Google Earth's ocean floor terrain made be aware of all the scarring around the plates. One thing that surprised me was the scarring and trenches in the Pacific Ocean, especially in the Oceania region. The shapes were very interesting. More on that in a bit.
Back when we were kids, it always seemed very obvious from looking at a globe or map of the world that Africa fits nicely against South America, like a puzzle. Eventually we learn about theories such as Plate Tectonics, Continental Drift, Pangaea, etc. These theories all predate the mapping of the Pacific Ocean floor by a few years. I am not an Earth Scientist, but I don't think my eyes are playing tricks on me. When you take the terrain of the Ocean Floor into account, you find that the continents fit together like a puzzle on the Pacific side as well.
Now my experience in trying to show and explain this to others has either ended in people not caring or people telling me that I am scientifically ignorant of Plate Tectonics. I don't see any harm in speculating here in the absence of hard facts, after all I'm not saying Plate Tectonics is false. I'm just saying that the continents fit together on the other side, the only harm in that is perhaps throwing Pangaea a curve ball.
Not to bore anybody reading this, but I used photoshop to roughly fit the entire world's land masses together and noticed that in many cases they fit perfectly. But the only way they would all truly fit together was as a globe which, for the most part, lacked oceans. That's when I found out that I'm not the only person to discover this. There is a very radical theory called 'expanding Earth' and I'm not saying that I believe it. Not entirely at least. But it is interesting. One of the problems in doing an exercise such as this is the brain puts together patterns where patterns do not exist. So you got to be careful. Regarding the masses in and around Oceania though, it's not my brain putting any patterns together. The patterns are there. There is either something to it or it is a huge coincidence. I somehow doubt the latter but again I have no hard facts. I am merely speculating.
A few years back I read about the Piri Reis map possibly showing a portion of de-iced Antarctica, the Charles Hapgood theory. I was never convinced. But like others who have stumbled down this 'rabbit hole' so to speak, it was the Oronce Fine map that really floored me. I've read several theories and explanations including much skepticism, but even the skeptics are surprised by it. The conclusion I came to is that it was either one heck of a coincidence or in ancient times Antarctica was mapped and quite possible free of ice. A completely radical theory which is rejected by scientific consensus.
One of the reasons I was skeptical is because Fine's Terra Australis mostly just resembles Antarctica with the ice sheet. By comparing it to a topographic map of Antarctica minus the ice, the similarities begin to mostly
vanish. If you imagine Fine's globe as an actual globe (or look at his other 2D map), The 'thumb' portion of Terra Australis is where Australia
should be. Australia was probably known of at that time, but it would not be acknowledged, visited, colonize, or mapped for over a century later.
If you look at the ocean floor map and the way the plates line up, Australia and Antarctica very much appear to have connected at one time. Their land masses fit together like a puzzle quite nicely. This is not a new or radical observation, both continents are connected there according to the Pangaea theory. I was messing around with Photoshop and connected Australia with a topographic map of Antarctica. That's when I started to think I was on to something. Again I'm only speculating, but the combined mass resembled Oronce Fine's Terra Australis:
One of the main reasons the skeptics dismiss the ancient map as depicting Antarctica is because Antarctica's 'thumb' is facing in a direction 90 degrees different from Oronce Fine's Terra Australis' 'thumb'
Even I have previously tried to make comparisons using the shape of Antarctica along with this 'thumb'... but what if that's not the 'thumb' so-to-speak? Australia has a 'thumb' too, Queensland. Not only that, but if you look at the topography you can see that the terrain beyond the Gulf of Carpentaria is low. Low enough that the ocean once covered a portion of this land leaving behind pockets of salty seas, desert, and salty terrain which the aborigines even have a legend about being covered with water once. Which means that at one time in human history, Queensland looked even more like a 'thumb'. Now keep in mind that in the event of a catastrophic break-up of the two continents, separating them by hundred of miles apart, the water level would probably change. The light-blue areas under water surrounding Australia's coast may have very well been land at one time. Also keep in mind that land is obviously not perfectly proportionate by a long shot on these ancient maps.
Taking the map of the ocean floor into account again, if you look at the top-center image, the area with all the black arrows is interesting. It really does look like South America extended all the way to Antarctica at one time and something 'divided' the two. A meteorite? It's just a guess. Notice that Tierra del Fuego and the Palmer Archipelago both appear to have been disrupted by whatever it was that wound up as the Sandwich Isles, they both 'point' in that direction.
I do not think that the Palmer Archipelago is part of Antarctica, or at least it didn't use to be. I think it was part of South America. The red "L" curve I've drawn on all three images illustrates this. The red arrow and dark red line point to Queen Maud Land which looks surprisingly similar (under the ice) to the Oronce Fine map. This has been noted elsewhere by others.
The little black arrow in the upper-left pointing to that little 'hole-like' think appears similar to a 'hole-like' feature under the ice. Where my speculation differs from others is that I think the Transantarctic Mountains are part of the coast of Fine's Terra Australis.
In the middle image, you can see where Australia and Antarctica align with the edges of the plates (more black arrows) and fit together like a puzzle as I am speculating that they once may have. If they do fit together, the dark red line I have drawn along the coast connects with the coast of Antarctica where I have also drawn a dark red line.
The coast of Austrailia is very similar to Terra Australis (where I have drawn a white arc to compare) which some skeptics have used to say the map is of Australia. I've circled the area by the 'thumb' and have drawn white arrows to show similar areas.
What's also interesting about the ocean floor is that the Antarctic plate has the same angle near South Africa as the coast of Terra Australis. As others have mentioned, the mountains and little ridges match up in a lot of places too when you compare the Oronce Fine map with de-iced Antarctic topography.
So what do you think? Is my mind seeing patterns that aren't there or do you see it too? Is it possible that in ancient times, not only were these two land masses connected as one, but were they completely free of ice? And mapped
? If cartographers such as Oronce Fine had access to such maps, what happened to them? Do they still exist somewhere? Vatican archives maybe? (apparently they have a cache of old maps, according to rumors)
I can only speculate and I'm well aware that this flies in the face of scientific consensus. Not only does Earth science say that the continents have been in their current positions for millions of years, they also say that Antarctica has been covered in ice for millions of years. Since humans haven't been around for millions of years, no credible scientist would even entertain such a radical theory. Especially one that uses a 500-year-old map as 'proof'
But just think about the way the world works for a moment. Money makes the world work. Money and politics. Money and politics can buy a scientific consensus. IMO, global warming is proof of that among others. Not only this, Earth scientists are not even 100% sure they are right. These are theories
created by group thinkers. Geezers that reject new ideas which challenge their old ideas for human reasons like greed and selfishness. For credibility. For funding. Junk science that doesn't use the scientific method, this is what plagues theoretical science.
Radical new ideas usually are not produced from groups. Groups just perpetuate the same old ideas and those who stand up in opposition are kicked out of the group. New ideas are rejected and challenged in heated debate before eventually becoming accepted. That's just the way it is. What I'm saying is they could be wrong about a lot of things. These old maps could be clues or they could just be nothing. I think they're clues. But then again, I am no expert.