Earths Forbidden Secrets

Well , I will try to contact Max and see if he can come here and explain a few things.

He is registered here if I recall.

reply to post by D0MiNAT0R 1OOO

---

I think he is still working on the second book. I belive it will be a 3 part book!!!!

Can someone Digg this who has an account? We need to get this book out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any chance that anyone can print this off and post it to me
My eyes are beginning to hurt and I am not even a quarter of the way through!

You guys are going to love chapter 9 The Tale of the Sumerians

Looks very interesting, and I love maps. I am already off on a tangent researching Antarctica. Definately flagged. I really enjoy this stuff.

reply to post by manbearpig

---

Thanks for sharing this manbearpig. strrd and flggd.
I downloaded it already because it looks to me very interesting indeed.
I wish I could stop the time now and then because I have so many other interesting things to read and listen to already.

File deleted, sorry I skipped over a few of the other pages what a load of absolute tud..... tud factor 5

reply to post by manbearpig

---

Yeah! I just finished this book, and aside from some editing, it is very informative. I like how Max gives his opinions, but doesn't say thats the way it truly is.

The info on the Sumerians has really made me re-think everything. I hope this boo goes into publication soon.

reply to post by Roufas

---

Yes he is, but it doesn't look like he frequents often. He is on my "friends" if you need help finding him.

GOod find, s&f

The book basically is explaining every topi i have ever seen on ats.

And yet, rather than have it published... getting global exposure, it's free on the internet.

There HAS to be a big publishing house that would have taken this on. They aren't all conspirators.

I don't think any publishing house would take it on with spelling like this:







[edit on 14-12-2008 by george_gaz]

Wow. Just in the middle of chapter 2. I can't stop. Its so interesting! S&F!

I have just posted part 1 of this long post about Bauche's map, anonymously and unfortunately I was unaware of the post length limit and the 12 hour delay for anonymous posts. Unfortunately this part might appear before the bulk of my post already submitted.

Following on from that in the hope it is posted soon I will carry on.

So after not using the original map and not mentioning it Maxwell then goes on to use Bauche's second map. If he had only bothered to read the text he would have noticed, at the south pole and on the land mass of antarctica the word 'conjecturée' which means conjectured. This was often done with unknown land masses at the time and in fact geographers and cartographers often used their knowledge and skills to produce a map of conjecture and it was considered a reputable science.

To put it simply, the map that Maxwell uses is the second of Bauche's maps and is clearly Bauche saying " this is what could be here based upon the parts of the coastline we actually know about" ( those are the areas marked in red.)

Maxwell says that Antarctica was not discovered until 100 years later. Simply not true. It may have been fully mapped later but that's not what he states.
For Maxwell to state, as if fact, that Bauche was in possession of a map showing the coastline of the Antarctic landmass many years before we knew the actual outline of it is absurd, factually inaccurate without proof and conveniently ignores the fact that the land mass in no way resembles Antarctica which is not two separate land masses at all but a great number of islands surrounding a larger land mass.

I'd suggest that Maxwell brushes up on his French before claiming that a map of conjecture could be 'dismissed by many as wrong' is in fact the result of some ancient knowledge. The map is made up. It says so, clearly, in the text.

This has put a dampener on me reading the rest of the book but I'll read on and no doubt be back to dismiss further inaccuracies and omissions.

Forgive me if this post appears before the first part I posted anonymously ( which is awaiting moderation ) as it will look out of place. If part one does not appear I shall attempt to write it again ( but I did use all 4000 characters in that ).

I don't mind a bit of conspiracy but if you are going to tell people lies by omission it is wise to ensure you are not so easily caught out.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by Pasanonic]

reply to post by manbearpig

---

Unfortunately, I am disappointed in the Sumerian chapter. If there is any research beside that of Sitchin, I would like to have it referenced. I saw nothing in the sources that would make be believe there is any other source for this chapter.

I do give him credit for his effort to get the information out and there is a great deal of new and intriguing data throughout the book to research.

Stared , flaged and downloaded the PDF file to my computer and iphone . I look forward to reading this one .

With regards to my previous post and the user that says the map on 26 is a map of the UK. I mat have mistaken this comment to mean the Bauche map when it probably means the map attributed to Franco Roselli ( fig. 4 )

This indeed does appear to be a medieval map of Britain and as far as I know is in no part attributable to Roselli. Roselli's world map, which is completely different does show a southern coastline but it is no more than a conjectured piece of coast.
Yes it says Antarctica but then this was the common name for an unknown southern land ( or terra Australis Incognitus ) as it was widely accepted by those understanding the world to be round ( going back to ancient Greeks ) that there had to be a land or southern continent simply to bring balance to the world. They guessed it was there and they gave it a name. This was by luck rather than judgement and no relevance can be given to any map that mentions Antarctica before it's discovery because in the minds of ancient academics it was there, they just had not found it.

This book appears to be very poorly researched and just throws the reader a few bones of information, much of it false or not backed up by any proof in the hope that the reader might be driven to a conclusion that suits and supports the authors views.

Sorry I keep going on about maps but I'm a sailor and I hate all the nonsense that is continually dredged up about ancient maps that were charted before the the ability to measure longitude and therefore can never, ever be accurate.