The ice does indeed hold a record of changing levels of lead and copper dust. Levels similar to those of the Roman activities but rising and falling over the past 40 000 years. The signature of technology is recorded in the dust!

With this tantalising suggestion that there was real evidence of technological civilisations prior to our own, I started to search for other signatures of technological events that might be recorded in the ice sheet. I was particularly looking for evidence of anomalous isotopes that might indicate the operation of fusion devices. This might show as fluctuations in isotopes in ice cores, or in the mud layers of lakes – known as lake varves.

Lake varves are being used to calibrate the carbon14 dating of prehistoric artefacts. Carbon 14 dating assumes a constant natural source of C14 in the environment. When lake sediments are counted back year by year the date is known with some precision. What this shows is that prior to 10000 years ago the levels of C14 in the environment were chaotic, and cannot be used to date artefacts. Yet another pointer to a previous technological civilisation.

One paper got me very excited!!

“Nuclear Event in North America” by Richard B. Firestone, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and William Topping, Consultant, Baldwin, Michigan

"Our research indicates that the entire Great Lakes region (and beyond) was subjected to particle bombardment and a catastrophic nuclear irradiation that produced secondary thermal neutrons from cosmic ray interactions. The neutrons produced unusually large quantities of 239 Pu and substantially altered the natural uranium abundance ratios ( 235 U/238 U) in artefacts and in other exposed materials including cherts, sediments, and the entire landscape. These neutrons necessarily transmuted residual nitrogen ( 14 N) in the dated charcoals to radiocarbon, thus explaining anomalous dates."

They give no comment, no explanation, just a statement of their measurements.

Ice and water are excellent shields, absorbing radiation with ease. For the rock to show the tracks of particle bombardment at a period when the rock was covered by thick ice sheets completely rules out some cosmic catastrophe from above. The nuclear explosions must have occurred at the base of the ice sheet.

This set me on the next train of thought:

At the height of the glaciation of the last Ice Age, the main ice sheets covered eastern North America, Greenland, and across the North Sea to Northern and Western Europe. The peak was only about 15000 years ago, and the ice was continuing to spread. By contrast it was ice free from Eastern Europe across Siberia and into Alaska, and Siberia was enjoying a temperate climate.

Suddenly all the ice melts in the huge ice cap of North America, Greenland doesn't melt at all and the European ice cap melts
slowly - indeed its remnants are still melting today.

Neither does Antarctica suddenly melt, but there is some evidence that the ice cap suddenly extends into new regions.

This is not the sequence that should happen! Ice requires a lot of energy in order to melt, and that energy has to be delivered to it. North America still has a very cold climate with short summers and long winters. It is still frozen for much of the year. You would not expect an ice cap in the middle of a continent to melt rapidly. By contrast Europe has a much warmer climate, with energy delivered by the Atlantic ocean, you might expect the ice to melt here first.

Siberia's temperate climate for much of the ice age is also wrong. There is no warm ocean currents to bring energy to it. At the distance it now is from the North Pole, it should have had a colder climate than now.

It doesn’t make sense to suggest that the icecaps were not centred on the poles. If the ice cap during the last glaciation was not centred round the present day pole, then the only conclusion is that the pole moved!

For the ice to be centred round the pole for last main glaciation period the north pole of rotation must have been in the region between North America and Greenland. (shown blue on the map, present day pole shown red) Click on map for a higher resolution version.

This makes sense of the extent of the glaciation over Europe, which was then much closer to the pole. It makes sense of the climate in Siberia, which then was in temperate latitudes – see how far it was from the pole, and it also makes sense of the build up of ice in Antarctica.

At the moment, Antarctica is a cold desert. There is very little movement of water vapour into the interior from the coast, yet in the past there must have been weather patterns that moved vast amounts of water to fall as snow on the ice caps. If the South pole of rotation was offset from its present position for much of the last ice age, then the weather patterns would have blown into the interior, rather than round the continents edges, which is what is required to produce the snowfall.

But why should the poles move?

The earth is an almost liquid sphere spinning with huge rotational energy. Like a spinning top, its axis will stay the same. It cannot suddenly flip!

However it will always rotate around its centre of mass. It cannot rotate with any imbalance. If there is any change in the distribution of mass of the earth, the axis of rotation must change in exact synchronisation.

The build up of ice caps is unlikely to cause a change in mass because of the plasticity of the crust. As ice builds up, slowly over tens of thousands of years, the ground surface sinks beneath it. Basic hydrostatic forces will ensure that there is no change in mass distribution. The axis of rotation stays the same.

But we know that when the ice melted, it melted very much faster than the hydrostatic forces and plasticity could react to. The regions that were glaciated are still recovering from the weight that has been removed today. Because this demonstrates that the centre of mass is not in equilibrium, it proves that the axis of rotation has also moved.

The melting of the ice is very peculiar

Conventional glaciology agrees that the melting of the ice cap has been very anomalous, with the huge North American ice cap melting suddenly. Not an even melting all round the axis of rotation. Because this melting was far to fast for the earths crust to recover its position, it has to result in movement of the axis of rotation. Because the axis of rotation has to be round the centre of mass, the change in the axis of rotation will be to move the North pole of rotation directly away from the region that has suddenly lost its mass.

This is exactly what we observe. The North pole of rotation moves to where it is now, Europe has been moved from arctic to temperate and Siberia moves from temperate to arctic. Antarctica moves from off centre at the south pole to more centred and becomes a dry polar desert. Note that nothing physically has moved. It is the axis of spin that has been forced to move by redistribution of mass.

There was no reason for it to melt!

There was no reason for an ice cap on land at the North Pole to melt!

But it did! and it did locally, and there is strong evidence of a major local nuclear event in North America (Not my words) Part of the ice cap melted in the position where it should have been last to melt. It melted the ice so rapidly that the axis of rotation was moved to the middle of the arctic ocean.

The only position where the world would then emerge from the depths of the ice age.

The Carolina Bays are an interesting phenomena that appear to date from the same time. These are a series of shallow craters that can be found from Canada right down to the Gulf of Mexico.

 http://www.georgehoward.net/cbays.htm

For a detailed analysis see http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbayint.html

However it stretches my credulity too far to suggest that each part of a commetary debris explodes at just the right height above the ground to produce its crater - as suggested as the only possible explanation.

see also http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbaymenu.html

Another explanation is that they are a natural feature developed by man http://www.srarp.org/bay.htm

But they could be the result of blowing up the ice cap!!where a nuclear explosion is used to eject the main ice cap south into a warmer climate where it would melt rapidly. This would give the right trajectory and low velocity for the fragments of ice to create the thousands craters in the sandy ground but leave no debris behind.

Throughout the ice age the interiors of most continents were arid and inhospitable. Most or all humans would have lived on the coastal plains which are now submerged.

Then we have a tradition in many societies that somebody went round warning them that there was a flood coming and they must move, with all their livestock and possessions onto higher ground.

It is my hypothesis that the ice cap in North America was deliberately melted by a technological civilisation. Was it with the deliberate intent of moving the axis of rotation into the middle of the arctic ocean and bringing the Ice Age to an abrupt end? Or were they trying to prevent somthing else happening? Were Siberia and the coastal plains  sacrificed in order to make the continents habitable?

They used fusion weapons to blow up and to melt the ice.

This information is copyright Peter Thomson 2001-2004

Copyright Peter Thomson 2012-March-23