i'll have a look at all that and get back to you... meanwhile, how does one explain the small island shown off the coast of Ireland?
My guess would be the fact Ireland has small islands off the coast of it Let's see Circa A.D. 70 - Roman empire sends scouting missions to Hibernia, what we now call Ireland *1,500 years of stuff* 1513 - Dude makes a map, incorporates at this time a well known geographical area which was to varying degrees by location part of the Kingdom of England *500 years of stuff* 2011- Dude's map becomes conspiracy because it includes islands of the coast Ireland.
Well of people awake in the thread right now you seem least likely to inoculate your children if you can avoid it.
Piri Reis used many older maps... Columbus attempt was just one of many... he "used 10 Arabian sources, 4 Indian maps sourced from Portuguese and one map of Columbus" Charles Hapgood and Graham Hancock have an alternative take on it... how very "un-scientific" of you... what you actually said was "Or we could go back to not inoculating our children against measles. Well I guess only yours." your explanation doesn't quite add up with what you actually wrote...
well, hapgood is a continental drift denier, among his other idiosyncracies hancock is not even serious enough to bother denying things... have you looked at many maps of the era?
sorry, which era do you mean? and would you please clarify what you meant about Hancock? i don't believe i know enough about Hapgood to comment, only that he had similar views to Hancock regarding the Piri Reis map....
early 16th century maps, they're all a little bit "off" hancock not serious? is he an archaeologist? it does matter - would you read a book on archaeology by me? not to mention the convoluted thinking, number twisting, near-misses treated as direct hits - i've read some of his stuff and just shaken my head actually, hancock probably just "borrowed" hapgood's thinking on the map...
yes, i know what you mean by "off", and the sources for those maps are much much older, but i still think that what has been drawn of the Antarctic land mass is accurate enough to have been drawn up when the ice wasn't there.. either that, or they had surveying instruments of an even higher technological capability that what we are currently talking about... no, Hancock started out as a journalist for The Economist... Einstein was a patent clerk... The Dogon priests in Africa speak of subatomic particles and have done for centuries... so, yes, i would read a book you wrote if it was on a subject i was interested in... i don't really have much time for Academia per se... right now, i can't remember where Graham Hancock got his initial info about the Piri Reis maps... i know they both (Hapgood and Hancock) believe/d that there has been at least one previous high technology civilization... personally, i think it likely there were more than one...
besides, if one also looks at the age of the Sphynx in Egypt, it must be much older than Academics currently insist... but i have taken this off topic a bit... i don't like processed foods, i don't trust the manufacturers and i avoid eating them as often as possible, which is way more often than not... lots of people say i look much younger than my 48 years and i suspect this has a lot to do with my diet which is full of good natural stuff in the main...
yeah, and they seem to have missed all that water between south america and antarctica too [/offtopic]
^^^ we are, or at least i am, talking about large expanses of time.... water levels rise and fall... who's to say that South America wasn't closer to the Antarctic than currently? 400 feet in sea-level rise, globally, is a lot of water! i'm not saying it was, i am just thinking that it could well have been... nothing can take away from the fact that the shapes/details of the Antarctic landmass, matches Piri Reis' map...
It's not even a coincidence, the idea of Antarctica, i.e. any giant landmass way down there has existed for a long time, back to Ptolemy in the Roman era. It was depicted on numerous maps long before piri reis. It's not even an accurate map unless we take into account about 1/2 of the South American coastline is missing.
Like I'm just saying there are tons of things that can be a legitimate conspiracy in one way or another. The reis map isn't even close.
i strongly disagree... and as i said, of what survives of the piri reis map (only a small fragment.... it was a global map), it is too close to be a chance depiction... coastlines can change a lot in 10,000-12,000 years or so, but the topographical features of the land under the ice would have been only visible well before the last ice age build-up... the later high sea-levels which would have drastically changed coastlines... why the piri reis map? it just came to mind... there are numerous other examples/evidence of high technology in a supposed "stone age primitiveness"... for example, earlier in the thread, i mentioned the sphynx, a lot older than previously thought... add to that the megalithic structures, across the globe, were built on ground that has a cross-over of telluric energies... the schist disc of saqqara... (i think that maybe the fly wheel at coral castle may have had a similar use to the Egyptian disc... at the abu sir site it is obvious that they used highly precise cutting tools, something they were not supposed to have had according to accepted academia... blah blah blah...
What does the last ice age have to do with anything about that map, that map was made in 1514, That's recent in history, that's after the Roman empire, Charlamagne's empire, the Mongol empire, the Byzantine empire, the renissance was flourishing. The last ice age has nothing to do with this.
the 16th cent map was put together from many, much older maps... how is it that the land mass under the ice has been so accurately depicted if the ice was there still, hiding the actual topography? one answer is that they (the original ancient maps from which the piri reis map and others were put together) were originally drawn up the last time that the land was visible, before the last ice age... (i'm only talking of the Antarctic topography here, not columbus' maps of other areas) therefore, the ice age has everything to do with it... it is relevant to dating some of the original maps... am i making myself clear enough?
Not all of the Antarctic coastline is ice, in fact the areas closest to tierra del fuego in South America is ice free a lot of the year. Antarctica isn't just a giant piece of ice, there's plenty of actual land along the coastline. Any map this guy used to help make his map didn't use maps from 10,000 years ago. The Antarctic coastline, minus the seasonal forming of ice in winter has been more or less the same for the past 7-8,000 years. Again, the ice age has nothing to do with this, the last ice age ended long before humans had a well developed symbolic alphabet going, let alone cartography.
what makes you so sure they weren't using maps from 10,000 or more years ago? we may have to agree to disagree...
