On the Origins of Unexplained Maps

reply to post by kenochs



well most of these educated people leave out a lot of info that points to more questions.

facts that they dont want or just cant, or unwillingly leave out of it to keep their social status.
that said.
you cannot compare old or really old maps of what we, can and see today!

they push it away only becos there are almost no real touchable evidenses, other than copy`s.
now that the data seems to be right, they just put it on the lowest shelf and "forget about it"

the anwsers and presented facts, they give are questionable at least!

[edit on 25-1-2010 by telfyr]

[edit on 25-1-2010 by telfyr]

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Here is another old world map. I think it's from 1565

www.sonofthesouth.net...

That map raises a few questions. Is the land mass at the bottom representing Antarctica? If not, then what?

Unless my eyes fail me, it shows a number of land creatures (mammals) on that land mass. Could that mean at the time period it was not covered by snow? I've never see a Rhino (below the tip of SA) forage on snow

They don't belong in South America (which seems connected) or Australia, so why are they represented on that land mass?

Once again more questions

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Here is another old world map. I think it's from 1565

www.sonofthesouth.net...

And here is a Wiki link to several old world maps:

en.wikipedia.org...

so now we find out the anwser of
: how did they think that the world was flat.
> they only had flat maps !

so the top map would be from that age, it looks like the earth was flat

interesting maps in that wiki link, ill leave that for the map people
keep in mind the symbolism of the Celtic cross when looking at em



[edit on 25-1-2010 by telfyr]

Originally posted by TortoiseKweek

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Here is another old world map. I think it's from 1565

www.sonofthesouth.net...

That map raises a few questions. Is the land mass at the bottom representing Antarctica? If not, then what?

Unless my eyes fail me, it shows a number of land creatures (mammals) on that land mass. Could that mean at the time period it was not covered by snow? I've never see a Rhino (below the tip of SA) forage on snow

They don't belong in South America (which seems connected) or Australia, so why are they represented on that land mass?

Once again more questions

I thought about that myself. However, I notice animals that not are real (or know to be real). For example, I see a unicorn and a Hippogriff (sp?).

Also of significance, although I can't remember where I read this, I remember reading that some of these old world maps (or at least one of them) accurately depicts Antarctica's land mass underneath the multimillion-year-old ice caps.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand



[edit on 25-1-2010 by noconsequence]

reply to post by Aggie Man


the imaginary beasts is a clue to where they didn't went to, in that time.
the huge landmass almost says it all...
they where just beginning to explore from old maps, and filled in the gaps how they seemed fit in the thinking of back than.
maybe clue`s to where to look in other ancient sources .
remnants of the library of Alexandrian springs to mind.



[edit on 25-1-2010 by telfyr]

[edit on 25-1-2010 by telfyr]

reply to post by Aggie Man


Yes, I also recall where a map was drawn that depicted the border lines of the actual land mass below the ice, and not the border lines of the ice itself - which is what one see with the eye.

As for the unicorn, I was going to mention that, but I was squinting at the monitor to try figure out if it was a horn on the map, or some remnant from the mountain 'icons'.

That just once again brings about more questions. Did these animals (some who I don't recognise - maybe just badly drawn) actually exist? Could unicorns have existed at this time, a time when Antarctica had vegetation? Were they wiped out by a pole shift, or something else causing Antarctica to freeze over?

reply to post by Spirit Warrior 11:11


That entire post was even more conjecture. Baseless rubbish.

could some of these objectives and maps have been created using methods of hot air balloons 40 000 years ago?

Hot air balloons use simple principles from physics ...Its not like the math of building an UFO or some sort of machine ...I would ask the question was there any way of building riding balloons that took pictures way up in the sky or even people up there that had maps drawn when they came back down to the earth

Also as for Antartica with animals....Have we found bones under the ice yet of animals skulls ?



[edit on 25-1-2010 by AndersonLee]

[edit on 25-1-2010 by AndersonLee]

from wiki

Antarctica without its ice sheet. This map does not consider that sea level would rise because of the melted ice, nor that the landmass would rise by several hundred meters over a few tens of thousands of years after the weight of the ice was no longer depressing the landmass.


raw data that can be used to determine some time lines.
-in the contradictions in these maps .
-in the land drawn and degeneration of landmass (how much damage does that ice do in time)
-in projection of the map from the map makers perspective.
-in the thought up sections of the maps.

all clues to an answer for me.

we should incorporate real data in this journey to what history tells us.

the nazca lines could be the Rosetta stone right in our face!
looking back at us more than we realize.
the oldest map of our history, in its infant stage, or in its advanced stage.?

it sure does take the skills of map makers to reproduce the same feat!



[edit on 25-1-2010 by telfyr]

taken from this threat.
Theory On Nazca Lines
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by telfyr
hi im new,and got somthing interesting to share.
i have searched but cant find it in here.

i was strolling around in the old space race history and i suddenly connected a few dots, for me this is very possible seen our own use of these kind of lines to map our earth in space.

well look at it for yourselves, i find it quite amazing

______________


the explanation that these are religious lines to walk on is flawed at least.
we send a space map on 2 satellites,
when we look at nasca lines, you cant miss the hugeness of them and can only be interpreted from a high distance.

you cant miss the meaning of these lines after seeeing what we send out to inform our location of earth.

oh wait like the first info we send we portrayed ourselves, a huge mistake (they admitted later on, look we are here and our bodies are extremely fragile... lol)
but wait, what do we see here.

its in the middle bottom of the line drawing, and it waves friendly like *hello, we`ve been here we left our mark, come visit us some time!

anyone else ever heard of this speculation?
it stand up for me, bu hey i found it myself

greetings telfyr

for me this is the oldest map we have on earth!

antartica with a tropical climate,? see the evidence here.

100 Million Years of Antarctic Climate Evolution: Evidence from Fossil Plants
www.nap.edu...

Looks like the first map is just a bent extension of South America's eastern coastline and not Antarctica.

reply to post by TortoiseKweek

Just thought I should add some infor regarding other maps as yet undiscussed or not yet referred to, as they are also objects of controversy:

The Zeno map drawn in 1380. Shows accurately the coasts of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Scotland and Germany, as well as exact latitiudes and longitude of certain islands (all this before the discovery of the chronometer in 1765). The topography of Greenland is shown free of glaciers. It also depicts unkown rivers and mountains on the map that have since been located in probes of the French Polar expedition of 1947-1949.

The Zauche map of 1737 which shows Antarctica free of ice. (Again, Antarctica officially wasn't discovered until 1819). The map also shows Antarctica s not one, but two islands separated by a strait from the Ross to the Weddell seas (a fact not established until the geophysical year of 1968).

These people were merely copying from other maps.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Cool thread. S&F I didn't see the Zheng He map, so here you go.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Aggie Man]

Awesome map. I was going to include it in this thread but I thought there was a little too much controversy regarding its authenticity.

Originally posted by AndersonLee


Also as for Antartica with animals....Have we found bones under the ice yet of animals skulls ?


[edit on 25-1-2010 by AndersonLee]

I've heard of intact mammoth carcasses being found, even tree stumps.

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
reply to post by TortoiseKweek

 

The Zauche map of 1737 which shows Antarctica free of ice. (Again, Antarctica officially wasn't discovered until 1819). The map also shows Antarctica s not one, but two islands separated by a strait from the Ross to the Weddell seas (a fact not established until the geophysical year of 1968).

Hve you found any actual images of this map? I'm having a hard time doing so, sounds interesting.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Also of significance, although I can't remember where I read this, I remember reading that some of these old world maps (or at least one of them) accurately depicts Antarctica's land mass underneath the multimillion-year-old ice caps.

You possibly read about the Piri Reis map, although 'multi-million-year-old' might be a bit exaggerated.
It's also the first map in the first post of this thread. This Nice thread by the way...

From OP:

Piri Reis was an Ottoman-Turk explorer, admiral and cartographer. He compiled his infamous map in 1513 at Constantinople. The map shows the western coasts of North Africa, the coast of Brazil and an ice-free Antarctica. This last fact is heavily disputed, but we would not be here if this were not the case. Considering the fact that Antarctica was ‘officially’ discovered in 1818, we are left with a perplexing conundrum. The depiction of the sub-glacial topography could not have been technologically possible in Piri Reis’ time or in a time prior to his, yet he had information depicting just this and conveyed it in his own way. Sub-glacial topography of the region was not officially mapped in modern history until as recently as 1949. To further enforce the oddity of this enigma, the last time that Queen Maud Land (the part of Antarctica depicted on the map) was in ice-free condition was no later than 4200B.C.E. It is not plausible therefore, for Piri Reis to have been the original cartographer of this area since it was still covered in ice during his time. So who was?

Piri Reis wrote some notes on his map which detailed his sources. He admits that he was not the original cartographer of the works depicted in his map; he states that he merely compiled a number of source maps into one piece. He claimed to have used the source maps of Columbus among other earlier explorers, but some sources he claimed, went back to 400B.C.E. and even earlier. These source maps were most likely derived from the Imperial Library in Constantinople since this was Reis’ main source of information and where his map was originally discovered. Where did these source maps come from? Who could have mapped the topography of Antarctica prior to the glaciation before our modern era?

The 'antediluvian maps', always a joy.. Thanks for the overview.

[edit on 25/1/10 by Movhisattva]

Nice thread mate but i have read all about these maps in a book on ancient history so it really is no surprise that somebody bought it up on this website.
To be totally honest im amazed that some of these so called ATS experts haven't posted something like this

S & F for your trouble mate.

reply to post by serbsta


Back in that time and earlier, map making and research in cartography was secret because it enabled countries and merchants to get to a country or area of the world in lesser time by another route. Also it enabled the same entities to get to areas that are full of resources (land, people, gold, precious metals etc.) but only said country or merchants have access to it. So I'm willing to bet that manyof these cartographers had access to maps in Constantinopile and/or libraries hidden in back rooms and areas that they and others of their ilk new to look. Also monastaries where also considered a place to find informations also, so it's entirely possible that research and ancient maps where found there also. But I'm willing to bet that much of the information was based on ancient maps that where in the ancient libraries back in time and once they where destroyed, it was redrawn and redrawn again until people knew it was ancient, but couldn't figure from where.

I checked the map of the antartic and that is extremely close for a society that shouldn't have had radar or planes or even satellite technology. There is so much information out their that is being horded in places because they fear that we may find out as a society that our world of today is a survivor of a cataclysm that happended thousands of years ago and we had to build back up from that time, thats it.

en.wikipedia.org...

merkel.zoneo.net...

Originally posted by hoghead cheese
reply to post by serbsta

 

So I'm willing to bet that manyof these cartographers had access to maps in Constantinopile and/or libraries hidden in back rooms and areas that they and others of their ilk new to look. Also monastaries where also considered a place to find informations also, so it's entirely possible that research and ancient maps where found there also. But I'm willing to bet that much of the information was based on ancient maps that where in the ancient libraries back in time and once they where destroyed, it was redrawn and redrawn again until people knew it was ancient, but couldn't figure from where.

That's exactly where my thoughts are headed to aswell. The key here is to find out where they got their source maps, finding out who made these source maps is probably impossible, but finding out how they got to be in their location may give us some clues.

We already know that Piri Reis did most of his research in the Imperial Library of Constantinople where he had privileged access. Whats sad though, is that these ancient libraries were destroyed, the major ones anyway. Everyone knows about the famous Alexandria library and its destruction, but not much know that the Constantinople library (where Reis got his original source maps) was also damaged by several fires before it was almost completely destroyed by the knights of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. After Constantinople was absorbed by the Ottoman-Turks in the 15th century, Piri Reis gained access to the few ancient manuscripts that still remained from the library as most of what was left from the destruction was secretly transported away to Europe (Vatican library?) or sold to other private owners.

The Vatican is an interesting trace. I know the source isn't all that but here it is anyway:

Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions, among them manuscripts from the imperial Library of Constantinople.

en.wikipedia.org...

Even though they may reside in the Vatican where we may never see them again, I sure hope these manuscripts from Constantinople (which may include the original source maps used by the likes of Piri Reis) will not get destroyed.

If anyone's got time to follow this trail in more depth it would be great, I don't for the rest of today, but its interesting to say the least.

[edit on 25/1/2010 by serbsta]

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand


2. Why can they use correct proportions when drawing ships on their maps, but can't seem to get the coast line drawn correctly. Do they use "scale"? If so, why do the coastlines look so much different then they are presently? They seemed to be amazing sketch artists and painters. I find it odd that they would of seen such a different world unless it was indeed that different.

If you allow much variance in the sea levels in those early times, that would account for the coasts being different. Certainly, if the ice masses were not there, then they must have still been water. But the question that arises is if we have "miles thick ice" then how long does it take for sea water to evaporate and become ice and snow? Or was the ocean's salinity far less than today? All in all, it would seem like we have a great discrepancy in the time line. It seems far too short for the ice to form.

Like it or not, this increases the liklihood that ETs mapped the Earth--that makes sense--as they helped the Sumers and other early civilizations.