Second, is really the only argument in favor of this theory the statement of that Colonel made in 1960 with data from 1949 ? We surely have much better data now, from studies done with much better equipment and those things called "artificial satellites". Simply basing the argument on something somebody said half a century ago is silly. If there is any validity in this theory, surely it could be checked with more modern measurements. Third, and really more important: what shape the coastline is right now, under the very thick ice sheet, is irrelevant. This is because ice weights, and weights a lot. It weights so much that it has made the Antarctic Plate sink deeper in the mantle that it would do normally. So if you were to remove the ice from the Antarctic, the landmass underneath would bounce back in a short while (in geological terms); this would obviously alter the shape of the coastline. As the reverse is also true, the coastline of Antarctic before there was an ice sheet was different from what it is now.
This I disagree with. Once scientists have made their mind up that something is silly, nobody will ever risk proposing investigating it further. Scientists get ridiculed for studying such things and even if they surprise themselves and find out it holds water, nobody will accept it. It's just too "out there" for them to accept.
Consider the case of the Harvard geologist who determined that there is water erosion around the sphinx despite it being in a dessert for the last several thousand years. Implication is that the sphinx is far, far older than currently assumed. He's ignored because it just can't be true, that's all there is to it. He may be wrong, I haven't seen anyone offer an alternative explanation to his findings though, not one that fully explains the marks. Just say it's not possible it could be that old.