2012 Prophecy

[Anthony G Williams]

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.

Where is your evidence for "14,000 years?"

Humanity was in the Old Stone Age at that time, with a hollowed-out log being about the best they could do in terms of sea-going craft. They didn't have anything which could even be used to draw maps on (or even to draw with, other than a charcoal stick), let alone any surveying equipment, and they had no concept of latitude and longitude. There is not a shred of validated evidence to suggest otherwise.

So if you believe that humanity was mapping Antartica 14,000 years ago, you are essentially saying that everything we have learned about early civilisation is wrong, all of the evidence accumulated is false, and there is a huge international conspiracy of scientists to cover up the "truth". And your evidence for this? A reconstructed old map, massaged to fit, which at the most only resembles Antarctica in being an irregular blob shape!

I remind you of the maxim: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." To say that humanity was capable of mapping Antarctica 14,000 years ago is, to put it very mildly, an extremely extraordinary claim. The "proof" is frankly laughable.

 

[RJM Corbet]

The Phillipe Buache map 1737

www.goldenageproject.org.uk/142antarctica.php

No of course that's not all the 'evidence'. There is 'evidence' all over the place, the 'Aztec' stonework, etc. Puma Punchu. The great pyramid. For people who had no tools and didn't know how to calculate longitude, they managed some extraordinary stuff ...

 

[Anthony G Williams]

The Phillipe Buache map 1737

www.goldenageproject.org.uk/142antarctica.php

Nope. If you compare that with the ice-free map I posted earlier, there is no resemblance except to those afflicted by desperate wishful thinking. As I pointed out in an earlier post, there was a general belief that there ought to be a southern continent to balance the northern ones, centuries before Antarctica was actually discovered, so all sorts of odd-shaped land masses were imaginatively included on early maps. That proves nothing.

Incidentally, I love that "Evidently copied from maps surviving from ancient times" on that site. That's typical of the flannel used by promoters of such nonsense (along with "as everyone knows"): it's just an assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever.

No of course that's not all the 'evidence'. There is 'evidence' all over the place, the 'Aztec' stonework, etc. Puma Punchu. The great pyramid. For people who had no tools and didn't know how to calculate longitude, they managed some extraordinary stuff ...

This has what, exactly, to do with mapping Antarctica 14,000 years ago? You seem to be trying to change the subject rather rapidly. The Great Pyramid (about which there is nothing magical, except for the bizarre religious beliefs which prompted it) was built 4,500 years ago, while the Aztecs were around only 400 to 600 years ago.

 

[RJM Corbet]

... This has what, exactly, to do with mapping Antarctica 14,000 years ago? You seem to be trying to change the subject rather rapidly. The Great Pyramid (about which there is nothing magical, except for the bizarre religious beliefs which prompted it) was built 4,500 years ago, while the Aztecs were around only 400 to 600 years ago.

Each to his own, Anthony, each to his own.

You can see evidence that the Aztecs built the stonework they're supposed to have built, and that the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, if you want.

And I can see evidence for a pre-civilization if I want ...

 

[Anthony G Williams]

Each to his own, Anthony, each to his own.

You can see evidence that the Aztecs built the stonework they're supposed to have built, and that the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, if you want.

And I can see evidence for a pre-civilization if I want ...

I don't doubt for one moment that the Aztecs built their stonework, and that the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid. There is no question of that, the evidence for it is massive.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But not all opinions are equal. Some are based on hard evidence, others are just fantasies.

 

[RJM Corbet]

I don't doubt for one moment that the Aztecs built their stonework, and that the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid. There is no question of that, the evidence for it is massive ...

Uh huh ...

 

[Dave]

Conspiracy theories are interesting but always disappointingly wrong. Thanks, I'd never heard of that map before, but this might bring a little more perspective to it:

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/buache.php

Why do you think that the Aztecs and Egyptians could not have built their stone works? Is it because we couldn't? Given the knowledge and skills of working in stone that we have lost, an total absence of health and safety, and an endless supply of cheap slave power, I have no doubt that we could. There are Scottish cairns that we would have difficulty reproducing today, that doesn't mean that we automatically assume aliens built them.

 

[RJM Corbet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfxcOwMQL0o&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIxRXmRFtYQ&feature=player_detailpage

 

[RJM Corbet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4veXYJElBs&feature=player_detailpage

 

[Vertigo]

I've been offline for a few days so missed most of this discussion. But I have to say I can see very little correlation between any of those maps. In fact I would go on to say that I could find some maps in fantasy stories that match the Antartic continent more closely.

 

[Vertigo]

I have done a bit of browsing around and your first and third videos (the second only seems to have music and no commentary) both claim that Puma Punku was made from diorite and that it is the hardest substance after diamond. Now firstly whilst diorite is a very hard rock, 2.5 to 7 on the Mohs scale, it is not nearly, even at its hardest, as hard as diamond (10 on the Mohs scale). In fact because of its hardness it was very popular amongst most ancient civilisations for working other rocks. Secondly and more tellingly, the only references to diorite being used in Puma Punku that I can find are on sites claiming that aliens must have helped cut them. All other sites that I can find (and I searched quite extensively) state that the very large paving slabs are made from sandstone (very soft and easy to work) and the only other rock used is andesite (very common in that area, it is named after the Andes after all) which is also quite hard but nowhere near as hard (3 to 4 on the Mohs scale). Also I have climbed on diorite and sandstone and I have to say in the videos the rock that I'm seeing looks very much like sandstone to me. Not a very scientific observation that one I know, but just saying

Some of the South American stone work from various civilisations is quite remarkable, I would certainly agree with that, and the tightness of the joints between blocks achieved by them is also quite extraordinary. But modern experimental archaeologists have frequently demonstrated techniques using tools available at the time of construction that can produce results equally as good. I can't describe these here as I have long since forgotten them, but I assure you I have seen them demonstrated on various documentaries.

Finally this is not exactly in the same scale of the previous discussion, the following comment refers to the radiocarbon dating of infill material:

This layer was deposited during the first of three construction epochs and dates the initial construction of the Pumapunku at 1510 ±25 B.P. C14 (AD 440; calibrated, AD 536–600). Since the radiocarbon date came from the lowermost and oldest layer of mound fill underlying the andesite and sandstone stonework, the stonework must have been constructed sometime after 1510 ±25 B.P. C14.

This is only around 1500 years ago.

 

[Dave]

I'd agree with all that, Vertigo, but I couldn't be bothered to do your research. I also tended to switch off after I heard "this could only be the result of a nuclear explosion." I saw some red staining on one slab of rock which you might get in sandstone but not in an igneous rock.

I've done some drystone walling myself. Given enough pieces of rock to choose from you can always find pieces that fit together neatly. There are Scottish megaliths built that way that are 10,000 years old and still standing. Given that before man came along the plateau of Puma Punku would have been covered in such rocks, I don't see any supernatural or out of this world explanation is required.

I have also seen the documentaries on the the very fine tolerances of the stones (it may have been Inca not Aztec - and may have been BBC 'Horizon') but that could still be achieved by careful, skilled cutting and plenty of time. These stonemasons were very skilful, but they were humans.

 

[Ursa major]

And that skill was passed from parent to child, meaning that there were always a few chips off the old block around....


Which, to be serious, allows all sorts of things to be achieved. We're so used to things being done in months that we can't comprehend that some projects required decades, or even centuries, to be completed. (Which is where the faith of these folk comes into play, I suppose: they weren't necessarily personal projects, but ones for the community and/or their god(s).)

 

[RJM Corbet]

Oh, I'm not implying 'aliens'.

Mohs scale:
1) Talc
2) Gypsum
3) Calcite
4) Fluorite
5) Apatite
6) Feldspar (othoclase variety)
7) Quartz
8) Topaz
9) Corundum
10) Diamond

Those are minerals, which combine to form rocks.

Limestone comes in around 3, diorite, andesite and granite around 7. The harder rock will scratch the softer. Some sandstone, such as the Table Mountain quartzarite sandstone is very hard -- 6.5 to 7 -- beneath the crumbly surface weathering.

Also, diamond is so MUCH harder in relation to corundum than corundum is to topaz, or topaz to quartz.

As I repeatedly have said, unfortunately the loonies and nutbars and fakes and charlatans are quick to muddy the water for anyone trying to have a reasonable discussion. Just because some nitwit proposes an atomic explosion (which would vapourize the bloody place anyway) or states incorrectly that diorite is 'almost as hard as diamond' does not mean one should not recognize the fact that to cut diorite, or even limestone to those tolerances is pretty tricky to say the least.

If someone doesn't even want to consider the fact that there might have been a pre-civilization, that's their right.

The geologist who proposed the 'theory' of 'continental drift' in the 1920s (sorry I can't be bothered to look up his name, but it'll be there) was laughed out of the geological establishment and called a 'madman' -- and by 1960 they were teaching tectonic geology in schools.

Crustal displacement is a geological 'theory' that Albert Einstein endorsed as possible.

I'm not trying to make people believe anything, but if people don't even want to consider alternatives to the impossible 'model' that's up to them. I know you can't cut and drill diorite, or whatever it is, to that precision with stone age or copper tools. The Maya and Inca didn't even have the wheel. They ran around the jungle with flint knives. And we're supposed to buy the idea that they worked stone like that? Or designed a calendar as precise as that?

Why is the 'alternative' theory of 'pre-civilization' less believable than the 'model' theory that the stone-age Inca were capable of that degree of precision stone cutting and building?

 

[Dave]

We're so used to things being done in months that we can't comprehend that some projects required decades, or even centuries, to be completed.

If anyone doubts that, just do a quick search for some comments about (The Church of the Sacred Family) Templo Expiatorio de la Sagrada Familia, Barcelona which was started in 1882 and is not yet completed. Invariably the first comment expressed is disbelief that Antoni Gaudi spent all his life on it knowing that he would never see it finished.

 

[RJM Corbet]

If anyone doubts that, just do a quick search for some comments about (The Church of the Sacred Family) Templo Expiatorio de la Sagrada Familia, Barcelona which was started in 1882 and is not yet completed. Invariably the first comment expressed is disbelief that Antoni Gaudi spent all his life on it knowing that he would never see it finished.

Yes, but then they built the Great Pyramid in 20 years?

The Phillipe Buache map is actually pretty close to the modern survey map posted below, if you look for similarities, not differences, after 14000 years or whatever of ice erosion etc.

 

[Dave]

Oh, I'm not implying 'aliens'.

Just because some nitwit proposes an atomic explosion (which would vapourize the bloody place anyway) or states incorrectly that diorite is 'almost as hard as diamond' does not mean one should not recognize the fact that to cut diorite, or even limestone to those tolerances is pretty tricky to say the least.

Sorry, you've lost me totally now, you were the one who posted the "nitwit"'s proposals in answer to my question. If you don't agree with them what exactly is it that you propose? An ancient agricultural based civilisation with power tools and tungsten-carbide drills? I think Andesite chisels and sandpaper is a much more ordinary explanation.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Sorry, you've lost me totally now, you were the one who posted the "nitwit"'s proposals in answer to my question. If you don't agree with them what exactly is it that you propose? An ancient agricultural based civilisation with power tools and tungsten-carbide drills? I think Andesite chisels and sandpaper is a much more ordinary explanation.

I don't agree with ancient atomic explosions or aliens, but I look at the pictures and know a stone age culture that did not even have the technological mentality to invent the wheel was not capable of that stone cutting, that's all. Even their knives were crudely chipped flint. There's no way.

So who did it?

That's the question, isn't it?

 

[Dave]

Are we still talking about Aztec's here? They did have the wheel, though only as a toy. They had obsidian tools that are harder than most metals. They had clubs with embedded volcanic glass. They had reed and bone drills.

The Inca had complex hydraulic engineering, freeze-dried foods, and performed medical surgery. While it isn't clear to us how they could transport rocks, cut them precisely and polish them, they did have the "technological mentality", as you call it, to do so.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Are we still talking about Aztec's here? They did have the wheel, though only as a toy. They had obsidian tools that are harder than most metals. They had clubs with embedded volcanic glass. They had reed and bone drills.

The Inca had complex hydraulic engineering, freeze-dried foods, and performed medical surgery. While it isn't clear to us how they could transport rocks, cut them precisely and polish them, they did have the "technological mentality", as you call it, to do so.

Yes, perhaps. Quibble: obsidian varies in hardness between apatite and feldspar, but, being glass, it's brittle, which is a separate quality. Mohs hardness measures only the ability of one mineral to scratch another. A diamond, for instance, is hard but quite brittle.

The most impressive 'evidence' from this discussion so far to me, is Vertigo's observation about the carbon dating of the foundation fill, which I confess I glossed past, but which is worth checking and, if true, can certainly be classed as 'evidence'.

EDIT: Googling quickly around I'm getting 'carbon dating' but nothing about how it was done -- no 'fill' yet. Possible to post the link please Vertigo? Not that I doubt you. For my own satisfaction. One should be open to the truth, however strange?