Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
            Author                                        Posts          (Topic read 29611 times)
He who searches will find something
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Gender: Male
Location: South Africa
Join Date: Sep 04, 2010
Posts: 14

WWW

« on: September 07, 2010, 02:15:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,

I am one of those individuals who dared enter the 'Atlantis' minefield with a theory of my own. I noticed that three particular ancient maps of Terra Australis Incognita seem to depict a continent in process of being flooded, and I also noticed some similarities between the these maps and submerged geographical features of that region.  I have compiled a summary of the key arguments of my theory here (PDF, 1.7MB), while the complete presentation can be found here.

I've had the privilege of corresponding directly with Doug about my theory and other aspects of Atlantis and although he does not agree with my interpretation, he has kindly given me permission to present my theory here. Please let me know what you think!

Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2010, 11:55:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello Riaan,

You know I'm a big fan, but if we're going to get this discussion moving you obviously know which direction I am going to take it. 

Positing a large landform encircling the South Pole is extremely difficult to rationalize. Surrounding Australia and Antarctica are very clear patterns of seafloor crust expansion including a path of fracture zones stretching between Antarctica and southern Australia establishing their onetime connection and path of separation. Assuming from the overlay on page 7 of your pdf file the landmass existed while Australia and Antarctica had lain in the same position on the globe as they do today we have a huge problem: Not only is there nowhere for continental crust to have existed in the areas proposed there are no signs of any remains from the lost portions of the ringed super continent.

There are no significant signs of cataclysmic damage only evidence of steady, virtually uninterrupted expansion. Australia and Antarctica distinguish themselves by sitting 2-3 miles above the surrounding seafloor where sedimentary deposits vary little from the rest of the world. How did 2-3 miles thick of continental mass suddenly disappear from the face of the earth without even the slightest trace of ever having existed, except on highly unreliable maps that suddenly appeared in the 16th century?

Like Margiani's theory on this forum, these theories of sunken continents lying beneath the sea require a huge leap of faith, faith that I believe is misplaced when relying solely on archaic 16th century cartography.

-Doug

He who searches will find something
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Gender: Male
Location: South Africa
Join Date: Sep 04, 2010
Posts: 14

WWW

« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2010, 03:59:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the reply! I do not question that the mid-ocean ridges or fracture zones as you call it have existed for millions of years. In fact, I suggest that the city of Atlantis was constructed on one of these ridges (the 'low' mountain on the plain, according to Plato).

My theory is that the entire region including Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica was 4-5km higher in elevation than where they are today, and that the sea floor between them at that time was more or less at sea level (hence the slow flooding of the plain).

The impact of a huge comet or asteroid then forced the entire region below the waters, effectively causing the earth to bulge a little further around the equator. The position of Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica relative to each other and the sea floor would then essentially have remained unchanged (is this what you are referring to?).

Although not the topic of this thread, a 6m thick layer of marine sediment has for instance been found at Lake Titicaca, which is about 3800m above sea level. To me this is indicative of a huge splash in the ocean close to that area (Scotia Plate?).

Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2010, 12:33:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello Riaan,

My theory is that the entire region including Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica was 4-5km higher in elevation than where they are today, and that the sea floor between them at that time was more or less at sea level (hence the slow flooding of the plain).

This is what I originally suspected. I skimmed through the article and saw you mention "shattering of the globe" or something similar, and was not sure if it related merely to the mid-ocean ridges or to continental mass as well.

Still, I think conformity with the map would require a great deal of unconventional distortion of Earth's topography. Aside from compression zones, the only place on earth that I am aware of that we can find the seafloor raised above sea level is Iceland, and like other mid-ocean ridges it is raised well above the surrounding seafloor. If we were to raise the ocean floor to form the ring you are proposing, we might expect that the Southeast Indian Ridge, which traverses the ringed continent and rises roughly a mile above the surrounding seafloor, would be raised up as well creating large peninsular extensions stretching off the section of ring lying between Antarctica and West Australia as well as the section lying between Antarctica and New Zealand? (See attachment) Of course this can probably be passed off as cartographic inaccuracies visible on most ancient maps.

Also, I think hundreds of miles of a 4-5 km high cliff cutting across the terrain would have been quite the spectacle. Australia might have been the world's largest mesa and virtually inaccessible by land or sea. Much of Antarctica as well.

Anyway, it is a very interesting theory and I think you have presented it well, but you know why I can't agree. I have my own theories regarding these same maps. What we can agree on is that these are some very intriguing maps and they should not be overlooked and automatically disregarded as artistic license.

-Doug


* RiaanAdustments.jpg (22.3 KB, 500x394 - viewed 1105 times.)

He who searches will find something
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Gender: Male
Location: South Africa
Join Date: Sep 04, 2010
Posts: 14

WWW

« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2010, 12:00:59 PM »
ReplyReply

If an impact had indeed occurred as I have proposed, one can hardly expect everything in that region to have remained unchanged. This may account for the differences you pointed out. As a matter of interest, the Kerguelen Plateau and some of the submarine 'islands' southwest of it may very well be chunks of the continental plate that were flung in an eastward direction by the impact (speculation, of course).



Still, I believe there is enough correlation between the geography of that region and the ancient maps for the latter to have been based on something real. If Terra Australis is indeed an imaginary continent, there should be no correlation at all. Here we will probably have to agree to disagree!


Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2010, 07:28:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Riaan,

I did appreciate how you correlated Schöner's 1515 design with New Zealand and Australia, but it did require a major adjustment in the form of a 3,000-mile shift of the map's center off the South Pole. Do you account for Schöner's error?



And do you see any significance in the continent's perfectly concentric interior design?



-Doug

He who searches will find something
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Gender: Male
Location: South Africa
Join Date: Sep 04, 2010
Posts: 14

WWW

« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2010, 02:01:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Doug, this is indeed true. There are many shapes of the 'solid' Terra Australis, most of them extending right up to South America. I suspect Schoner had the outline of the solid land mass map and had access to another, older map which showed the continent with a flooded plain. He then assumed both to have had the same outline as illustrated below, while the 1515 map should actually have been moved to coincide with Australia and New Zealand.



You will find that the size of even the solid land mass varies dramatically on medieval maps, some of them extending further north than even Schoner's.

Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2010, 12:53:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Very impressive, I don’t know if I had seen this image before. You've created a much more convincing argument by using it. Anyway this is one of the things that has impressed me most with your work, your ability to make these very clear associations.

Still, I think there are some far clearer associations being overlooked that relate to Schöner’s 1515 design and exist at a level that defies the laws of probability.

  • Schöner’s 1515 design is a modified ‘designer’ map. No place on Earth do we find this sort of geometry. The concentric interior design is by no means natural, therefore whatever landmass it actually represented likely varied significantly, at least on the interior.
  • There is a huge library of ancient modified ‘designer’ maps and the vast majority are based on a reverse C-shape just like Schöner’s 1515 design. This includes the Roman Peutinger World Map, the circular medieval mappae mundi and to an extent the T-O maps.
  • A landlocked arcing waterway terminated with lakes at each end with a mountain range above it paralleling its length CAN ONLY BE FOUND on the mappae mundi and Schöner’s 1515 design. Both are modified land maps and both locate and orient them identically stretching across the lower leg of the reverse C-shape. (Just an extreme coincidence?)
  • Both the mappae mundi and Schöner’s 1515 design HAVE TWO AND ONLY TWO prominent peninsula’s extending off the body of the C-shaped design. Again, like the landlocked waterway and mountain range, these peninsulas are accurately located, this time on the upper leg of the reverse ‘C’. More importantly, they more accurately portray Italy and Greece than the mappae mundi. (An extreme coincidence coinciding with another extreme coincidence?)
  • Proportion and order of features are similarly and accurately portrayed on both Schöner’s design and the mappae mundi. We don’t find the peninsula resembling Italy located clockwise of the one resembling Greece or the landlocked waterway. We don’t find the extensive mountain range lying separate or even below the landlocked waterway or the landlocked waterway stretching across the upper arm above the two peninsulas. (A coincidental coincidence of coinciding coincidences? [I may have just pushed this too far, but I think it makes the point.])

There are a multitude of ways that these features, by far the most prominent features on both Schöner’s design as well as the mappae mundi, could have been arranged and sized, not to even mention being attached to land forms not resembling an open 'C'. What are the incalculable odds that peninsular features resembling Italy, Greece and the Gulf of Izmir would be correctly proportioned, arranged, and positioned above a jutting out coast resembling southern Turkey? That a landlocked waterway representing the Roman view of a lateral source for the Nile river with an extensive mountain range paralleling it above would be correctly located in the lower arm of the ‘C’ which also accurately depicts North Africa’s raised up coast in the west?

I personally don't see any possible way we can take into consideration these obvious shared similarities of HIGHLY UNIQUE features consolidated accurately onto one C-shaped landmass, and still regard it all as mere coincidence.

-Doug

He who searches will find something
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Gender: Male
Location: South Africa
Join Date: Sep 04, 2010
Posts: 14

WWW

« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2010, 02:00:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Doug, in response to the points you made, the following:

1. It is debatable whether Schoner's C-shape design was deliberately introduced, or whether it was based on reality. The tips of this continent certainly seem to correlate with the actual geography of that region.
2. There may be maps that contain C-shaped areas, but as far as I am aware the only continent ever portrayed in this shape is Terra Australis
3. To me it is not 100% certain that there is a waterway between the two lakes. On the Green Globe (below) the waterway has the same appearance as the mountain ranges, and if you look carefully, it actually encircles both lakes. If not a waterway but a mountain range instead, it would closely match Australia (


Figure 1.10 The Green Globe


Figure 1.13 Mountains on the 515 Schöner map superimposed on a NASA Digital Elevation Map of Australia

4. I briefly scanned through your Agrippa map theory again. In my opinion the chances that Schoner's 1515 map could represent Europe is substantially smaller than it representing a real Terra Australis. I have made several attempts to match Schoner's map to the ocean floor (one is shown below, Fig. 1.38 in Section 1.04),  as I suspect the tectonic crust would have been altered by the impact, it may not be possible to do so.



Although maps of TA as a  solid land mass have many shapes, the majority seem to have common points as indicated below


(a) Schöner 1524                       b) Ortelius 1570                       c) Desceliers 1546


5. See points 3&4 above.


Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2010, 12:31:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Riaan,

To me it is not 100% certain that there is a waterway between the two lakes. On the Green Globe (below) the waterway has the same appearance as the mountain ranges, and if you look carefully, it actually encircles both lakes.

I noticed this also about the Green Globe's portrayal of the lateral feature between the lakes, but you have to admit this is not only a poor image, but the globe is also in rather poor shape.

Schöner’s gores represent virtually the same design, but in much clearer form. Not only is the lateral feature drawn as a simple line exactly as all other rivers on the surrounding continents, the 'mountain lake' in the area of Mauritania is clearly drawn with an opening in the surrounding mountains from which the waterway begins its flow. (See attachment below.) This matches the ancient Roman belief of the Nile's source in a mountain lake in Mauritania and flowing laterally across the African continent. And of course this matches the mappae mundi which carried the design over from Agrippa's Orbis Terrarum.

To me it is 100% certain that Schöner is portraying the lateral feature as a waterway between the two lakes. Do you agree?

-Doug





* MountainNile.jpg (18.93 KB, 500x413 - viewed 2018 times.)

He who searches will find something
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Gender: Male
Location: South Africa
Join Date: Sep 04, 2010
Posts: 14

WWW

« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2010, 03:45:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I have to agree. On the other hand, Schoner may have misinterpreted a mountain range as a river - we will never know.

You will notice several valleys in the mountain range of Australia (encircled) - there does appear to be a valley running down all the way to my super-lake. If, as I suggested in this theory, that region must have received high levels of rainfall, a river would no doubt have run down this valley.  Other river valleys appear to the west, though admittedly not in the form of a continuous waterway.


Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2010, 08:48:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On the other hand, Schoner may have misinterpreted a mountain range as a river - we will never know.

Well, that argument can go either way, but I'll confess that applying my argument regarding thin rivers and wide mountains to the Green Globe would certainly support the idea that someone may have gotten it wrong. Based on the mappae mundi like the Hereford map, the imposing length and a width matching the mountains may have caused confusion on a badly worn and faded source map.

I agree also, that the waterway extending off your proposed super-lake would not be continuous, but even if it were it appears it would have been of reasonable length at about 3,700 miles. This places it in the middle of the top 10 list of longest rivers in the world. I think it would have been a little harder to accept if the waterway turned out to be the world's lone mega-river.

-Doug

He who searches will find something
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Gender: Male
Location: South Africa
Join Date: Sep 04, 2010
Posts: 14

WWW

« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2010, 11:54:42 AM »
ReplyReply

It will be very difficult to prove either way, I think. Signs of a fresh water lake high above the Lake Eyre basin, if ever discovered, may confirm the possible existence of an ancient mega-lake. Little else I can think of.

Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2010, 01:29:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I would love to get a hold of a higher definition image of the Green Globe, but barring that I am leaning more and more toward it portraying a waterway like Schöner's design. My reasoning is as follows:

One of the globes definitely copied the design from the other or another unknown 16th century work of near identical design. Whether your theory or my theory is correct, or it is a random design, in all cases the landmass is placed identically on both globes though positioned and oriented incorrectly. Two separate designers did not separately adopt the ancient design and then independently conclude that it should be sized and aligned around the South Pole.

Regardless of the original 16th century source, replicas would have had the advantage of duplicating the design based on a recently made product that was most certainly in much much better shape than the Green Globe is today and likely in better shape than Schöner's well preserved gores, so it is unlikely that either would have been able to confuse a mountain with a waterway on a good quality highly detailed source. Since the only clear copy we have for reference is Schöner's design and it definitely depicts the feature as a waterway, I think odds highly favor the Green Globe depicting the feature as a waterway as well.

Further, the cartographer lines the whole of the landmass in brown (this could be some sort of bleed though as well) and it is possible that this lone waterway is lined similarly giving it the appearance of a wide brown mountain range.

Lastly, most of the mountain ranges on the map include small spurs extending from the main range. (See circled items on the attached image.) Yet the feature extending between the lakes exhibits no spurring whatsoever. The feature is even further distinguished from all the mountains by its continuous undulating design extending its full length.

-Doug


* GreenSpurs.jpg (34.56 KB, 500x543 - viewed 1065 times.)

He who searches will find something
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Gender: Male
Location: South Africa
Join Date: Sep 04, 2010
Posts: 14

WWW

« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2010, 03:55:45 PM »
ReplyReply

The key issue here is whether Schoner's map represents Australia/NZ or Europe, as you have proposed. I don't think we'll readily be able to find additional proof of either of our theories. However, can you explain why Schoner would have made the mistake of portaying TA as a solid land mass (1524) and the Europe as this very same continent (1515)?  It does not make sense to me.

Riaan

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Print
Jump to: