Validating Ancient Maps of Antarctica

[+DieChecker]

And, btw, did you notice that the Antarctica on the map in the first post actually almost touches the southern tip of South America?

As far as I know Australia is not known to be that close to South America.

Antarctica is.

Unless the map maker believed that the South Pole sat just South of both.

[cormac mac airt]

Well, there's all the early myth of what the Irish were doing and how great it was, but I'd argue the high pint of their civilisation was during the Early Middle Ages, after the advent of Christianity there. You know, the period the lesser-cheat of pseudo-historian goes around claiming was the time "the Irish saved civilisation" and that sort of rot. Not, perhaps, the very beginning of their semi-mythical history, granted.

--Jaylemurph

Well, the difference between your earlier "rise of" and later "high point" notwithstanding, at least I know where your goal-posts are. Thanks!

I rather feel for the Irish. On top of their own myths and legends, forums like this have been known to heap on a pile of unrelated, unevidenced BS to their history, to boot.

cormac

[The Caspian Hare]

And, btw, did you notice that the Antarctica on the map in the first post actually almost touches the southern tip of South America?

I think the mapmaker was just assuming that the southern part of Tierra del Fuego was part of "Terra Australis", the mythical southern continent that was mentioned by someone else.

You can see another example here: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary...d-map-world.htm

[Critias]

That is the first thing I thought too.

So, supposedly someone sailed or flew around Antarctica and mapped the coastline, but when they made a map, did not include Australia, which surely they would have encountered in their travels. If they knew where Africa and South America were, then why not Australia? There is a giant chain of islands leading right to it.

I'm just glad the Piri Reis map is not mentioned here yet. It is my opinion that does not show Antarctica either.

Hello DieChecker,

Well you're probably not going to be any more impressed by this, but in case others are also unfamiliar with these maps I will provide a quick synopsis. Schöner’s 1524 map was created on the heels of Magellan’s voyage only 2 years earlier. Magellan of course discovered the strait that bears his name and one other lesser known feature set, a pair of desolate islands in the Pacific which were unceremoniously dubbed the Unfortunate Islands. No one had sailed anywhere near Australia. Schöner was strictly creating a continent which conformed to the two findings. The question is did he pick the design out of thin air or was he attempting to match ancient maps of unrecognizable lands to recent findings. My website proves that Schöner's earlier 1515 design was actually a 2,000-year-old map which he aligned to an alleged strait several hundred miles north of Magellan’s strait while scaling and aligning the rest of the design to center it over the South Pole. (I am currently attempting to get the discovery of this map validated and I will update as soon as the process is complete.)

With this process of incorporating ancient maps of unrecognizable lands established, we have no reason to believe Schöner wouldn’t use the same process in the future and I believe that there is a very good chance he did just that with an ancient map of Antarctica.

Here is a replica of Schöner’s 1524 design which can be found in Charles Hapgood’s Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings.

• 

Here is a close up of Schöner’s strait (left) alongside Pigafetta’s map of the strait (right).

Pigafetta was an Italian scholar who accompanied Magellan and maintained an account of the voyage.

• 

You will note that Antarctica has a similar bay in almost the same point as Schöner and Finé’s designs. This conforms to Eastern Antarctica’s northernmost point, Atka Bay, and may have compelled Schöner to select the design from a collection of ancient maps.

• 

He may have also been compelled to select this particular design because the ancient map appears to have also accommodated Magellan’s Unfortunate Islands with a pair of islands lying just off one of its coasts. In the image below you will find Schöner's design on the left and the Hadji Ahmed’s 1559 rendering on the right. Note that the Hadji Ahmed map places the islands in their correct location at the 9th and 15th parallel and some 600 miles apart.

• 

Schöner's map created 35 years earlier on the other hand places them on the same parallel and only 100 or so miles apart. As you can see in the image below this more accurately resembles the arrangement of Antarctica’s Siple and Carney Islands. More importantly, what are the chances that Schöner places the islands almost precisely along the coast of a landmass that looks very much like Western Antarctica?

• 

I believe that like his 1515 map, the map is over sized because Schöner was attempting to make the two features of his ancient source map fit Magellan's two discoveries.

FYI, As for the Piri Reis map, I also agree that it does not portray the Antarctic continent.

-Doug

[ninjadude]

I suspect the reason why people believe a highly advanced civilization mapped the world is because the Romans destroyed the cultures of conquered Europeans creatign a dark age.

where do you get your history? from a box of cornflakes? The dark ages were the result of the fall of the Roman empire not it's rise. The Romans incorporated much of the conquered peoples knowledge, religion, beliefs, etc into their own. They raised the "enlightment" level rather than depleted it.

[Leonardo]

Hello DieChecker,

Well you're probably not going to be any more impressed by this, but in case others are also unfamiliar with these maps I will provide a quick synopsis. Schöner’s 1524 map was created on the heels of Magellan’s voyage only 2 years earlier. Magellan of course discovered the strait that bears his name and one other lesser known feature set, a pair of desolate islands in the Pacific which were unceremoniously dubbed the Unfortunate Islands. No one had sailed anywhere near Australia. Schöner was strictly creating a continent which conformed to the two findings. The question is did he pick the design out of thin air or was he attempting to match ancient maps of unrecognizable lands to recent findings. My website proves that Schöner's earlier 1515 design was actually a 2,000-year-old map which he aligned to an alleged strait several hundred miles north of Magellan’s strait while scaling and aligning the rest of the design to center it over the South Pole. (I am currently attempting to get the discovery of this map validated and I will update as soon as the process is complete.)

With this process of incorporating ancient maps of unrecognizable lands established, we have no reason to believe Schöner wouldn’t use the same process in the future and I believe that there is a very good chance he did just that with an ancient map of Antarctica.

Here is a replica of Schöner’s 1524 design which can be found in Charles Hapgood’s Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings.

• 

Here is a close up of Schöner’s strait (left) alongside Pigafetta’s map of the strait (right).

Pigafetta was an Italian scholar who accompanied Magellan and maintained an account of the voyage.

• 

You will note that Antarctica has a similar bay in almost the same point as Schöner and Finé’s designs. This conforms to Eastern Antarctica’s northernmost point, Atka Bay, and may have compelled Schöner to select the design from a collection of ancient maps.

• 

He may have also been compelled to select this particular design because the ancient map appears to have also accommodated Magellan’s Unfortunate Islands with a pair of islands lying just off one of its coasts. In the image below you will find Schöner's design on the left and the Hadji Ahmed’s 1559 rendering on the right. Note that the Hadji Ahmed map places the islands in their correct location at the 9th and 15th parallel and some 600 miles apart.

• 

Schöner's map created 35 years earlier on the other hand places them on the same parallel and only 100 or so miles apart. As you can see in the image below this more accurately resembles the arrangement of Antarctica’s Siple and Carney Islands. More importantly, what are the chances that Schöner places the islands almost precisely along the coast of a landmass that looks very much like Western Antarctica?

• 

I believe that like his 1515 map, the map is over sized because Schöner was attempting to make the two features of his ancient source map fit Magellan's two discoveries.

FYI, As for the Piri Reis map, I also agree that it does not portray the Antarctic continent.

-Doug

So, what you are saying is Schoner was a rubbish cartographer who mistook the various islands (or maybe just Isla Grande) of Tierra del Fuego for a large Southern Continent?

Of course you are aware that the land mass making the southern shore of the Magellan Strait is Tierra del Fuego aren't you?

What are dubbed 'the Unfortunate Islands' in Schoner's map are likely two of smaller islands in the group of islands that comprise Tierra del Fuego and not the Antarctic Islands you wish them to be. Either that, or he misplaced the actual Unfortunate Islands, located at 26^o south off the coast of northen Chile, by approx another 24-26^o south to put them south of the southern tip of the continent.

There are also many bays on the northern shore of Isla Grande which would suit your 'match' to Atka bay in Antarctica just as well.

I find it a incredibly unlikely that Schoner had a map of Antarctica to refer to for his addition of a southern land mass onto his atlas - especially a map, as I stated before, that showed the actual coastline of the land mass of the Antarctic continent without its ice sheets.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Leonardo

[Harte]

Well, I would love to see a map of Australia drawn by either the Chinese or the Japanese, a map drawn before any Dutch or other European explorer searched the area.

So would I.

And, btw, did you notice that the Antarctica on the map in the first post actually almost touches the southern tip of South America?

As far as I know Australia is not known to be that close to South America.

Antarctica is.

As was pointed out, the map is quite erroneous, showing Zanzibar next to what I'm saying is Australia and what you're saying is Antarctica. So it wouldn't be surprising to find other errors on it then, would it?

Harte

[Lady Amethyst]

Has anyone read about the ancient maps by Hapgood?

[Critias]

So, what you are saying is Schoner was a rubbish cartographer who mistook the various islands (or maybe just Isla Grande) of Tierra del Fuego for a large Southern Continent?

Of course you are aware that the land mass making the southern shore of the Magellan Strait is Tierra del Fuego aren't you?

What are dubbed 'the Unfortunate Islands' in Schoner's map are likely two of smaller islands in the group of islands that comprise Tierra del Fuego and not the Antarctic Islands you wish them to be. Either that, or he misplaced the actual Unfortunate Islands, located at 26^o south off the coast of northen Chile, by approx another 24-26^o south to put them south of the southern tip of the continent.

There are also many bays on the northern shore of Isla Grande which would suit your 'match' to Atka bay in Antarctica just as well.

I find it a incredibly unlikely that Schoner had a map of Antarctica to refer to for his addition of a southern land mass onto his atlas - especially a map, as I stated before, that showed the actual coastline of the land mass of the Antarctic continent without its ice sheets.

Hello Leonardo,

Yes, I am saying Schöner was a rubbish cartographer, he charts maps like a monkey, and his mother wears... Okay, this is not true.

My intent is not to disparage Schöner or any other 16th century cartographer. Schöner was an apt mathematician and a very skilled cartographer and yet he and other cartographers of the time did indeed chart Tierra del Fuego as a large continent. This was because no one had yet circumnavigated Tierra del Fuego and all they knew of the area was its northern coast. Their distorted, oversized depictions of a land that is in reality slightly smaller than the Emerald Isle are based entirely on speculation. Does this make them rubbish cartographers? By no means. Such is the norm for exploration.

Even today, the world’s best and brightest astronomers are using the most advanced technologies in searching for planets outside our solar system. In doing so some have claimed the existence of planets and plotted their location only to find out later that the data was incomplete or erroneous. These nonexistent planets still exist in past articles and perhaps older star charts. If we happen upon one of these publications or charts do we assume the people that made these erroneous chartings are rubbish? Again, absolutely not. They are performing the best they can with the the tools and information they have.

Making bad assumptions will continue to be the case for intelligent men whenever charting new and unknown territory, whether it is searching the stars, exploring the depths of the sea, or even advancing technologies. Men speculate expectative possibilities and time and the acquiring of new information proves them right or wrong.

As for the two islands, you can read more about them on my website or check my earlier posts.

-Doug

[Critias]

Has anyone read about the ancient maps by Hapgood?

Hello Lady Amethyst,

Sorry for not replying earlier. I had some business to attend to.

Yes I have read Hapgood's book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings. Most of my findings were actually initiated when I was researching the continent of Antarctica and the Piri Reis map came up in my search results. Even though it was obvious that it did not depict the continent of Antarctica, curiosity got the better of me and lead me to Finé's 1531 World Map which bears a more reasonable depiction of the continent.

I have been addressing some of Hapgood's maps here in this thread and you can get more details on my website here.

-Doug

[jaylemurph]

Hello Leonardo,

Yes, I am saying Schöner was a rubbish cartographer, he charts maps like a monkey, and his mother wears... Okay, this is not true.

My intent is not to disparage Schöner or any other 16th century cartographer. Schöner was an apt mathematician and a very skilled cartographer and yet he and other cartographers of the time did indeed chart Tierra del Fuego as a large continent. This was because no one had yet circumnavigated Tierra del Fuego and all they knew of the area was its northern coast. Their distorted, oversized depictions of a land that is in reality slightly smaller than the Emerald Isle are based entirely on speculation. Does this make them rubbish cartographers? By no means. Such is the norm for exploration.

Even today, the world’s best and brightest astronomers are using the most advanced technologies in searching for planets outside our solar system. In doing so some have claimed the existence of planets and plotted their location only to find out later that the data was incomplete or erroneous. These nonexistent planets still exist in past articles and perhaps older star charts. If we happen upon one of these publications or charts do we assume the people that made these erroneous chartings are rubbish? Again, absolutely not. They are performing the best they can with the the tools and information they have.

Making bad assumptions will continue to be the case for intelligent men whenever charting new and unknown territory, whether it is searching the stars, exploring the depths of the sea, or even advancing technologies. Men speculate expectative possibilities and time and the acquiring of new information proves them right or wrong.

As for the two islands, you can read more about them on my website or check my earlier posts.

-Doug

You're still not explaining just what sort of thinking would lead a competent cartographer to say "Oh, I'll just put this map of the whole world from 1500 years ago down at the bottom and call it a new continent." That's far more than "a bad assumption". I've been pretty persistent to hear this major point and any attempt by you to answer it is conspicuous by its absence.

--Jaylemurph

[Critias]

You're still not explaining just what sort of thinking would lead a competent cartographer to say "Oh, I'll just put this map of the whole world from 1500 years ago down at the bottom and call it a new continent." That's far more than "a bad assumption". I've been pretty persistent to hear this major point and any attempt by you to answer it is conspicuous by its absence.

--Jaylemurph

Hi Jaylemurph,

I apologize. I felt I had addressed it here. Sometimes competent people can have an item placed right in front of their noses and not recognize it for what it is and Schöner was likely referencing a copy of the Orbis Terrarum that was either unfinished or badly worn. Since most copies of the Orbis Terrarum are believed to have disappeared a hundred years or so earlier he could not use it as a point of reference, and therefore did not recognize his source map as being a world map.

-Doug

[Abramelin]

So would I.

As was pointed out, the map is quite erroneous, showing Zanzibar next to what I'm saying is Australia and what you're saying is Antarctica. So it wouldn't be surprising to find other errors on it then, would it?

Harte

The map could have been based on hearsay and a crappy depiction of Antarctica or Australia.

But I am wondering... if this IS the Antarctic, why do I not see Australia on that map? Or visa versa?

[Mattshark]

The map could have been based on hearsay and a crappy depiction of Antarctica or Australia.

But I am wondering... if this IS the Antarctic, why do I not see Australia on that map? Or visa versa?

I'd say Australia would be considerably more accessible than Antarctica and by a very long way.

[Leonardo]

Hello Leonardo,

Yes, I am saying Schöner was a rubbish cartographer, he charts maps like a monkey, and his mother wears... Okay, this is not true.

My intent is not to disparage Schöner or any other 16th century cartographer. Schöner was an apt mathematician and a very skilled cartographer and yet he and other cartographers of the time did indeed chart Tierra del Fuego as a large continent. This was because no one had yet circumnavigated Tierra del Fuego and all they knew of the area was its northern coast. Their distorted, oversized depictions of a land that is in reality slightly smaller than the Emerald Isle are based entirely on speculation. Does this make them rubbish cartographers? By no means. Such is the norm for exploration.

Even today, the world’s best and brightest astronomers are using the most advanced technologies in searching for planets outside our solar system. In doing so some have claimed the existence of planets and plotted their location only to find out later that the data was incomplete or erroneous. These nonexistent planets still exist in past articles and perhaps older star charts. If we happen upon one of these publications or charts do we assume the people that made these erroneous chartings are rubbish? Again, absolutely not. They are performing the best they can with the the tools and information they have.

Making bad assumptions will continue to be the case for intelligent men whenever charting new and unknown territory, whether it is searching the stars, exploring the depths of the sea, or even advancing technologies. Men speculate expectative possibilities and time and the acquiring of new information proves them right or wrong.

As for the two islands, you can read more about them on my website or check my earlier posts.

-Doug

I appreciate that, in his time, Schoner was probably highly regarded. In my opinion, those (including modern scientists) who speculate on what is known in such a way traduce that knowledge. Speculation itself is not such a bad thing, but framing it as what is known is.

My main issue with your theory is that all the 'evidence' you have for likening Schoners depiction of Tierra del Fuego to being copied from an alleged map of Antarctica are features which are common to any shoreline - bays and islands. You have no evidence that he (or any other cartographer of the time - such as Oronce Fine) did use Orbis Terrarum as a form other than that theory fits your 'facts'. It is, in absolute terms, just as likely he used a map of any of the other (then unknown) large islands or continents as his inspiration for his Southern Continent so other 'theories' fit your facts just as handily as the Antarctica improbability.

I say it is improbable because, in your theory where you then point out on Oronce Fine's map features of the coastline of Antarctica which probably were not evident until the advent of a way to 'see' the continent under the ice. The Ross Sea, with a permanent ice shelf concealing the shoreline. Atka Bay, again, an ice shelf off New Schwabenland conceals the shoreline. You might say the maps drawn are obviously inaccurate, but to say that then calls into question what landmass they are, therefore, inaccurate depictions of? You can't be specific about features, then wave off criticisms with an excuse of inaccuracy.

Basically, you want precision when it suits you, but imprecision when it doesn't.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Leonardo

[Critias]

Hello Leonardo,

I would just like to say that this was a very well reasoned post. Many of your concerns are ones that I had also taken into consideration.

I appreciate that, in his time, Schoner was probably highly regarded. In my opinion, those (including modern scientists) who speculate on what is known in such a way traduce that knowledge. Speculation itself is not such a bad thing, but framing it as what is known is.

That truly is the beauty of hindsight. Columbus had his detractors as well, but he is overlooked for his transgression because of his success. Wegener was completely convinced that the America’s fit to Europe/Africa and died a fool in the eyes of many, but today is hailed as the father of plate tectonics. So even though as you assert he did a bad thing somehow we got over it. Failures are never this fortunate. At best they are forgotten.

As for me, if you had gone to my website you would have found this little nugget on the main page:

“On the other hand The Atlantis Maps also makes the claim that Antarctica MAY have been visited and charted by an ancient civilization, a claim that is substantially more difficult to prove and therefore LESS CERTAIN. There is absolutely no scientific or historical data available today that can remotely support such a claim, thus setting the bar very high for such a controversial theory. Society will and should demand extraordinary proof to substantiate this extraordinary claim and while many will find that the new evidence supporting this claim falls somewhere in that vicinity and is certain to cause some hardcore skeptics to take pause, it will require a major archaeological find before this claim makes it into the history books.”

My main issue with your theory is that all the 'evidence' you have for likening Schöner’s depiction of Tierra del Fuego to being copied from an alleged map of Antarctica are features which are common to any shoreline - bays and islands. You have no evidence that he (or any other cartographer of the time - such as Oronce Fine) did use Orbis Terrarum as a form other than that theory fits your 'facts'. It is, in absolute terms, just as likely he used a map of any of the other (then unknown) large islands or continents as his inspiration for his Southern Continent so other 'theories' fit your facts just as handily as the Antarctica improbability.

This is a bit harder to address. There seems to be a little confusion on your part, but I have a good sense of what you are trying to say.

First of all Orbis Terrarum is the C-shaped continent on Schöner’s 1515 world globe and I did not reference islands or bays in identifying it as such. By the way I will gladly go on record as saying that this is definitely a world map placed on the bottom of his globe. If I were just relying on the two lone set of peninsulas extending off the upper portion of a C-shaped landmass I would be skeptical as well, even though this alone accurately defines most ancient world maps. The inclusion of a lateral waterway spanning the lower portion (the African continent) on the other hand is validation beyond a shadow of a doubt. Check out the complex mappae mundi and you will find this water feature on most every single one. It is a distinct identifiable feature set apart on most of these maps as the lone waterway that is completely landlocked and having a lake source in the vicinity of Mauritania and terminated at the other end as a stub or with a second lake. If you study the Hereford Mappa Mundi for instance, the vast majority of waterways flow into the Mediterranean Sea or the outer ocean. There is one landlocked waterway in Asia and one smaller one to the west of the main feature in the African continent. This conforms to Pliny's description of the Nile starting in the mountains of Mauritania and flowing eastward with portions of the great river dipping and flowing underground. This last most imposing waterway on the Hereford map forms an arc and is terminated at both ends by lakes very much like Schöner’s design. I encourage you to research some of the other mappae mundi displayed or referred to on my website.

Now in regard to Finé’s design which is similar to Schöner’s 1524 design and resembles the Antarctic continent, there are admittedly some complex hurdles to overcome, which again is why I have stated that this claim is less certain. Your suggestion that the design could be inspired by any other large island is completely valid, which is why I pored over several atlases and even Google Earth looking in the more obvious locations like the Greek Archipelago to the less likely Pacific Islands for an island approaching the design. None came as close in overall shape as Antarctica and that was before the islands and bays were factored in, which makes Schöner’s design even more remarkable as to its rarity in the real world. I will say that the island of Maui approached the design the closest of any of the world’s islands, pulling off a good representation of the area which looks like the Weddell Sea, but not quite so good on the Ross Sea. Beyond that there is no equivalent to Finé’s well-defined bays or supplemental islands. I encourage you to do your own evaluation of the world’s islands.

Whether the design is credited to luck or other circumstances, it should only heighten your respect for how remarkably accurate Finé’s design is in depicting the Antarctic continent once you realize the fact that no other landform on earth comes closer to matching the design. That being said, it is possible that I have overlooked a small island in a creek having some surfacing rocks aligning to Carney, Siple and Ross Island.

I say it is improbable because, in your theory where you then point out on Oronce Fine's map features of the coastline of Antarctica which probably were not evident until the advent of a way to 'see' the continent under the ice. The Ross Sea, with a permanent ice shelf concealing the shoreline. Atka Bay, again, an ice shelf off New Schwabenland conceals the shoreline. You might say the maps drawn are obviously inaccurate, but to say that then calls into question what landmass they are, therefore, inaccurate depictions of?

If you had visited my website, again you would have found that I acknowledged bays like Atka bay being occupied by a 600-foot thick sheet of ice. I also pointed out Finé’s depiction of a bay where Eastern and Western Antarctica converge in the north that rests under thousands of feet of ice, but where luck would have it bathymetric maps confirm two mountain ranges converging to form a similarly shaped deep inland basin. The luck of course is that he placed the bay in a very accommodating location, whereas had he formed it intruding on the mountainous wall that is the Ross Sea’s eastern shore it would have written the map off entirely. So yes I am postulating, not stating positively, that the map represents the continent devoid of ice or at least a large portion of the supposed 30 million-year-old ice cap.

Bathymetric view of Western Antarctica (left) alongside Finé’s version of Western

Antarctica. The Pensacola and Whitmore Mountains converge to create a basin (D)

similar in form to Finé’s location of a northern bay.

You can't be specific about features, then wave off criticisms with an excuse of inaccuracy.

Basically, you want precision when it suits you, but imprecision when it doesn't.

Take a look at these two maps:

If they lacked all text and were placed in front of you, how would you prove that they were genuine world maps? I dare you to confirm the shapes as world maps without applying the method you just dismissed. The only way to validate the maps is by pointing out not just the overall shape of the landmass, but ignoring the vast amount of imprecision displayed throughout the designs and pointing out the precision afforded the Grecian and perhaps Italian peninsulas. The key is not demanding precision where it suits you, but where it suits the validation process.

The fact that Finé and Schöner depict a landmass with a very similar overall shape resembling Antarctica and then place all the highly identifiable objects, bays and islands, where they actually exist or, as in the case of the lengthy bay in the north, where they could possibly exist is quite an amazing feat that defies incredibly overwhelming odds. Yes people defy similar odds when they win the national lottery, but that's one or two men hitting the right combination out of millions of people and even more tickets. Schöner was one man out of a dozen or so participants who bought only two tickets.

-Doug

[Glenn_G]

This can be explained, but it takes a bit of understanding to explaine it.

First, lets start oiut with ancient history, the Earth has been frozen solid at least 5 times that we can trace maybe more. Second, after the earth was in the state of a solid ice ball, the obvious solution is that it melts. This happens over thousands of years, easily, possibly longer. Third, there is a time at which the Earth heats up to melt all the ice, that is where the current tropical zones climb north and leave in there wake an area of a desert zone. Where it is hotter then the now current norm. This is history has has been in cycles. Man-Kind is not old enough to have recored all of this but there are ice sheets that science has claimed that this is considered fact. Just as the facts say at one time the north and south poles used to be tropical zones, they can find tropical zone plant matter below the surcafe of ice on the artic circle. This is not in argueement, this is known fact. So therefore with this known, the earth has cycles of heating and cooling. On a scale mankind has not faced in thousands of years. Since the ice froze enough for caveman to move from Europe to the Americas. The cause of that is still under debate. Now if mankind has not seen or faced the planet in one of the 5 times science claims that the earth was a ball of ice. Then therefore mankind is still to young to have experience it. Now since the ice sheets in the artic and the antartic contain tons of water enough to dropp the water level of the world by at least 20 feet or more.

Now with that knowledge in mind. Here is what I propose to be the solution to the problem of Antartic ice issue. Back in the middle of the 15th century when the maps where made. It was a point at which the ice on the articas was melted and entering a minor ice age. Where the land may have resembled a perma-frost zone (I do not know) on the land. And as current map makers will tell you, the cost line is something that changes from day to day. That is why the maps are so similar but not 100% accurate. Now as science has shown that ice can change the formation of the land underneath it. So, as the era or the minor ice age starts, the Artic and the Antartic circles start to form. Also part of this goes into the global exporation, there is also Greenland. At one point in human time it was green, and now it is ice. Showing us that the Earth entered this ice age. I am not 100% sure on the cycles of the minor ice ages or when they happen but what I do have is science saying that after every ice age no matter how small the ice always melt. Hypothesis, the current global warming is a cycle that mankind has not cause because the Earth itself has been through five prior points in time in which it has been a ball of ice. Mankind has not seen, lived in, or the cause of those ice ages.

So the facts have been presented where the artic and by logic the antartic would have been land and not ice. So therefore we are in a minor ice age at current time. Compaired to when the map was made. It is my hypothesis that this is why the map is as accurate as it is.

There are some side facts also. Remember the Aristocrats of the past did not like to be wrong and were the ones who wrote history so they could claim that they were always right no matter what. Fact history is written by the victor. And the ones who came to conqure the native of the continents were the white man. Fact, we still take into account the writings of the white man because they tried to destroy anything that was not in thier belief, ie the savage indians, ie the slave blacks, ect...

There will always be contradictions to the history we learn because it was written by those Aristocrats that tried to destroy anything that was contradictory to what they claim is to be the truth. This happened for hundreds of years, remember, the Earth was flat for over 300 years. And they killed anyone who went against the aristorcrats of the time. The Earth was the center of the galaxy for hundreds of years also. So please keep in mind, I may quote science here, and what is considered the norm as to thinking, but I will point out the end decision is not mine to make. This is just an answer to a question that history has covered up. Please, look up the information for yourself, connect the dots, and see the answer that appears. There are things in history that will always remaine a mystery, and there are things that will reviel themselves for those who seek it. All this is ment to do is to propse a possible solution as to what could have happened. Now with higer water levels, rechek the maps made and add the water to the current maps and you will start to see the resemblence of how close they are in all actuallity. And since coastlines change from day to day, How may days has it been since they were made?

Now for a bit of fun. For those who claim that thier maps are rubbish. I challenege you to make a map of 200 miles of coast line, and map it again in 5 years and see if it is 100% accurate without any change. It will never happen and a futile effort, because then you will realize that in 5 years that map you made in the prior 5 yars is not the same.Reason, erosion. It happens day by day, second by second. So what may be accurate 5 years ago, will not be in 5 years not even in 100 years but it will be close enough to tell.

And a bit of info Terra Australis (also: Terra Australis Incognita (with "incognita" stressed on the second syllable), Latin for "the unknown land of the South"), was a theorized continent appearing on European maps from the 15th to the 18th century. "Auster" was the Latin name for the south wind": "austral" meant "southern" and "terra australis" meant "land of the south". "Australia" is Latin for "Southland".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Australis. Logic would also dictate that you can call South America, Australia. For all those hung up on the name prinited on the map. Any land south of such can be considered Australia, Japan could be called Australia. Look at the meaning of the word, not stuck on a name. If it was a german map, I would suggest to look up the german deffinition of the word, but as it is a latin work, look up the latin meaning of the word.

[TheSearcher]

This can be explained, but it takes a bit of understanding to explaine it.

First, lets start oiut with ancient history, the Earth has been frozen solid at least 5 times that we can trace maybe more. Second, after the earth was in the state of a solid ice ball, the obvious solution is that it melts. This happens over thousands of years, easily, possibly longer. Third, there is a time at which the Earth heats up to melt all the ice, that is where the current tropical zones climb north and leave in there wake an area of a desert zone. Where it is hotter then the now current norm. This is history has has been in cycles. Man-Kind is not old enough to have recored all of this but there are ice sheets that science has claimed that this is considered fact. Just as the facts say at one time the north and south poles used to be tropical zones, they can find tropical zone plant matter below the surcafe of ice on the artic circle. This is not in argueement, this is known fact. So therefore with this known, the earth has cycles of heating and cooling. On a scale mankind has not faced in thousands of years. Since the ice froze enough for caveman to move from Europe to the Americas. The cause of that is still under debate. Now if mankind has not seen or faced the planet in one of the 5 times science claims that the earth was a ball of ice. Then therefore mankind is still to young to have experience it. Now since the ice sheets in the artic and the antartic contain tons of water enough to dropp the water level of the world by at least 20 feet or more.

Now with that knowledge in mind. Here is what I propose to be the solution to the problem of Antartic ice issue. Back in the middle of the 15th century when the maps where made. It was a point at which the ice on the articas was melted and entering a minor ice age. Where the land may have resembled a perma-frost zone (I do not know) on the land. And as current map makers will tell you, the cost line is something that changes from day to day. That is why the maps are so similar but not 100% accurate. Now as science has shown that ice can change the formation of the land underneath it. So, as the era or the minor ice age starts, the Artic and the Antartic circles start to form. Also part of this goes into the global exporation, there is also Greenland. At one point in human time it was green, and now it is ice. Showing us that the Earth entered this ice age. I am not 100% sure on the cycles of the minor ice ages or when they happen but what I do have is science saying that after every ice age no matter how small the ice always melt. Hypothesis, the current global warming is a cycle that mankind has not cause because the Earth itself has been through five prior points in time in which it has been a ball of ice. Mankind has not seen, lived in, or the cause of those ice ages.

So the facts have been presented where the artic and by logic the antartic would have been land and not ice. So therefore we are in a minor ice age at current time. Compaired to when the map was made. It is my hypothesis that this is why the map is as accurate as it is.

There are some side facts also. Remember the Aristocrats of the past did not like to be wrong and were the ones who wrote history so they could claim that they were always right no matter what. Fact history is written by the victor. And the ones who came to conqure the native of the continents were the white man. Fact, we still take into account the writings of the white man because they tried to destroy anything that was not in thier belief, ie the savage indians, ie the slave blacks, ect...

Actually, you're a tad wrong there. What science actually says is, since about 15 million years, the antarctic continent has been mostly covered with ice, with the Antarctic ice cap reaching its present approximative extension around 6 million years ago. About 98% of Antarctica is covered by ice, which averages at least 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) in thickness; on the continent itself, the large volume of ice present,stores around 70% of the world's fresh water.

(read the wiki about it, it's the clearer and easier access site) Today's balance between the icecaps and global sea level has been relatively steady since about 1000 B.C.

Since there has been no stories of worldwide flooding in the 15th century, I doubt very strongly that Antarctica was ice free during this period. Had all the ice on the ice sheet melted, there would have been a significant difference in sea level (I would estimate between 20 to 30 meters).

To give an example, during the last Ice Age the maximum extent of glaciation was around 16,000 B.C. At that time large ice sheets covered all of Canada, much of the American midwest and northeast, all of Scandinavia and some surrounding regions of Eurasia. The total volume of ice then was perhaps 80,000,000 cubic kilometers, or between two and three times as much as much as today. Correspondingly, world sea level was about 120 meters lower.

Note that it has taken 18,000 years to melt 60% of the ice from the last ice age. The remaining ice is almost entirely at the north and south poles and is isolated from warmer weather. To melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which accounts for 80% of the Earth's current ice, some scientists argue that it existed for 14,000,000 years, through wide ranges in global climate. The IPCC 2001 report states "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years."

See the problem with your theory there?

[Glenn_G]

Not to disagree with you, for everyone is entitled to thier opnion. Point of fact is that sometime in recent past history something caused an ice sheet from the artic to connect Europe to North America. And killed off the original inhabatants of the North American continent along with most of the species of life. Some claim it was a metor stricking the ice that caused this , others would deny that claim. But I do agree with you on the issue with certain things. Point of fact, ice in water will melt faster then if on perma-frost. So it is likely that the ice we see now is of recent growth. For certain reasons. There is no hard facts to disprove what I have proposed. All there are is hypothesis. Remember science also said the Earth was flat for 300 years. Science pointed out that Earth was the center of the universe also. There are also repots that voting democrat makes you at higher risk of cancer. Truth, we do not know. All we know is that there are maps that are very accurate and the only tools avalable now that will allow us to see the contoenet is ground penetrating radar. So using logic there is 2 possiblites.

"Sherlock Holmes' Law - After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."

Now with that in mind the two possiblities are that can explaine this are follows. First is that a race much more advanced then ours of today was visiting and avalable to those people of the 15th century. ie aliens. Proposal 2 that is that there was a spike in tempture of the day that caused the ice sheets to retreate close enough to the land for us to map the continent and know that there was a continent under the north and south poles.

And a bit of info to go along with the topic, Enstine stated that light speed was improbable but not impossible, yet we take as point of fact his claim was that light speed was impossible. So if we were to examine his e=mc2. It states what is required to achieve it. The paradox comes in when the weight of the fuel exceeds a certain point, it would require more fule to move the required fule to achive light speed plus the mass plus. So, science assumes that it is impossible. Now, as a fun side fact here there are different speeds of light, for example, light passing through the atmosphere of a planet, light passing through water, light passing through gas as a The Crab Nebula, light passing through solids as in glass, and light in a vaccume. This is based on simple partical physics, since light is radation.

Fact is that we can not be certain that what I have propsed did not happen. And if it did not happen, the only thing left to belive is that an Alien race visited us and helped us in mapping the contients. But if that was the case, would the map be more percise then what we have?

[digitalartist]

Point of fact is that sometime in recent past history something caused an ice sheet from the artic to connect Europe to North America. And killed off the original inhabatants of the North American continent along with most of the species of life.

Question is how did you arrive at the conclusion that an ice sheet that didn't go all the way to Mexico would have killed off the inhabitants of all North America and most of the other species including those that lived in the southern past of what is now th U.S. and all of Mexico?

So using logic there is 2 possiblites.

"Sherlock Holmes' Law - After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."

Now with that in mind the two possiblities are that can explain this are follows. First is that a race much more advanced then ours of today was visiting and avalable to those people of the 15th century. ie aliens. Proposal 2 that is that there was a spike in tempture of the day that caused the ice sheets to retreate close enough to the land for us to map the continent and know that there was a continent under the north and south poles.

No scientific data in support of either of your theories so I propose a third possibility. The fact that cartographers would have obtained their information from sailors meaning they drew their maps based on the verbal or less likely written accounts of something seen months or years before. Error would be highly probable and what is shown as Antarctica may well have been a place like Australia.

Fact is that we can not be certain that what I have propsed did not happen. And if it did not happen, the only thing left to belive is that an Alien race visited us and helped us in mapping the contients. But if that was the case, would the map be more percise then what we have?

Fact is that what I have propsed is a possibility and far more likely IMO than what you have proposed. In all cases it is up to the person making the proposal, whether you or me or someone else, to support any proposal made with documentation or data that can be independently verified else the proposal is just opinion and nothing more.

[TheSearcher]

Not to disagree with you, for everyone is entitled to thier opnion. Point of fact is that sometime in recent past history something caused an ice sheet from the artic to connect Europe to North America. And killed off the original inhabatants of the North American continent along with most of the species of life. Some claim it was a metor stricking the ice that caused this , others would deny that claim. But I do agree with you on the issue with certain things. Point of fact, ice in water will melt faster then if on perma-frost. So it is likely that the ice we see now is of recent growth. For certain reasons. There is no hard facts to disprove what I have proposed. All there are is hypothesis. Remember science also said the Earth was flat for 300 years. Science pointed out that Earth was the center of the universe also. There are also repots that voting democrat makes you at higher risk of cancer. Truth, we do not know. All we know is that there are maps that are very accurate and the only tools avalable now that will allow us to see the contoenet is ground penetrating radar. So using logic there is 2 possiblites.

For the record, my post is not opinion, it's the scientific facts I was able to find. The only opinion in the post was about your claim.

You talk about the Antarctic, well about 98% of Antarctica is covered by ice, which averages at least 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) in thickness. To melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate, both statements are scientific fact. What we see is not ice from recent growth. The Dome Summit South core, drilled all the way to bedrock some 1200 m below, shows a record that extends back over 80 000 years. Hardly recent growth, I'd say. (Source).

These are already two hard facts that go against your theory. There has been no flood whatsoever on a global scale in the 15th century. Another fact that seems to contradict your theory.

Now the unwritten rule is : if you claim it, the burden of proof is yours to bear. I have been sourcing everything I say, please return the favor. Claiming it is true, is not enough here.

"Sherlock Holmes' Law - After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."

Now with that in mind the two possiblities are that can explaine this are follows. First is that a race much more advanced then ours of today was visiting and avalable to those people of the 15th century. ie aliens. Proposal 2 that is that there was a spike in tempture of the day that caused the ice sheets to retreate close enough to the land for us to map the continent and know that there was a continent under the north and south poles.

I would tend to agree with Digitalartist, there is no scientific base to support either of your claims. If there is please source them. Otherwise it's just another claim like so many, unsupported by facts.

And a bit of info to go along with the topic, Enstine stated that light speed was improbable but not impossible, yet we take as point of fact his claim was that light speed was impossible. So if we were to examine his e=mc2. It states what is required to achieve it. The paradox comes in when the weight of the fuel exceeds a certain point, it would require more fule to move the required fule to achive light speed plus the mass plus. So, science assumes that it is impossible. Now, as a fun side fact here there are different speeds of light, for example, light passing through the atmosphere of a planet, light passing through water, light passing through gas as a The Crab Nebula, light passing through solids as in glass, and light in a vaccume. This is based on simple partical physics, since light is radation.

Not relevant to this discussion really.

Fact is that we can not be certain that what I have propsed did not happen. And if it did not happen, the only thing left to belive is that an Alien race visited us and helped us in mapping the contients. But if that was the case, would the map be more percise then what we have?

We can be relatively certain the that ice on the Antarctic continent did not melt to the proportions you portray. And the only thing left to believe is certainly not Nibblers (aka alleged alien visitors). There are other possibilities. Besides the maps in question are not that precise at all. Suffices to read the posts in this thread.

[cormac mac airt]

Point of fact is that sometime in recent past history something caused an ice sheet from the artic to connect Europe to North America.

Considering the last glacial period started c.110,000 BP that’s not really recent, at least not in human terms.

And killed off the original inhabatants of the North American continent along with most of the species of life.

There were no “original inhabatants of the North American continent” (ie., humans), as the ancestors of Native Americans migrated here towards the end of the last glacial period.

So it is likely that the ice we see now is of recent growth.

Not really, as the ice cores taken from Vostok Station, Dome F and Dome C in Antarctica date to 420,000 BP; 720,000 BP and 740,000 BP respectively. All of which is way before our existence as a species c.195,000 BP.

cormac

[cluey]

ok....i'm kinda not sure what validation you are actually trying to seek here????......but The Antartic region does underly the South pole.....so i am not surprised that it was possibly seen as the same.....although....in the 15,1600 hundreds like others have mentioned......there was no ground penetrating radars.....and neither did these great discover's fly around the world to create these maps..........tectonic plate movement,earthquakes,global warming where all prevalent at the time......just know one knew it........so it is really difficult to validate a map on how it was perceived that long ago compared to today...it was seen as best it could then....and we see it as we see it now.......it has existed since Ptelomy(1st centuary AD).......on a lighter note.......i do love how Antartica and Australia are both seen in essence to balance the northern lands.....Europe,Asia and North Africa.......JMO.......and am always looking to expand my knowledge of things i know little about....

[Native Viking Patriot]

<!--quoteo(post=2818651:date=Apr 1 2009, 12:28 PM:name=atom286)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (atom286 @ Apr 1 2009, 12:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2818651"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I suspect the reason why people believe a highly advanced civilization mapped the world is because the Romans destroyed the cultures of conquered Europeans creatign a dark age.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's just a complete misunderstanding of the workings of the Roman Empire. Generally speaking, they didn't destroy /any/ cultures.

And most historians since the fall of Rome have generally thought the lack of the Roman Empire brought on the Dark Ages, rather than actively causing it.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some texts still remain from the Vikings and the Irish which show the Americas were discovered long before Columbus got there. I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient British achieved a lot more than people realised.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The Viking period was well after the Fall of Rome, as well as the rise of Irish civilisation. In fact, one might just predicate both of their rises on the disappearance of centralised Roman power.

You need to stop basing your ideas of science and history on repeats of Star Trek.

--Jaylemurph

While I agree with you that there is much in our posts author's claims that are unfounded, speculative at best, and that I'd agree it's unfounded and contentious and may well likely be proven incorrect on the whole for much of what he theorizes, I think it's great that he thinks outside the box. The last thing I'd have to agree with you on would be that inasmuch as that the Romans definitely did their best to absorb what parts of a culture worked for them, they did so from a perspective that was entirely ethnocentric. As are your comments. What is valuable to you, and what has been chosen as valuable by Western societies, whilst other aspects of a culture deemed worthless, I think even many Romans realized such a way of thinking was indeed an incalculable loss for not just Rome, but for humanity. This is why the greatest amongst the Romans did their best to try to understand the cultures that were rapidly disappearing beneath the great shadow of the Pax Romana.

Indeed, I believe an excellent example to illustrate how absolutely untenably absurd your assertions and opinions are can be found in fleshing out what you posit like this: Romans "generally" didn't destroy ANY cultures (obviously an irrational statement on the whole, but lets pretend we never inherited that little gem from them, shall we?). Ahhh. So the Greeks, you'd say were a good example of this probably, yes? And why do you suppose that is though? I guess it wouldn't be for the reason that they were BOTH polytheistic, capitalist, naval going Empirical States, with a democratic form of government which was derived from those facts as well as their sharing a key and under-appreciated ingredient known as the Alphabet? That wouldn't be why? Or maybe you'd like to say "Yes that is why", the Romans absorbed the Greek Culture, while destroying the Germanic culture? (Oh yes, I suppose you'd argue "no harm no foul" as Romans recorded all the Ancient Norse Gods in Roman volumes written by Romans, post Pax Germania. I can't think you'd credit Rome, simply by having a statesman or two or former soldier write an extremely Roma-centric bit of information down about Asgard & the Germanic gods, which they understood not much about by their own admission, as somehow PRESERVING the Germanic culture as it existed Pre Roman conquest. Or would you? We know NOTHING of the Druids and not much of the peoples of Britain except what little the Romans tell us. What they tell us is that these people are barbarians. Uncivilized. This shows how stupid the Romans were that they felt that way about everyone different than them. Or haven't you learned your Native American vs. Colonialist History lessons sir? The new way approaches and the old is quickly forgotten and swallowed by the sands of time. But that is not all that is lost to antiquity. Not even close. Besides, thinking this way is akin to believing that the hunter who shot the last Elephant but stuffed it for posterity to look at "preserved", and could somehow translate the august soulful looks those magnificent animals give us, immediately flustering us and making us feel completely ashamed for we know we are looking into the eyes of another sentient being and that the roles we have placed upon him, are a stigma upon our own psyche, consciousness, and souls, if we'd had any to begin with. But perhaps for you looking at a stuffed Elephant would tell you all you need to know? Maybe a video tape or two? Hmn? In thinking that, I'm afraid you'd be agreeing with far too many of our corporations driven upon destroying the earth and it's resources in order to continue to force us to pay for ones we don't need anymore, lest we cease needing them. How sad. It seems that's exactly what we've lost with the Romans here, great as they are, in the arts, sciences, literature, and histories, they are very weak on having a connection as a people to one another and this beautiful earth and her other creatures. That is a tragedy no words could even begin to express, sir.

Yet, either way you chose to argue the above argument, I'm glad to say, but afraid for you, it is our "Star Trek" watching topic host who'd have probably gotten it right. For we thought those were the reasons the Romans had had such an affinity for the Greeks. Rather, it turns out, that an odd Limey chap named Calvert, and an equally nutty Kraut, named Schlieman, had decided to look for Troy. Ah, sir, I can see you now, laughing along with the other Archaeologists, Historians, and the holders of the great Chairs of learning of the day when it was learned their search was entirely based upon Homer's Iliad. Hahaha. Too much Star Trek indeed. Not that I think our topic poster had done any such thing, I'm simply quoting you and showing you that it takes an open mind and a fresh approach often to clear the way for humanity to make new inroads into our amnesia of the past, and help us see who we truly are. We should never be afraid of the criticisms of people like yourself, I'm sorry (or glad?) to say. That would mean almost certain stagnation and death, for a man afraid to attempt new things, due to fear of ridicule and fear of failure in the face of that ridicule, is a man whose dreams have died still born in his chest who may as we'll be in an early grave. But you can pat yourself and those like you on the backs for untold of pioneers turning about in the face of such ridicule and scorn. It turns out that Troy wasn't just a figment of the great Homeric Imagination, after all, and that the Romans were indeed more closely related to the Greeks in reality than we had believed through them. So all of our thoughts on how "well they had preserved Greek culture" and why, may have had a lot more to do with who they truly were as a people than what we thought we knew and had, in fact, misunderstood about Rome.

I wonder would you have credited Columbus's Map of the ancient Chinese White Fleet, which he used to discover the New World as legitimate? Based on your statements about whites I think not... Because you may not have heard of it, but it was an ancient Chinese Map that Columbus had in his possession which helped him sell his expedition to the King and Queen and is what he had that made him so certain he would find the New World, when his men wanted to mutiny. Turns out, he knew where he was going all along, he was never trying to find India at all. Hmn... have I lost you? Hahaha. Get it?

What little will be left of previous information and cultures one day if all of us think like yourself. We've allowed these corporations to tell us we don't need newspapers, because they don't like us being informed, and to dumb down our schools and critical works. I doubt they'd have had the information on the Metre in the Iliad to go on, had it been America that had stored the historical data on the Iliad.

Obviously I think that your opinion about their not destroying cultures when absorbing "new territories" (i.e. the lands of indigenous people's) into their empire, is rather absurd to make, and I can guarantee you that you would have not found anything but violent hostility to such a claim had you visited a single territory the legion had subdued for the Pax Romana.

The Roman Army was a brutal and efficient killing machine and it didn't worry about destroying cultures and people in defiance of Rome. You are assuming that because we don't know much about the Danes and Scandinavians and other Vikings, till Rome began to have problems, and these very savvy people exploited these problems in Britain and followed through into sea lanes that had recently been the province of Roman Naval patrols, that they were only able to explore the seas prior to the Roman decline in Britain et al, is rather an opinion than a fact, since we truly just don't know. However, I think that if we were to use logic, the fact that these people were such masters of the sea ought to suggest that ability and craftsmanship (obviously NOT ROMAN) didn't appear because Roman sea power ceased to be asserted in the waters they liked to Raid.

Rather it is much more likely that we have here a large gap in our knowledge. I would even be so bold as to posit that perhaps it wouldn't be quite so wild to speculate that had not so many texts been lost to the civilization we inherited from Rome, Alexandria might have shed at least a little tiny bit of light on this blind fumbling. That way you could make such wide sweeping assertions with impudence, and allow you, with a few keyboard strokes, to delete whatever great or small contributions have been lost to us beneath the tramp of Roman Legions Sandals down Hadrians wall. Unfortunately, I doubt your credentials would warrant our allowing you such carte blanche with history, sir- all due apologies, indeed, I assure you.

For there is one thing we can be certain of, --excuse me but I have to interrupt myself here. I'm at a loss. I hate to call you my "friend", because you've been quite a snob to the brave fellow who posted this page and was kind enough to share his invaluable thoughts with us, right or wrong, so my next instinct was to simply say "sir", though assuming your a gentleman, in light of your ethnic slurs and uncharitable remarks, amounts to much the same thing, I'm afraid, however, for simplicities sake and praying you might apologize to the author, I extend you this courtesy in hopes of appealing to your better angels to that end.

So, there' one thing we can absolutely be certain of without a doubt, and that is that Alexandria's libraries burning was a tragedy, and indeed the Romans may have recorded much of value that is lost to the sands of time about the peoples which they conquered. That said, there is something that they definitely destroyed, and whether it be lost to us out of design (as many believe) or the ignorant destruction of war, matters not, for it' loss is irreplaceable either way. That is Western Societies disconnection from it' old gods, from the earth, from it' ancestors. We are lost without what those peoples had shared in their tribes and tribal kingdoms in this regard, and the Alphabet effect has been written of by people like McLulan, and we can be certain that with Rome, a complete revolution in thinking began with writing and ways of seeing and thinking and viewing ourselves as separate from each other and the earth and learning to categorize things in our western way, assigning values, shades of good and bad, dark and light, right and wrong, which has helped in a few respects, but left us lost and groping for our place as is evidence through many symptoms of mass social dysfunction in the behemoth monolithic giant and ogre that western culture has become, trampling all else underfoot, with shock and awe: for we are, currently, the last declining hegemon, sir, as is in evidence from our lack of purpose and obscene corruption and self indulgence.

Finally, in regards to these and other assertions and claims of yours, especially (to quote one of your posts):

"... until 1900 or so (and to this day, if you're not white) everyone was so stupid they didn't know what they were doing, even when they said they did. And were able to prove so to most everybody else..."

if you wish to make yourself look bad in light of the Ancient cultures before Rome and before "white people", who happened to know quite a bit more than white people for century upon century, then maybe you ought to brush up on your history about the inventions of the Ancient Persians and Chinese and Indians, to name just a few. I doubt these folks would agree with your later assertion that "only whites" know what they are talking about. Being proud of your skin colour is about as meaningless as being proud of having toenails, and I know the opposite should apply as well, but when I hear people make comments like that I'm ashamed of my ''people", hahaha. At least I can laugh off the comment as perhaps you were bravely volunteering yourself as an example of those willing to prove such to everyone else. I hope I never do so in such a way and your braver than me and I apologize a million times over should I be proved in error in substance, thought or theory here, or if I've somehow terribly misunderstood you, but it' hard to have that statement any other way, sir.

In fact, in the Gutenburg Press, Mclulan addressed this point specifically, using Shakespeare's King Lear (does that fit into your idea of when the "dark ages" began for the British, sir?), and his daughters, and the ignorance and blindness all as symbols for this, and the king being the fool, and his fool, the wise man, all was upside down and backwards, because of this violent shift in our way of perceiving, and it hadn't been settled yet when we had the revolutions in Mediums and Messages of Radio, Television, and now the Internet. So I'd say we've bitten off quite a bit more than obviously one like yourself can digest when you go around saying things like you've said, for there are definitely scholarly works out there that do suggest that much has happened you aren't aware of, in the Caribbean off Cuba, off Japan, in Egypt, and elsewhere, and these are sites predated Rome, and were not the province of either Roman civilizations, OR Caucasians (unless you think the Asiatic features in the statue from the Temple at Luxor was a Nordic, European or Roman perhaps?) only now are we beginning to understand the tip of the iceberg of just how amazingly advanced these people were in that, the evidence undeniably points to their having had machine tools and the abilities to move stones weighing as much as three diesel engine locomotives five hundred miles and then into place. This was not done with brute force of massed labour alone, nor chisels and rocks, which we are told by Egyptologists is all that they had. To take the statue at Luxor as an example, the face's two halves are a perfect mirror image of each other. How did men with little more knowledge than their fellow humans (who were running around in caves where the whites were, incidentally, my white "brother", hahaha) accomplish this? They didn't. These people were advanced in ways we still aren't. That is the opinion of EXPERTS sir, not armchair historians like yourself, who display such a shocking ability to spout vituperative hostile and arrogant ethnocentric thoughts all at once, and crown that achievement with the ability to become a perfect illustrated example for the reason we are a declining Hegemon, I'm afraid, via your culturally and historical inflexibility and ignorance. These examples left to us, the scientists (and not the tin foil hat wearing ones, but perhaps the Star Trek viewing ones, hahaha) and experts of today are only now beginning to realize and unravel that these enormous achievements are the products of civilizations as advanced perhaps even as our own, and some believe definitely in some ways they must have been more so, for the biggest builders of man made projects of our current day, who've built the largest man made sites since Giza etc on the planet, (such as German Airports et al), say they couldn't achieve what the Egyptians did.

So I find you have become a parody of yourself and a hypocrite, my friend, according to your very own posts. It is you that deserves the T.V. analogy if you don't accept these facts, and I'd say stop assuming your the foremost authority of the world, that's an Archie Bunker complex. Unless we avoid thinking like you do sir, and continue to try to look at the past and our future with fresh eyes, we are already locked away in imaginary "Pharoes Tombs", with our erroneous and ethnocentric view of History and our positioning of ourselves at it' apex of achievements, we will only be laughed at unless we take chances and are unafraid to be wrong every once and a while. Otherwise we will end up like Archie Bunker, or the Church (vs. Copernicus and Galileo, and certain "expert seamen" vs. Columbus & his Great White Fleet Map of South America), and the thousands of examples where the old "popular", and incorrect view was intransigent in the face

Edited November 28, 2011 by Native Viking Patriot

[The_Spartan]

hey viking...dont get your goat...JM no longer visits the forum now a days.

He is busy with his Basset master overlords! lol!

if you want, drop a line to him at his blog.