Pages: [1]   Go Down
            Author                                        Posts          (Topic read 18592 times)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Join Date: May 16, 2012
Posts: 3


« on: May 16, 2012, 04:24:21 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Join Date: May 16, 2012
Posts: 3


« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2012, 05:42:07 PM »
ReplyReply

So apparently Magellan was convinced that there was a Southern continent which is why he didn't bother going around Tierra del Fuego. We're told to blame this on Ptolemy-inspired maps (which coincidentally have a mini land mass resembling South America on them). Also, European explorers were convinced that America was part of Asia. We're told various reasons why this is (and proving the world is round is not one of them, it was already known to be round).

As a result, several early maps of the Americas show a Southern continent or North America connected to Asia. Including Oronce Fine's:




Ever hear of the Fra Mauro map?



This is a pre-Colombian map with an odd orientation. What's interesting is the lower-right-hand corner shows North American features as part of Asia. It's labeled with Asian cities, but even the cartographer admit that some of these were placed randomly because of how large Asia was in comparison to Europe and Africa. I suggest looking at a higher resolution version of the map. It might surprise you. In addition to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, it shows what appears to be the top portion of South America, the Rocky Mountains, the Rio Grande, The Mississippi, the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. Possibly one or a portion of the Great Lakes.

Both this map and the Oronce Fine maps have a river and a mountain range on the border of "Asia" and "North America" which is interesting. The Fra Mauro map even mentions it as a sacred river. Seems to be quite a coincidence that even though the cartographers were unaware of the Pacific Ocean, they both place a large river and mountains at the edge of each continent while conjoining them. The Fra Mauro map isn't even 'officially' America although it quite obviously looks like it is (it's not alone, there are a few pre-Colombian maps which show Florida or something that appears to be Florida).

Pre-Colombian America is a taboo topic in history. No matter how much evidence is discovered to dispute the official narrative, it is criticised as circumstancial or a hoax. In some cases it is a hoax, but I'm convinced the narrative is very false. The Columbus voyage occurred right after the Spanish Inquisition. They used (now lost) existing maps of the Americas possessed by Moorish Al-Andalus (intersting name, Al-Andalus Wink ) so I'm not sure why it is such a sensitive and taboo subject. Especially in this day and age.

Both the Fra Mauro and Oronce Fine map show details that , although not impossible, should not have been known to them. Not easily at least. This is especially true for South Africa on the Fra Mauro map. Some of the detail in Fine's North America did not appear on maps until a century later so it is strange how he knew about it. His labels are also strange in many places. Fine's map has 'mythical' islands such as Hyperborea just like Mercator. One thing I noticed with Google Earth's ocean floor is that near both Fine and Mercator's Hyperborea there are underwater land masses which match up almost identically in Scandinavia. This could be a coincidence, but it is also well known that flooding has occurred (and still occurs today) here. Fine obviously used multiple sources of different ages and it appears that this extended Scandinavia repeats.

Going back to what I mentioned in the original post and tying this together with Atlantis, the Oceania area has very strange scarring on the ocean floor. It resembles Mexico, Central America, and South America, as if they used to connect here as they do in these ancient maps. This is the most apparent in the underwater continent called Zealandia which New Zealand is a part of:



What is also very interesting is that on the Oronce Fine maps (especially the 2D one) this is where South America sits, right next to Australia (which is part of the Sothern continent on the maps). Another coincidence? New Zealand and Chile look so similar that they say Lord of the Rings could have been filmed in Chile and you wouldn't know the difference. Apparently this is because they are parallel from a globe stand point, or so they say. But what if there is another reason? The scarring in the Pacific Ocean supports the moving of the continents to this location. And take a look for yourself:



It's as if they connected right there. You can also see along the Solomon Islands what I meant by saying it resembled Mexico and Central America. Funny that Western South America has been known for having gold in the past and the Solomon Islands have been theorized to be where the biblical Solomon mined his gold. North America lines up quite nicely with Asia right along the Mariana Trench and the similar-looking portion of China. Speaking of trenches, it looks like the Earth was 'unzipped' from Where Russia and Alaska are all the way down. Like along that sacred river in the maps above. This whole area is the infamous Pacific Rim of fire because it is outline by volcanoes and Earthquakes.

This is all speculation obviously. But it's just too much of a coincidence for me. Pole-shift advocates point to some Mammoths found with tropical continents frozen in the stomach undigested. As if they went from a tropical climate to a frozen one... instantly. I'm not saying I believe in pole shifts, but what if something celestial caused this? What if a comet smack into the Earth, cracking it open and not so much alter its axis as cause it (somehow) to expand. Mass tsunamis, earthquakes, flooding, raining fire. You know, all that stuff that every single culture's mythology on the planet talks about? The mammoths (whose wool is not because they are cold-weathered btw, that's a misconception) are now near the arctic and drowning from the tsunamis. When the 'dust settles' they freeze to death. And Atlantis along with Mu and Lemuria are now gone. Hyperborea is uninhabitable. Frisland sinks.

But like the ice on Antarctica, the Pacific Ocean floor is millions of years old. Are they right? Or are they wrong? How can they be so sure? Are the continents really moving? How do they know if they are, if it happens to slow to observe?

Speculation. Radical theories. From an average guy on the internet who isn't an expert. But take a look at what I'm saying and come to your own conclusion, even if you are skeptical and don't believe it for a bit. Me on the other hand, I think it is very plausible that Atlantis didn't sink. It just moved hundred of miles away. The whole Mexica/Aztlán Aztec thing is probably another clue (and that's been said before). They did have a flood origin myth too, and it involved a rainbow not unlike the biblical flood myth.
Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2012, 10:41:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello Ryan-o,

Sounds like we have ventured down very similar paths; dismissing the Piri Reis map, seeing significance in Oronce Finé's map, and contemplating the possible error of plate tectonics. I even used a variation of the 'down the rabbit hole' idiom in my synopsis to describe this experience as well.

There is one thing you may wish to note with regard to your association of Oronce Finé's map with Australia. It is an association I have come across in the past in which an individual attempted to debunk the map's portrayal of Antarctica suggesting that it was a distorted map of Australia. You appear to refer to the same skeptic in your post. Like you, he did not allow for the fact that the continental landmass is distorted within the double cordiform (heart-shaped) projection. 



Here you can see the continent redrawn onto a polar projection where much of the distortion is removed:



You can see that the angles where you placed the white arrows are actually more obtuse and the region is square in shape rather than diamond shaped as it appears on the double cordiform.

Here is a comparative view of Finé's continent alongside Antarctica where you can see a very close similarity in the portrayal of this 'thumb', Western Antarctica, which even includes a deep bay, very similar in appearance and position as Sulzberger Bay, but not found in the vicinity of Australia you have designated:



Finé's continent with Schöner's depiction of the Unfortunate Islands added:

Modern map of the continent:


As to the idea that plate movement has occurred far more recently and more swiftly than the current uniformitarian model allows, I fully agree and believe that I have definitive proof, but I do not think movement has occurred to such a degree as to allow that man was able to chart Antarctica and Australia when they were still a single continent.

-Doug

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

WWW

« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2012, 11:17:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So apparently Magellan was convinced that there was a Southern continent which is why he didn't bother going around Tierra del Fuego.


I believe Schöner's 1515 World Map, which preceded Magellan's voyage by 4 years, was the reason for cartographer's misconception of a large southern continent. The portrayal of a large southern continent is directly linked to misinformation appearing in a 1508 German tract titled 'Copia der Newen Zeitung auss Presillg Landt' where Portuguese sailors had misrepresented their view of the San Matias Gulf as a passage between two large continents.

Schöner's 1515 World Map:



Schöner’s erroneous depiction (left) of the San Matias Gulf as a Strait between two continents:



Regarding the Fra Mauro World Map, the peninsula that you are linking with Florida appears to be the Korean Peninsula as it correctly aligns with the southern tip of Japan.

As to the rest of your comments, I think you may find my book extremely interesting once it is published.

-Doug

Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Join Date: May 16, 2012
Posts: 3


« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2012, 09:51:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Doug,

I am looking forward to your book. And I'm pretty sure we're thinking of the same skeptic. I did try to use tools in GIMP to allow for correction of the distortion, but either it didn't work out or I didn't know quite what I was doing. I also read your thread with the Schöner map which identified the above islands. I don't disagree at all, I find it very interesting. I just wanted to share what I had interpreted on my own. Seemed like the best place for it on the web Smiley

It is quite fringe and radical to think that Antarctica and Australia were connected in recorded human history and even mapped. I was just very intrigued by the Oronce Fine map and that was the conclusion I came to. I'm personally not a fan of theoretical science or plate tectonics. I may be scientifically ignorant, but the group thinking geezer whose paycheck depends on their dogmatic theories are IMHO no better no matter what that piece of paper they paid thousands for says  Wink I don't completely believe in the expanding Earth theory, but I think it's more plausible than plate tectonics. I recommend this blog: earthexpansion.blogspot.com/

Regarding the Fra Mauro map though, I think you should take another look. I initially thought it was the Korean Peninsula too, but the websites mentioning ancient maps of Korea use a completely different area along the side. Take a look if you're curious at all:





Guatemala is under water obviously, but that's pretty common among unknown areas on the map. That tip right before the break looks a lot like Cancun.  And again, that 'lake' above Florida matches with the Okefenokee Swamp of Georgia. Dr. Gunnar Thompson agrees that this is a pre-Colombian map of NA, don't know if he is a reliable source.
Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2012, 12:57:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Ryan-o,

I do appreciate you posting your interpretation of the map. Mine is only an interpretation as well and may certainly be off.

And be careful with the 'geezer' reference. I am on the verge of geezerdom myself.   Yes

I also understand your cynicism about scientists, but it is a bit misplaced, especially in regard to plate tectonics. While I feel I have discovered a better alternative model, it was very difficult to get past many hurdles of the current model. In fact, many assumptions within plate tectonics are very well established and impossible to ignore and must be included or addressed by a rational alternative explanation within any alternate theory. Plate tectonics has been so well developed over time that I was about to give up on a possible alternative theory until I happened upon one major oversight, which led to another, then another and so forth. The main thing to keep in mind is that just recognizing that there might be conforming coastlines across the Pacific Ocean is never going to be enough to convince most tectonicists. There needs to be additional proof; extremely compelling proof.

So while there is some money to be made in writing books, writing papers, research, and as paid speakers, do you really believe that scientists would be touting such wares if they did not fully buy into it? Plate tectonics, for the time being, is currently the best theory for Earth dynamics and everyone funneled through the current education system has no reason to doubt it and every reason to accept it until a better model is made available.

I took a closer look at the Fra Mauro map and it is now apparent that the peninsula is a poor depiction of the Indochina Peninsula with the one further north possibly being Korea. The cartographer labelled the sea, which some like Gunnar are apparently assuming is a representation of the Gulf of Mexico, as Sinus Gangeticus. That of course links it to the Ganges River outlet. Note also in your image above that the inscription 'India Cin' is clearly marked above this body of water.

There may be more to this, but the simplest and clearest observation would initially appear to be the best explanation, at least that is my opinion.

-Doug


Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Join Date: Dec 18, 2012
Posts: 1


« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2012, 02:18:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Dudes!

check this guy out !  

He refers to a "Albertin di Virga Map of 1414 (date also given by various writers as 1410, 1411, 1420). It is gratifying, by the way, to see that the map that I brought out from hiding in 1995/1996 is finally featured in Wikipedia. However, the presence of the coasts of Peru and North America from Labrador to Florida have yet to be added to the brief description."

He goes by the handle of Gunnar.  He's looking for an ancient Egyptian map that would show both continents side by side, because....his research into maize, which all authorities state is a new world plant, shows up in ancient egypt.  He shows on his web site ( atlanticconference.org ) an egyptian tomb mural dated at least 1470 BCE to possibly 2350 BCE of MAIZE!... as well as ancient date palm trees in Pre-Colombian Mexico.

I'm casting my vote for the smaller earth theory which would place these two continents not to far from each other, so what if they didn't sail anywhere?...what if the continents got separated due to some moon size asteroid or comet (mostly ice right?....voila...instant ocean/flood/cataclysm..ugh) then if you're still with me, a smaller earth, would mean less mass which = less gravitational pull = bigger life forms?..say like the DINOSAURS!! this could also explain faster angular rotation (we know what our rotation is now...how much faster would  we go if we didn't have the extra weight) what would it be on a smaller sized earth?   So how does all the vegetation that is buried so deep (fossil fuels) get so evenly dispersed..I mean where ever they drill there's gas/oil/tar, ..I don't believe the ancients had underground green houses!

Could this also explain the almost mythical lifespans of the ancients and .....what the hell go for broke here...... GIANTS!!!.. why not?  Look around the net for huge humanlike remains sequestered shortly after discovery.  Maybe Gulliver like guys were the ones who stacked the blocks at Baalbek temple in Lebanon.

Yeah I know..I'm crazy... but what if...
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: