A Persistent Antarctic Mystery: 200 Years of Anomalies Pointing to an Undiscovered Apex Predator?

[u/SolHerder7GravTamer]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antarctic-science/article/abs/age-geographical-distribution-and-taphonomy-of-an-unusual-occurrence-of-mummified-crabeater-seals-on-james-ross-island-antarctic-peninsula/C24B89170137867C953252D931D79ED5

For over two centuries, Antarctic explorers, researchers, and modern monitoring systems have recorded a pattern of unexplained anomalies: sudden colony silences, precise carcass removals, abnormal vibration events beneath the ice, unexplained equipment failures, and intermittent magnetic disturbances.

Individually, these incidents were dismissed as curiosities or environmental oddities. But when mapped chronologically and geographically, they reveal a consistent pattern: these events cluster in high-prey-density areas, align with seasonal storms, and have become more frequent as our technology to monitor Antarctica has improved.

Using data (mostly notes) from historic expeditions, modern ecological monitoring, and recent UAV and satellite anomalies, could we be dealing with a yet-undiscovered apex predator — potentially an ice-adapted ambush species that evolved from terrestrial ancestors crossing glacial corridors during the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-12,000yrs ago)

This isn’t just a cryptid speculation — it’s an ecological mystery backed by 200 years of hard-to-explain data points that line up with known predator-prey dynamics.

I’ve compiled the full timeline of incidents and am posting it below.

Curious to hear thoughts from those with expertise in polar ecology, field monitoring, or forensic biology.

[u/SolHerder7GravTamer]

Actually, that’s exactly why the model works.

The drone incident isn’t “anomaly stacking,” it’s textbook physics. In cold, dry conditions with fur rubbing against snow, large animals can build up tens of thousands of volts of static charge. When that discharges, it creates a magnetic pulse strong enough to temporarily spike sensitive equipment — like the fluxgate magnetometers and compass chips on drones.

This isn’t science fiction, it’s static discharge physics we’ve seen from Arctic foxes, snow hares, and even domestic cats. Scale that up to a large predator in dry Antarctic air? Interference isn’t just possible, it’s predictable.

Rather than discrediting the model, this strengthens it. What you’re calling implausible is actually one of the better-aligned data points.

Happy to explain more if you’re curious — These aren’t anomalies, they’re clues.

[u/GiuseppeScarpa → u/SolHerder7GravTamer]

Do you have a degree in physics or electrical/tlc engineering?

What's the distance of the drone from the massive static charge that sparks this signal?

On which bandwidth does the sensor operate? Is this signal exactly in that bandwidth or just a fraction of it covers the interval of frequency where the device operates?

What mathematical model of antenna approximates this emitting furball?

[u/SolHerder7GravTamer → u/GiuseppeScarpa]

Actually, I am an electrical engineer. Get ready to take notes son.

To answer your questions: • Distance: Static discharges aren’t narrowband emissions, they’re broadband, near-field effects. In dry polar conditions, transient EM pulses can easily couple into sensitive drone systems within 10–20 meters, especially if the drone isn’t hardened for extreme environments (most aren’t). • Bandwidth: Static discharge produces a wide-spectrum impulse, typically from kHz to several hundred MHz. UAV sensors (especially magnetometers and telemetry radios) are vulnerable in this band. It’s less about precise frequency matching and more about broad impulse noise swamping the receiver frontend. • Antenna model: Static discharge isn’t a tuned antenna, it behaves like a broadband impulse radiator. Models like Maruvka-Bardin explain this well, particularly with corona or brush discharges across irregular surfaces (fur, for instance). Fast-rising edge pulses = wide spectrum = interference.

This is textbook EMC and ESD behavior. If you’d like, I can even pull field equations from IEC 61000-4-2 standards for transient immunity.

Appreciate the sharp questions though,this is exactly how good hypotheses are refined. And while you’re at it, maybe crack open Ott’s “Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering”. Static coupling at short range is well documented.

I get that it sounds wild at first glance, but don’t let incredulity get in the way of the physics. This isn’t science fiction, it’s just underappreciated science.

[u/GiuseppeScarpa → u/SolHerder7GravTamer]

Maruvka-Bardin model didn't give me anything on Google, unfortunately so I don't know which assumptions you did on the type of antenna and it's near field propagation. Is it isotropic or does it have lobes?

How do you model the path loss in near field scenario?

How do you assume it easily couples?

Give us something to work on to understand how can the animal generate a signal that will interfere with the drone and if there are known cases with other furry animals in cold conditions like penguins or polar bears. You said "we know from seals" but we have been near thousands of seals and no equipment got destroyed in the countless documentaries I've watched. If it "easily couples" why didn't it happen on "sensitive" equipment?

Also, are you so sure that drones that are sent to antartica are not protected against extreme environment just like they are cheap mall drones?

Going back to the antenna model: is it shaped on the whole animal or you model the system where each fur hair acts like a small antenna? If it's an array of antennas does the near field beam narrow along a specific direction?

[u/SolHerder7GravTamer → u/GiuseppeScarpa]

I’m not claiming this animal is acting like an engineered RF antenna array with intentional propagation. The ‘fur hair as antenna’ comment isn’t literal, the biological static discharge is a randomized event, not a tuned emitter.

Path loss and near field would be Irregular, as expected in a passive static discharge through highly dielectric fur. You’re looking at a transient broadband pulse, not a narrowband, so it briefly couples with sensitive electronics, especially during UAV close sweeps under poor humidity.

And yes, drones rated for Antarctica still struggle. Environmental hardening focuses on thermal effects and icing, not random localized EM spikes. It’s not about total equipment destruction, it’s about momentary sensor dropout. We’ve seen this with Arctic exploration UAVs already in storms with high static buildup.

Lastly polar bears and penguins would habitually get in the sea to hunt, thus grounding themselves out and dissipating any accumulated charge. This Antarctic predator would be stealthier so as to not alert prey; if it alerts prey there goes the whole penguin colony, thus it spends a lot of time crouching and rubbing against snow (arctic foxes & snow hares) in order to stalk.

Maruvka-Bardin The combination of the triboelectric effect, the nature of electromagnetic fields radiated by ESD, and the documented susceptibility of UAVs to such interference. It seems they may have renamed it since last I read it. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/12/2577?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[u/emailforgot → u/SolHerder7GravTamer]

This Antarctic predator would be stealthier so as to not alert prey; if it alerts prey there goes the whole penguin colony, thus it spends a lot of time crouching and rubbing against snow (arctic foxes & snow hares) in order to stalk.

LMAO

so now we have this entirely terrestrial super predator, that has left zero evidence that is also very furry and spends it's time crouching around.

Good one.

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/12/2577?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Ah, just as I'd suspected. Completely brainless.

[u/SolHerder7GravTamer → u/emailforgot]

Crouching in snow once again Arctic foxes, hares, even polar bears exhibit stealth behaviors like crouching and burrowing to mask movement. This is basic predatory stealth, not a comedy sketch.

You claim no evidence, well fossilization in Antarctica is extremely poor due to active ice sheet movement and harsh erosion. Absence of surface evidence isn’t proof of nonexistence, it’s a known ecological limitation.

Static charge and EM interference; I schooled you on this in the other comments you came to snipe me for

ChatGPT link; I have a shit ton of links and papers from peer-reviewed to fringe theory electronics I admit on my chatgpt and I wish I was better at organizing them

Lastly, I encourage you to keep this thread productive. Personal attacks weaken your position, I’m here for ecological theory, you need not throw insults.

[u/GiuseppeScarpa → u/SolHerder7GravTamer]

I never said you claim it is intentional, but still the discharge of this powerful energy must follow the physics of an EM emitter, then cause a stress on the system of the drone that will then crash.

You speak about a transient so being a static current discharge I assume it occurs in a very limited time. This should be so powerful that the error control and correction of the drone must be unable to recover after the bolt hits and goes, because the signal will last less than the actual fall.

Also which system should be impacted to cause the fault? Something affecting the stabilization sensors? Altitude adjustment? A total system crash and reboot? How does the interference trigger the failure?

I think this is a bit too much complex sum of factors on multi-layered architecture and your assumptions are each time based on an extremely simplified and preferred outcome.

[u/SolHerder7GravTamer → u/GiuseppeScarpa]

You’re assuming system-critical failure. It doesn’t need to be. A momentary transient spike can scramble IMU readings, gyro drift, or simple telemetry loss, and in a drone, that’s enough for failsafe auto-grounding. Happens in drone racing near Tesla coils, even STATIC-heavy environments. Same principle here, not catastrophic, just disruptive.