[silverleaf]

Sumerians and others who write about the 12th planet and its cyclical effect on earth and the inner solar system, would say that is because Antarctica was not originally located at earth’s “South pole”

Some even speculate that Antarctica was once a tropical to temperate continent known as “atlantis”

[SunkenCiv]

The only people who write about the 12th planet are modern. The Sumerians never did that. Sitchin's fictional / imaginary / fraudulent world with its 3600 year orbit occurs in his book and derivative works.

Rand and Rose Flem-Ath claim that Plato's Atlantis was in Antarctica, despite Plato's description, and like a lot of folks who have put it somewhere else (in Libya, in Anatolia, in the Aegean, in the North Sea, in the Andes, in Wisconsin, etc etc) bend over backwards and then some to try to make Plato's clear description into something that it is not. Also, the crustal displacement idea is a way to turn something that is clearly described as sudden and catastrophic into something cyclical and so gentle it would barely rattle the dishes in the cupboard.

Related but dead links (used to be anyway, haven't checked 'em lately):

Mechanics of Displacements
by Rand Flem-Ath

...the Antarctic beech trees are from two to three million years old. The point that was being made was that plate tectonics, as a theory, was incapable of explaining the existence of this forest so close to the South Pole a mere two to three million years ago. This is not to say that plate tectonics is wrong: it is simply insufficient on its own to account for these facts. At the slow pace of change demanded by plate tectonics the beech trees would have to be many millions (not just 2 or 3 million) of years old to be 200 miles from the South Pole. In other words, to account for the beech forest on Antarctica we need another whole Earth theory to explain the facts. Earth crust displacement is a complementary whole earth theory to plate tectonics that can account for these facts. We are not disputing the power of the plate tectonic theory: we are simply adding another set of lens with which the past might be viewed.

Spending Time and Wasting Space:
or how ice core dating went wrong
by Rand Flem-Ath and Colin Wilson

What we find from the ice core dating is that Lesser Antarctica has been covered in ice for at least 122,000 years, if not more. But when we shift our attention to the opposite side of the globe and look at Siberia, Beringia and Alaska we do not find equivalent ice sheets. Instead we find evidence of many large mammals such as horses, bison and rhinoceros swarming over grasslands. How can one part of the globe be under ice for at least 122,000 years while the exact opposite of the globe has no ice and large mammals (dating from 11,000 to 70,000 carbon-14 years ago)? This does not compute. Either the evidence from the north is wrong or the evidence from the south is wrong.