Earths Forbidden Secrets

reply to post by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO


I think he is still working on part 2. It will be a 3 part book!!!

Well , I will try to contact Max and see if he can come here and explain a few things.

He is registered here if I recall.

reply to post by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO


I think he is still working on the second book. I belive it will be a 3 part book!!!!

Can someone Digg this who has an account? We need to get this book out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any chance that anyone can print this off and post it to me
My eyes are beginning to hurt and I am not even a quarter of the way through!

You guys are going to love chapter 9 The Tale of the Sumerians

Looks very interesting, and I love maps. I am already off on a tangent researching Antarctica. Definately flagged. I really enjoy this stuff.

reply to post by manbearpig


Thanks for sharing this manbearpig. strrd and flggd.
I downloaded it already because it looks to me very interesting indeed.
I wish I could stop the time now and then because I have so many other interesting things to read and listen to already.

It would seem that all anthropological, archeological and now even genetic evidence says that modern man simply does not belong

File deleted, sorry I skipped over a few of the other pages what a load of absolute tud..... tud factor 5

reply to post by manbearpig


Yeah! I just finished this book, and aside from some editing, it is very informative. I like how Max gives his opinions, but doesn't say thats the way it truly is.

The info on the Sumerians has really made me re-think everything. I hope this boo goes into publication soon.

reply to post by Roufas


Yes he is, but it doesn't look like he frequents often. He is on my "friends" if you need help finding him.

GOod find, s&f

The book basically is explaining every topi i have ever seen on ats.

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
That does actually look like a book that could be fun to read.

And yet, rather than have it published... getting global exposure, it's free on the internet.

There HAS to be a big publishing house that would have taken this on. They aren't all conspirators.

Hello.
I found this forum quite by accident whilst googling for more information about 'Max Igan' after coming into contact with his pdf publication "Earth's forbidden secrets."
Whilst I have barely glanced at the book yet some of the comments on this forum have compelled me to write in order to point out some glaring inaccuracies and omissions that in my opinion, are meant to deceive the reader or at least cause him to unwittingly fall into the way of thinking of the author. Much in the way that 'psychics' con people with their cold reading skills.

I'm only going to cover the Philippe Bauche map and the comments directed at it here.
Firstly the poster that suggests that this is a map of the UK is falling into the same trap that Mr 'Ingle' does and that is to ignore the information clearly given in the text.
This is a map of Antarctica ( of a sort, which I shall explain shortly )
The map os clearly titled "carte des Terres Australis" and the land mass in the centre is labelled "Terres Anractiques". The capes of Africa and South America are clearly shown as is what had then been discovered of New Holland ( Australia ). So it's not the UK, that's somethintg that can be stated as fact.

on to what Mr "Ingle" has to say and I'll quote if I may ( I checked that copyright law allows me to quote extracts ).

The Bauche Map of 1737 Phillip Bauche was a French geographer of the 18th century who also drew a map that clearly shows Antarctica except that Bauche's map shows Antarctica two separate land masses, with detailed shorelines (fig.3). For many years the map was generally considered to be wrong because when Antarctica was discovered it actually looked nothing what Bauche had drawn. Then in 1958 a seismic survey of Antarctica was carried out which surprisingly showed that Antarctica was indeed two archipelago islands covered by a thick layer of ice that made it appear as only one land mass and not only that, but that the general topography of the lands beneath the ice matches the drawings on the Bauche map in every detail. So how on earth this can be in any way possible? This map means that Bauche was in possession of a correct map showing Antarctica 100 years before it was discovered and not only that, but without any ice on it. Antarctica has not been in an ice free condition for a minimum of at least 10,000 years and many scientists believe that the period of time to be more like several million years.

Unfortunately this contains some inaccuracies and omissions.
The map was not of 1737 but was definitely printed some time after June 1739 as this was the end of the journey that led to the original coastal mapping done at thet time. It says so on the map if I can offer you a translation of the test to the right of the map.

MAP OF THE SOUTHERN LANDS contained between the Tropic of Capricorn and the South Pole, where can be seen the new discoveries made in 1739 south of the Cape of Good Hope on the orders of the Gentlemen of the Indies Company. Drawn up from the memoirs and the original map of M de Lovier Bouvet, leader of this expedition, by Philippe Bauche of the Academie Royale des Science, son-in-law of the late M Delisle, Private Geographer to the King, and from the same Academie.

Now Maxwell unfortunately misleads the reader by not mentioning a couple of things. First being that there was an original version of this map that shows nothing of the unknown parts of Antarctica at that time.



large here Bauche original

Clearly shown in red are the known and mapped areas of the coastline at that time.

I shall have to continue in a second post. Forgive me going on but I feel it is important. More to follow.

I don't think any publishing house would take it on with spelling like this:

Even when the earth was still believed to be flat, man had knowledge of the zodiac and
precession of the equinoxes. Precession is the result of a slow axial wobble the earth mainyains as it travelles around the sun so how could that possibly be?

[edit on 14-12-2008 by george_gaz]

Wow. Just in the middle of chapter 2. I can't stop. Its so interesting! S&F!

I have just posted part 1 of this long post about Bauche's map, anonymously and unfortunately I was unaware of the post length limit and the 12 hour delay for anonymous posts. Unfortunately this part might appear before the bulk of my post already submitted.

Following on from that in the hope it is posted soon I will carry on.

So after not using the original map and not mentioning it Maxwell then goes on to use Bauche's second map. If he had only bothered to read the text he would have noticed, at the south pole and on the land mass of antarctica the word 'conjecturée' which means conjectured. This was often done with unknown land masses at the time and in fact geographers and cartographers often used their knowledge and skills to produce a map of conjecture and it was considered a reputable science.

To put it simply, the map that Maxwell uses is the second of Bauche's maps and is clearly Bauche saying " this is what could be here based upon the parts of the coastline we actually know about" ( those are the areas marked in red.)

Maxwell says that Antarctica was not discovered until 100 years later. Simply not true. It may have been fully mapped later but that's not what he states.
For Maxwell to state, as if fact, that Bauche was in possession of a map showing the coastline of the Antarctic landmass many years before we knew the actual outline of it is absurd, factually inaccurate without proof and conveniently ignores the fact that the land mass in no way resembles Antarctica which is not two separate land masses at all but a great number of islands surrounding a larger land mass.

I'd suggest that Maxwell brushes up on his French before claiming that a map of conjecture could be 'dismissed by many as wrong' is in fact the result of some ancient knowledge. The map is made up. It says so, clearly, in the text.

This has put a dampener on me reading the rest of the book but I'll read on and no doubt be back to dismiss further inaccuracies and omissions.

Forgive me if this post appears before the first part I posted anonymously ( which is awaiting moderation ) as it will look out of place. If part one does not appear I shall attempt to write it again ( but I did use all 4000 characters in that ).

I don't mind a bit of conspiracy but if you are going to tell people lies by omission it is wise to ensure you are not so easily caught out.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by Pasanonic]

reply to post by manbearpig


Unfortunately, I am disappointed in the Sumerian chapter. If there is any research beside that of Sitchin, I would like to have it referenced. I saw nothing in the sources that would make be believe there is any other source for this chapter.

I do give him credit for his effort to get the information out and there is a great deal of new and intriguing data throughout the book to research.

Stared , flaged and downloaded the PDF file to my computer and iphone . I look forward to reading this one .

With regards to my previous post and the user that says the map on 26 is a map of the UK. I mat have mistaken this comment to mean the Bauche map when it probably means the map attributed to Franco Roselli ( fig. 4 )

This indeed does appear to be a medieval map of Britain and as far as I know is in no part attributable to Roselli. Roselli's world map, which is completely different does show a southern coastline but it is no more than a conjectured piece of coast.
Yes it says Antarctica but then this was the common name for an unknown southern land ( or terra Australis Incognitus ) as it was widely accepted by those understanding the world to be round ( going back to ancient Greeks ) that there had to be a land or southern continent simply to bring balance to the world. They guessed it was there and they gave it a name. This was by luck rather than judgement and no relevance can be given to any map that mentions Antarctica before it's discovery because in the minds of ancient academics it was there, they just had not found it.

This book appears to be very poorly researched and just throws the reader a few bones of information, much of it false or not backed up by any proof in the hope that the reader might be driven to a conclusion that suits and supports the authors views.

Sorry I keep going on about maps but I'm a sailor and I hate all the nonsense that is continually dredged up about ancient maps that were charted before the the ability to measure longitude and therefore can never, ever be accurate.