On the Origins of Unexplained Maps

page: 2
163
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


This is what Babelfish made of it....


Polar circle
Soupconnees. The terrestrial basin their rivers being larger than that To spangle icy the Arctic can contain
of the 60 rivers as considerable as those of Siberia which give the ices of the north whose flow is done by les2. Debouquements
of Iceland etdu new Strait discovered by the Russians.
There must be length here and close to the dimensions of America or the raised terreins dou runs out of 9de rivers which provides
to ices the interior mother conjecturee.


Makes little sense to me but that is probably due to the translational skill of said fish...

Peace




posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Here's a list of French members:

French:
beneguesserit - Send U2U
Demos - Send U2U
grimm703 - Send U2U
loOranks - Send U2U
schrodingers dog - Send U2U
sn00daard - Send U2U
SpookyVince - Send U2U
trusername - Send U2U
WeSbO - Send U2U
X-tal_Phusion - Send U2U


Also Dutch, which may come in handy:

Dutch:
D0MiNAT0R 1OOO - Send U2U
Harman - Send U2U
loOranks - Send U2U
sn00daard - Send U2U

Applied Linguistics Registery



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
is it possible that they just saw the coastlines, a bit of land.
all of the maps have almost no stuff on Antarctica, and other land masses lods of scribbles in it.

my guess is that we need to look at warm periods, bu not to warm, there was still a lot of ice, one reason there is little info on that spot, there wasn't anything worth drawing in.

the 2 land masses, strange, bu yeah maybe it was Australia mapped for a second time.
its even possible that there was just no ice there at that moment, only further land inwards.

i can imagine some sailors traveling by, making notes on the coastlines etc, bu nothing more cos there wasn't a lot to see and write about.


just a thought



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

I feel kinda left out here Chad.....

Dutch:
operation mindcrime - Send U2U





Peace

[edit on 25/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I've thought for quite some time that Antarctica is where people should be looking to find Atlantis.
Good thread, Serbsta.

In regards to the poster questioning the validity of the maps themselves, or the times in which they were found... I can assure you that the last map was prior to when we discovered the Antarctica was an archipego type continent...

Note how the two islands form a rough circle.
Now, if at some point in the past there was an island inside of that circle, you have a textbook geographical description of Plato's Atlantis.
It is not a very far stretch at all.
Was it Santorini that was blown to crap from a volcanic blast? Basically sunk the island?
If you imagine this as a single island (although it is not) it certainly appears the be navagable right through the center in what is a "natural canal".

Unfortunately, we will likely never know. There is a crapload of ice down there.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


lol sorry mate!

I didn't even think, I just copied and pasted.


At least you'll be able to tell the difference between Dutch and French on these maps then, I think the ones I posted are Dutch?



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
And lets not forget the the use of longitude in a time when nobody was suppose to know it existed.


Let us consider the problem of longitude, defined as the distance in
degrees east or west of the prime meridian. The current internationally
accepted prime meridian is an imaginary curve drawn from the North Pole
to the South Pole passing through the Royal Observatory at Greenwich,
London. Greenwich therefore stands at o° longitude while New York, for
example, stands at around 74° west, and Canberra, Australia, at roughly
150° east.




It would be possible to write an elaborate explanation of longitude and
of what needs to be done to fix it precisely for any given point on the
earth’s surface. What we are concerned with here, however, is not so
much technical detail as the accepted historical facts about humanity’s
growing knowledge of the mysteries of longitude. Among these facts, this
is the most important: until a breakthrough invention in the eighteenth
century, cartographers and navigators were unable to fix longitude with
any kind of precision. They could only make guesses which were usually
inaccurate by many hundreds of miles, because the technology had not
yet been developed to allow them to do the job properly.
Latitude north or south of the equator did not pose such a problem: it
could be worked out by means of angular measurements of the sun and
stars taken with relatively simple instruments. But to find longitude
equipment of an altogether different and superior calibre was needed,
which could combine position measurements with time measurements.
Throughout the span of known history the invention of such equipment
had remained beyond the capacities of scientists, but by the beginning of
the eighteenth century, with rapidly increasing sea traffic, a mood of
impatience and urgency had set in. In the words of an authority on the
period, ‘The search for longitude overshadowed the life of every man
afloat, and the safety of every ship and cargo. Accurate measurement
seemed an impossible dream and “discovering the longitude” had become
a stock phrase in the press like “pigs might fly”.’

What was needed, above all else, was an instrument that would keep
the time (at the place of departure) with perfect accuracy during long sea
journeys despite the motion of the ship and despite the adverse
conditions of alternating heat and cold, wet and dry. ‘Such a Watch’, as
Isaac Newton told the members of the British government’s official Board
of Longitude in 1714, ‘hath not yet been made’.4
Indeed not. The timepieces of the seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries were crude devices which typically lost or gained as much as a
quarter of an hour per day. By contrast, an effective marine chronometer
could afford to lose or gain that much only over several years.5
It was not until the 1720s that the talented English clockmaker John
Harrison began work on the first of a series of designs which resulted in
the manufacture of such a chronometer. His objective was to win the
prize of £20,000 offered by the Board of Longitude ‘for the inventor of
any means of determining a ship’s longitude within 30 nautical miles at
the end of a six weeks’ voyage’.6 A chronometer capable of fulfilling this
condition would have to keep time to within three seconds per day. It
took almost forty years, during which several prototypes were completed
and tested, before Harrison was able to meet these standards. Finally, in
1761, his elegant Chronometer No. 4 left Britain on board HMS Deptford
bound for Jamaica, accompanied by Harrison’s son William. Nine days
into the voyage, on the basis of longitude calculations made possible by
the chronometer, William advised the captain that they would sight the
Madeira Islands the following morning. The captain offered five to one
that he was wrong but agreed to hold the course. William won the bet.
Two months later, at Jamaica, the instrument was found to have lost just
five seconds.7
Harrison had surpassed the conditions set by the Board of Longitude.
Thanks to the British government’s bureaucratic dithering, however, he
was not awarded the £20,000 prize money until three years before his
death in 1776. Understandably, it was only when he had the funds in his
hands that he divulged the secrets of his design. As a result of this delay,
Captain James Cook did not have the benefit of a chronometer when he
made his first voyage of discovery in 1768.8 By the time of his third
voyage, however (1778-9), he was able to map the Pacific with impressive
accuracy, fixing not only the correct latitude but the correct longitude of
every island and coastline.9 Henceforward, ‘thanks to Cook’s care and
Harrison’s chronometer ... no navigator could have an excuse for failing
to find a Pacific island ... or for being wrecked on a coastline appearing from nowhere.

Indeed, with their accurate longitudes, Cook’s Pacific maps must be
ranked among the very first examples of the precise cartography of our
modern era. They remind us, moreover, that the making of really good
maps requires at least three key ingredients: great journeys of discovery;
first-class mathematical and cartographic skills; sophisticated
chronometers.
It was not until Harrison’s chronometer became generally available in
the 1770s that the third of these preconditions was fulfilled. This brilliant
invention made it possible for cartographers to fix longitude precisely,
something that the Sumerians, the Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks and the
Romans, and indeed all other known civilizations before the eighteenth
century were supposedly unable to do. It is therefore surprising and
unsettling to come across vastly older maps which give latitudes and
longitudes with modern precision.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The people of earth have been crossing the oceans since before Noah. When the ark landed, it landed on a mountain range area known before the flood as Ararat Mountains. Logic dictates that post flood land borders and water levels changed and re-settled, but certain areas remain present till this day and were there before the flood. These maps you are all looking at wondering "who this and that" are simply very old maps of earth. Passed on like the stories of the flood and many different nations will present documented stories...and so the maps too.

@letthereaderunderstand:
"Why do people assume that the areas charted were not accessible at the times these maps were made? " They don't seek, so they never find


@Serbsta "You don't see the controversy in them supposedly depicting Antarctica before it was 'officially' discovered?" No, because you yourself placed the word officially in inverted commas! It was not officially discovered post Christ's crucifixtion. Pre Noah they were sailing around dude.


@Spaz 490 -


@Spiritwarrior 11:11 "How is that for bending the mind just a little more?"...scholars should by now have learnt that Atlantis and it's people were destroyed in the flood...simple stuff...no mind bending needed, just literacy...



[edit on 25-1-2010 by ImperialMaj]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Telos
 


Excellent point Telos.

This map was made 5th of September 1739, so i could very well be they were having trouble with determining latitude. The text about those 9 rivers and the comparison to Siberia still has me wondering. I am gonna U2U a french member about a translation.

Peace



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


I'll chime in, since i am french and all (first post as well)

Cercle Polaire (polar Circle)

----------

Soupconnees. Le bassin terrestre de leurs fleuves etant plus grand que celui de LaMer glaciale arctique peut contenir
des 60 fleuves aussi considerables que ceux de siberie qui donnent les glaces du nord dont l'ecoulement se fait par les2. Debouquements
de L'islande etdu nouveau Detroit decouvert par les Russes.

- Suspected: The rivers from the Terrestial masses are greater than the Arctic Glacial Sea. These could contain at most 60 rivers, resembling those of Siberia which gives the ice flows from the 2. Debouquements (cartography map) shows iceland(?) and the new strait that was discovered by the Russians.

---------

Il doit y avoir ici le long et pres des cotes de l'amerique ou des terreins eleves dou s'ecoulent de 9de fleuves qui fournissent
de glaces la mere interieure conjecturee.


- There must be, close and hugging the cost of America, or elevated terrain's from where the 9th river flows and which provides the ice in the conjectured inland sea .

So there it is, translated from old french i might ad.

I thint that it does show Antarctica iced. In this map, they seem to be talking about icebergs between the two landmasses. The snow may not have covered the whole Antartica that we know it today, but does seem to me that the two land masses depicted in these maps are lighter than the other landmasses and may indeed represent frozen land!

I hope this helps

AcadianFury



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Acadianfury
 


Good translation except it's not 60 rivers. 60° is the latitude on the map. So [...]these could contain huge rivers like those in Siberia[...].

"gds" is short text for "grands". So [..]from where the large river flows[...].
edit : it's not a 9, it's a g

At Tasmania's latitude, the Antartica's coast is named Nouvelle Zélande pays fort élevé (New Zealand, very high land).

This map is based on other maps and a few facts and travel diaries.
There is a spot drawn near longitude 355° showing where Amerigo Vespucci came close to the continent on 3rd april 1503. He couldn't find a spot to land because of the steep coast. He saw no ice.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Manouche]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by serbsta
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


1. Most of these maps were made throughout the 16th and 18th centuries. No one says they weren't accessible during these times since naval technology was developed enough for an endeavor. They just simply weren't discovered.

2. I they drew a ship in proportion to the land I don't think it would be visible on the map. Perhaps some coasts look slightly different because of technological advances we have today giving us a better overview.

3. Ice Age's aren't myths, they're backed up by scientific data. From what I know simply sedimentary analysis through the use of core tubes can give results in regards to this, disproving or proving periods of severe colds.


Originally posted by Totalstranger
best thread in a while!

quick question, when were each of these maps "discovered"? what I mean is do any of them (I think the Piri does) have controversy surrounding them?


You don't see the controversy in them supposedly depicting Antarctica before it was 'officially' discovered?


yeah thats why I am calling FAKE. Occams Razor here people. everyone one here claims to be "educated" yet you fail miserably when it comes to science and logic



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Totalstranger
 


That's odd. It seems that the same could be said for yourself.

Something odd? Call it a fake!
Wonderful logic, buddy.


Also, speaking of logic. Occam's Razor isn't really all that logical.
Just sayin.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by JayinAR]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
oops...

[edit on 25/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Spirit Warrior 11:11
 


It's not 'bending the mind' but 'snapping the brain off at the neck'. It's baseless conjecture. We're trying to talk about facts here, not some insane idea devoid of substantiating evidence.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
The text within the continent of Antarctica reads:


Cercle Polaire
Soupconnees. Le bassin terrestre de leurs fleuves etant plus grand que celui de LaMer glaciale arctique peut contenir
des 60 fleuves aussi considerables que ceux de siberie qui donnent les glaces du nord dont l'ecoulement se fait par les2. Debouquements
de L'islande etdu nouveau Detroit decouvert par les Russes.

Il doit y avoir ici le long et pres des cotes de l'amerique ou des terreins eleves dou s'ecoulent de 9de fleuves qui fournissent
de glaces la mere interieure conjecturee.


Any French people on board?
...
[edit on 25/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]


This is old french so the translation can be subject to errors. But here is what I make of this:

"Presumed polar circle.
The drainage basin of their rivers is greater than what can contain the artic sea even considering the 60 rivers in Siberia that drains in the artic sea and in the new strait discovered by the russians.

There must be along or near the american coast elevated terrain to drain the rivers into the presumed interior sea."

This is by no means perfect, but as I said it is old french.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Star and flag for this topic. This is great, and I can`t wait to see what you guys come up with on the translation. You guys are fantastic. A big ol thumbs up for all of you.





posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Im pretty sure they did the best they could mapping these out as they didn't have planes or satellites then to map it all out. Awesome thread!



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Spirit Warrior 11:11
 


It's not 'bending the mind' but 'snapping the brain off at the neck'. It's baseless conjecture. We're trying to talk about facts here, not some insane idea devoid of substantiating evidence.


OT:

Maybe Spirit Warrior is just trying to be open minded about this. There is nothing wrong in that is there? Besides, there has never been anything published saying that Atlantis never existed, has there?



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 



maybe he dint know that ice can be as black, on the surface, as the ground
he couldnt land so he only saw it..





new topics
top topics
 
163
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join