Antarctica home to the legendary Atlantis ?

reply to post by Mayura


I've read old textbooks on the subject while doing research on the development of the theory of plate tectonics. Your claims about TPTB is simply a rubbish claim to gloss over your failed research.

Hello stereologist,

Originally posted by stereologist

 

I still don't see how a map with such major mistakes such as the location of Zanzibar, which should have been well known at the time, can be trusted to any degree to show that there was a southern continent.

Obviously Zanzibar’s location wasn’t as well known as you might expect. The error is not unique to Finé’s map. Sebastian Münster and other notable cartographers were guilty of misrepresenting the island as well.

The Magellan expedition of 1519-1522 should have encountered the southern continent if it had its claimed position. No such land was found.

The farthest south the Magellan expedition ventured was within the Strait of Magellan. The crews sailed southward clinging to the South American coastline looking for passage. Once it was found and they shot through to the Pacific, they sailed northward to reach a latitude shared with the Spice Islands—their intended target—then sailed eastward until they came upon it.

Simply put, Magellan came nowhere close to seeing Antarctica, but just as Finé borrowed his errant depiction of Zanzibar from a previous cartographer, Schöner similarly appears to have borrowed an ancient map of Antarctica to errantly portray the tiny little landform now known as Tierra del Fuego.

-Doug

Originally posted by stereologist

 

I am curious if you can tell us how you created your maps, how you alter the images or remap the images of the maps to show your overlays. I see differences between the old map and your reconstructions you use in overlays.

Oronce Finé 1534 World Map. (Click image to enlarge)

Oronce Finé 1531 World Map. (Click image to enlarge)

Both of the maps above were created by Finé and are similar depictions of the southern continent. The first image, Finé's 1534 World Map, generates a grand distortion of Antarctica looking nothing like our normal concept of the continent because of its location along the bottom of a cordiform projection. I am sure you have noticed on most modern world maps—cylindrical projections specifically—that Antarctica is similarly distorted and elongated along the bottom of the rectangular design. It's the nature of the map's design or chosen projection.

The second map is Finé’s 1531 map and due to its placement on a double-cordiform projection, there is far less distortion, but it is still distorted. The crease of the heart-shape splays open and bends back the continent between Eastern and Western Antarctica so that Western Antarctica appears to be drooping.

So here is my point; Can you tell by looking at the two renderings above of the southern continent that they are virtually the same design? For some it could prove a bit difficult. Obviously it would be much easier if we viewed both designs rendered to the same type of projection.

Hence, the comparative images in my earlier post were both rendered as polar projections, transferred coordinate-by-coordinate. In this way, both the modern and Finé’s map of Antarctica can similarly be viewed with exactly the same and the least amount of distortion, as if each were placed on a globe and then viewed directly from the South Pole.

-Doug

reply to post by Doug Fisher

So here is my point; Can you tell by looking at the two renderings above of the southern continent that they are virtually the same design? For some it could prove a bit difficult. Obviously it would be much easier if we viewed both designs rendered to the same type of projection.

It's not really possible for someone to do better than guess that they are the same. I see similarities, but they may be very different projections making it difficult to claim that they are the same.

Like I said before, there are some striking errors in the map such as the location of Zanzibar and the fact that Magellan's voyage should have sailed through the continent as indicated on the map. Also, I see some differences between the map and the reconstruction you have produced. You seem to have done much more than simply remap coordinates since the maps would not overlay. You have changed the size of the continent indicated on the old map.

reply to post by stereologist

It's not really possible for someone to do better than guess that they are the same. I see similarities, but they may be very different projections making it difficult to claim that they are the same.

Firstly, yes IT IS possible to do better than guess. Both maps are delineated with longitude and latitude. What more does a person need?

Secondly, they are indeed—not ‘may be’— very different projections, but again with longitude and latitude clearly marked throughout the map, I and many others would have little difficulty discerning that the two maps above share virtually the same depiction of a southern continent.

Like I said before, there are some striking errors in the map such as the location of Zanzibar and the fact that Magellan's voyage should have sailed through the continent as indicated on the map.

You seem fixated on errors such as Zanzibar and little interested in the SIGNIFICANCE of how they came to be. The Piri Reis map, which some here are likely familiar with, goes out of its way to acknowledge that many portions of the map were borrowed from much earlier maps including errors worse than Finé's similarly borrowed positioning of Zanzibar. This sets a precedent for Schöner’s 1524 world globe, allowing that he similarly referenced older maps for his designs. I am only positing the likelihood that he had at his disposal an ancient map of Antarctica.

And just to be clear, Magellan did not sail to or ‘through’ Antarctica and I would never suggest that he did. His voyage is logged in full and we know pretty well the course he traveled.

Magellan sailed through the strait that now bears his name. Upon receiving word of Magellan’s discovery, cartographers attempted to portray the southern coast of the strait, but without knowledge of the southern landmass’ full size, cartographers like Schöner were left to their own devices to determine how to render it. As I said before, I believe Schöner may have been overwhelmed by a map of Antarctica that possessed the very two features discovered by Magellan, a prominent bay and two islands grouped together, and scaled the map to his globe convinced he had discovered the missing piece of the puzzle.

Also, I see some differences between the map and the reconstruction you have produced. You seem to have done much more than simply remap coordinates since the maps would not overlay. You have changed the size of the continent indicated on the old map.

Below is a likeness of the continent copied DIRECTLY from Schöner’s 1524 globe by Charles Hapgood and displayed on page 85 of his book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, 1996.ed. and below it my polar projection of Finé’s map sans latitudinal/longitudinal delineations.


Johannes Schöner's 1524 globe.

Oronce Finé 1531 World Map. (Click image to enlarge)

Hopefully comparing these two renderings will help you realize that your accusation that I did “MUCH more than simply remap coordinates” on the Finé rendering is a bit over the top. The only thing I can do beyond this is ask you to make your own polar projection of Finé's map and then let us compare. You can snag a polar grid from this website.

As for “changing the size of the continent,” as already stated many times, Schöner and Finé clearly overscaled the map in error so I’ve resized both modern Antarctica and Finé’s Antarctica to similar sizes for comparative purposes.

-Doug

And just to be clear, Magellan did not sail to or ‘through’ Antarctica and I would never suggest that he did. His voyage is logged in full and we know pretty well the course he traveled.

But if the southern continent was as shown on the map, then he would have. Magellan's voyage showed that the map was in error. I made the following statement.

the fact that Magellan's voyage should have sailed through the continent as indicated on the map.

I thought that was fairly clear. By the time of Magellan's voyage it should have been clear that no southern continent as large as the one on the map could exist.

Hopefully comparing these two renderings will help you realize that your accusation that I did “MUCH more than simply remap coordinates” on the Finé rendering is a bit over the top.

Not at all. I was looking at the map by Fine. I looked at the lower of the two maps you just posted. I looked at your rendition of that map. The two have differences and ones not simply addressed by scaling.

So now we are at the meat of the matter. How did you come up with your version of the Fine map of a southern continent? Did you do this by hand?

As for “changing the size of the continent,” as already stated many times, Schöner and Finé clearly overscaled the map in error so I’ve resized both modern Antarctica and Finé’s Antarctica to similar sizes for comparative purposes.

And how did you do this step? Did you do this by trial and error? Did you do this by hand?

I've done lots of projections and these should not be difficult to explain.

reply to post by stereologist

I thought that was fairly clear. By the time of Magellan's voyage it should have been clear that no southern continent as large as the one on the map could exist.

You are absolutely wrong here. By the time of Magellan's voyage AND long afterward, it WAS NOT clear whether a southern continent existed at the tip of South America or not. This is why these maps came into existence AFTER Magellan’s voyage. No one had yet determined the full size of the land known as Tierra del Fuego. They were only familiar with its northern shore which bordered Magellan’s strait. Below is an image depicting Magellan’s route through the strait, which would have been the farthest Europeans had ventured south on the South American continent:

Magellan's route through the strait. (Click image to enlarge)

It wasn’t until nearly 100 years later in 1616 when William C. Schouten sailed around Tierra del Fuego in search of an alternate route to the Pacific that the actual size of Tierra del Fuego was finally realized.

So now we are at the meat of the matter. How did you come up with your version of the Fine map of a southern continent? Did you do this by hand?

Well to be honest it was created digitally via a vector based drawing application, but you do realize it could have been drawn nearly as accurately by hand. How do you think Finé’s maps were generated?

And how did you do this step [resize both modern Antarctica and Finé’s Antarctica to similar sizes]?

Scaling can be easily performed on either vector based or bitmapped images using various computer programs. It's not the rocket science that you are making it out to be.

Did you do this by trial and error? Did you do this by hand?

You really should familiarize yourself with the concept of ‘scaling’. It would prove invaluable to this conversation. I have absolutely no idea how scaling can be done by trial and error. Perhaps if I chose to be blindfolded.

And although I did scale the images digitally, you need to realize that scaling can be done by hand as well.

I've done lots of projections...

You are making it very difficult for me to believe this, but I will take your word for it.

-Doug

You are absolutely wrong here.

Sorry son, you are absolutely wrong. I was not talking about the Straits of Magellan. I was talking about Magellan's voyage across the Indian Ocean.

Here I roughed out the old Antarctica over Magellan's voyage.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd1505a20404.jpg[/atsimg]
Look at the voyage map. In the middle of the Indian Ocean Magellan is as far south as the Cape of Good Hope. The Fine map shows Antarctica well north of that point.

It's not the rocket science that you are making it out to be.

Who is making it out to be rocket science? I'm asking questions and you seem to be evasive about what you did. If you did this, then you should be able to explain what you did. IS there a problem in explaining the process you took?

Well to be honest it was created digitally via a vector based drawing application

Was that so hard to state?

What sort of data do you have? What program did you use? Can you share the data?

Scaling can be easily performed on either vector based or bitmapped images using various computer programs. It's not the rocket science that you are making it out to be.

There are many ways to scale data. What method did you use? If you "eyeballed" the scaling, then say something like yes. Was it linear? What sort of scaling did you use?

You really should familiarize yourself with the concept of ‘scaling’.

I know a lot about scaling. You seem to be unable to express what you did. Why is that? You make a claim and you seem to be unable to explain yourself. It sounds to me like you fudged the data and now are making a poor attempt to cover up. Or it is possible that you used a program and don't understand what the software did and are not sure if things are correct, but they looked good so you accepted the result.

What software did you use? What vector format do you have available?

reply to post by stereologist

Look at the voyage map. In the middle of the Indian Ocean Magellan is as far south as the Cape of Good Hope. The Fine map shows Antarctica well north of that point.

Sorry about that, but you weren’t clear about which part of Magellan’s voyage you were referring to. You said, “Magellan's voyage should have sailed through the continent as indicated on the map.” The map's only displayed 'indication' of Magellan’s encounter with the continent of course is at the Strait of Magellan and my reply was absolutely right in response to that, but your use of the word ‘through’ was puzzling as was highlighted in my response, and in hindsight, I should have sought clarification.

Regardless, the fact that the continent does impede Magellan’s path, just adds further credence that Schöner was not relying fully on logged coordinates from Magellan’s voyage. Primary reliance on scaling a map of Antarctica to the strait and the Unfortunate Islands, however, would explain the error.

Was it linear? What sort of scaling did you use?

Obviously this is irrelevant. We’ve already acknowledged that Finé’s map is scaled 2-3 times that of the actual continent. Aspect ratio and proportion are all that matter here and they can be fully maintained by accurately plotting to a polar grid of any size or scale.

What sort of data do you have? What program did you use? Can you share the data??

I’d be more than happy to share the data. I have the source data saved to an old model 1531 woodcut.

Your best source is the original source. Why would you want my data when it would only allow you to recreate my design? A design you suspect to be in error. Generate your own polar projection from the original source as I have done and then let's compare. I am as curious as anyone else here to see the distortion you emphatically accused me of creating earlier and look forward to correcting it.

Continued...

...continuation of reply to post by stereologist
I searched the Internet for another version of Finé’s map on a polar projection so that you would not have to rely solely on my rendering, but did not find one. It turns out though that Hapgood actually provided a polar projection of Finé’s Antarctic continent on the same page as his 1524 projection. Below you can see both his and my rendering and see that there is very little differece, but where I am presenting mine on the polar grid it was created on, Hapgood has repositioned his after rendering it in order to place the South Pole in its correct location on the continent.

Hapgood's Polar Projection. (Click image to enlarge)

My Polar Projection. (Click image to enlarge)

Hapgood’s map was obviously plotted and drawn by hand, but he had the benefit of working from the original source whereas I relied on a copy, one of fairly high resolution and clarity though. My map was rendered by placing this 'source data' on its own CAD layer for immediate reference and confirmation of accurate transference to a polar grid which I created on a separate layer.

Regions extending toward the equator or center of Finé's map required very little adjustment as these sections could be aligned and plotted almost directly onto the polar grid.

Areas of Finé's map away from the equator and closer to the perimeter, however, are severely distorted and required more effort as there is a significant amount of curvature and elongation applied. Coordinates at the intersection of latitudes and longitudes were easily plotted, but coastlines between required some approximation similar to what Finé would have experienced when plotting the continent to either his cordiform or double-cordiform projection. My process, however, was aided substantially by replicating the coastline along with its associated curved section of the grid in vector format then removing much of the curvature, and finally scaling it to its corresponding section on the polar grid.

Rest assured that my map is about as accurate a polar projection as can be produced and if you were capable of accurately converting Finé’s map to a polar projection, which I think would be great for further confirmation, you would find very little difference between our two renderings and Hapgood’s.

-Doug

Was it linear? What sort of scaling did you use?

Obviously this is irrelevant. We’ve already acknowledged that Finé’s map is scaled 2-3 times that of the actual continent. Aspect ratio and proportion are all that matter here and they can be fully maintained by accurately plotting to a polar grid of any size or scale.

That's a stunningly odd statement to make. Of course the transformations are important. The issue is that you cannot compare the maps without transforming one to the other.

You go on to make the following statement.

My process, however, was aided substantially by replicating the coastline along with its associated curved section of the grid in vector format then removing much of the curvature, and finally scaling it to its corresponding section on the polar grid.

The question again is how did you scale, i.e. transform, the data? You state "removing much of the curvature". How did you do this? You say you scaled the data. I ask how you scaled it. You say that irrelevant. Well, it's not. How did you change one map projection to the other? You are purposely avoiding telling us how you did it. I have no idea why you are being evasive. I doubt you are trying to hide anything. It would be nice if you could tell me how you did the work.

I asked what software you used and what format you have the data. You've hinted at using a CAD package. Which one and what format do you have for the data?

I am as curious as anyone else here to see the distortion you emphatically accused me of creating earlier and look forward to correcting it.

Where does it say that? I never made such a statement. I said there are mistakes in the map. My point being that that although the map has errors in it, how can you rely on some things as being correct.

Is the Finé map you've posted the best version you have? Do you have anything that is a large image of the map?

Mayura..If you believe that tripe about ancient nuclear wars and Atlantis and Lemuria destroying each other in that way you should never criticize anyone elses ideas.
Expanding Earth Theory? How exactly does that work I wonder? I can't recall a measurement of earth with the phrase To Be Continued next to it.
And then saying you were trying to "open" some minds like you are treating us to some caveat of knowledge we just can't understand in our brainwashed state...give it up.
Yes i know some of you passionately believe in these things and kudos to you but when i see people constantly jumping on someone who is arrogant to their beliefs and ideas, condescending in how they even answer posts it just disgusts me when I continue to see it done.
Is this not the forum for exchange of ideas? Well..when your ideas are so far out there and there isn't one shred of evidence to support them (unless RA Salvatore has become an archeologist and we are looking at the history of Baldurs Gate) then you must expect some flack for it. To turn into a child who doesn't like when someone else is playing with his toys is sad.

That being said...many people bring up a great idea about Antarctica and the whole lost civilization thing. I avoid saying Atlantis since as I have gotten older I have learned to accept that Atlantis is a story and nothing more. I think in Plato's time there were cities and whatnot that had already sunk or were sinking. So to create a story about a flood destroyed civilization wouldn't have been much of a stretch. Hell....so many cultures have disaster stories as their "re-beginnings" or beginnings that it seems a very logical thing to say there are buried civilizations under the sea

I do believe that is is arrogance to look at all we have discovered so far and say "This is it and all there is." We know for a fact that there are missing structures and cities on land we continue to look for. Some turn out to be legends, some are true.

Do I think 200,000 years ago someone was sitting in a high rise apartment complex in Antarctica watching their favorite sport on TV? No. Do I believe that an ancient civilization could have been there? Yes.

It galls me when people on all sides of this debate are as certain as their words seem on these subjects. Hasn't a majority of our beliefs throughout our recorded history been dis-proven? Or at least some pretty damn big ones.

I would think though that any archaeologist looking for that next great discovery would use satellite imagery all over Antarctica and use the same methodology they used to find the huge city in Peru they surveyed a few months back. I would bet on some discovery since it seems every single major landmass that has been hospitable has been settled. Is it a stretch to find a settlement that corresponds to the last time Antarctica was ice free? Yep. But with the Piri Re'is map one has wonder where those measurements on the land came from. How can a map be that detailed if it wasn't ice free in tens of thousands of years? Lucky guess or lost information?

Anyone interested in seeing an ancient map of what earth looked like with Atlantis and Lemuria take a look at Sheldan Nidle's DVD called "Journey to Joy" if you can post it, please do. I would if I knew how. Antarctica is not Atlantis


www.paoweb.com...

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Sargoth]

reply to post by crichton13


Thank you for this info, I think I'm going to dig into this myself, right now. I've actually, in all my time chasing Atlantis, never heard about the civilization possibly being that of the Minoans..

You are looking at the wrong pole, Atlantis is in the northern hemisphere off the shore of Iceland beneath the water, actually half way between Ireland and Iceland

reply to post by LUXUS


Howdy Luxus

Is this a theory of yours or have you gone out and confirmed it?

reply to post by atlantiswatusi


The piri map shows IMO the islands from South America up to the Sandwich islands. Not really antarctic land.