ARTICLE HERE:
Courtney Brown has posted some new remote viewing results, at his Far Sight Institute website, having to do with ancient, Atlantean ruins on the ocean floor off the coasts of Morocco and Antarctica. I don't always buy the results of remote viewing, however when it is well done it can yield very useful results.
In this case, the results of Courtney's remote viewing project comport well with my own past investigations. In my undersea bases research I was told by a former military physicist who worked in compartmentalized undersea projects to look for Atlantis on the Atlantic seabed off the coast of Spain and Morocco. I think the US Navy (and others) have known about ancient archaeological ruins on the seabed in that region for at least a half century, maybe more. I think they have explored the site. That's my best guess.
In the mid-1980s I was told by an alphabet soup operative who briefed flag officers at the Pentagon that present day Antarctica is the site of ancient Atlantis, that Atlantis was destroyed by cataclysm and the abrupt climate and geographical changes created the flash frozen continent of Antarctica. The deep freeze suddenly turned on and things changed very, very abruptly. I would say that in my later research I did become aware that at the deepest, innermost compartmentalized levels of the military-industrial complex there is a knowledge of the huge Earth changes that have occurred in the past and the possibility that the same can occur again, extremely rapidly and on a very large scale.
My subsequent 1990s research in the archives of various federal agencies in the DC area and the National Archives in College Park, Maryland, USA suggested to me that the records have been vacuumed to conceal the true history of the region. That was the distinct impression I got after sifting through many thousands of pages of archival material on the Antarctic. My best guess after examining all the evidence I could find was that the Antarctic had a temperate climate mere thousands of years ago, maybe fifteen or twenty thousand years ago or less, not millions of years ago. There were actual beech forests there. The same species of beech (Nothofagus) still grows in southern Chile and Argentina, New Zealand and Australia.
I found it very difficult to research certain aspects of the Antarctic, such as its real history, because there is such a high security blanket that has been thrown over the entire region, mostly coming from the US Navy, the US Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation. From the fragmentary evidence I have stumbled across, one of the reasons is certainly to conceal the archaeological evidence that litters the area. Some of the slides I got from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) showed archaeologists actively working digs in the dry interior valleys of the Antarctic. Of course, archaeologists study the remains of ancient human cultures and civilizations. But mainstream history tells us there was no human presence in the Antarctic in ancient times. So why would archaeologists be conducting a dig where there was no ancient human presence? Unless what we have been taught at school is false, fraudulent, fake, a lie, made up, a huge fib. See the self-evident contradiction?
Why not spend some quality time with the Antarctic geological features atlas? I did. I spent many hours poring over the hard copy, paper edition. Trust me -- you will not be disappointed.
Now it's online: BGN: Antarctic Names - Policies
Search for "pyramid" for instance, and you will find:
Anderson Pyramid
Blodwen Peak
Charpentier Pyramid
Fukushima Peak
Henderson Pyramid
Moore Pyramid
Obrecht Pyramid
Pyramid Island
Pyramid Mountain
Pyramid Mountain
Pyramid Peak
Pyramid Peak
Pyramid Point
Pyramid Ponds
Pyramid Rock
Pyramid Trough
Pyramiden Nunatak
The Pyramid
The Pyramid
Tilt Rock
Wahlstrom Peak
Or for "sphinx":
Beehive Hill
Mount Sphinx
Sphinx Hill
Sphinx Island
Sphinxkopf Peak
Sphinx Mountain
Sphinx Peak
Sphinx Rock
Sphinx Rock
Sphinx Valley
Hollister Peak
How about "obelisk":
Cape Obelisk
The Obelisk
Obelisk Col
Obelisk Mountain
Or "mummy":
Mummy Pond
Mummy Ridge
Maybe "Giza":
Giza Peak
Go ahead, investigate all of the above to your heart's content.
Now pay close attention to the following article about finding the woody remains of large trees in the Antarctic. "We commonly find whole fossilized logs that must have come from really big trees." But then there are no pictures of the allegedly "fossilized" logs. Hmm. I wonder why not? Maybe because the logs are not fossilized, but freeze dried?
The article does mention Robert Scott's early 20th century Antarctic expedition, when he discovered "fossil plants on the Beardmore Glacier at 82 degrees south." I have never seen photos of Scott's "fossil plants" either. But I can provide a little context.
I visited Prof. Jane Francis in her office at Leeds University in northern England in about 1997, and she was very cordial to me. I held some small pieces of the "fossilized" antarctic wood in my hand, but it did not look or feel very "fossilized" to me. It looked and felt more as if it had been freeze dried. There's a difference. It was rather like the old dry wood and twigs that you find as you walk along in the woods, lying on the forest floor. I asked Dr. Francis if I could have a little bit of it to take along with me. She asked if I were going to carbon date it. Now I had not mentioned that prospect to her, but it was, in fact, exactly what I had in mind, so I said, "Yes." Her response to my reply was that I could not have any of it.
In those years, back in the late 1990s when I was investigating the strangely "unfossilized" antarctic "fossils" I did find some very clear photos in the NSF/USGS archives of more antarctic wood The wood did not look "fossilized" to me. It looked dry. It looked old. But not "fossilized." Upon researching the scientific literature I found references to the flammability of the "fossilized" wood. It will burn if a flame is put to it.
My working hypothesis about the antarctic wood is that it is mere thousands of years old, not millions of years old.
A similar state of affairs exists in the Arctic, where huge, "fossilized" stumps have been discovered, six feet across, massive logs, 45 million year old wood that will burn, and you can cut it with a saw.
Do you really believe that? I don't. I sincerely doubt that those logs are 45 million years old, and will still burn, can be sawed, and have neither decayed nor been mineralized and petrified. I am guessing that those logs and stumps must be much younger, mere thousands of years old.
You can bet your last dollar that USA Navy Admiral Byrd, perhaps the foremost polar explorer of the 20th century, found plenty of interesting evidence, and took a lot of secrets with him to the grave. Rest of Article HERE:
Courtney Brown has posted some new remote viewing results, at his Far Sight Institute website, having to do with ancient, Atlantean ruins on the ocean floor off the coasts of Morocco and Antarctica. I don't always buy the results of remote viewing, however when it is well done it can yield very useful results.
In this case, the results of Courtney's remote viewing project comport well with my own past investigations. In my undersea bases research I was told by a former military physicist who worked in compartmentalized undersea projects to look for Atlantis on the Atlantic seabed off the coast of Spain and Morocco. I think the US Navy (and others) have known about ancient archaeological ruins on the seabed in that region for at least a half century, maybe more. I think they have explored the site. That's my best guess.
In the mid-1980s I was told by an alphabet soup operative who briefed flag officers at the Pentagon that present day Antarctica is the site of ancient Atlantis, that Atlantis was destroyed by cataclysm and the abrupt climate and geographical changes created the flash frozen continent of Antarctica. The deep freeze suddenly turned on and things changed very, very abruptly. I would say that in my later research I did become aware that at the deepest, innermost compartmentalized levels of the military-industrial complex there is a knowledge of the huge Earth changes that have occurred in the past and the possibility that the same can occur again, extremely rapidly and on a very large scale.
My subsequent 1990s research in the archives of various federal agencies in the DC area and the National Archives in College Park, Maryland, USA suggested to me that the records have been vacuumed to conceal the true history of the region. That was the distinct impression I got after sifting through many thousands of pages of archival material on the Antarctic. My best guess after examining all the evidence I could find was that the Antarctic had a temperate climate mere thousands of years ago, maybe fifteen or twenty thousand years ago or less, not millions of years ago. There were actual beech forests there. The same species of beech (Nothofagus) still grows in southern Chile and Argentina, New Zealand and Australia.
I found it very difficult to research certain aspects of the Antarctic, such as its real history, because there is such a high security blanket that has been thrown over the entire region, mostly coming from the US Navy, the US Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation. From the fragmentary evidence I have stumbled across, one of the reasons is certainly to conceal the archaeological evidence that litters the area. Some of the slides I got from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) showed archaeologists actively working digs in the dry interior valleys of the Antarctic. Of course, archaeologists study the remains of ancient human cultures and civilizations. But mainstream history tells us there was no human presence in the Antarctic in ancient times. So why would archaeologists be conducting a dig where there was no ancient human presence? Unless what we have been taught at school is false, fraudulent, fake, a lie, made up, a huge fib. See the self-evident contradiction?
Why not spend some quality time with the Antarctic geological features atlas? I did. I spent many hours poring over the hard copy, paper edition. Trust me -- you will not be disappointed.
Now it's online: BGN: Antarctic Names - Policies
Search for "pyramid" for instance, and you will find:
Anderson Pyramid
Blodwen Peak
Charpentier Pyramid
Fukushima Peak
Henderson Pyramid
Moore Pyramid
Obrecht Pyramid
Pyramid Island
Pyramid Mountain
Pyramid Mountain
Pyramid Peak
Pyramid Peak
Pyramid Point
Pyramid Ponds
Pyramid Rock
Pyramid Trough
Pyramiden Nunatak
The Pyramid
The Pyramid
Tilt Rock
Wahlstrom Peak
Or for "sphinx":
Beehive Hill
Mount Sphinx
Sphinx Hill
Sphinx Island
Sphinxkopf Peak
Sphinx Mountain
Sphinx Peak
Sphinx Rock
Sphinx Rock
Sphinx Valley
Hollister Peak
How about "obelisk":
Cape Obelisk
The Obelisk
Obelisk Col
Obelisk Mountain
Or "mummy":
Mummy Pond
Mummy Ridge
Maybe "Giza":
Giza Peak
Go ahead, investigate all of the above to your heart's content.
Now pay close attention to the following article about finding the woody remains of large trees in the Antarctic. "We commonly find whole fossilized logs that must have come from really big trees." But then there are no pictures of the allegedly "fossilized" logs. Hmm. I wonder why not? Maybe because the logs are not fossilized, but freeze dried?
The article does mention Robert Scott's early 20th century Antarctic expedition, when he discovered "fossil plants on the Beardmore Glacier at 82 degrees south." I have never seen photos of Scott's "fossil plants" either. But I can provide a little context.
I visited Prof. Jane Francis in her office at Leeds University in northern England in about 1997, and she was very cordial to me. I held some small pieces of the "fossilized" antarctic wood in my hand, but it did not look or feel very "fossilized" to me. It looked and felt more as if it had been freeze dried. There's a difference. It was rather like the old dry wood and twigs that you find as you walk along in the woods, lying on the forest floor. I asked Dr. Francis if I could have a little bit of it to take along with me. She asked if I were going to carbon date it. Now I had not mentioned that prospect to her, but it was, in fact, exactly what I had in mind, so I said, "Yes." Her response to my reply was that I could not have any of it.
In those years, back in the late 1990s when I was investigating the strangely "unfossilized" antarctic "fossils" I did find some very clear photos in the NSF/USGS archives of more antarctic wood The wood did not look "fossilized" to me. It looked dry. It looked old. But not "fossilized." Upon researching the scientific literature I found references to the flammability of the "fossilized" wood. It will burn if a flame is put to it.
My working hypothesis about the antarctic wood is that it is mere thousands of years old, not millions of years old.
A similar state of affairs exists in the Arctic, where huge, "fossilized" stumps have been discovered, six feet across, massive logs, 45 million year old wood that will burn, and you can cut it with a saw.
Do you really believe that? I don't. I sincerely doubt that those logs are 45 million years old, and will still burn, can be sawed, and have neither decayed nor been mineralized and petrified. I am guessing that those logs and stumps must be much younger, mere thousands of years old.
You can bet your last dollar that USA Navy Admiral Byrd, perhaps the foremost polar explorer of the 20th century, found plenty of interesting evidence, and took a lot of secrets with him to the grave. Rest of Article HERE:
As far as the whining and innuendo about me posting the above. It was a slow news day and I thought this one would stir things up. I don't necessarily buy into everything Sauder, Childress, Farrell et al, have to say, but at least they make the effort to research, write and publish. If you don't like or respect someone's work after you've read it—its your personal problem & you'll deal with it in your own way.
