Iced Over Canals in Greenland

Ok, I start to think that the alleged island of Greenland is one of the most secret places on our Earth. Just take a look at it via any "satellite" mapping service out there:
Unless Greenland is as flat as a pancake (only Kansas is allowed to be that flat), TPTB is doing another one of their "in your face" things. The place is free of any relief whatsoever. Bar the coastal areas, our Greenland is just a blob of white. We don't even have ice dunes out there.


It does not matter how much you zoom in, or zoom out. The only way Greenland could be this way, if it was a humongous ice skating rink after a mild snow fall.

How old is Greenlandic Ice?
With anything related to ice or sand, we have to be prepared for a load of pseudo-scientific gibberish. It never fails, and there it comes:
  • More than a million years ago, frosty Greenland was ice-free, its bare bedrock exposed for 280,000 years, researchers have found.
  • The atomic isotope beryllium 10 told the scientists that the rock had at one point been ice-free. To gauge how long that period lasted, they compared the amount of beryllium to quantities of aluminium 26. It appears at a 7 to 1 ratio to beryllium 10, but decays twice as fast. The quantity of aluminium atoms relative to beryllium told the scientists that once the ice cover melted away, the rock was exposed for more than 280,000 years, until about 1.1 million years ago.
Official from LiveScience.COM: The ice on the island of Greenland is 1.1 mln years old.

Wikipedia has more entertaining disinformation:
  • The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered from northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years.
  • From about 11 million years ago to 10 million years ago, the Greenland Ice Sheet was greatly reduced in size.
  • The Greenland Ice Sheet formed in the middle Miocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers.
  • The Western and Eastern Greenland mountains constitute passive continental margins that were uplifted in two phases, 10 and 5 million years ago, in the Miocene epoch.
  • There was an intensification of glaciation during the Late Pliocene. Ice sheet formation occurred in connection to uplift of the West Greenland and East Greenland uplands.
And my favorite one:
  • The weight of the ice has depressed the central area of Greenland; the bedrock surface is near sea level over most of the interior of Greenland, but mountains occur around the periphery, confining the sheet along its margins. If the ice suddenly disappeared, Greenland would most probably appear as an archipelago, at least until isostasy lifted the land surface above sea level once again.
KD: What a crack up of an official storyline. Are they even serious?
  • The ice pushed all the hills, and may be mountains down, and leveled everything near the sea level.
  • If all the ice melts, don't be surprised if the iland of Greenland ends up being a group of islands.
Somehow in 1638 or J638, people thought that Greenland, just like Friesland, Muscovy and Scandia, was only covered in snow for 6 months.

Well, and of course those "made up" maps of the past. This here is a 1570 Mercator Map. I guess he drew our Greenland as it was millions of years ago. Good thing he remembered to include all those "later depressed" mountains and such.


There are multiple other maps where Greenland is free of ice, but this is not the point of this article.

Some History
Per Wiki: Three-quarters of Greenland is covered by the only permanent ice sheet outside Antarctica. With a population of about 56,480 (2013), it is the least densely populated territory in the world. About a third of the population live in Nuuk, the capital and largest city. The Arctic Umiaq Line ferry acts as a lifeline for western Greenland, connecting the various cities and settlements. The image below should give you a general idea of how populated the place is, and where everyone is at.



Now we go into the territory of "how do we know all that"?
  • Greenland has been inhabited at intervals over at least the last 4,500 years by Arctic peoples whose forebears migrated there from what is now Canada.
  • Norsemen settled the uninhabited southern part of Greenland beginning in the 10th century, having previously settled Iceland to escape persecution from the King of Norway and his central government.
  • These Norsemen would later set sail from Greenland and Iceland, with Leif Erikson becoming the first known European to reach North America nearly 500 years before Columbus reached the Caribbean islands.
  • Inuit peoples arrived in the 13th century.
  • Though under continuous influence of Norway and Norwegians, Greenland was not formally under the Norwegian crown until 1262. The Norse colonies disappeared in the late 15th century when Norway was hit by the Black Death and entered a severe decline.
  • Soon after their demise, beginning in 1499, the Portuguese briefly explored and claimed the island, naming it Terra do Lavrador (later applied to Labrador in Canada).
I guess it's official now. Leif Erikson "discovered" America. It would be appropriate to change all the Columbus related names to reflect the proper discoverer.
More Realistic History?
In the early 18th century, Danish explorers reached Greenland again. To strengthen trading and power, Denmark–Norway affirmed sovereignty over the island. Because of Norway's weak status, it lost sovereignty over Greenland in 1814 when the union was dissolved. Greenland became Danish in 1814, and was fully integrated in the Danish state in 1953 under the Constitution of Denmark.
  • In my humble opinion, this is probably where a semi-verifiable history of Greenland starts.
What are they hiding?
I have not searched in depth, as far as possible cities and other objects go. Based on prior experiences, it is possible that Goggle Ngram could produce some relevant results. In this case I wanted to point out a possible historical slip up. In this case it has the appearance of a man made canal. I have hard time imagining something like this being natural. The canal, if it's still there would have to be approximately 630-650 miles long. That is approximately 700 in kilometers.
  • When zoomed in: It is said that these straights were formerly passable, but now they are shut up with ice.
  • Map Source: 1747 Old Greenland

Well, zooming in actually does help out a bit. I think the beginning of our canal can be seen when you closely inspect the South-Eastern part of Greenland. These are the approximate coordinates (67°47'55.92" N 33°43'07.29" W), and you can pretty much see it in Google Earth only.


The man made canal is just a hypothesis of mine, for we do have multiple other maps. Some of those are capable of raising some eyebrows too.

This here is a 1592 map by Vincenzo Coronelli, displaying the southern tip of Greenland with no ice. It has two straights, or channels, whatever you wanna call those. Additionally it presents us with an ever confusing topic of whether Friesland ever existed.
  • Nice trees they had growing there in 1592, huh?

Illustration taken from the book "Description et histoire naturelle du Groenland" by Egede, Hans and published by Philibert in 1763.


It appears that once everything froze over in Greenland, certain memories remained, and based on those memories people could recreate the location of the prior canals going east to west. The maps above, including the below 1770 map could be examples of just that. If I was to play with dates of the catastrophe, than based on what I've seen so far, we are talking about 1650s.

1770 map greenland.jpg

Of course we have other older maps where we do not see any channels. The one below is claimed to be a 1569 map by Gerardus Mercator. There could be multiple explanations for that, with the most simple ones involving the timing of their possible appearance in reality. That I will get to in a separate, time related article.

1569 map-tabula by Gerardus Mercator.jpg

The PTB are covered as usually. They simply call it "the incorrect assumption". Below you can see just that:
  • Map of Greenland by Egede (1818), illustrating the incorrect assumption that the Norse settlements of Greenland were located in South-West and South-East Greenland. Many of the localities named in the Icelandic Sagas are placed on this map at imaginary sites on the unknown east coast of Greenland. The map is from the second English edition of Hans Egede’s ‘Description of Greenland’, a slightly modified version of the first English edition published in 1741.

Crossing Greenland
I think one of the first people to allegedly cross Greenland East to West was Fridtjof Nansen. If Greenland was indeed inhabited and ice-free some 500 years ago, I doubt he was the first one, but as it stands, he crossed in in 1888.
  • In 1888, Fridtjof Nansen, a mere biology student at the University of Oslo and an avid skier, organized a daring expedition: crossing the Greenlandic ice-sheet from East (a mostly uninhabited wasteland) to West (where most of the Greenlanders lived) as opposed to the previous Greenlandic expeditions which had all started from West to East.
  • Nansen was not alone on this journey. He assembled a crew that included some highly competent and hardy men.
  • From left to right: Ole Nielsen Ravna, Christian Dietrichson, Fridtjof Nansen, Otto Sverdrup, Kristian Kristiansen Trana and Samuel Johansen Balto.


It is rather remarkable, that Nansen's initial proposed route was exactly where the above-mentioned canal would/could be. Mr. Nansen and Co. were unable to execute the planned route (red) and had to settle for the one they actually took (green).
  • KD: While we will never find out the real purpose, and the real route they took, I find the red route to be fairly suspicious. Pretty sure there is a plausible explanation for such a coincidence. In my opinion, "plausibility" is quickly becoming an unreliable historical commodity.



Landscape and Icemelt
Apparently scientists are highly concerned with how fast Greenland is loosing its "million year old" ice sheet. As a matter of fact they appear to be freaking out. Global Warming, aka Climate Change is in full swing.

Well, chances are, our scientists will have a few things they will have to explain way before year 2100. That is when all the ice is supposed to melt. Are we gonna see some artifacts in there?


KD: Anyways, I wanted to throw something interesting for a discussion. Greenland could be a place with a lot of preserved ancient stuff. Not like we are gonna see any of it, but the recent ice melting development allows for some exciting thoughts. Even on our end, with a diligent older texts search, we could produce certain results. That is for those who wants to explore further.

TPTB is trying to get everyone concerned with the Global Warming a.k.a. Climate Change. Sounds like our Earth system is re-balancing itself and getting back to its original state. May be the narrative should answer up to what froze everything up some 500 years. To avoid that our pseudo-scientists prefer to blow "million year old" smoke up our everything. Sadly, the tactic appears to work.
This line about 12 billion tons of ice disappearing in 24 hours caught my eye.

I was just trying to look it up, and from what I can see, the amount of energy required to melt one single ton of ice would be 345796730 joules, which is supposedly equivalent to 96 kilowatt hours.

So it would seem that that article must be alleging that Greenland received an -additional- amount of energy in some 24 hour period that was equivalent to 96 killowatt hours times 12 billion. The normal amount of solar energy that Greenland receives, I suppose, was enough to keep everything in its normal freezing condition. So for the ice to melt, it must have been getting something above that, whether from the sun or volcanoes or whatever.

One of these pages I found says that on the average each square meter of the earths surface receives the equivalent of one kilowatt of solar energy per hour.

I didn't bother figuring out the square meter surface of Greenland.

It just seems unlikely to me that in some 24 hour period Greenland got 96 times 12 billion additional kilowatt hours of energy from whatever source. Even if these numbers are quite far off, I think in general it would require a lot of energy to melt so much ice so quickly.

Of course, this is not directly related to the canal issue, but I think it goes to the general unreliability to 'official' sources for information on any topic.


Similar articles