2012 Prophecy

Wikipedia, like any source, isn't faultless but since it has many independent people constantly checking the contents, it's vastly more likely to be accurate than the publications of those individuals who believe in the weird and wonderful. This is what it says about the Piri Reis map:

Amateur historian Gavin Menzies claims in his book 1421: The Year China Discovered America that the southern landmass is indeed the Antarctic coastline and was based on earlier Chinese maps. According to Menzies, Admiral Hong Bao charted the coast over 70 years before Columbus as part of a larger expedition under the famous Chinese explorer and admiral Zheng He to bring the world under China's tribute system.

Gregory McIntosh and other cartographers and historians who have examined the map in detail believe the resemblance of the coastline to the actual coast of Antarctica to be tenuous. For centuries before the actual discovery of Antarctica, cartographers had been depicting a massive southern landmass on global maps based on the theoretical assumption by some that one must exist, if only to balance the landmass of the North. It was widely believed that South America and, once its northern coastline was discovered, Australia, must be joined to this land mass, which was thought to be very much bigger than the real Antarctica. This theoretical southern continent, the Great Southern Land or Terra Australis Incognita (literally Unknown Southern Land), in various configurations, was usually shown on maps until the eighteenth century. An alternate view is that the "Antarctic" coast is simply the eastern coastline of South America skewed to align east-west due to the inaccurate measurement of longitude or to fit it on the page.[36]

Hapgood suggests that the Antarctic section of the map was copied at an incorrect scale to the rest of the map and resulted in the distortion and enlargement of the continent on several ancient maps. This would explain why there is no waterway between South America and Antarctica. He suggests several points of continuity between the Piri Reis Map and modern maps of the continent below the ice caps. Since the Antarctic continent was not officially sighted until 1820[37][38] and its full coastline was not known until much later; this claim, if true, would require major revisions to the history of exploration, settlement, evolution, and technological advancements of the time.[39]

There are many difficulties in the map of South America, including duplication of rivers. Close examination of the coastline supports the alternative theory that the "extra" landmass is simply the South American coast, probably explored in secret by Portuguese navigators, and bent round to fit the parchment. There are features resembling the basins at the mouth of the Strait of Magellan, and the Falkland Islands.

Another little saying to be borne in mind: "The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so" - Louis Pasteur
 
I was a fan of the Antarctic-Atlantis theory back in the day, largely thanks to Colin Wilson's extremely readable "From Atlantis to the Sphinx". I even used it as the backstory for a novel. (Did you know that the Babylonian base-12 numbering system, by which we have 360 degrees etc, was derived from the fact that the fallen angels who built Atlantis had six fingers on each hand, a mutation until recently taken to mean "faery blood", thanks to cross-breeds entering the human gene-pool? No? Well, you do now.)

The trouble with Hancock etc is that they're fond of tossing around phrases like "uncanny accuracy", without quantifying what they mean. When you do find out the precise data for some alignment or cross-culture comparison, they're often not at all impressive. For example, if you try to actually compare the Piri-Reis (was that the name?) map of supposed ancient pre-ice Antarctica with current mapping, it's extremely disappointing, and in no way, in my opinion, justifies the extravagant claims for it. (I believe recognition of this kind of disparity has caused Graham Hancock to distance himself from the Pyramids = Orion idea since he wrote Fingerprints of the Gods.)

It has now been demonstrated (to my satisfaction at least) that Plato's Atlantis was Santorini/Thera in the Mediterranean (along with elements of Minoan Crete), destroyed by a volcanic eruption in about 1500 BC. I wonder, if Plato hadn't come up with the figure of 10,000 years and placed Atlantis beyond the Pillars of Hercules, would there ever have arisen any theories of worldwide progenitor civilisations to trouble us now?

Sure. And of course one must keep an open mind, or one ends up defending the 'alternative' model as blindly as those with mouths to feed defend the 'establishment' model.

However, Orion becomes a bit of a quibble. The 'Aztec' stonework and other 'pre-civilization' monuments clearly required stone cutting and construction techniques that we don't even have today.

The piri-reis map is also an oddity, remarkable more for its evident overall accuracy than its lack of accuracy, and considering the effects of I don't know how many millions or billions of tons of ice in the meantime.
 
Wikipedia, like any source, isn't faultless but since it has many independent people constantly checking the contents, it's vastly more likely to be accurate than the publications of those individuals who believe in the weird and wonderful. This is what it says about the Piri Reis map:



Another little saying to be borne in mind: "The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so" - Louis Pasteur

But why would someone go to all the trouble of making a map of the earth as accurately as humanly possible at the time, and then make the elementary mistake of drafting in a whole continent to the wrong scale?

It reads to me like people tying themselves up in knots to avoid the 'impossible' conclusion that the continent of Antartica WAS charted 14000 years ago (give or take) BEFORE the ice-cap grew to cover it?
 
Sure. And of course one must keep an open mind, or one ends up defending the 'alternative' model as blindly as those with mouths to feed defend the 'establishment' model.

"It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

The piri-reis map is also an oddity, remarkable more for its evident overall accuracy than its lack of accuracy, and considering the effects of I don't know how many millions or billions of tons of ice in the meantime.

Wiki again: "Gregory McIntosh, a historian of cartography, has examined the Piri Reis map in depth and published his research in the book The Piri Reis Map of 1513 (Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 2000).

McIntosh, in comparing the Piri Reis map to several other portolan-style maps of the era, found that
The Piri Reis map is not the most accurate map of the sixteenth century, as has been claimed, there being many, many world maps produced in the remaining eighty-seven years of that century that far surpass it in accuracy. The Ribero maps of the 1520s and 1530s, the Ortelius map of 1570, and the Wright-Molyneux map of 1599 (‘the best map of the sixteenth century’) are only a few better-known examples."
So your "evident overall accuracy" doesn't seem to be all that evident after all...

It reads to me like people tying themselves up in knots to avoid the 'impossible' conclusion that the continent of Antartica WAS charted 14000 years ago (give or take) BEFORE the ice-cap grew to cover it?

At last, we agree on something - "impossible" is exactly the right word!

As usual, the simplest explanation is the true one: that such early cartographers had very little accurate information to go on outside the well-explored areas, and their maps were mixtures of the good, bad and indifferent, involving more and more speculation, hearsay, legend and myth the further out they went.
 
"It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."



Wiki again: "Gregory McIntosh, a historian of cartography, has examined the Piri Reis map in depth and published his research in the book The Piri Reis Map of 1513 (Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 2000).

McIntosh, in comparing the Piri Reis map to several other portolan-style maps of the era, found that
The Piri Reis map is not the most accurate map of the sixteenth century, as has been claimed, there being many, many world maps produced in the remaining eighty-seven years of that century that far surpass it in accuracy. The Ribero maps of the 1520s and 1530s, the Ortelius map of 1570, and the Wright-Molyneux map of 1599 (‘the best map of the sixteenth century’) are only a few better-known examples."
So your "evident overall accuracy" doesn't seem to be all that evident after all...



At last, we agree on something - "impossible" is exactly the right word!

As usual, the simplest explanation is the true one: that such early cartographers had very little accurate information to go on outside the well-explored areas, and their maps were mixtures of the good, bad and indifferent, involving more and more speculation, hearsay, legend and myth the further out they went.

But that's exactly the point. The piri-reis map was far from accurate, given that the chronometer to fix longitude did not come in until Captain Cook -- it had two Amazon rivers. Yet the piri-reis map drew a surprisingly accurate continental outline for Anartica -- to scale -- that was only recently confirmed by sonar mapping (within reason, considering the time gap and the effects of shifting weight of ice during that time) ...
 
But that's exactly the point. The piri-reis map was far from accurate, given that the chronometer to fix longitude did not come in until Captain Cook -- yet the piri-reis map drew a surprisingly accurate continental outline for Anartica ...

You missed this bit in Post #41:

"Gregory McIntosh and other cartographers and historians who have examined the map in detail believe the resemblance of the coastline to the actual coast of Antarctica to be tenuous."

and:

"Close examination of the coastline supports the alternative theory that the "extra" landmass is simply the South American coast, probably explored in secret by Portuguese navigators, and bent round to fit the parchment. There are features resembling the basins at the mouth of the Strait of Magellan, and the Falkland Islands."

So not so "surprisingly accurate", it seems.
 
You missed this bit in Post #41:

"Gregory McIntosh and other cartographers and historians who have examined the map in detail believe the resemblance of the coastline to the actual coast of Antarctica to be tenuous."

and:

"Close examination of the coastline supports the alternative theory that the "extra" landmass is simply the South American coast, probably explored in secret by Portuguese navigators, and bent round to fit the parchment. There are features resembling the basins at the mouth of the Strait of Magellan, and the Falkland Islands."

So not so "surprisingly accurate", it seems.

I wish I could get a picture up on here. I'm still trying to find out how to do it.

I'll try later, meantime FORGET about piri-reis.

Google search: 'Ancient maps of Anartica' go to the 'images' entry, and tell me they're inaccurate ...
 
"...and the Wright-Molyneux map of 1599 (‘the best map of the sixteenth century’) are only a few better-known examples."
Your links are not to Wikipedia but to non-existent pages of the Chrons. However, I'll still assume "Wright" isn't Billy Wright and "Molyneux" isn't an older spelling of the name of the ground where he played professional soccer.... ;):)


As to the prediction, we can all have a chat on the Chrons about its validity on, say, December 22 2012.... ;):)
 
Google search: 'Ancient maps of Anartica' go to the 'images' entry, and tell me they're inaccurate ...

You mean this one? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Old_maps_of_Antarctica

The trouble is there are scores of maps there, varying from 70 years ago backwards. Which ones did you have in mind?

Of course, the basic problem is what to compare the old maps with. The ice cover today? Or without any ice cover as shown below (only the green and yellow are above present-day sea level) - in which case, what sea level do you assume?

600px-
 
How do you DO that? I get a message saying my file's too large. 178 Kb?

No, not Wiki. Just click on the link below. I mean an accurate map of the land continent of Antarctica as it was BEFORE covered by the southern ice cap
 
Ok, no picture yet, but here's a link, to the 'Oronoteus Fineaus' Map of Antarctica, pre-ice:

www.altarcheologie.nl/geoarchaeology/ancient_maps_files/ancient_maps_oron.htm

Inaccurate?? :)

Yep. See: http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/orontius.php

Although there are fairly obvious similarities between the general depiction of the southern continent by Orontius Finaeus and modern maps of Antarctica, they do not stand up to close scrutiny; indeed, there are more differences than similarities, much as one would expect from a map drawn without genuine knowledge of the southern continent! To show that Orontius’s Terra Australis corresponds to the outline of Antarctica, it was necessary for Hapgood to rotate the depiction by about twenty degrees, move the South Pole by 7½° (1,600 km) and alter the scale, as Terra Australis is 230% the size of Antarctica. Hapgood used this change in scale to explain the absence of the Antarctic Peninsula (Palmer Land), which he believed Orontius Finaeus had to omit from his map as it would have overlapped with South America at that scale; he explained that Finaeus confused latitude 80° south with the Antarctic Circle. Just as with his treatment of Piri’s map, Hapgood also had to shuffle whole sections of coastline to make them fit. It is unclear how the hypothesised original map had become fragmented and wrongly recombined; it is even more unclear how the fringe writers can go on to claim that various geographical features are shown in their correct places and at the correct scale.
 
And, of course, if the land were to appear it would be because the ice had melted, which would raise the sea level and submerge some of the land coloured dark green in that image.
 
How do you DO that? I get a message saying my file's too large. 178 Kb?
The image needs to be already on-line somewhere. Right-click on it, then click on Properties, then copy the URL, click on "Insert Image" on the forum post box and paste in the URL.
 
I'm sorry, but that's entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Quite so...

Please note that the site I quoted points out that the Orontius Finaeus map was considerably "massaged" by Hapgood to make it fit his theory, and had been reconstructed from fragments anyway.

Also bear in mind that determining credibility is not simply a matter of comparing two maps, which are so complex that it's equivalent to claims that significant patterns can be found in the wording of the Bible (apply the same techniques and you'll find equally significant patterns in any book of that length). There is also the matter of determining the source of the "information" used by Orontius - how credible is that?
 
This is the current view with the ice in place - I don't see that the Orontius map resembles either of the images I've posted (with or without ice).

600px-Antarctica_6400px_from_Blue_Marble.jpg
 
I do. It's actually pretty good, for something drawn 14000 years ago, wouldn't you say? That deep bay, and the rounded sort of nub part, with the bigger main section? Not too bad at all.

There are two sides to every story, and for some supportive correlation of that Fineaus map, with modern ones, here's another link:

www.atlantismaps.com/chapter_2.html

... and maybe that's enough maps for the time being, guys?
 

Back
Top