Piri Re'is and the Utah Sphinx

Hello all,

bc] Among all the stories to have survived the calamities of nature and the devastations of the Conquistadores are those of the hidden ancient sacred sites of the Americas.

And no where are those stories told in as elegant a manner as with Piri Re'is and the Utah Sphinx

The story is true and the facts are there to ponder.

bc
.

You may believe this story to be true, but I don't. There are many natural rock formations, randomly sculpted by nature, that roughly resemble human features. I once saw a coral formation in the Bahamas that the locals referred to as "Abraham Lincoln" because of the profile.

By the way, I do support non-conventional theories that the human history of the Americas does not begin and end with Asiatics crossing the Aleutian land bridge. Also, I believe Hapgood did excellent work in drawing to our attention evidence of older, accomplished civilizations, work being carried on by others such as Graham Hancock today.

But the Utah rock formations don't cut it as evidence of any of this.

I've been to Moab on several occasions, and admit the "sphinx" as seen from a particular vantage point looks sort of like the outline of a head. But It certainly wasn't carved, because when you walk around it to the south and west side, you'll see it just as a jumble of rocks.

With the real sphinx (in Egypt), of course, you walk around it and you see the details from any angle. That's because the real sphinx is carved, where the Utah "sphinx" is just a natural formation.

It reminds me of Barbara Crouse-Brown, AKA "Wiolawa", a local lady who sees the most amazing things in rocks of the Superstition Mountains. Here's her website.

Edited to say: Alex of Skye makes a good point. Kennewick Man raises some tough questions for the Bering Land Bridge-as-the-sole-entry-point boys, and the late Barry Fell's "America BC" certainly is worth checking out, too.

[edit on 14-7-2005 by Off_The_Street]

While i dont believe the rock formation in utah has anything to do with the piri reis map, the map itself is highly interesting as the inscription says 'in all the world there is no other map like this'. during the same period in europe and apparently in the ottoman empire maps like this detailing the other side of the atlantic were being passed all around, apparently the maps are copies made from far older maps and the rumor is columbus got his hands on one before he went to the new world.

Agreed with the rest of them. Reis never made it to Utah and there's nothing in there about going to North America... and particularly far North and West America. Reis was well known and written about by his contemporaries.

That type of formation is called a 'hoodoo' (yes, that's actually the geological term) and they form all sorts of weird shapes. My favorites are out at Big Bend Ranch; a set that look like three old women standing on top of a rock.

Originally posted by Byrd
That type of formation is called a 'hoodoo' (yes, that's actually the geological term) and they form all sorts of weird shapes. My favorites are out at Big Bend Ranch; a set that look like three old women standing on top of a rock.

I had such hope for that last part, they'd be so much cooler if they were stood on top of one another.

Hello all,

I noted the opinions expressed and thank you all,

But I also noted that [not one of you] made mention of even one of the six [6] points of correlation that are illustrated between features on the Map and features on the Sphinx and it's environment.

And [not one of you] found, or commented on the four [4] additional points of correlation that I pointed out to exist.

So should I regard your opinions as uninformed, and wait until you've studied it properly?

Yes! I think so!

bc.
Piri Re'is and the Utah Sphinx
.

You've taken a piece of paper, with a map on it and in turn found an area of the world which fits the image? That's all I see, I could probably do it with a lot of maps and/or images.

In fact, if you can re-arrange Picassos Artwork and have it show demonic sacrifices if you so wish - however, it does not proove a thing.

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,

I noted the opinions expressed and thank you all,

But I also noted that [not one of you] made mention of even one of the six [6] points of correlation that are illustrated between features on the Map and features on the Sphinx and it's environment.

And [not one of you] found, or commented on the four [4] additional points of correlation that I pointed out to exist.

So should I regard your opinions as uninformed, and wait until you've studied it properly?

Yes! I think so!

bc.
Piri Re'is and the Utah Sphinx
.

It's a very interesting formation, but the fact that the web site only shows it from one angle tells me it's probably bunk. Does anyone have pictures of this formation from multiple angles? I suspect we'd see what is essentially just a natural (though odd) rock formation.

Hello JustMe74 and all,

JustMe wrote]
.

It's a very interesting formation, but the fact that the web site only shows it from one angle tells me it's probably bunk. Does anyone have pictures of this formation from multiple angles? I suspect we'd see what is essentially just a natural (though odd) rock formation

bc] I think you missed the point JustMe .. Piri Re'is drew the Utah Sphinx on his map of 1513, from the perspective you see in the photograph. Another perspective of the Sphinx [would serve no purpose what so ever] because there'd be no correlation to features on the Piri Re'is map.

On the other point you made
.

I suspect we'd see what is essentially just a natural (though odd) rock formation

Whether it's natural or sculpted makes no difference as I pointed out on the website
.

The Utah Sphinx in Arches National Park, Moab, Utah, is believed by some to be a natural formation .. but there's a uniqueness about it that kindles thoughts of composition

.
Natural or otherwise .. the Utah Sphinx is drawn on the Piri Re'is map of 1513

bc
.

Originally posted by beforebc
I think you missed the point JustMe .. Piri Re'is drew the Utah Sphinx on his map of 1513, from the perspective you see in the photograph. Another perspective of the Sphinx [would serve no purpose what so ever] because there'd be no correlation to features on the Piri Re'is map.

On the other point you made
Whether it's natural or sculpted makes no difference as I pointed out on the website

Natural or otherwise .. the Utah Sphinx is drawn on the Piri Re'is map of 1513

bc

BC,

Given the propensity for the human brain in the area of pattern recognition, imagine my surprise when I looked at your linked site and yet didn't see any real similarity between the rock formation's profile and the Piri Reis map's outline of S. America's coastline.

So many claims about the Piri Reis map have been made that I shouldn't be surprised by this one. I've read a little about this map, and the most outrageous claims made about it are not only untrue, the map itself states that they are untrue.

For example, the supposed "outline of the coast of Antarctica - before it was covered with ice!" is actually a continuation of S. America's coastline, but it is bent because the cartographer ran out of room to draw it. This is not conjecture. Turns out the cartographer actually wrote this information right there on the map for everyone to read. People who make money off of naive and uneducated ancient civilization buffs, crooks like Sitchen, Hancock, VanDaniken and Childress, consistently fail to mention irritating little facts such as these when they are making their wild claims.

Harte

Hello Harte and all,

Harte wrote:
.

I looked at your linked site and yet didn't see any real similarity between the rock formation's profile and the Piri Reis map's outline of S. America's coastline

.
bc] In drawing this map [it being a Portolano and therefore intended for use], Piri Re'is had to be faithful to the actual coastline .. hence your comment regarding profiles, is totally irrelevant.

[What is relevant] .. and which you failed to comment on .. are the six [6] points of correlation between features on the Map and the Sphinx .. and the four [4] additional points of correlation I mentioned were there.

Harte commented:
.

S. America's coastline is bent because the cartographer ran out of room to draw it

.
bc] Your comment Harte, indicates that you failed to notice: (the map) "portrayed a land-bridge to an apparently ice-free Antarctica."

But more important .. you failed to notice that a land mass [Antarctica] is shown at the S. Pole, while [correctly] no land mass is shown at the N. pole. So I think your "ran out of room to draw" suggestion lacks a lot of merit!

bc
.

beforebc, it is fairly easy to take a map and find a mountain and link the outline together if you rotate the image. It doesn't proove anything at all.

Odium wrote:
.

it is fairly easy to take a map and find a mountain and link the outline together if you rotate the image

bc] Okay! Let's see you do it!

www.lbdassociates.com...

I can link that to several buildings, such as this as a quick example ( users.insigma.com... ) fairly easy, if I take a few points here and there and make a point about it.

that took me two minutes to find, if I could be bothered I would find something better.

Point is, it's not overly hard.

Hello all,

bc] You must show correlation, Odium. There is no demonstrated relationship between a cathedral and three towers of rock, as there is with the Piri Re'is.

So until you're specific on the content of Piri Re'is and the Utah Sphinx where I demonstrate 10 points of correlation, each in it's proper spacial perspective, and each faithful to the over all theme ..

bc
.





[edit on 15-7-2005 by beforebc]

[edit on 15-7-2005 by beforebc]

[edit on 15-7-2005 by beforebc]

Originally posted by beforebc
bc] In drawing this map [it being a Portolano and therefore intended for use], Piri Re'is had to be faithful to the actual coastline .. hence your comment regarding profiles, is totally irrelevant.

Actually, he WASN'T faithful to the actual coastline... because the cartography of the time wasn't that good. They could tell how far north or south they were sailing and the number of miles north or south that they went by the different stars that were on the horizon.

But there was no way to tell how far east or west they were going if they were traveling by water.

[What is relevant] .. and which you failed to comment on .. are the six [6] points of correlation between features on the Map and the Sphinx .. and the four [4] additional points of correlation I mentioned were there.

I could find 20 points of correlation between either the map or the hoodo and the guy that I'm using for my avatar. This does NOT mean that the actor whose picture is in my avatar was the reincarnation of the sphynx or that he was a cabin boy on Piri Reis' ship and Piri fell in love with him and doodled his face on the map.

The inlets and formations on the map do match the coastal features of the northeast section of South America (which is how it was identified in the first place.)

As for the 'six points', they don't match at all.

The head and cap are at the wrong angle and in the wrong proportions.

'The beloved' is a freestanding formation on the land and a bulge in the same coastline in the map. To be more of a match it surely should have been an island.

'The companion' is part of the 'shoulder' of the hoodoo and is (in the photo) to the right and slightly above the 'fingers'. On the map, the 'fingers' are considerably below the 'companion' and there's a lot more of them. Furthermore, the 'fingers' (hoodoos) aren't freestanding, unlike the continental 'fingers' -- which are part of a river delta.

The 'face' has a strongly hooked nose that the hoodoo doesn't have. The continental 'face' has its mouth open, and the hoodoo doesn't.

Reis drew all those lovely and accurate ships on his map... so he'd have been able to EXACTLY reproduce a sphynx if he saw it. He was a very talented artist. In fact, if he'd wanted to run and carve a sphynx (which would have been against his religion and probably have gotten him executed by his own crew), then he could have done a nicely lifelike one.

The line for 'the companion' is a line that you or someone drew in around the text and made to look similar to the crack on the hoodoo. It actually doesn't exist on the real map.

I don't see how you can claim those are correlations. They really aren't close.

And an altered map doesn't prove anything.

S. America's coastline is bent because the cartographer ran out of room to draw it

.
bc] Your comment Harte, indicates that you failed to notice: (the map) "portrayed a land-bridge to an apparently ice-free Antarctica."

But more important .. you failed to notice that a land mass [Antarctica] is shown at the S. Pole, while [correctly] no land mass is shown at the N. pole. So I think your "ran out of room to draw" suggestion lacks a lot of merit!

You've misidentified the land masses on the map, I'm afraid, and you're not matching the map notes up with the map itself. He very clearly didn't get into New England or farther, since he fails to note some very distinctive features of the area (like the fact that it would have been cold and there were different animals like whitetailed deer (remember that he noted the animals) and bear and that the natives were different. And he surely wouldn't have missed drawing notes about reindeer, seals, and polar bears. They're kind of hard to miss.

And the trip would have taken a lot longer... by at least a year. Ships then weren't terribly fast and they weren't aware of the easterlies and westerlies or the great ocean currents that would have speeded their journey.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Byrd]

Hello all,

Byrd wrote:
.

Actually, he WASN'T faithful to the actual coastline... because the cartography of the time wasn't that good

.
bc] The above quote from Byrd is sufficient to show that he doesn't understand the Piri Re'is well enough to warrant any comment.

The Piri Re'is map was constructed from many ancient source maps, and there was no pretense on the part of Piri Re'is that his map of 1513 .. represented the world [as mapped by contemporary mariners]!

Rather, he was faithful to the ancient maps, as he states very clearly:
.

IN ALL THE WORLD THERE IS NO OTHER MAP LIKE THIS MAP

.
But ever since Charles Hapgood demonstrated that the lands of Antarctica on the Piri Re'is map were depicted accurately, there have been those who will attempt to debunk it.

The map is accurate, and the profile of the Utah Sphinx is drawn on the map as the NE coast line of South America.

bc
.



[edit on 16-7-2005 by beforebc]

[edit on 16-7-2005 by beforebc]

[edit on 16-7-2005 by beforebc]

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,

Byrd wrote:
.

Actually, he WASN'T faithful to the actual coastline... because the cartography of the time wasn't that good

.
bc] The above quote from Byrd is sufficient to show that he doesn't understand the Piri Re'is well enough to warrant any comment.

.
whoa whoa whoa there dude...first off byrd is a lady not a man and secondly you are gonna get some facts placed your way if i know byrd m8.
she is somewhat of an expert in these areas and will provide links and proofs of what she says
any way my view is that it is a rock formation.period
i have spent many hours looking at clouds and the same patterns can emerge.
i think they call them archetypes??

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Heratix]

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Heratix]

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Heratix]

Hello Heratix

Your responses will be worthy of reply when they address the subject!

Piri Re'is and the Utah Sphinx