Is that the best you've got, FRiend?
Pretty pathetic, I'd say.
First of all, "found three or four hundred feet down" is not a very accurate measurement, suggesting that no real scientific examination was made of the site.
Second, a typical rate of ice accumulation in Greenland is about eight inches per year.
That means we're really talking about 500 years -- not 3,400 years -- of ice layers above the crashed plane.
Of course, over many years that original eight inches gets compacted and squeezed down to small fractions of an inch, eventually becoming uncountable as distinct years.
As of 2005, Greenland ice cores have been counted back 65,000 years.
Third, what happens when a plane crash-lands?
Does it not dig into whatever it crashed on, in this case, ice?
And if it crashes into a crevasse, might it not then fall many feet into the the ice, enough to account for the years you claim?
Finally, how much do we know about the movements of ice in that region.
If the ice is moving relatively rapidly, a plane trapped in a crevasse could end up almost anywhere.
As for your allegations of "fubar" -- setting aside your affinity for course language -- I'll simply note the fact that ice-core layers can be counted, much like tree-rings, for thousands of feet down, and tiny air samples can be measured to determine changing global climate conditions, in some cases going back hundreds of thousands of years.
These have been matched with radio-metrically dated climate changes recorded in calcite deposits at Devils Hole, Nevada:
"Photograph of a section of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) ice core from 6,027 feet depth with clearly visible annual layers."
The problem is “scientists” counting ice layers as years when they should be counting them as snowstorms...