NationStates Jolt Archive

Source: World Mysteries

In 1929, a group of historians found an amazing map drawn on a gazelle skin. Research showed that it was a genuine document drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet in the sixteenth century. His passion was cartography. His high rank within the Turkish navy allowed him to have a privileged access to the Imperial Library of Constantinople.
The Turkish admiral admits in a series of notes on the map that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to the fourth century BC or earlier.

The Controversy
The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1_a.jpg

On 6th July 1960 the U. S. Air Force responded to Prof. Charles H. Hapgood of Keene College, specifically to his request for an evaluation of the ancient Piri Reis Map:

6, July, 1960
Subject: Admiral Piri Reis Map
TO: Prof. Charles H. Hapgood
Keene College
Keene, New Hampshire


Dear Professor Hapgood,
Your request of evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed.
The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsular, is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.
The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.
This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap.
The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick.
We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.

Harold Z. Ohlmeyer Lt. Colonel, USAF Commander

The official science has been saying all along that the ice-cap which covers the Antarctic is million years old. The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it. That should make think it has been mapped million years ago, but that's impossible since mankind did not exist at that time.

Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago. There are still doubts about the beginning of this ice-free period, which has been put by different researchers everything between year 13000 and 9000 BC. The question is: Who mapped the Queen Maud Land of Antarctic 6000 years ago? Which unknown civilization had the technology or the need to do that?

It is well-known that the first civilization, according to the traditional history, developed in the mid-east around year 3000 BC, soon to be followed within a millennium by the Indus valley and the Chinese ones. So, accordingly, none of the known civilizations could have done such a job. Who was here 4000 years BC, being able to do things that NOW are possible with the modern technologies?

Remember who was around, 4000 BC?
(http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm)

HOW DID THEY DO IT?? :eek:

I thought ALL coasts of Antarctica were northern coasts. :p

The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed.

Surely all of Antarctica's coastline is its northern coastline? Unless of course there is a puddle at the precise South Pole.

Anyway, there's nothing that weird about this. He might have sailed down there, he might have just heard tales of it? He might have seen the ice, assumed it was seasonal and then proceeded to draw it as if it was permenant land. Or, he may have just imagined it with the fanciful imagination that cartographers of days-gone-by possessed.

So, if it's 6,000 years old... I guess that makes the Bible's age moot, eh? That means we can't be here for only 5,000 years... heh. :p

I thought ALL coasts of Antarctica were northern coasts. :p
My guess is that they are referring to the coast north to America.

If you check the link, you'll also find out that this map is geographically perfect, when placed over a modern globe. It is not a forgery. This particular map is supposed to have been created from old maps dating back to 400BC, probably found in the Great Library of Alexandria.

GC: it shows the land under the ice, that has been covered for thousands of years at least.

So, if it's 6,000 years old... I guess that makes the Bible's age moot, eh? That means we can't be here for only 5,000 years... heh. :p
I don't believe in that BS. You don't either, right? :D

GC: it shows the land under the ice, that has been covered for thousands of years at least.
How is it possible? Antartica wasn't even discovered until 1818, 300 years after the map was done.

*raises hand*

If I remember correctly a lot of early maps showed a southern landmass, just on the assumption that there was one down there somewhere.

*raises hand*

If I remember correctly a lot of early maps showed a southern landmass, just on the assumption that there was one down there somewhere.

This map doen't just show them... It's geographically accurate. Assumption is not a rational argument.

I would say it is fake.

If nothing else, it's highly unlikely that the coastline of Antartica was the same 6,000 years ago as it is today. Ice is the biggest landscaper there is; if it can carve out the English Channel and the Great Lakes, for example, I think it's a bit silly to think it won't have changed Antartica even a little bit.

I would say it is fake.

If nothing else, it's highly unlikely that the coastline of Antartica was the same 6,000 years ago as it is today. Ice is the biggest landscaper there is; if it can carve out the English Channel and the Great Lakes, for example, I think it's a bit silly to think it won't have changed Antartica even a little bit.

Good point.

I would say it is fake.

If nothing else, it's highly unlikely that the coastline of Antartica was the same 6,000 years ago as it is today. Ice is the biggest landscaper there is; if it can carve out the English Channel and the Great Lakes, for example, I think it's a bit silly to think it won't have changed Antartica even a little bit.
You obviously haven't read that the map is an accurate representation of the land mass beneath the ice. It's not a fake; it's carbon-dated.

I don't believe in that BS. You don't either, right? :D
Nope, just using this thread to take a cheap shot at creationism. :D

I would say it is fake.

If nothing else, it's highly unlikely that the coastline of Antartica was the same 6,000 years ago as it is today. Ice is the biggest landscaper there is; if it can carve out the English Channel and the Great Lakes, for example, I think it's a bit silly to think it won't have changed Antartica even a little bit.

i would have to agree with this. I like a good mystery every now and then, but this is just to extreme. A fake.

Well if the oldest map is 6000 years old, It must have been made by humans who have existed for more than 6000 years, proving the bible wrong. Just one more shred of evidence to add to the list.

You obviously haven't read that the map is a accurate representation of the land mass beneath the ice. It's not a fake; it's carbon-dated.
Where does it say it's carbon dated? In 1960?

Tis a fake, no doubt about it. Even if the ice was exactly the same, why would a stone age man sail all the way round Antartica and South America, draw a perfect map of it and then, er, forget about it? How did these source maps preserve itself so well when documents we have today from just 300 years ago are decaying and crumbling?

Was the map itself carbondated or was the ink carbondated?

I think it was either that Altantis was there or that it's simply because there was a north star at that point. For a long time, there wasn't a north star so crossing oceans wasn't possible.

Well if the oldest map is 6000 years old, It must have been made by humans who have existed for more than 6000 years, proving the bible wrong. Just one more shred of evidence to add to the list.
Didn't I already make a similar snide remark on page 1? ;) No copying! Ne pas de!

Seems to me that the library contained some very ancient maps, try th eygptians or even pre-aztec/inca emipiers. There is plenty of evidence for 'global' trade as early as this. Also compare to when europe discovered america and how long other people had know aboit its existance. We have a pretty skewed veiw of history....

Where does it say it's carbon dated? In 1960?

Tis a fake, no doubt about it. Even if the ice was exactly the same, why would a stone age man sail all the way round Antartica and South America, draw a perfect map of it and then, er, forget about it? How did these source maps preserve itself so well when documents we have today from just 300 years ago are decaying and crumbling?


Don't normal bother pointing out minor hic ups, but cheak your dates for the stone age!!

Don't normal bother pointing out minor hic ups, but cheak your dates for the stone age!!
I wasn't trying to be accurate with the era, just making a point. :p

I would say it is fake.

If nothing else, it's highly unlikely that the coastline of Antartica was the same 6,000 years ago as it is today. Ice is the biggest landscaper there is; if it can carve out the English Channel and the Great Lakes, for example, I think it's a bit silly to think it won't have changed Antartica even a little bit.



But doesn't it take millions of years for those things to be carved by glaiciers? More than the measly 6000 we're talking about here... *trying to remember freshmen geology* :headbang:

But doesn't it take millions of years for those things to be carved by glaiciers? More than the measly 6000 we're talking about here... *trying to remember freshmen geology* :headbang:
No, in geological terms it's quite rapid. Even the toughest landscape is going to be hard pressed to resist the advances of millions of tons of moving ice.

Where does it say it's carbon dated? In 1960?

Tis a fake, no doubt about it. Even if the ice was exactly the same, why would a stone age man sail all the way round Antartica and South America, draw a perfect map of it and then, er, forget about it? How did these source maps preserve itself so well when documents we have today from just 300 years ago are decaying and crumbling?


He might not have forgotten about it... just lost it after he died. And there were more than one, they said the map was a conglomerate. A couple crazy cartographers could carry it on to other cartographers or they copy it, until the parts of the map make it way to Alexandria where some dude put it all together.

He might not have forgotten about it... just lost it after he died. And there were more than one, they said the map was a conglomerate. A couple crazy cartographers could carry it on to other cartographers or they copy it, until the parts of the map make it way to Alexandria where some dude put it all together.
Where it failed to appear in any literature or other works of the time? Don't you think that the discovery of a whole new land might have been just a little bit interesting to these people?

No, in geological terms it's quite rapid. Even the toughest landscape is going to be hard pressed to resist the advances of millions of tons of moving ice.


"Motion and change define a glacier's life. Glacial ice advances, then retreats. Glaciers grow and shrink in response to changing climate. Typically glacier movement and shape shifting occur over long periods of time (hundreds to thousands of years), but within historic memory such transformations in fewer than 100 years are not unknown."

http://nsidc.org/glaciers/information.html


yeah, hundreds of thousands of years is short geologically, but it's longer than what we're talking about.

Where it failed to appear in any literature or other works of the time? Don't you think that the discovery of a whole new land might have been just a little bit interesting to these people?


Why would an inhospitable land of ice be interesting?

"Motion and change define a glacier's life. Glacial ice advances, then retreats. Glaciers grow and shrink in response to changing climate. Typically glacier movement and shape shifting occur over long periods of time (hundreds to thousands of years), but within historic memory such transformations in fewer than 100 years are not unknown."

http://nsidc.org/glaciers/information.html


yeah, hundreds of thousands of years is short geologically, but it's longer than what we're talking about.
:confused:

The very quote you just put up shows that it happens in hundreds to thousands of years. We're dealing with several thousand years.

Besides, even if it took a million years, there would be some change in the period we're talking about. It's not as if nothing happens for 999,999 years and then it all happens at once.

Why would an inhospitable land of ice be interesting?
Because it wasn't an inhospitable land of ice back then. That's the point. :)

You obviously haven't read that the map is an accurate representation of the land mass beneath the ice. It's not a fake; it's carbon-dated.
What was carbon dated? The Gazelle skin used to draw the map on? It's possible that the gazelle skin was old, but the drawing was done much later. For example, I own an African drum covered in goat skin. It could be passed down through generations in my family until many, many years later one of my descendents decides to draw something on it that couldn't possibly have existed when the goat was butchered.

Anyway, I don't know whether or not the map is authentic. I'm keeping an open mind and will not judge one way or the other yet.

Because it wasn't an inhospitable land of ice back then. That's the point. :)
So you're argument is that, by 1500 (the time the map was made) we had travelled and drawn accurately the entire coastlines of South and North America, both east and west coast, West Europe and Africa, plus Antarctica?

So you're argument is that, by 1500 (the time the map was made) we had travelled and drawn accurately the entire coastlines of South and North America, both east and west coast, West Europe and Africa, plus Antarctica?
er, no, my argument is that the map is obviously fake. :)

:confused:

The very quote you just put up shows that it happens in hundreds to thousands of years. We're dealing with several thousand years.

Besides, even if it took a million years, there would be some change in the period we're talking about. It's not as if nothing happens for 999,999 years and then it all happens at once.



Crap, I misread and saw: hundreds of thousands of years, I concede.

Because it wasn't an inhospitable land of ice back then. That's the point. :)



It wasn't covered in ice but still very cold and inhospitable. No farming land.

It wasn't covered in ice but still very cold and inhospitable. No farming land.
I find it highly unlikely that these people who sail thousands of miles to the bottom of the globe and back again and not mention it to anyone, whether it was cold or whether it was full of magical sex pixies.

I find it highly unlikely that these people who sail thousands of miles to the bottom of the globe and back again and not mention it to anyone, whether it was cold or whether it was full of magical sex pixies.


:rolleyes: Well they obviously did, since we have this 6000 year old map :rolleyes: :p

This map has been a source of a lot of internal arguments between myself and...myself. I honestly don't know what to think of it. Carbon date it, we should do, I think. Both the map AND the ink. For that matter, don't just carbon date it. Analyze the ink to see if it matches up with production methods of the time. Do extensive research on the damned thing. If it's a fake, it's a good one. But if it's not...

What that would say, to me at least, is that another civilization arose previously, and was then devestated by...something. What, I do not know. I'd have to examine the time period before even coming close to a possibility.

Meh, considering the glacers... they'd have to be able to see into the future and if that's the case why didn't they forsee their own demise?

er, no, my argument is that the map is obviously fake. :)
If it is a fake, why doesn't anyone dispute its authenticity, among scholars?

The most famous example of these ancient maps is the one named after the Turkish admiral and cartographer Piri Reis (or Piri Re’is), see left (click on it for an enlargement). Its earliest known time of existence is as late as 1929, while it is dated 1513, but nevertheless its authenticity is not really disputed.
Ancient Archeology: A scientific selection. (http://www.altarcheologie.nl/index.html?geoarchaeology/ancient_maps.htm)

If it is a fake, why doesn't anyone dispute its authenticity, among scholars?
Because it's so obviously fake that no one cares about it?

You honestly think that if serious scholars believed this, such a huge find wouldn't be a little bit more well known?

Actually, I have to backtrack. The text I found about carbon dating referred to another map, not this one. Still, it's not disputed (weird, no)? I think historians are going mental...

Because it's so obviously fake that no one cares about it?
You honestly think that if serious scholars believed this, such a huge find wouldn't be a little bit more well known?
I can't think of a more serious scholar than one that writes about "bad science". The last link I presented seems to be quite serious...

And.. by the way, I'm not trying to prove anything... I'm questioning everything... Just seems weird that no one questions its authenticity at all (or as far as I've managed to search.)

From wiki:
The Piri Reis map was discovered in 1929 while Topkapi Palace, Istanbul, Turkey was being converted into a museum. It consists of a map drawn on gazelle skin, primarily detailing the western coast of Africa and the eastern coast of South America. The map is considered to have been drawn in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet.

Particularly noteworthy about the map is its depiction of a landmass attached to the southward region of South America that some claim resembles the coastline of Antarctica. This claim is most famously made by Charles Hapgood in his book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, in which he builds on this claim to support an alternate history of global exploration.

Gavin Menzies, in his book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World puts forward a theory 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 to bring the world under China's tribute system.

Many scholars, however, dispute these conclusions, citing the fact that for centuries cartographers had been depicting a southern landmass on global maps based on the theoretical assumption that one must exist. The landmass in question on the Piri Reis map would thus be simply a continuation of this tradition, with its debatable resemblance to the actual coastline being coincidental.

An alternate view of the Piri Reis map is the coast line of South America was skewed due to the inaccuracy of longitudinal measurement of that era. In this interpretation it is simply a skewed coast line of South America and has nothing to do with Antarctica.

Greg McIntosh examines the Piri Reis map in depth. He claims that the Piri Reis map was developed from several of Christopher Columbus's maps. Hispaniola is depicted with a north-south axis similar to contemporary depictions of Japan, which is suggestive of Columbus's belief that the two were actually the same island. McIntosh claims the map shows double sets of Virgin Islands because Columbus took them from two maps. Finally, many of the names of ports and geographic points are found on Columbus's maps.

Parts of this map were originated from other maps from 1428 and 1418.
Piri Reis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map)

After this bit is a bit obviously written by someone else that states pretty much what the first post said - that it's 'obviously' Antartica, which was ice-free 6000yrs ago, and 'obviously' someone must have charted and mapped it back then.

Thus showing in one article, the joys and problems, the advantages and disadvantages of wiki.

Out of interest: Piri Reis, even though he was well respected as an admiral and cartographer, was beheaded at the age of 90 for not supporting the Ottoman governor of Basra, Kubad Pasha.
How's that for mean? The poor guy prob would only live another year or two (this was the 16th Century - at 90, he'd have been about double the life expectancy).

These articles refutes the whole 'Antartica' thing well:

Piri Reis explained (http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/PiriReis_eng.htm)

More Piri Reis (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM)

looks like the coast of brazil, uraguay, and argentina to me. specifically, it merely extends the coastal bend near sao paulo a few degrees too far, and then has the coast continuing off to the east instead. shit, it doesn't even get to the bottom of argentina.

These articles refutes the whole 'Antartica' thing well...
Well, your sources left me even more boggled actually. While they try to bring this map out of the bizarre UFO and Atlantis realm, they do say some strange things...

One of them says this:
We can nonetheless recognise, albeit deformed, some features such as Gulf of San Matias and Peninsula Valdes, while the extremity could be Tierra del Fuego. We could maybe even identify the mouth of Strait of Magellan, with its peculiar small gulf.. If we now look carefully at the bottom-right edge, which is supposed to represent Anctartica, we can see a small picture of a snake. A corresponding note by Piri Reis reads: "This land is uninhabited. Everything is in ruin (barren?) and it is said that large snakes are found here. For this reason the Portuguese infidels did not land on these shores and these are also said to be very hot."Clearly such a description does not fit Antarctica at all.
But it certainly matches an Antarctica without ice... :confused:

So... Why would he write this there? He obviously hadn't been there, since we cannot imagine large snakes living in a barren Antartica at that time.

If it is a fake, why would someone not just describe a cold icy place?
The other says this:
Here's a map that does show the earth from space as seen from a point that roughly matches the Piri Reis Map (20N, 30W). We can see that any similarity between this map and the Piri Reis Map, apart from what terrestrial navigators knew in the early 1500's, is imaginary.
This projection is called an orthographic projection. Draftsmen of the 1500's would have been perfectly capable of drawing such a map given the geographic coordinates. You do not need to go into space to do it. For one thing, by this time there were globes to use as models.
Damn, why can't they carbon-date the damn thing... I haven't managed to find anything on this.

These articles refutes the whole 'Antartica' thing well:

Piri Reis explained (http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/PiriReis_eng.htm)

More Piri Reis (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM)
And thus, the arguments inside me have ended. Class dismissed.

Good Lord! This means that the coastlines look exactly the same whether there is an antarctic ice cap or not. And humans can survive global warming!

Huzzah!

But it certainly matches an Antarctica without ice... :confused:

So... Why would he write this there? He obviously hadn't been there, since we cannot imagine large snakes living in a barren Antartica at that time.

If it is a fake, why would someone not just describe a cold icy place?
You're getting a little confused there. Use Occam's razor:
Which is more likely?
That it describes Lower South America: hot, large snakes, pretty much unihabited, everything in ruin (which could be a description by a Portugese used to towns and cities on seeing nothing but dense forest and little else);
or that it describes Antartica - obviously unihabited but which, even without an ice sheet, would still have been extremely cold and completely snake-free.

Damn, why can't they carbon-date the damn thing... I haven't managed to find anything on this.
Well, the date on when it was drawn is not in doubt. It was drawn in 1513. So carbon-dating isn't going to prove anything. Everyone accepts it was drawn then. But Piri said it was based on older maps.
And that's where the tinfoil-hat-brigade jump in and claim the older maps were 6000 years old. They see it as Antartica because they want to see it as Antartica.

Good Lord! This means that the coastlines look exactly the same whether there is an antarctic ice cap or not. And humans can survive global warming!

Huzzah!
Don't tell Deep Kimchi. He'll start a thread about this and use you as it's source.

Just as a further nail in the coffin:
The Piri-Reis map superimposed over South America and Antartica:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/GRAPHIC1/PSCI/pirireis1b.gif

Looks more like S.Am being twisted round to me.

You're getting a little confused there. Use Occam's razor:
Which is more likely?
That it describes Lower South America: hot, large snakes, pretty much unihabited, everything in ruin (which could be a description by a Portugese used to towns and cities on seeing nothing but dense forest and little else);
or that it describes Antartica - obviously unihabited but which, even without an ice sheet, would still have been extremely cold and completely snake-free.
That sort of description is nothing like those we usually find from navigators writing about new worlds, with forests and birds and water an all...

Also lower south america isn't really a very hot place, is it? I don't know, never been there but I think you're mixing with northern south america. Down south temperatures are much milder.

That sort of description is nothing like those we usually find from navigators writing about new worlds, with forests and birds and water an all...

Also lower south america isn't really a very hot place, is it? I don't know, never been there but I think you're mixing with northern south america. Down south temperatures are much milder.
Well, remember it's a third hand account (at best) of an area no-one had much visited.
If you take that into consideration, I think you'll agree the description better suits S.Am than it does Antartica, esp the large snakes bit.

These articles refutes the whole 'Antartica' thing well:

Piri Reis explained (http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/PiriReis_eng.htm)

More Piri Reis (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM)
Except neither of the links explain the amazing 'coincidence' of the drawing and the actual antartic coastline being extremely similar. That many points of congruence is highly unlikely if he were drawing it on his own. OTOH, if he found a map with Antartica on it, and copied it, that would explain the points of congruence.

Except neither of the links explain the amazing 'coincidence' of the drawing and the actual antartic coastline being extremely similar. That many points of congruence is highly unlikely if he were drawing it on his own. OTOH, if he found a map with Antartica on it, and copied it, that would explain the points of congruence.
And we still have the letter from the U.S. Air Force...

Just as a further nail in the coffin:
The Piri-Reis map superimposed over South America and Antartica:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/GRAPHIC1/PSCI/pirireis1b.gif

Looks more like S.Am being twisted round to me.
You cannot look at it like that. The map should be placed over a globe since it's distorted.

Also, I've just found some incredible new information. One of the main points used to discard this map is that South America and Antarctica are connected. So people ask, where did the land mass go? However, land mass isn't the only thing that can connect continents... Ice... Much more Ice.

More than 6000 years ago, the only civilisation that could have been advanced to draw those maps, from which Piri-Reis drew this version, is the no.1 civilisation of the world which, until today, belongs to the myth books. Some call it Atlantis, others call it Lost Eden...

Now, I am actually quite familiar with ice core data from the Antarctic and this matches spot on with the end of the last Ice age. 10,000 years ago, this connection actually existed and this is proved scientifically...

Also, I've just found some incredible new information. One of the main points used to discard this map is that South America and Antarctica are connected. So people ask, where did the land mass go? However, land mass isn't the only thing that can connect continents... Ice... Much more Ice.
Right, so we've moved from this map being drawn before the ice appeared to a map that shows the ice?

It's a good conspiracy theory. It has the same ability to change into something completely different every time it's proven wrong. :rolleyes:

Right, so we've moved from this map being drawn before the ice appeared to a map that shows the ice?

It's a good conspiracy theory. It has the same ability to change into something completely different every time it's proven wrong. :rolleyes:
I don't have any conspiracy theory designed... I'm discovering stuff as I go. I had never heard of this map before. Also, the fact that there was ice linking the two continents doesn't actually mean there was ice on the Antartic. Much by the contrary, I am trying to find a piece from BBC news that did mention something about that; the Antartic been bathed by sun and having large reptiles.

"Motion and change define a glacier's life. Glacial ice advances, then retreats. Glaciers grow and shrink in response to changing climate. Typically glacier movement and shape shifting occur over long periods of time (hundreds to thousands of years), but within historic memory such transformations in fewer than 100 years are not unknown."

http://nsidc.org/glaciers/information.html


yeah, hundreds of thousands of years is short geologically, but it's longer than what we're talking about.
Yes, but are the glaciers on Antarctica moving or is it just ice sitting on top of the land?

Where it failed to appear in any literature or other works of the time? Don't you think that the discovery of a whole new land might have been just a little bit interesting to these people?
You are aware that much ancient knowledge was lost when the library at Alexandria was burnt, right? Ancient knowledge on all subjects was gathered there and then destroyed by early christians afraid of the pagan knowledge. Knowledge of geography is really the least of it, imagine how much further ahead medicine would be if the knowledge of the ancient egyptians hadn't been lost.

so what part of it looks even vaguely like antarctica at all? the whole thing? or the bit just below what it clearly the eastern tip of brazil and the curve where sao paulo is located today?

You cannot look at it like that. The map should be placed over a globe since it's distorted.

Also, I've just found some incredible new information. One of the main points used to discard this map is that South America and Antarctica are connected. So people ask, where did the land mass go? However, land mass isn't the only thing that can connect continents... Ice... Much more Ice.

More than 6000 years ago, the only civilisation that could have been advanced to draw those maps, from which Piri-Reis drew this version, is the no.1 civilisation of the world which, until today, belongs to the myth books. Some call it Atlantis, others call it Lost Eden...

Now, I am actually quite familiar with ice core data from the Antarctic and this matches spot on with the end of the last Ice age. 10,000 years ago, this connection actually existed and this is proved scientifically...


Fire up Google Earth, you can see all the submarine ridges and contiental shelves in considerable detail. South America and Antartica are not connected.

Now, check the map of how the continents broke apart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Drift

They haven't been connected for eons.

so what part of it looks even vaguely like antarctica at all? the whole thing? or the bit just below what it clearly the eastern tip of brazil and the curve where sao paulo is located today?
The part that supposedly represents Antartica is the bit at the very end, on the bottom right corner of the image.

Fire up Google Earth, you can see all the submarine ridges and contiental shelves in considerable detail. South America and Antartica are not connected.

Now, check the map of how the continents broke apart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Drift

They haven't been connected for eons.
Which part did you miss when I said 'ice' not land mass may have connected them? Do you realise that during the last Ice Age they must have been connected?

You are aware that much ancient knowledge was lost when the library at Alexandria was burnt, right? Ancient knowledge on all subjects was gathered there and then destroyed by early christians afraid of the pagan knowledge. Knowledge of geography is really the least of it, imagine how much further ahead medicine would be if the knowledge of the ancient egyptians hadn't been lost.
He has probably never been to a library, never mind knowing that the Great Library of Alexandria even existed...

He has probably never been to a library, never mind knowing that the Great Library of Alexandria even existed...
Oh dear. Are petty insults all you have left?

You are trying to make a picture out of a thousand different jigsaw parts. A few pieces from this picture here, a few from this one here, throw in a few you've drawn yourself and hey presto! Obviously these people did sail all the way to the bottom of the earth, draw a map and then forget about it.

Why are you struggling so hard to prove something that is obviously so fake?

Antarctic Ice Collapse Began End of Ice Age?
for National Geographic News
March 17, 2003
The melting of an enormous Antarctic ice sheet 14,000 years ago triggered climatic changes in Europe and North America that ultimately led to the end of the last ice age, according to a new study.

His this the missing link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0317_030317_iceshelf.html)? Certainly sounds right....

Oh dear. Are petty insults all you have left?

You are trying to make a picture out of a thousand different jigsaw parts. A few pieces from this picture here, a few from this one here, throw in a few you've drawn yourself and hey presto! Obviously these people did sail all the way to the bottom of the earth, draw a map and then forget about it.

Why are you struggling so hard to prove something that is obviously so fake?
Listen to Mr. Self-righteous-I-know-it-is-fake... With that attitude, you wouldn't see evidence if someone placed it in front of your eyes. You find ONE serious website disputing the authenticity of the map and then come back...

Listen to Mr. Self-righteous-I-know-it-is-fake... With that attitude, you wouldn't see evidence if someone placed it in front of your eyes. You find ONE serious website disputing the authenticity of the map and then come back...
ok then, Mr. Ignore-the-Obvious, you have clearly stumbled across a truth that the rest of us have missed. Since you're into this sort of 'historical omission', I hear Hitler wrote a good diary. Why don't you go and read that and give us a brief summary of his views on the war?

ok then, Mr. Ignore-the-Obvious, you have clearly stumbled across a truth that the rest of us have missed. Since you're into this sort of 'historical omission', I hear Hitler wrote a good diary. Why don't you go and read that and give us a brief summary of his views on the war?
The rest of us missed or the rest of you? You're the one obsessed with saying it's a fake without any substantiated information. Still waiting for your serious source...

The part that supposedly represents Antartica is the bit at the very end, on the bottom right corner of the image.

it looks nothing like antarctica. it's much closer to the coast of argentina. which is about right given the scale of the bit that is clearly brazil. unless at some point antarctica was not only connected to south america recently, but also thousands and thousands of miles north and connected to brazil (which might actually make it hit africa too)

The rest of us missed or the rest of you? You're the one obsessed with saying it's a fake without any substantiated information. Still waiting for your serious source...
Read the thread, friend. :)

1. The map's authenticity has never been questioned by scholars. None of the sources provided here questions it, only its accuracy. I cannot find one website claiming the map to be a fake.
2. The author of the map wrote that he copied it from old maps, some which he says were as old as 400BC. The Library of Alexandria wasn't destroyed until around 400AC.
3. The map is believed by some to show Antarctica at the very end. Others say that it was normal because it was assumed some land mass was there.
4. However, the map shows much less area than it would today, with a part resembling very accurately Antarctica's continental shelf without ice.
“geographical details of the bottom part of the map (the Antarctica shore) correspond with the results of the seismic prospecting. We cannot correlate these data with the supposed level of geography in 1513.”
SOURCE: US Armed Force Strategic Command, colonel Harold Olmayer from July 6, 1960.
5. One of the main arguments to refute not the authenticity but the accuracy of the map is the fact that the two continents are linked.
Moreover, if the map of Piri Reis is so accurate and if the land depicted at the bottom edge of it is really Antarctica, one may ask why none of those authors explains what has become of the missing 1200 miles of coast from Brazil to Tierra del Fuego (the whole length of Argentina), and why this odd Antarctica protrudes from Brazil instead of laying 2500 miles south of it.
6. According to scientists, using Antarctic Ice core data, the last Ice Age ended around 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC)
7. We don't know what may have provoked this, possibly some major seismic or volcano event, but there is scientific research showing it could have been caused or followed by loss of Ice in Antarctica.
The melting of an enormous Antarctic ice sheet 14,000 years ago triggered climatic changes in Europe and North America that ultimately led to the end of the last ice age, according to a new study.
SOURCE: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
8. Up until recently, it was believed that the ice age would have started from the Artic. This research offers an alternative.
9. It is widely acknowledged that sea levels rose abruptly and massive inland flooding occurs due to glacier melt around 10,000BC.
10. So, if this knowledge had come from the mythical but not yet completely discarded Atlantis and we assume them to be a seafaring civilisation and this civilisation crashed around 10,000BC, their knowledge would have stopped then. Any maps saved and redrawn through times would represent the world they had known until then. Maybe - just maybe - the ice was there. While the Drake Passage is believed to have opened much earlier, to allow ocean for ocean currents, it's not impossible that surface ice linked the continents during the ice age.
11. There are plenty of scholars who will not dismiss so easily the Myth of Atlantis. Why? Because after the mythical Atlantis disappeared, at least three great civilisations emerged; the Mayans, the Egyptians and the Chinese. This civilisation may have been forced to move with rising waters, not in some major cataclysmic event but maybe gradually, over hundreds if not thousands of years.

Want to know more? Because it doesn't have to end here...

Jeez, people relax already.

The map a fake? Not in the sense some are claiming. It is showing what they knew of the Americas. Maps showing a continent in the South Polar region have been around for millenia, because as someone else has pointed out, cartographers believed that there had to be something down there. It is based on slightly older Portuguese maps from the end of the 15th. Writing on the map says as much in Portuguese. As for Reis's claims it is based on much older maps, who knows. I understand that nothing about the map itself suggests any older knowledge base.

As for it being a match for Antartica? Research, including radar and sonar readings of the actual landmass beneath the ice don't match up with the maps information, and the ice is known to be much older than 6 millenia. I believe it has been found to have lain there since at least the beginning of the last ice age.

Just a quick point. That map seems to show Antartica and South America as connected landmasses. Umm... how is that geographically accurate?

*wanders out of thread*

I think stories like this are interesting. It can be highly plausible that these people knew alot of the geography of the earth before this modern time. I also find it a little funny that people think that humans only advanced one time in our timeline. Human history is most likely alot like tides of knowledge. Every age had a bit higher tide in the tech tree until of course we are at our point today. It is highly likely that past human civilizations mapped the globe several times. Only to have lost the knowledge and regained it again. So it wouldnt suprise me that a map of parts of the earth were out there. Does not mean that this one in particular is a artifact. Just that it is very possible.

11. There are plenty of scholars who will not dismiss so easily the Myth of Atlantis. Why? Because after the mythical Atlantis disappeared, at least three great civilisations emerged; the Mayans, the Egyptians and the Chinese

...seperated by mere thousands of years. the classic period of the maya doesn't occur until 200 ad, while the egyptians have already been completely overrun by the greeks 500 years before and were then under roman rule.


i still see absolutely no resemblence to antarctica, and a curve in brazil that extends out much father than it does in real life, which then causes the rest of south america's coast to go east rather than south.

Check out this site: Negroid statues in Mexico

http://members.tripod.com/pointingbird/lostfeatherintl/id7.htm


I have heard about this before and it has always intrigued me. The radio carbon datings show the staues to have been built in 291 BC. It suggest therefore, that (for instance) the Phoenicians or Carthagians had been crossing the Atlantic centuries before Columbus "discovered" the Americas.

Perhaps those ancient civilisations had more knowledge of the world and it's continents than we give them credit for.

Just a quick point. That map seems to show Antartica and South America as connected landmasses. Umm... how is that geographically accurate?

connected somewhere north of both argentina and uraguay, no less. and lacking any noticeable geological features of antarctica

Jeez, people relax already.

The map a fake? Not in the sense some are claiming. It is showing what they knew of the Americas. Maps showing a continent in the South Polar region have been around for millenia, because as someone else has pointed out, cartographers believed that there had to be something down there. It is based on slightly older Portuguese maps from the end of the 15th. Writing on the map says as much in Portuguese. As for Reis's claims it is based on much older maps, who knows. I understand that nothing about the map itself suggests any older knowledge base.

As for it being a match for Antartica? Research, including radar and sonar readings of the actual landmass beneath the ice don't match up with the maps information, and the ice is known to be much older than 6 millenia. I believe it has been found to have lain there since at least the beginning of the last ice age.
The map was made in 1512 but from older sources. The notes obviously date this map. However, what is now coming to light is that the information used on the 16th century map could be up to 14,000 years old, if the old maps used as a source had come from the mythical civilisation. While a lot people are quite happy to throw Atlantis into the Myth realms, the fact is that Ancient History writing was pretty much like writing stories which, today, might be interpreted as Myths. Historians have not discarded Atlantis completely and why should anyone?

Links between all the three major civilisations have been recognised for decades. At times we have been at odds to explain certain ancient technologies and cultural links, like the snake.

The snake appears both in Christian religion and Mayan religion. The snakes appear in the map. Something that did occur to me was that maybe sailors going past the Antarctica would not land because they could see nothing but an inhospitable place and large snakes. From the ocean, they were seeing large crawling creatures. Snakes are not the only creatures to "crawl". Sea lions do as well. From the distance, these might have resembled the large snakes. If Antarctica was without ice, at the time the map was drawn - and let's assume for a second that it was drawn 14,000 years ago - then it would have been a perfect breeding ground for Sea Lions. Looking from their ships, away from the shore, they would have seen a barren, inhospitable place full with snake-like crawling creatures.

Just a quick point. That map seems to show Antartica and South America as connected landmasses. Umm... how is that geographically accurate?
Did you read my last post? We are talking of a map that could have been drawn more than 14,000 years ago, at a time when it would be scientifically possible to see ice linking both continents.

Tell you something... At this point, I already have a really good hunch about the possible location and that possibility has been known for a while...

However, what is now coming to light is that the information used on the 16th century map could be up to 14,000 years old

no, no such information is coming to light. there is no such information.

Links between all the three major civilisations have been recognised for decades.

which three would those be? the ones in egypt, the levant, and iraq?

Did you read my last post? We are talking of a map that could have been drawn more than 14,000 years ago, at a time when it would be scientifically possible to see land mass.

no it wasn't. even if anyone had been drawing such maps at the time (which they weren't), antarctica was not connected to south america 14,000 years ago. and it certainly wasn't connected to motherfucking brazil.

More detailed pic. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Piri_reis_harita.jpg

More detailed pic. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Piri_reis_harita.jpg

and for those who demand the extra mile when it comes to resolution:
http://www.capurromrc.it/mappe/!000piril.jpg

2000x2753 pixels

Check out this site: Negroid statues in Mexico

http://members.tripod.com/pointingbird/lostfeatherintl/id7.htm


I have heard about this before and it has always intrigued me. The radio carbon datings show the staues to have been built in 291 BC. It suggest therefore, that (for instance) the Phoenicians or Carthagians had been crossing the Atlantic centuries before Columbus "discovered" the Americas.

Perhaps those ancient civilisations had more knowledge of the world and it's continents than we give them credit for.
This is really interesting stuff. Thank you.

no, no such information is coming to light. there is no such information.
How do you know there isn't information? If we assume the possibility of Atlantis existing then we're surrounded by information. Our cultures, our costumes, our architecture. In fact, there is already a book on Amazon with the theory that takes us where this little quest is taking me. I'm just picking up the bits...

which three would those be? the ones in egypt, the levant, and iraq?
Egyptian, Mayan and Chinese.

no it wasn't. even if anyone had been drawing such maps at the time (which they weren't), antarctica was not connected to south america 14,000 years ago. and it certainly wasn't connected to motherfucking brazil.
I meant connected with ice. If you had read my previous posts, you have seen that. 14,000 years ago the world was living in an ice age. The ice may have linked the two continents as it possibly always does at the peak of an ice age.

More detailed pic. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Piri_reis_harita.jpg
Thank you.

I meant connected with ice. If you had read my previous posts, you have seen that. 14,000 years ago the world was living in an ice age. The ice may have linked the two continents as it possibly always does at the peak of an ice age.

it didn't - or at least there is no geologic evidence that it did. and certainly not up at motherfucking brazil.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/RefPages/RefMedia.aspx?refid=461527006&artrefid=761570002&pn=3&sec=-1

Not sure how accurate Encarta's maps and information is, but this seems to back Free Soviet's contention that there was no connection between Antarctica and South America during the last Ice Age.

Check out this site: Negroid statues in Mexico

http://members.tripod.com/pointingbird/lostfeatherintl/id7.htm

I have heard about this before and it has always intrigued me. The radio carbon datings show the staues to have been built in 291 BC. It suggest therefore, that (for instance) the Phoenicians or Carthagians had been crossing the Atlantic centuries before Columbus "discovered" the Americas.

Perhaps those ancient civilisations had more knowledge of the world and it's continents than we give them credit for.

Here's something in return...

Jesus said "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so." As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."
Christianity refers to snakes and doves. It uses the same myths of Judaism. The serpent is in the Old Testament. Jesus is associated with a bird and Satan with a snake. Obviously Islam inherited both these and use the dove as a sacred symbol and the serpent.

From the site you mention:

"The Double Crown of Lower and Upper Egypt with the bird and the serpent is also found in Olmec culture with Upper and Lower Egypt being North America and South America."

[I]"The Vaishnava religion is derived from a group of faiths in which the serpent always played an important part. The eldest branch of the family was the Naga worship, pure and simple; out of that arose Buddhism, yet its supporters repressed the worship of the serpent. The Ionism of Western Asia is traditionally connected with India itself at a very early date, although probably the early centre of Ion-ism, the worship of the Dove"

Too many coincidences....

Africa, South America, Asia...
Egyptians, Mayans, Chinese...

China, however, is a secular state so these symbols may have been lost or never been adopted. Buddhism had contact with the China, snakes and doves, but I'm don't know what was going on in China 5,000 years ago, in religious terms. Interestingly, the snake is part of the Chinese Horoscope but the closest we get to a bird is a rooster. However, since these aren't religious symbols I would argue they are at best coincidental.

it didn't - or at least there is no geologic evidence that it did. and certainly not up at motherfucking brazil.
Can you write like an adult?

You obviously haven't read that the map is an accurate representation of the land mass beneath the ice. It's not a fake; it's carbon-dated.
I think what our friend was attempting to say that the glaciation since then has radically changed the antarctic landmass, much as glaciation reshaped the northern hemisphere during the last ice age. Just as how a glacier is fully capable of leveling a mountain in a very short time, geologically speaking.

Furthermore, if there were more ancient maps off of which to base this map, espescially if they were in the western world, they would have been kept in the Great Library at Alexandria. And they would not have survived because the library was destroyed. The simple fact is that Constantinople was a cultural backwater up until Constantine made it his capitol, well after the destruction of the library.

I think what our friend was attempting to say that the glaciation since then has radically changed the antarctic landmass, much as glaciation reshaped the northern hemisphere during the last ice age. Just as how a glacier is fully capable of leveling a mountain in a very short time, geologically speaking.
What mountain? Sorry...

What mountain? Sorry...
The classic examples are the Appalachians, which after the Grenville Orogeny, were some of the tallest mountains in the world. Mountains that could rival the Himalayas in sheer size. During a few relatively short ice ages, they were ground down to the nubs that we now see.

Furthermore, if there were more ancient maps off of which to base this map, espescially if they were in the western world, they would have been kept in the Great Library at Alexandria. And they would not have survived because the library was destroyed. The simple fact is that Constantinople was a cultural backwater up until Constantine made it his capitol, well after the destruction of the library.
True, yet Piri Reis claims he did this world map from ancient maps, some of which were from the 4th century BC, while never saying who provided them. If so, it is perfectly plausible that either these maps didn't come from the Library or they escaped the fires. In Egypt, around the 2nd century AC, a monk buried Gnostic Gospels possibly to avoid them be destroyed. They were found in 1945. I wouldn't be surprised if someone did the same with some of the knowledge from the Librabry. Some maps and scrools may have escaped.

Not sure I'd be using that web site to make your points there Assis. I took a look around and found it to have a fairly strong agenda. And the author apparently needs to do a bit more research when making claims about historical matters. I'd take what was said with a serious grain of salt.

And I would have to say that it is a coincidence. Birds and snakes are common to pretty much every continent except Antarctica and maybe Greenland. Something about slithering little reptiles is hardwired into our little brains to give us the heebie-jeebies. Quite a few religions and cultures see them as unclean and add evil/demonic attributes to them. Birds on the other hand seem to be seen as a link to the sky/heaven/God or Gods, therefore making them good/angelic manifestations.

I saw a color photo of one of those Olmec heads. It looked more Polynesian to me.

Where does it mention carbon dating?

True, yet Piri Reis claims he did this world map from ancient maps, some of which were from the 4th century BC, while never saying who provided them. If so, it is perfectly plausible that either these maps didn't come from the Library or they escaped the fires. In Egypt, around the 2nd century AC, a monk buried Gnostic Gospels possibly to avoid them be destroyed. They were found in 1945. I wouldn't be surprised if someone did the same with some of the knowledge from the Librabry. Some maps and scrools may have escaped.
It's possible, but incredibly doubtful. For several reasons.

1.) Why is the only record of said maps to be found in the hands of a Turkish Admiral. Why was the information not disseminated more widely throughout the world.

2.) An ancient civilization would leave stuff behind. A lot of stuff, even if it is just random trash. People are great at leaving trash as evidence of their habitation. There is no archaelogical evidence for such a situation.

3.) The habit of cartographers throughout history to include a random southern continent. Pure chance could explain the similarities. Furthermore, mapmaking at this time wasn't more of an art than a science. Certain maps of the Americas from later on are barely recognizable as the continents we know.

4.) Rock Lobster!

2.) An ancient civilization would leave stuff behind. A lot of stuff, even if it is just random trash. People are great at leaving trash as evidence of their habitation. There is no archaelogical evidence for such a situation.

People are also great at destroying the hell out of stuff, sometimes just out of spite to prevent other people from knowing about it.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/RefPages/RefMedia.aspx?refid=461527006&artrefid=761570002&pn=3&sec=-1

Not sure how accurate Encarta's maps and information is, but this seems to back Free Soviet's contention that there was no connection between Antarctica and South America during the last Ice Age.
I don't know how accurate is either but I would argue that, with regards to meteorological knowledge, humanity is in it's infancy. Our estimates today are never very solid. Global warming is a perfect example. In the last couple of years, the estimates had to be updated a few times, for the worse unfortunately. We're really only starting to learn the abc of weather, from a scientific point of view. There are events like polar shift, which we know for a fact that happen, that could possibly shake things a bit...

While I don't refute this evidence, I'll keep my mind open, just as I will do with the map.

Not sure I'd be using that web site to make your points there Assis. I took a look around and found it to have a fairly strong agenda. And the author apparently needs to do a bit more research when making claims about historical matters. I'd take what was said with a serious grain of salt.
The only time I used that site was when I discovered the map. The rest I'm finding a bit everywhere. I now about Ice core data because I work with environmental educational projects. Most of that information is from metereological websites. The information on the symbols I picked after reading a link someone else provided.

In that website, I only discovered the map... :D

And I would have to say that it is a coincidence. Birds and snakes are common to pretty much every continent except Antarctica and maybe Greenland. Something about slithering little reptiles is hardwired into our little brains to give us the heebie-jeebies. Quite a few religions and cultures see them as unclean and add evil/demonic attributes to them. Birds on the other hand seem to be seen as a link to the sky/heaven/God or Gods, therefore making them good/angelic manifestations.
It could be coincidence or it could be the spiritual remains of a civilisation. Remember the title of Jung's book? Man and it's symbols. The symbols of the divine would always the be the last ones to be forgotten. They are too emotionally charged so they are the most likely to withstand cultural change.

I saw a color photo of one of those Olmec heads. It looked more Polynesian to me.
I'm glad you said that.

It's possible, but incredibly doubtful. For several reasons.

1.) Why is the only record of said maps to be found in the hands of a Turkish Admiral. Why was the information not disseminated more widely throughout the world.
Maybe it was too precious...

2.) An ancient civilization would leave stuff behind. A lot of stuff, even if it is just random trash. People are great at leaving trash as evidence of their habitation. There is no archaelogical evidence for such a situation.
The serpent and the dove.

3.) The habit of cartographers throughout history to include a random southern continent. Pure chance could explain the similarities. Furthermore, mapmaking at this time wasn't more of an art than a science. Certain maps of the Americas from later on are barely recognizable as the continents we know.
Precisely. Thank you. This was probably an advanced civilisation, probably much alone.

4.) Rock Lobster!
:headbang: :D

Off to sleep... Will continue tomorrow. Good night. :D

And I would have to say that it is a coincidence. Birds and snakes are common to pretty much every continent except Antarctica and maybe Greenland. Something about slithering little reptiles is hardwired into our little brains to give us the heebie-jeebies. Quite a few religions and cultures see them as unclean and add evil/demonic attributes to them. Birds on the other hand seem to be seen as a link to the sky/heaven/God or Gods, therefore making them good/angelic manifestations.
Just one last comment... But then, it's not just the serpent and the dove, is it? We have pyramids in South America and Egypt, and the Asians also built their own. We have three distinct cultures building the same way and using the same religious symbols...

But they aren't concurrent in time, matter of fact, the Asian ones are millenia NEWER that the Egyptian and South American ones.

You are making a common error that quite a few quasi-historians seem to make. The Olmec, Mayans and Incans were just as advanced in several areas as their Egyptian counterparts, including masonry, mathmatics, astronomy. What makes you think they weren't capable of developing a pyramidal structure of their own? Sides, beyond shape, the two cultures constructions have nothing else in common. One was used as a burial chamber for Pharoahs while the other was used as the focal point of religious ceremonies.

We have pyramids in South America and Egypt, and the Asians also built their own.

go take a handful of sugar or sand or salt and let it slowly pour out of a single opening over a flat surface. it forms a cone. cones and pyramids were the only way to make really massive buildings that don't fall over until the somebody invents steel and concrete. shit, they still make many of them vaguely pyramid-shaped for added support. it's actually more interesting to find cultures that make monumental structures that aren't pyramidal.

HOW DID THEY DO IT?? :eek:
twas the pixies

True, yet Piri Reis claims he did this world map from ancient maps, some of which were from the 4th century BC, while never saying who provided them. If so, it is perfectly plausible that either these maps didn't come from the Library or they escaped the fires. In Egypt, around the 2nd century AC, a monk buried Gnostic Gospels possibly to avoid them be destroyed. They were found in 1945. I wouldn't be surprised if someone did the same with some of the knowledge from the Librabry. Some maps and scrools may have escaped.

a translation of the text (http://www.sacred-texts.com/piri/pirikey.htm)

the relevant part has this to say:

"In this century there is no map like this map in anyone's possession. The--hand of this poor man has drawn it and now it is constructed. From about twenty charts and Mappae Mundi--these are charts drawn in the days of Alexander, Lord of the Two Horns, which show the inhabited quarter of the world; the Arabs name these charts Jaferiye--from eight Jaferiyes of that kind and one Arabic map of Hind, and from the maps just drawn by four Portuguese which show the countries of Hind, Sind and China geometrically drawn, and also from a map drawn by Colombo in the western region I have extracted it. By reducing all these maps to one scale this final form was arrived at. So that the present map is as correct and reliable for the Seven Seas as the map of these our countries is considered correct and reliable by seamen."

in other words, the old maps were of europe and asia and africa, and then he used maps by columbus and some portuguese guys to draw the western continent (though it is unclear here, he talks specifically about reports and maps from the portuguese for details on south america elsewhere).

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/RefPages/RefMedia.aspx?refid=461527006&artrefid=761570002&pn=3&sec=-1

Not sure how accurate Encarta's maps and information is, but this seems to back Free Soviet's contention that there was no connection between Antarctica and South America during the last Ice Age.

looks about right to me. during the last ice age, the ice sheets of antarctica joined together and filled up the nearby shallow basins, but there is no way they got all the way to south america. the ice sheets on south america were expanded versions of the patagonian ice fields that still exist, with terminal moraines about 50 to 80 km east of the mountains.

there was a connection between antarctica and south america at one time, though. i wonder if the atlantians were around 41 million years ago (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4928010.stm)?

the relevant part has this to say:
"In this century there is no map like this map in anyone's possession.
Well this responds to that question... Thank you. As to the rest, it actually helps to support my claim.
"The--hand of this poor man has drawn it and now it is constructed. From about twenty charts and Mappae Mundi--these are charts drawn in the days of Alexander, Lord of the Two Horns, which show the inhabited quarter of the world; the Arabs name these charts Jaferiye. From eight Jaferiyes of that kind...
Here, there is no reference to what's in those maps, while he clearly refers to world maps.
... and one Arabic map of Hind, and from the maps just drawn by four Portuguese which show the countries of Hind, Sind and China geometrically drawn, and also from a map drawn by Colombo in the western region I have extracted it.
The maps by the Portuguese mention Hind (India), Sind (India/Pakistan) and China. They do not mention America. Christopher Columbus never navigated down South America but stayed in Central America. He had no way to know what was there. The first sailor to reach the Drake passage was Sir Francis Drake in 1563, after the map was drawn. Antarctica was discovered in the 19th century.

From here, as you can see, the only source he may have used to draw South America and possibly Antarctica were the Alexandrian Mappae Mundi.

Why did Portuguese maps represent Antarctica as a warm continent in the 16th century? Why would they choose to draw things in maps that they couldn't know to exist? Wouldn't that make their maps inaccurate and why would a navigator want to draw an inaccurate map? Maybe, just maybe, there were stories told of something existing and these stories were based on old maps saved from Alexandria, drawn by an earlier civilisation.

As to the rest, it actually helps to support my claim.

no it doesn't. stop being dishonest.

no it doesn't. stop being dishonest.
Have you read the post? You're sounding much more fundamentalist than me, do you realise? My last post is perfectly rational and logical, only you cannot see it...

Tell which bit of my last post doesn't make sense?

From here, as you can see, the only source he may have used to draw South America and possibly Antarctica were the Alexandrian Mappae Mundi.

go look at the link i provided
look at the locations that it marks as VII, VIII, IX, X, and XXIV
they are all located on what you insist on pretending is antarctica
now what does it say in the text there?

VII. It is related by the Portuguese infidel that in this spot night and day are at their shortest of two hours, at their longest of twenty two hours. But the day is very warm and in the night there is much dew.

VIII. On the way to the vilayet of Hind a Portuguese ship encountered a contrary wind from the shore. The wind from the shore . . . [illegible] it [the ship]. After being driven by a storm in a southern direction they saw a shore opposite them they advanced towards it [illegible]. They saw that these places are good anchorages. They threw anchor and went to the shore in boats. They saw people walking, all of them naked. But they shot arrows, their tips made of fishbone. They stayed there eight days. They traded with these people by signs. That barge saw these lands and wrote about them which. . . . [b]The said barge without going to Hind, returned to Portugal, where, upon arrival it gave information. . . . They described these shores in detail. . . . They have discovered them.

IX. And in this country it seems that there are white-haired monsters in this shape, and also six-horned oxen. The Portuguese infidels have written it in their maps. . . .

X. This country is a waste. Everything is in ruin and it is said that large snakes are found here. For this reason the Portuguese infidels did not land on these shores and these are also said to be very hot.

Why did Portuguese maps represent Antarctica as a warm continent in the 16th century?

simplest solution? they fucking didn't. it's clearly south america and only an idiot would think otherwise.

go look at the link i provided
look at the locations that it marks as VII, VIII, IX, X, and XXIV
they are all located on what you insist on pretending is antarctica
now what does it say in the text there?
This is BS. Find one post here where it is claimed that Antarctica is marked as all those locations. The only location considered to be Antarctica is mark X. Stop twisting my arguments and read the bloody posts dammit. Who's being dishonest now?

looks about right to me. during the last ice age, the ice sheets of antarctica joined together and filled up the nearby shallow basins, but there is no way they got all the way to south america. the ice sheets on south america were expanded versions of the patagonian ice fields that still exist, with terminal moraines about 50 to 80 km east of the mountains.

there was a connection between antarctica and south america at one time, though. i wonder if the atlantians were around 41 million years ago (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4928010.stm)?

While you call me an idiot, this is what BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A462403) has to say about it:

If the Antarctic continent had once been positioned much further north than it is now – say, in the middle of the Atlantic – would it have been able to support civilisation? Well, it fits the known criteria. It had a stable congenial climate for at least 10,000 years. It has vast mountain ranges and huge river systems that flowed across the long flat plains. It has enough room – it's about the size of the continental United States. It only had to have been positioned 2,000 miles further north for it to have enjoyed a Mediterranean climate, making it a very amenable place to live.
According to some sites, the Drake Passage is about 600 miles long.

School book history shows that Antarctica was discovered in 1818 AD. In 1513, Admiral Piri Reis of the Navy of the Ottoman Turks was drawing maps showing the almost exact location of Antarctica in relation to the south coast of South America and the west coast of Africa – over 300 years before Antarctica was supposedly discovered. These maps exist today and are not forgeries or hoaxes of any kind. The historical character of Piri Reis is beyond doubt. He was considered an expert in sailing round the Mediterranean lands, and was a formidable foe in sea-borne combat, winning many battles. We even know that he met his death by falling out of favour with his employers, and that he was eventually beheaded in 1554 or 1555 AD. He was one of the most famous sailors of his time, and when he wasn't sailing, he was writing books on sailing or constructing maps for sailors to use. Obligingly, Admiral Reis confesses that he was not the creator but the compiler of the 1513 map of Antarctica, compiling it from older, maps. But the fact that he drew this map at all, 300 years before Antarctica was discovered, is, after all that, not even the mystery. The mystery is what the map shows.

The 8 Reconnaissance Technical Squadron of the United States Air Force confirms that the map that Piri Reis drew shows Antarctica before it was covered by ice. And as we have seen, the most recent date that we can currently ascribe to Antarctica being free from ice is around 4,000BC.

What you have then is two separate sets of apparently indisputable evidence that, whilst remarkable on their own, combine to create dynamite. At 4000BC – just 4 years after the Church claimed the Earth was created – you have a sea going race of people who understood longitude and latitude and could use that to create an astonishingly (under the circumstances) accurate map. Astonishingly accurate because the map shows information that was only confirmed by the joint Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949. The ice cap at this point is approximately one mile thick. And what's more, Piri Reis was not the only one charting lands that weren't supposed to exist at this time. An explorer named Oronce Fine (Oronteus Finaeus) was producing maps just after Piri Reis, 20 or so years later, and his maps are substantially more detailed than Piri Reis's.

Many people subscribe to the earth displacement theory whereby the crust of the Earth can move over the core, and what's more, the evidence suggests that it will do so again. Antarctica did exist at a different location from its current home, and that if the ice could be removed, the history of Earth would have to be re-written at a stroke. But then, that's just conjecture.

Albert Einstein also subscribed to this theory. He did not come up with the theory, but he investigated and refined it. As he points out, Antarctica is not fitted symmetrically around the South Pole – it's off kilter. It is fantastically big, covering a landmass of 5.5 million square miles with over seven million cubic miles of ice. This ice is estimated to weigh 19,000,000,000,000,000 tons – nineteen quadrillion tons. What's more, it is growing, with about 293 cubic miles of ice added every year – almost as if Lake Ontario were frozen and added to it every year. Einstein postulated that eventually centrifugal force would force a reaction, in that Antarctica will shift over the crust of the Earth.

Imagine for yourself the effects of that continent moving from its current position to the only place physics says it can stop if propelled by centrifugal force, which on this planet is the equator.

Think about it, could mankind survive this event?

So now, do you think you're more clever than Einstein?

Now, I could be wrong. But that continent above Antarctica on the Piri Reis map is Africa right? Africa is drawn incorrectly and too close to Antartica. The guy can correctly map the continent at the bottom of the world but can't fucking map Africa?

This is BS. Find one post here where it is claimed that Antarctica is marked as all those locations. The only location considered to be Antarctica is mark X.

wow, that's even worse. so all that land going east from brazil is what then, exactly? you want us to beleive that they got the entire coast of south america completely wrong, somehow missed the drake passage completely, and put 'antarctica' in completely the wrong location, but somehow we are able to absolutely determine that a tiny part fits perfectly onto an unglaciated anarctica.

yeah, that's not batshit loony.

Now, I could be wrong. But that continent above Antarctica on the Piri Reis map is Africa right? Africa is drawn incorrectly and too close to Antartica. The guy can correctly map the continent at the bottom of the world but can't fucking map Africa?
You must understand that Piri-Reis wasn't a cartographer, he was copying old sources. From his notes, he tells us he drew Africa from Portuguese maps, and certainly they don't seem as accurate as the ancient ones.

The rest of us missed or the rest of you? You're the one obsessed with saying it's a fake without any substantiated information. Still waiting for your serious source...
Well, gee...how about these ones:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11078257&postcount=46

Also, I've just found some incredible new information. One of the main points used to discard this map is that South America and Antarctica are connected. So people ask, where did the land mass go? However, land mass isn't the only thing that can connect continents... Ice... Much more Ice.
Good God! Are you like a hummingbird, flitting this way and that ignoring things when you see fit!
btw, not just connected - also that Antartica is several thousand miles north of where it should be, shows no accurate similarity of the coastline and is described as hot and full of snakes.

First it was Antartica 6000 years ago because, quote, "The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it". (see your first post)
When it's pointed out that the Piri map shows 'Antartica' 2500 miles north of where it actually is, and attached to Brazil, and described as 'hot, ruinous and full of large snakes', you now decide the map shows details from 14000yrs ago when the two continents were joined with ice!

Can't have both!

Which is going to be:
6000yrs and no ice (and therefore wrong since it shows them connected)
or
14000yrs and ice (and therefore wrong cause it describes it as hot and full of snakes).

*shakes head* I offer someone's serious well-documented proof that it's a fake (insomuch that it's not based on 6000yr old maps) and all that happens a new theory is instantly created. Great example of conspiracy theory machinations there.

wow, that's even worse. so all that land going east from brazil is what then, exactly? you want us to beleive that they got the entire coast of south america completely wrong, somehow missed the drake passage completely, and put 'antarctica' in completely the wrong location, but somehow we are able to absolutely determine that a tiny part fits perfectly onto an unglaciated anarctica.

yeah, that's not batshit loony.
If the theory Einstein supported is correct, some major seismic event may have pushed Antarctica further south, around 14,000 years ago. A large eruption or a series of eruptions could easily justify the end of the last Ice Age, the loss of Antarctic Ice and the rising sea levels that sunk Atlantis. All these events are known to have happen. We just don't know what damage they caused. The Drake passage in this Portuguese map (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem:Map_of_South_america_1575.jpg) is much narrower than it is today. It is possible that the passage was shut during the colder peak of the Ice Age or during winter, I don't know...

Need to go out now but will come back later...

Well, gee...how about these ones:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11078257&postcount=46


Good God! Are you like a hummingbird, flitting this way and that ignoring things when you see fit!
btw, not just connected - also that Antartica is several thousand miles north of where it should be, shows no accurate similarity of the coastline and is described as hot and full of snakes.

First it was Antartica 6000 years ago because, quote, "The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it". (see your first post)
When it's pointed out that the Piri map shows 'Antartica' 6000 miles north of where it actually is, and attached to Brazil, and described as 'hot, ruinous and full of large snakes', you now decide the map shows details from 14000yrs ago when the two continents were joined with ice!

Can't have both!

Which is going to be:
6000yrs and no ice (and therefore wrong since it shows them connected)
or
14000yrs and ice (and therefore wrong cause it describes it as hot and full of snakes).

*shakes head* I offer someone's serious well-documented proof that it's a fake (insomuch that it's not based on 6000yr old maps) and all that happens a new theory is instantly created. Great example of conspiracy theory machinations there.
Where is your evidence that the map is a fake, that no one recognises? Not the BBC, no historians, NO ONE! My friend, I'm investigating as I go. It is natural that my information changes as people ask me reasonable questions and I'm forced to answer them. That's what historians do...

Except neither of the links explain the amazing 'coincidence' of the drawing and the actual antartic coastline being extremely similar. That many points of congruence is highly unlikely if he were drawing it on his own. OTOH, if he found a map with Antartica on it, and copied it, that would explain the points of congruence.
If you actually bothered to read the links through, you would have noticed they do go into great detail about the coastline, and how it's not in any way, shape or form similar to the coastline of Antartica.
It only is, if you want it to be.

Talk about cognitive bias.

If you actually bothered to read the links through, you would have noticed they do go into great detail about the coastline, and how it's not in any way, shape or form similar to the coastline of Antartica.
It only is, if you want it to be.

Talk about cognitive bias.
Have you read my post answering about Piri-Reis' note, where he clearly states that he used the Portuguese maps to draw Africa and Asia? He also mentions Columbus and he never navigated along the Southern coast of America. Read it and do a bit of research of your own, if necessary.

Nope, just using this thread to take a cheap shot at creationism. :D

Yea, Creationists get every chance they get to take a cheap shot at Evolutionsists.


And I say this map is real, all these dumb questions of why someone would do this, how does anyone know what kind of motivation someone has 6000 years ago. just cuz you wouldnt do it, doesnt mean someone else wouldnt. Maybe this guy (or maybe it was more at different times) had a storm blow their ship off course or maybe they were just curious.

And although yes, some change would have happened under the pressure of the glacier, in 6000 years it would have still not been big enough to see on a global scale, and that is what they checked it on.

Where is your evidence that the map is a fake, that no one recognises? Not the BBC, no historians, NO ONE! My friend, I'm investigating as I go. It is natural that my information changes as people ask me reasonable questions and I'm forced to answer them. That's what historians do...
SORRY? WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT THE MAP IS A FAKE AND THAT NO-ONE RECOGNISES IT?
WHERE?

Until you're ready to bother reading what I've written there's absolutely no point talking to you. It's plainly obvious that you've made up your mind and will not budge from there.

It pisses me off that you're in such a state of denial that you feel the need to accuse me of blindness and to smugly view yourself as being some sort of historian, when it's plainly obvious that you're not.

True, yet Piri Reis claims he did this world map from ancient maps, some of which were from the 4th century BC, while never saying who provided them.
Mind providing a few well-documented links to prove the legitimacy of Piri's claims?


Tell me: If that's meant to be Antartica:
Why is 2500miles north of where it should be?
Why is attached to Brazil?
and
Where the hell is the 1200 miles of South America from Brazil to Tierra del Fuego?

If they were so amazing in their ancient map-making skills, why did they manage such a fuck-up as that?

While you at it, explain why the Falkland islands fit so well into the Piri map, if you were to skewer the bottom half of S.Am up, whereas there are no islands like that around Antartica
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/piri_brazil.gif

Might I suggest reading the whole article he posted?

This is taken from there and could partly explain why Antarctia moved:



Charles Hapggod, in 1953, wrote a book called "Earth's shifting crust: a key to some basic problems of earth science", where he made up a theory to explain how Antarctic had been ice-free until year 4000 BC. (visit the Bibliography )
The theory summing up is as follows:
The reason Antarctic was ice-free, and therefor much warmer, it is to be found in the fact that, at one time, its location wasn't the south pole. It was located approximately 2000 miles further north. Hapgood says this "would have put it outside the Antarctic Circle in a temperate or cold temperate climate".

The reason why the continent moved down to its present location has to be found in a mechanism called "earth-crust-displacement". This mechanism, not to be confused with the plate-tectonics or the continental drift, is one whereby the lithosphere, the whole outer crust of the earth "may be displaced at times, moving over the soft inner body, much as the skin of an orange, if it were loose, might shift over the inner part of the orange all in one piece". (Charles Hapgood, "Maps of the ancient sea-kings", cited, visit the Bibliography for more info).

This theory was sent to Albert Einstein, which answered to Hapgood in very enthusiastic terms. Though geologists did not seem to accept Hapgood's theory, Einstein seemed to be as much open as Hapgood saying:
"In a polar region there is a continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth's rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces a centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth's crust over the rest of the earth's body...." (Einstein's foreword to "Earth's shifting crust" p.1)

And there is also always Continental Drift that could have contributed to it.

If the theory Einstein supported is correct, some major seismic event may have pushed Antarctica further south, around 14,000 years ago. A large eruption or a series of eruptions could easily justify the end of the last Ice Age, the loss of Antarctic Ice and the rising sea levels that sunk Atlantis. All these events are known to have happen. We just don't know what damage they caused. The Drake passage in this Portuguese map (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem:Map_of_South_america_1575.jpg) is much narrower than it is today. It is possible that the passage was shut during the colder peak of the Ice Age or during winter, I don't know...

Need to go out now but will come back later...
South America also looks like Africa in that map.

not really, also you can see that its connected to North America

Comparison of Southern South America rotated 90 degrees and the Piri Reis map:
South America:
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/Sud-partic50.jpg
Piri Reis:
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/Piri-partic.jpg
Antartica:
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/Antarctica-Maud.gif

Can you sing after me: "One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others, By the time I finish my song?"

Notice where the Falkland islands are in distance to S.America and in location to the Straits of Magellan.
Then compare the large island drawn on the Piri Reis map and compare that in distance to 'Antartica' and the large basin there.
Gosh.
Invoking Occam's razor (again), but can anyone come up with a more likely and easily explainable explanation than the blindingly obvious?

A comparison between a close-up of Piri Reis map and a modern map of the Magellan strait entrance and Tierra del Fuego rotated counterclockwise by 90 degrees.
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/PiriReis_Strait_cont.jpg

Now, It could just be a coincidence, but one cannot but notice the presence, in both charts, of the two basins forming the mouth of Strait of Magellan, and of another large bay farther south.

As an aside, I know that Magellan set out in 1519, 6 years after this map, but it's highly likely that some Portugese sailors did reach as far as Tierra del Fuego and the 50th parallel before Magellan. On the Piri map it is stated that day lasts but 2 hours there - which pretty much equates with the 50th parallel.
When Magellan set out in 1519, it's more than likely he already knew about some strait or bay as "he saw it, in the Treasury of the King of Portugal, on a map drawn by Martin de Bohemia" , as the journey's chronicler Antonio Pigafetta tells us.




FYI to the tinhat brigade out there (is it a full moon? Cause they really seem to be in force tonight).
A few maps from around the same period:
Martin Waldseemuller's map of 1507, 6 years BEFORE the Piri Reis map.
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/Waldseemuller1.jpg
close up of Southern America, to the 50th parallel:
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/Waldseemuller1r.jpg

South America in the Circolus Antarticus cart by Pedro Reinel, 1522 (Istambul, Topkapi Museum Library):
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/Reinel_1522.jpg


Final one. This map was drawn in 1519 by Lopo Homem. It shows the still unexplored extremity of the South American continent fold towards east, going to form the mythical austral continent that, touching the indonesian archipelago, continues without continuity solution until the extremity of Asia.
Gee, so why isn't this one being touted as 'proof' that they copied thousand+ year old maps?
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/Atlas_Miller_Homem_1519.jpg

none of those links worked for me..... weird, it gives me some "access forbidden" page.

Anyway, might i suggest that the inaccuracy of the map almost is evidence to its authenticity? Why would someone who faked the map make part of it incorrect?

Might I suggest reading the whole article he posted?

This is taken from there and could partly explain why Antarctia moved:



Charles Hapggod, in 1953, wrote a book called "Earth's shifting crust: a key to some basic problems of earth science", where he made up a theory to explain how Antarctic had been ice-free until year 4000 BC. (visit the Bibliography )
The theory summing up is as follows:
The reason Antarctic was ice-free, and therefor much warmer, it is to be found in the fact that, at one time, its location wasn't the south pole. It was located approximately 2000 miles further north. Hapgood says this "would have put it outside the Antarctic Circle in a temperate or cold temperate climate".

The reason why the continent moved down to its present location has to be found in a mechanism called "earth-crust-displacement". This mechanism, not to be confused with the plate-tectonics or the continental drift, is one whereby the lithosphere, the whole outer crust of the earth "may be displaced at times, moving over the soft inner body, much as the skin of an orange, if it were loose, might shift over the inner part of the orange all in one piece". (Charles Hapgood, "Maps of the ancient sea-kings", cited, visit the Bibliography for more info).

This theory was sent to Albert Einstein, which answered to Hapgood in very enthusiastic terms. Though geologists did not seem to accept Hapgood's theory, Einstein seemed to be as much open as Hapgood saying:
"In a polar region there is a continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth's rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces a centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth's crust over the rest of the earth's body...." (Einstein's foreword to "Earth's shifting crust" p.1)

And there is also always Continental Drift that could have contributed to it.
Couple of points:
It would have had to move bloody quickly, since by Egytian times, the Alantic and N. Africa was pretty well-explored. There's a bit of proof that the Egyptians had visited S.America, since tobacco and cocoa leaves have been found in some tombs.
They make no mention of a drifting continent.
Therefore if Antartica moved 2500miles it would have had to do it at over 1 mile a year. Which is practically light-speed in geological terms. The fastest moving plates are measured in inches a year.

Why aren't we seeing this happening now?

Why was it only Antartica, and why did it stop suddenly and has never moved since?

Why is there no mention or support for this theory in any modern textbook or from any modern geologist?

Einstein was NOT a geologist. While obviously one of the greatest scientists of his day (indeed in history), his field was vastly different to geology. I doubt he had much more training or expertise other than what the average well-educated layman of his day would have had.
Which means you can't just blindingly accept his thoughts on this, just because he's Einstein.
Also, his premise says he was 'open' to the idea, which is quite different to fully supporting it. He was open to a few other ideas that have been proven false. That was the sort of man he was. Anyone who came along with an idea or concept, he was 'open' to it.

Much as I respect Einstein, when asked to choose between every geologist's opinion and his, when it comes to a geological question, I'm siding with the geologists.

From what I read of his introduction, he says "rigid crust of the earth" - which is what was commonly held to be true back then. Now of course we know the crust isn't rigid. It's very supple and flowing. Nowhere does he say that this centrifugal action will cause whole continents to shift - nor explain why it was only Antartica (why not Australia - it's much closer to the South Pole than where the Piri Reis map puts 'Antartica').

none of those links worked for me..... weird, it gives me some "access forbidden" page.

Anyway, might i suggest that the inaccuracy of the map almost is evidence to its authenticity? Why would someone who faked the map make part of it incorrect?
That is some warped logic going on there. Because it's wrong, that makes it right!
Yes. Quite.

How many times do we have to say this!

It's not a fake! It's never been considered a fake.
It was drawn by a well-respected and very experienced Admiral/cartographer in 1513, based on Portugese maps and accounts from Portugese sailors.
Piri Reis drew what was known at that time and guessed the rest, based on his knowledge of cartography and the generally-held beliefs in that era as to what the world down there looked like.

But some crackpots have decided that his mistakes about the bottom half of S.America below Brazil - i.e. the part that hadn't been explored much by Europeans at that time (except some blown-off-course sailors) somehow magically transforms into Antartica. 2500miles north of where it should be and wiping out 1200 miles of S.America in the process. And hot, and full of snakes. And it dragged the Falklands up alongside it. Which somehow makes much more sense to them than that it's just Argentina rotated 90 degrees by someone drawing a place they'd never seen, based on third-hand accounts of it.

I've seen maps from the 16th century that made Baja California a rather large island. So the possiblitity that mapmakers from earlier, with even less knowledge of the two continents, could create maps that completely wrong, doesn't surprise me at all.

Has anyone suggested that the maps in Alexandria were drawn by the space aliens that built the Pyramids?

Not till now. If that were true, then those aliens were blind sumbitches, cause they drew alot of maps wrong. So much for "superior intelligences".;)

SORRY? WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT THE MAP IS A FAKE AND THAT NO-ONE RECOGNISES IT? WHERE?
*shakes head* I offer someone's serious well-documented proof that it's a fake (insomuch that it's not based on 6000yr old maps).
You already determined it must be a fake within certain parameters...
Until you're ready to bother reading what I've written there's absolutely no point talking to you. It's plainly obvious that you've made up your mind and will not budge from there.
Your links don't provide proof, my friend; they provide theories, which are not even consistent with the existing evidence (the map). Hence why I cannot let go just yet. Piri-Reis wrote a note saying that the Portuguese maps were used to draw Africa and Asia and we know Colombus' map could not include South America. So this means he used the older (Alexandrian?) maps to draw America. It's basic logic. You are blinded by your urge to prove me wrong, otherwise you would see how this refutes both links you provided me. According to the only piece of physical evidence we've got, Piri-Reis states what he used the Portuguese maps for and it was not to draw America.
It pisses me off that you're in such a state of denial that you feel the need to accuse me of blindness and to smugly view yourself as being some sort of historian, when it's plainly obvious that you're not.
No need to be pissed off with my curiosity. I haven't made up my mind about anything. I'm keeping an open-mind, something which you obviously have a bit more difficulty to do.
Mind providing a few well-documented links to prove the legitimacy of Piri's claims?
Do you realise what you are asking? Do you actually believe it's possible to find any evidence on whether a note written 500 years ago was a fantasy out of his head or a note based on information collected from an old map? Why would Piri-Reis write a lie or a fantasy note in his own map? He writes "these are also said to be very hot" but we know he couldn't have been to a warm Antarctica in the 16th century. If he couldn't have seen those things, he obviously copied the note from an older map while adding that the Portuguese didn't land there. They didn't even go there. The Portuguese hadn't been to Antarctica. The first ship to reach the Drake Passage (Sir Francis Drake) arrived much later than the map existed. So, these Antarctica ideas must have come from somewhere else. Possibly, an older map from a time when Antarctica was without ice.

Initially, it did cross my mind it could have been ice closing the passage until it was questioned here. Then I discovered a website that tells me that there is a possibility that Antarctica was placed further north up until recently.
Tell me: If that's meant to be Antartica:
Why is 2500miles north of where it should be?
Why is attached to Brazil?
The only answer I'm looking at this stage is: if it's accepted that Antarctica may have been in that position, what could possibly make it move further south and when did this process start? Was it 14,000 years ago? Was it provoked by a massive seismic and volcano event that ended the last Ice age and spilled ashes and enough smoke to begin global warming? Something caused the end of the Ice Age and, whatever it was, it must have been big to cause such change.
and where the hell is the 1200 miles of South America from Brazil to Tierra del Fuego?
Have you even considered the possibility of this map being accurate but not perfect? Have you considered the possibility that it's was a bit distorted down south when copied from the older sources? Have you even considered that maybe, just maybe, he had to shorten land mass so that the drawing would fit in the parchment? Do you realise this was created 500 years ago, not yesterday? After considering these possibilities, look at these two images:

http://www.altarcheologie.nl/geoarchaeology/ancient_maps_files/vd5_md.gifhttp://www.altarcheologie.nl/geoarchaeology/ancient_maps_files/vd4_md.gif

What you are looking at there is the a globe projection of the earth and the Piri-Reis map on the right. Imagine you were drawing the map on the right while looking at a globe on the left. If this civilisation was seafaring, they would have known that the earth was round. They may have had globes. The fact is that it is accepted they may have existed and there are plenty of signs out there pointing to a very plausible existence. The alternative is an amazing amount of coincidences, one after the other...
If they were so amazing in their ancient map-making skills, why did they manage such a fuck-up as that?
Surely you were not expecting them to have aerial shots or computer-aided drawings?
While you at it, explain why the Falkland islands fit so well into the Piri map, if you were to skewer the bottom half of S.Am up, whereas there are no islands like that around Antartica
Because he may not have drawn them in the right place? Because they were not so accurately placed on the original? We're not talking about people drawing maps 10 years ago. You do realise that? Look at the map drawn by the Portuguese in the 16th century to see what inaccuracy is. These are maps that could have been copied several times before. Still, the accuracy, is pretty amazing if we take that globe projection. Certainly much better than what the Portuguese were doing...

Vostok Station (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html)

According to French and American analysis of ice core samples, the lower layers of the Antarctic ice sheet are 240,000 years old.

Not having read any of DH's links, I cannot say whether they are fact or theory. But, the theories you have put forth have been thoroughly discredited by geological and historical researches for years. Erich Von Danikein(sp?) was wrong. Let it go.....

Oh, while some of the other posters did claim the map is a fake, DH has not. Saying it is inaccurate(which it is) is not the same as calling it a fake. Sorry.

Piri-Reis wrote a note saying that the Portuguese maps were used to draw Africa and Asia and we know Colombus' map could not include South America. So this means he used the older (Alexandrian?) maps to draw America. It's basic logic.

that is completely at odds with the words written on the map. it explicitly states that the portuguese discovered and described the bit you think is antarctica (and the bit that you have yet to explain what the fuck you think it is that attaches 'antarctica' to brazil). it explicitly states that the west was drawn based on a map by columbus. it explicitly states that the older maps were drawn in the days of alexander the great at the earliest, and covered the northern half of the eastern hemisphere ("the inhabited quarter of the world").

Then I discovered a website that tells me that there is a possibility that Antarctica was placed further north up until recently.

The only answer I'm looking at this stage is: if it's accepted that Antarctica may have been in that position

it isn't accepted at all, by anybody with even the slightest knowledge of the subject. period. end of story.

After considering these possibilities, look at these two images:

http://www.altarcheologie.nl/geoarchaeology/ancient_maps_files/vd5_md.gifhttp://www.altarcheologie.nl/geoarchaeology/ancient_maps_files/vd4_md.gif

yup, they look nothing at all alike. not even close. the angles are all off, as are the relative sizes.

and positions.

The alternative is an amazing amount of coincidences, one after the other

not a single coincidence at all. just a map taken at it's word, based mainly on then current maps, with a bit of now-missing eurasian mapping based on slightly older maps, which inaccurately depicts most of the south american coast (and completely and utterly fucking up everything to the north of brazil).

there's nothing even remotely mysterious here. you have to resort to just making random shit up to even attempt to portary it as anything other than the obvious (and what it explicitly says is going on).

Vostok Station (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html)

According to French and American analysis of ice core samples, the lower layers of the Antarctic ice sheet are 240,000 years old.

Not having read any of DH's links, I cannot say whether they are fact or theory. But, the theories you have put forth have been thoroughly discredited by geological and historical researches for years. Erich Von Danikein(sp?) was wrong. Let it go.....

Oh, while some of the other posters did claim the map is a fake, DH has not. Saying it is inaccurate(which it is) is not the same as calling it a fake. Sorry.
Well sorry if I offended him, but if I'm considering the possibility this was drawn from older maps, as I have justified several times, and he uses the word "fake" to class that possibility, he's pretty much calling this whole thing a fake from the outset. Maybe he could use words like "unlikely" or "possibility" which is what I try to do or maybe he could try to offer some constructive input, asking questions and reading answers. Yet, I'm having to repeat some pretty clear points over and over again.

So what if X isn't Antarctica and who cares about Antarctica anyway... Antarctica is a detail. The map is real and depicts America much more accurately than any other contemporary map. It's not a fake and it's not impossible that was drawn from old maps from the Library of Alexandria.

This is a portuguese map by 1502 (http://www.ub.es/hvirt/dossier/mapas/cant1502.htm)
There are plenty of other later ones much worse...
(http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/Ren/Ren1/Reno.html)

There is still no logical explanation for Piri-Reis having a map of America, as accurate as this, or for the similarities with the pyramids and the ancient symbols and all, or for the consecutive persecution of pagan knowledge in Alexandria by the Christians or in China...

Funny thing... Another coincidence!

"After the Templar order's suppression by Pope Clement in 1312, King Denis set about creating a new order for the displaced knights in his realm. [ ... ] After four years of negotiations, Pope John XXII passed another bull authorizing Denis to grant the Templar's property to the Order of the Christ in 1323."

The Order of the Christ was set in Portugal and inherited the property of the Knight Templars, the same ones who ransacked and burned the Great Library of Alexandria...

"After 1417, by King John I of Portugal's request to the Pope, Prince Henry the Navigator (1417–1465) became the order's Grand Master.
"Shortly after" the Portuguese sailed confident to the west looking for the new land, another Empire started and they lived happily ever after...

You're right, I'll let it go. This is boring stuff so I'll continue it on my blog...

Funny thing... Another coincididence!

The Order of the Christ was set in Portugal and inherited the property of the Knight Templars, the same ones who ransacked and burned the Great Library of Alexandria...

"A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn't know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has a logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn't concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuts. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idee fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars."

It's clear what happened here.

Sometime shortly after that map was drawn, the Plutonians, desperate for more landmass due to their tiny planet, hit the earth with the intra-stellar (they were under budget at the time) Frost Ray, intent on freezing it over to suit the climate they were accustomed to.

Due to living on a tiny planet, however, the ray was greatly undersized, and was only able to freeze a small portion of the earth near the north. A subsequent firing took place, but the time needed to allow the Frost Ray to warm up again was long enough for the orbit of both Pluto and Earth to progress such that the blast hit the south pole, also forming a great crust of ice there.

Though it wasn't quite what was expected, their small stature allowed them to thrive on even this partial landmass. Milennia of living peaceful, stress-free lives eventually led to the loss of their advanced technology, leaving them as we now know them; modern-day penguins.

that is completely at odds with the words written on the map.
"From about twenty charts and Mappae Mundi--these are charts drawn in the days of Alexander, Lord of the Two Horns,which show the inhabited quarter of the world (America); the Arabs name these charts Jaferiye--from eight Jaferiyes of that kind..."
It explicitly states that the portuguese discovered and described the bit you think is antarctica (and the bit that you have yet to explain what the fuck you think it is that attaches 'antarctica' to brazil).
"Drawn by four Portuguese which show the countries of Hind(India), Sind(Pakistan) and China"
it explicitly states that the west was drawn based on a map by columbus.
Shame Columbus only visited Central America, not South.

It explicitly states that the older maps were drawn in the days of alexander the great at the earliest, and covered the northern half of the eastern hemisphere ("the inhabited quarter of the world").
Where exactly does it claim that he drew "the nothern half of the eastern hemisphere" from the older maps?
"In this century there is no map like this map in anyone's possession. The--hand of this poor man has drawn it and now it is constructed. From about twenty charts and Mappae Mundi--these are charts drawn in the days of Alexander, Lord of the Two Horns, which show the inhabited quarter of the world (America?); the Arabs name these charts Jaferiye--from eight Jaferiyes of that kind and one Arabic map of Hind, and from the maps just drawn by four Portuguese which show the countries of Hind, Sind and China geometrically drawn, and also from a map drawn by Colombo in the western region I have extracted it. By reducing all these maps to one scale this final form was arrived at. So that the present map is as correct and reliable for the Seven Seas as the map of these our countries is considered correct and reliable by seamen."

"A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn't know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has a logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn't concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuts. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idee fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars."
"Don't give dogs what is sacred; don't throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." [ Jesus ]

I'd say the aliens helped him :p

So what if X isn't Antarctica and who cares about Antarctica anyway... Antarctica is a detail. The map is real and depicts America much more accurately than any other contemporary map. It's not a fake and it's not impossible that was drawn from old maps from the Library of Alexandria.

Antarctica was the whole point of this. The map is claimed to show the coastlines of the Antarctic continent before it was covered in ice. But not only has the ice been there longer than the human race has been active, but it does not show the coast of Antarctica.

That has been the contention of Demented Hampsters, Free Soviet's, myself and a few others all along. Not that the map is/was a fake, but that the information it imparts has been misinterpreted by people.

There are very good reasons that the Portuguese would have had some familiarity with the Americas by the time Reis made his map. They had been exploring the New World for over a decade by then. The first Portuguese explorer hit the area in 1501. Columbus himself had made 4 voyages by 1504. There was nearly 2 decades between the return of Colombus's expedition and the creation of the Piri Reis map. A lot of time to get some serious exploring and map-making done.

Shame Columbus only visited Central America, not South.

then where exactly did his third voyage go?

besides, it merely says it was based on a map he drew, with the implication that that map also contained information merely reported to columbus by others, not that he personally visited all of the areas reported. hence the labelling of areas of south america as discovered by the portuguese, while giving explicit credit to columbus for discovering land over there in general.

Where exactly does it claim that he drew "the nothern half of the eastern hemisphere" from the older maps?

that's what the phrase "inhabited qaurter of the world" meant. and it is rather clear from the context, even if you didn't know that. and all of the notes about south america mention only columbus and the portuguese and not anybody else (except for a reference to a medieval european map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappa_mundi) which showed an island sized fish from the legend of st. brendan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Brandan)'s voyage).

The map...depicts America much more accurately than any other contemporary map.

does south america just below sao paulo currently swing dramatically off towards africa on your planet?

Just wanted to add; according to a Wiki article I was just reading, the Portuguese discovered Brazil in 1500, not 1501. So by the time of Piri Reis, they had plenty of time to start mapping the Atlantic side of the continent.

Anyone interested in this map might wish to read a very far-fetched theory in the book called "Fingerprints of the Gods", by Graham Hancock.

Anyone interested in this map might wish to read a very far-fetched theory in the book called "Fingerprints of the Gods", by Graham Hancock.

it's not as good as von daniken's stuff. atlantians, bah. space aliens from sirius is where it's at. why go only halfway?

Why dosn't anyone give the One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People-Eater any credit for this stuff?

how can anyone interrperate anything from that map? look at it, its all abunch of lines and pictures of boats. map makers ftl

how can anyone interrperate anything from that map? look at it, its all abunch of lines and pictures of boats. map makers ftl

And even better, they got paid to do that!!!

Translation of Piri Reis' margin notes, at the bottom of 'Antartica':
"It is related by the Portuguese infidel that in this spot night and day are at their shortest of two hours, at their longest of twenty two hours. But the day is very warm and in the night there is much dew."
That indicates a far southern latitude, around the 50th parallel - pretty much where the Falklands (described in the Piri Reis as "Those islands are deserted but spring here lasts long") and Tierra del Fuago are. Also note that the report explicitly comes from the Portuguese, not from any arcane ancient sources.

What is so difficult to accept that some Portugese (generally accepted to be the greatest sailors/explorers around in that era) were blown off course and ended up at the 50th Parallel. Did some rudimentary carts, some parts of which were very accurate (specifically the stuff around the 50th parallel - the Falklands, the straits of Magellan, Tierra del Fuago), whilst other bits aren't (especially the stuff from Brazil to the 50th.

Why is that so much more difficult for some ppl to accept than the more 'likely' explanation that space aliens moved Antartica up to Brazil 6000 yrs ago, drew a crap map of it, moved it back and then left it lying around for Piri Reis to find 5 1/2 millenium later, but which disappeared immediately after he copied it.

Let's Hear it for Piri Reis

For 1513, this map shows an astonishing amount of detail. The notes on the map explain that the map was synthesized from about 20 maps, many of which were captured from Spanish and Portuguese ships in the Mediterranean. It was also supplemented by accounts given by captured Spanish and Portuguese sailors.

Not a map from some ancient Atlantean civilization, not a map created by extraterrestrials, but a first class piece of naval intelligence. Considering that it was created by a sailor whose country never participated in the age of exploration, and that it's drawn wholly from second-hand sources, it's an astonishing piece of work. It seems to contain up-to-the-minute details derived from enemy maps, many of which would have been tightly-guarded secrets.

There's a class of crank that hates the idea that people in earlier times might have real accomplishments. They can't seem to handle the idea that poeple back then were more than our equal and more than capable of doing great things.
It's perhaps the worst form of discrimination and prejudice. They refuse to believe our ancestors were intelligent capable people and thus had the skills, gifts and abilities to do many great things. They smugly want to believe themselves to be superior to our ancestors in every way and thus, when faced with examples of our ancestors greatness, dismiss them out of hand with increasingly contrived crackpot theories which invariably have little green men from Sirius butthole doing all the work.

So Shakespeare didn't write his plays, other people did; Robert Peary didn't reach the North Pole as he claimed, Stonehenge was built by space aliens, As was the pyramids, and so on and so on. And Piri Reis wasn't an extremely gifted admiral, cartographer and excellent intelligence analyst, but just a plaguerist who copied a bunch of ancient lost documents.

Get a life, folks.

Why dosn't anyone give the One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People-Eater any credit for this stuff?
Have you read the history of Alexander the Great and the Library of Alexandria? Somehow, I doubt it...

it's not as good as von daniken's stuff. atlantians, bah. space aliens from sirius is where it's at. why go only halfway?
You talk of space aliens and I'm the crazy one... right.

"Atlantis is an island whose existence and location have never been confirmed. The first references to Atlantis are from the classical Greek philosopher Plato, who said it was engulfed by the ocean as the result of an earthquake 9,000 years before his own time [ more coincidences! 12,000BC ]. Most scholars now regard Plato's description of Atlantis as fiction, though it is often thought that Plato drew upon memories of past events such as the Thera eruption or the Trojan War. Other scholars argue that Plato's account was inspired by events of his own day."

"Plato's accounts of Atlantis are in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, usually dated to the 360s BC. These works contain the earliest known references to Atlantis. The Timaeus begins with an introduction, followed by an account of the creations and structure of the universe and ancient civilizations. In the introduction, Socrates muses on the perfect society (as described in Plato's Republic) and wonders if he and his guests could come up with a story which puts this society into action. Critias mentions an allegedly historical tale that he would make the perfect example, and follows up by describing Atlantis in the Critias. In his account, ancient Athens represents the "perfect society," and Atlantis, its opponent, represents the opposite of the "perfect" traits described in the Republic. Critias claims that his account of ancient Athens and Atlantis stems from a visit to Egypt by the Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC. In Egypt, Solon met Sonchis, a priest of Thebes, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on pillars in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek."

From Wikipedia... Can't see any aliens there either....

Atlantis is a 5,000 year old myth. Not a 20th century hoax like UFOs. At that time, historians wrote myths, instead of writing History. Anyone familiar with 5,000 year old History knows that...

"Atlantis is an island whose existence and location have never been confirmed. The first references to Atlantis are from the classical Greek philosopher Plato, who said it was engulfed by the ocean as the result of an earthquake 9,000 years before his own time [ more coincidences! 12,000BC ].
...
"Plato's accounts of Atlantis are in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, usually dated to the 360s BC. These works contain the earliest known references to Atlantis.
...
Atlantis is a 5,000 year old myth.

math isn't your strong suit, is it?

math isn't your strong suit, is it?
Nor is rational thinking.

Nor is rational thinking.

or reading comprehension

"Atlantis is an island whose existence and location have never been confirmed. The first references to Atlantis are from the classical Greek philosopher Plato, who said it was engulfed by the ocean as the result of an earthquake 9,000 years before his own time [ more coincidences! 12,000BC ].
...
"Plato's accounts of Atlantis are in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, usually dated to the 360s BC. These works contain the earliest known references to Atlantis.
...
Atlantis is a 5,000 year old myth.

math isn't your strong suit, is it?
math isn't your strong suit, is it?
Certainly not as good as distorting people's arguments:

"Atlantis is an island whose existence and location have never been confirmed. The first references to Atlantis are from the classical Greek philosopher Plato, who said it was engulfed by the ocean as the result of an earthquake 9,000 years before his own time [ more coincidences! 12,000BC ]. Most scholars now regard Plato's description of Atlantis as fiction, though it is often thought that Plato drew upon memories of past events such as the Thera eruption or the Trojan War. Other scholars argue that Plato's account was inspired by events of his own day."

"Plato's accounts of Atlantis are in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, usually dated to the 360s BC.
Critias claims that his account of ancient Athens and Atlantis stems from a visit to Egypt by the Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC.
In Egypt, Solon met Sonchis, a priest of Thebes, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on pillars in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek."

Egyptian hieroglyphs are about 5,000 years old.

"Atlantis is an island whose existence and location have never been confirmed. The first references to Atlantis are from the classical Greek philosopher Plato, who said it was engulfed by the ocean as the result of an earthquake 9,000 years before his own time [ more coincidences! 12,000BC ].
...
"Plato's accounts of Atlantis are in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, usually dated to the 360s BC. These works contain the earliest known references to Atlantis.
...
Atlantis is a 5,000 year old myth.

math isn't your strong suit, is it?
math isn't your strong suit, is it?
Certainly not as good as distorting people's arguments:

The first references to Atlantis are from the classical Greek philosopher Plato, who said it was engulfed by the ocean as the result of an earthquake 9,000 years before his own time [ more coincidences! 12,000BC ].

Plato's accounts of Atlantis are in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias, usually dated to the 360s BC.

Critias claims that his account of ancient Athens and Atlantis stems from a visit to Egypt by the Athenian lawgiver Solon in the 6th century BC.

In Egypt, Solon met Sonchis, a priest of Thebes, who translated the history of ancient Athens and Atlantis, recorded on pillars in Egyptian hieroglyphs, into Greek.

I got the 12,000BC wrong. it was 10,000BC - 12,000 years ago.
Egyptian hieroglyphs are about 5,000 years old.

I got the 12,000BC wrong. it was 10,000BC - 12,000 years ago.
Egyptian hieroglyphs are about 5,000 years old.

that's still wrong.

something that is reported as happening 9,000 years before 360ish bce took place somewhere around 9,360 bce. even if we round, we would round down to 9,000 bce. which is not 12,000 years before present. and it's certainly not the 4,000 bce you mentioned in post #120 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084201&postcount=120). much less the 12,000 bce/14,000 years bp you were talking about back towards post #82 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11081113&postcount=82).

and just where the fuck did you pull a date for the age of the hieroglyphs supposedly translated for solon?

that's still wrong
Wrong: Leaves us with a possible civilisation living somewhere between 10,000BC and 3,000BC.

Wrong: Leaves us with a possible civilisation living somewhere between 10,000BC and 3,000BC.

no, it doesn't

that's still wrong.

something that is reported as happening 9,000 years before 360ish bce took place somewhere around 9,360 bce. even if we round, we would round down to 9,000 bce. which is not 12,000 years before present.
Let's round it to 11,500 years ago then (9,500BC), and give Plato a HUGE margin of error of 500 years, at a time when civilisation was still young.

and it's certainly not the 4,000 bce you mentioned in post #120 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11084201&postcount=120). much less the 12,000 bce/14,000 years bp you were talking about back towards post #82 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11081113&postcount=82).
The last Ice age ended around 14,000 years ago (12,000BC)
Somewhere between that date, 9,500BC (Plato's date) and 4,000BC, the oceans rose and this civilisation could have been forced to leave their land.
Plato had no solid way to date the earthquake accurately, as having happened 9,000 years earlier that his time.
The 4,000BC would set us a maximum date, since other civilisations appeared later.
and just where the fuck did you pull a date for the age of the hieroglyphs supposedly translated for solon?
It was an estimation based on how old those Egyptian hieroglyphs might have been. Since I don't know, I had to estimate. Egyptians were around from around 3,000BC, no? Now, since I just found that the fist pyramid was built in 2,630BC. Maybe those hieroglyphs were later. I don't know... They certainly were very old...

no, it doesn't
Can you explain to me why you are so obsessed with throwing Atlantis to the Myth books, while plenty of scholars haven't dismissed it for centuries? Some today still argue that it is perfectly plausible they existed... How can you be so sure? Do you know everything?

Assis, the only reference ever made to Atlantis is a brief mention in one of the Dialogues. And he had his numbers seriously out of whack. The Athenians who supposedly fought off Atlantean troops didn't even exist for another 2500 years. The people we know as Greek Athenians first moved into the north Meditereanean sometime between 2000 and 1500 BC. There is been some suggestion that the Minoan civilizations on Crete was what Plato was using as the basis of his story. The timing is closer anyways. But remember, Plato's Dialogues were stories, nothing in them beyond the names of the speakers involved, is necessarily true or real. People who use Plato as the basis of their claims seem to forget that.

Scholars have not needed to discount the theory of Atlantis's existence, though reputable ones have, geological and archeological evidence has had no problem debunking it. Mapping done of the Atlantic seafloor plus core samples have shown that it has been below the water a hell of a lot longer than the human race has existed. Continental drift is entirely too slow to believe that the Antarctic continent could have moved some 2500 to 3000 miles southward in less than a few million years. And as DH said, it is hard to believe that a single continent would move south at such a high rate of speed while all the others remain in place.