Piri Reis Map

[ChristianExtremist]

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm <--- overview website dealing with map.

Turkish map maker tried to combine a bunch of different maps, including some ancient ones. In 1513 (1492 Columbus sailed, so that is a 21 years after Columbus sailed).

http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/engr321/preis/pirimap3.jpg <---big map

The map shows the eastern most part of Brazil as the most accurate, and everything radiating from that point in Brazil seems to get more and more outa wack.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/GRAPHIC1/PSCI/pirireis2b.gif Real world against Piri Reis Map.

However. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minrelief.html If you take the topography of the earth, and lowered the sea level by several thousand feet, then the map starts to match up better. (The conspiracy theorists say that bottom of the map is Antartica, which is an even bigger stretch then what I am proposing.)

A lowered sea level would expose allot more land, turning the Carribean into a sort of MEditerranean Sea, with several "Rock of Gibralter" equivalents. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minsur...350/45N090W.jpg

A lowered sea level can also explain that large eastbound coastline expansion, in the southern part of the Piri Reis Map. The one the Conspiracy Theorists claim is Antartica. Fakland Island area. It would be one big landmass just like it shows on the map. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minsur...350/45S090W.jpg

A lowered sea level also would expose a bunch more islands everywhere in the Atlantic, even though the map doesn't even match half of them. But if were dealing with many different cartographer sources, ancient and otherwise, what do you expect.

Also what is interesting is that with a lowered sea level, the easternmost part of Brazil undergoes the least change, the continental shelf is steep there, which could explain why it is the most accurate part of the map (Save the old world).

SO! Is there any evidence the ocean sea level has been about 500-2000 meters below its present state? Within the last, say 20,000 years.

[M.A.D CapeBretoner]

what you are saying that atlantis is in the south,but the geoligy does not support this,for their are no islands in the south that has all the same quality's

as the island of cape breton.

and with the counter clockwise motion of the american plate from a dectionic veiw puts it in the north atlantic than in the south atlantic.

the island i talk about was not hidden from sight on a map but hidden in mind from knowing.

[Adam2006]

SO! Is there any evidence the ocean sea level has been about 500-2000 meters below its present state? Within the last, say 20,000 years.

I don't know of any evidence but this gave me the idea of where Noah's Arc/k came from.

Theory:

There was a lower sea-level and then they suddenly rose to the current state. To the people of the time this would be a massive flood, causing coastal settlements to be washed away. As the years went by, the story grew and it ended up being entwined with current faiths. It seems like God/gods are against them and tried to kill everyone with a great flood. The Arc and noah could just have been incorparated into it, or a boat did get caught on the only island big enough to still stay above the levels.

I dunno what that sounds like but it struck me as i was reading it.

Anyway, i think the only real way of finding out is to get to the places with radar and see if anything shows up. Other that i am unsure due to our current techlogy and mapping. We have satellites that can see things as they really are and would pick up any island. Back then they did not have such things, and maps can be drawn wrongly.

I like the idea though and think it is plausible.

[M.A.D CapeBretoner]

maby with the story of noah you will see,at one time in the past the med -sea was alot smaller what i mean is those pillars were once one pillar and held back the atlantic ocean.

but because of detionic drift they opened up and like a great flood the ocean came in ,well noah surfed this wave to were he did and because he was the first to come into this airea of the known world that he knew,

but there are other story's of men and boats who save humanity like in the mic-mac and his name sebanees and he was on this side of the atlantic.

[IamsSon]

The claim that the Falkland Islands explain the extended coastline at the souther end of the map is ridiculous. Here is a link to a map of the islands. They are way too far north and are fairly well represented on the Piri Reis map.

LINK

[ChristianExtremist]

The claim that the Falkland Islands explain the extended coastline at the souther end of the map is ridiculous. Here is a link to a map of the islands. They are way too far north and are fairly well represented on the Piri Reis map.

LINK

Look at the topological map, the link I provided, the NASA one. At the Falkan Islands there are hundreds of miles of shallow water surrounding it of depths 500 meters or more shallow. And in actuality the Falkan Islands are not too far north, they are further south then what that old map shows. Antartica is even way way further south.

Im not talking about Atlantis. If Atlantis was near the America's, then they would be too far, and it would be too impractical to launch an invasion against the Greeks (per old Egyptian Priest story).

Edited January 28, 2007 by ChristianExtremist

[Four Winds]

SO! Is there any evidence the ocean sea level has been about 500-2000 meters below its present state? Within the last, say 20,000 years.

I have not seen any, but that would be interesting.

"During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world's sea level was about 130 m lower than today, due to the large amount of sea water that had evaporated and been deposited as snow and ice in northern hemisphere glaciers. The majority of the glaciers had melted by about 10,000 years ago, but minor glacial melting has continued (with occasional reversals) throughout recorded human history. More detail about the changes in sea level for the past 140,000 years can be seen by accessing this chart."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

[ChristianExtremist]

130 meters isn't enough.

[Leonardo]

Christian,

Here is a link to a satellite image of global topograhpy. Even a drop in sea level of up to 2000m wouldn't produce the land mass jutting out from Brazil as the map purports to display. It is more likely the map simply has a few cartographical errors (not uncommon for the time.) I have read that the non-existent land mass was a duplication of the Brazilian coast from another map but the original cartographer had got the latitudes/longitudes transposed (or Reis mistranslated them.)

As the Reis map is a confusion of up to 20 more ancient maps any errors would be carried over and possibly exaggerated.

[Emma_Acid]

I don't know of any evidence but this gave me the idea of where Noah's Arc/k came from.

Theory:

There was a lower sea-level and then they suddenly rose to the current state. To the people of the time this would be a massive flood, causing coastal settlements to be washed away. As the years went by, the story grew and it ended up being entwined with current faiths. It seems like God/gods are against them and tried to kill everyone with a great flood. The Arc and noah could just have been incorparated into it, or a boat did get caught on the only island big enough to still stay above the levels.

I have been saying this for ages too....

[Bosanchero]

Christian,

Here is a link to a satellite image of global topograhpy. Even a drop in sea level of up to 2000m wouldn't produce the land mass jutting out from Brazil as the map purports to display. It is more likely the map simply has a few cartographical errors (not uncommon for the time.) I have read that the non-existent land mass was a duplication of the Brazilian coast from another map but the original cartographer had got the latitudes/longitudes transposed (or Reis mistranslated them.)

As the Reis map is a confusion of up to 20 more ancient maps any errors would be carried over and possibly exaggerated.

quiet unprobeably actually.... if u look at the REST of the map its pretty much picture perfect (ofcourse with some flaws) but this is one hellova mistake makes u wonder doesnt it ??? he maped Everything right than he "Mistranslates" something so major ???

as good of an excuse as Idk ... lets say he gre tiresome of drawing maps so he just wanted to finish fast ???

[Four Winds]

if u look at the REST of the map its pretty much picture perfect (ofcourse with some flaws)

Picture perfect but with some flaws, gotcha.

[jaylemurph]

Not that I particularly hold to his theories, but in his book 1421, Gavin Menzies suggests that 15th Cenury Chinese sailors were one of the primary sources for the map. If I recall correctly, he suggests part of the southern landmass is Antartica. Its improper position was a mistake made by cartographers who didn't account for extra speed from prevailing currents as they drew their charts. It seems slightly more reasonable than the sea rising and falling hundreds of meters or aliens helping out the Turkish navy.

--Jaylemurph

[Bosanchero]

Picture perfect but with some flaws, gotcha.

yes sir ... land masses change all the time... islands dissapear in water rasing.. some apear....

picture perfect was PERFECT PERFECT for the time of maps creation... and to say that someone who spent so much to get his hands on so many maps made an translation errorr is obsurd

[Four Winds]

yes sir ... land masses change all the time... islands dissapear in water rasing.. some apear....

There must have been some serious changes that science is not aware of for this map to be considered picture perfect.

[Bosanchero]

once again

FOR ITS TIME MAP IS MORE THAN EXCELENT

Edited January 30, 2007 by Bosanchero

[Leonardo]

yes sir ... land masses change all the time... islands dissapear in water rasing.. some apear....

picture perfect was PERFECT PERFECT for the time of maps creation... and to say that someone who spent so much to get his hands on so many maps made an translation errorr is obsurd

So it's more absurd to assume human error than to assume a huge, continental-sized, land mass has somehow disappeared within the time frame of human existence? I find my interpretation of absurd to be different to yours.

Even assuming the land mass was meant to be present in the shallower waters around the southern tip of the South American continent means the latitude of the mass has been misplaced by some 15-20^o north, that's a huge mistake for any cartographer.

Reis never created this map from his own travels, he plagiarised older maps. So any errors on the originals would have been represented on his map - I stated that in my original post. The map of the well known parts of the world was reasonably good as were other maps of comparable age. The use of this map to suggest there was a great land mass in the southern Atlantic in human memory - now lost - or that this is a representation of the Antarctic coast free of ice is absurd. Yes, small islands can appear/disappear in short geological time spans due to tectonic or volcanic activity, but not a land mass that stretches out across half the Atlantic Ocean!

[Bosanchero]

So it's more absurd to assume human error than to assume a huge, continental-sized, land mass has somehow disappeared within the time frame of human existence? I find my interpretation of absurd to be different to yours.

Even assuming the land mass was meant to be present in the shallower waters around the southern tip of the South American continent means the latitude of the mass has been misplaced by some 15-20^o north, that's a huge mistake for any cartographer.

Reis never created this map from his own travels, he plagiarised older maps. So any errors on the originals would have been represented on his map - I stated that in my original post. The map of the well known parts of the world was reasonably good as were other maps of comparable age. The use of this map to suggest there was a great land mass in the southern Atlantic in human memory - now lost - or that this is a representation of the Antarctic coast free of ice is absurd. Yes, small islands can appear/disappear in short geological time spans due to tectonic or volcanic activity, but not a land mass that stretches out across half the Atlantic Ocean!

saying that some of the chinese maps had mistakes ?? i would completle agree with someone who would make that assumption... however i find it hard to belive that Translation would be WRONG... all i am saying is if u spend so much time and money u would want the finall product to be CORECT or at least to the best of your ability ... however in case u never heard part of map that stretches from brazil south is a map of south pole UNDER THE ICE.... satelite images taken of the south pole stand as proof

[Four Winds]

part of map that stretches from brazil south is a map of south pole UNDER THE ICE.... satelite images taken of the south pole stand as proof

No they don't, the map does not line up with the coast of antarctica above or under the ice.

The map was a halfway decent attempt to piece together the maps that were available at the time. It is obvious however that the map is severely flawed in many aspects. To use it as a source to push some fanciful notions about antarctica is the rediculous at best.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Razer

[Pax Unum]

however in case u never heard part of map that stretches from brazil south is a map of south pole UNDER THE ICE.... satelite images taken of the south pole stand as proof

An alternate view is that the "Antarctic" coast (depicted on the Piri Reis map) is simply the eastern coastline of South America skewed to align east-west due to the inaccurate measurement of longtitude or to fit it on the page. Close examination of the coastline supports this view, revealing depictions of the basins at the mouth of the Strait of Magellan and the Falkland Islands. The annotations on the map itself, stating that this region is hot and inhabited by large snakes do not fit with the likely climate and fauna in Antarctica in the 1500s. Similarly the map states that "spring comes early" to the islands off the coast, which is true of the Falkland Islands but not of any islands close to the Antarctic mainland.

LINK->Piri Reis map

Edited January 31, 2007 by Pax Unum

[Bosanchero]

No they don't, the map does not line up with the coast of antarctica above or under the ice.

The map was a halfway decent attempt to piece together the maps that were available at the time. It is obvious however that the map is severely flawed in many aspects. To use it as a source to push some fanciful notions about antarctica is the rediculous at best.

Halfway Decent ????

The Piri Reis map shows North America, South America, Greenland and Antarctica which had not yet been discovered.

read "The Oldest Map of America" might help you out ....

or http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/engr321/preis/notes.htm

[Harte]

Halfway Decent ????

The Piri Reis map shows North America, South America, Greenland and Antarctica which had not yet been discovered.

read "The Oldest Map of America" might help you out ....

or http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/engr321/preis/notes.htm

Your own link shows that these had been discovered, and what part of "...it doesn't correspond to Antarctica..." do you not understand?

I suggest you look a little more deeply into this. Here's a couple of things I've read about it.

The Portugese had just signed a treaty that gave them possesion of lands east of a certain longitude at that time. How coincidental that the longitude in question lies along the coast of S. America. Could this map be a means of claiming lands that they weren't actually due?

This fact is even mentioned on the map itself. From your link:

The Portuguese infidels do not go west of here. All that side belong,, entirely to Spain. They have made an agreement that [a line]two thousand mile., to the western side of the Strait of Gibraltar should be taken as a boundary. The Portuguese do not cross to that side but the Hind side and the southern side belong to the Portuguese.

Note that the sheet the map is drawn on is missing the lower left corner. Yet the map itself does not appear torn. Apparently the map was drawn on this misshapen piece, and the southern tip of S. America had to be curved around to fit the sheet. The coast of the "curved around" part of the map actually matches up fairly well with that part of S. America, if you rotate it back into it's proper orientaion.

I had mixed feelings about quoting from the map. See, the map itself is full of ridiculous statements:

These coasts are named the shores of Antilia. They were discovered in the year 896 of the Arab calendar. But it is reported thus, that a Genoese infidel, his name was Colombo, be it was who discovered these places.

Antilia is a mythical utopian island. The "year 896" part is a claim that Columbus was "rediscovering" already-known lands, a claim which has no substance.

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. . . . . 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.

(This note on the map corresponds to the area you are calling Antarctica. Sound like Antarctica to you?)

And this caravel having encountered a storm was driven upon this island. Its name was Nicola Giuvan. And on this island there are many oxen with one horn. For this reason they call this island Isle de Vacca, which means, Ox Island.

These monsters are seven spans long. Between their eyes there is a distance of one span. But they are harmless souls.

A mish-mash of useful and useless information.

Harte

[Bosanchero]

The Portugese had just signed a treaty that gave them possesion of lands east of a certain longitude at that time. How coincidental that the longitude in question lies along the coast of S. America. Could this map be a means of claiming lands that they weren't actually due?

Map was created by Turks NOT portugese.... and i belive it was April 1500 that first Portuguese reached coast of "Brazil" it was not until 1530 that

setlements were built here... note map was created in 1513 i guess whole coast of s america was explored map in detail and sent to Turkish Admiral

in such a short amount of time....P.S. Turks were Highly "Hated" by christians of europe ( so highly unprobeable???) and just to show how christian europe was POPE gave brazil teritory to portugal...

I had mixed feelings about quoting from the map. See, the map itself is full of ridiculous statements:

Antilia is a mythical utopian island. The "year 896" part is a claim that Columbus was "rediscovering" already-known lands, a claim which has no substance.

right now its 1427 muslim year i belive.. so this would place the map at the time of columbus ....

one thing i will say is i completly forgot about is the Treaty of Tordesillas and i thank you for reminding me.... i might have to change my stance about this map after all

[Bosanchero]

/me Admits he's Wrong

[ethereal scout]

Don't know if this link is of any use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

What it refers to is that the North Sea (between the UK and continental Europe) was once land and was apparently inhabited - the area flooded when the last ice age ended (according to the link).

To me this suggests that there was a period in far flung history when the sea level was quite a bit lower than now - and when the ice age ended it all flooded.

Don't know when the last ice age ended but seeing as so many religions have a 'flood myth' - to me its quite logical to assume that this is what they could have been refering to.

no doubt many civilisations would have been situated somewhere close to the sea, in the same way many major cities today are located near the coast, if the sea level then increased many would have been flooded.

Don't know what bearing this brings to the map stuff - haven't been through it.