The history of the Antarctic ice is documented in numerous languages from all across the world, going back nearly 500 years. The Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Greek, etc., all reported on the status of the Antarctic ice.
Thousands of sailing ships - from all across the world - journeyed along the Antarctic ice during the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's and 1800's. Why ignore reports in the captain's logs going back hundreds of years? Because those reports contradict the timeline fabricated by the chemists? That's a good reason for disregarding the reports in the historic documents? The science that's spoon-fed to us isn't disinfo? We can trust the chemists 100% and not trust the ship captains at all?
The timeline presented in the historic documents is corroborated by thousands of independent sources which include the maps of the tectonic plate boundaries, bathymetric charts - going back several decades - topographic maps, geological anomalies, oral history from indigenous people, and hundreds of other sources.
Chemists can't be wrong so the ship captains must've been wrong?
Thanks for your comment, but I'm a bit confused by it. Are you saying the Antarctic ice was greater or less in previous times?
Also we could argue about the time Antarctica was "discovered", my personal view is it wasn't until the eighteenth century.
Pingback:
Scientists are not salespeople! | …and Then There's Physics
whirledpublishinggmailcom
The history of the Antarctic ice is documented in numerous languages from all across the world, going back nearly 500 years. The Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Greek, etc., all reported on the status of the Antarctic ice.
Thousands of sailing ships - from all across the world - journeyed along the Antarctic ice during the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's and 1800's. Why ignore reports in the captain's logs going back hundreds of years? Because those reports contradict the timeline fabricated by the chemists? That's a good reason for disregarding the reports in the historic documents? The science that's spoon-fed to us isn't disinfo? We can trust the chemists 100% and not trust the ship captains at all?
The timeline presented in the historic documents is corroborated by thousands of independent sources which include the maps of the tectonic plate boundaries, bathymetric charts - going back several decades - topographic maps, geological anomalies, oral history from indigenous people, and hundreds of other sources.
Chemists can't be wrong so the ship captains must've been wrong?
Mark Brandon
Post authorThanks for your comment, but I'm a bit confused by it. Are you saying the Antarctic ice was greater or less in previous times?
Also we could argue about the time Antarctica was "discovered", my personal view is it wasn't until the eighteenth century.