It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does an OLD Map make a YOUNG Earth? Or did Aliens help with the drawing?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Lusitaniax
 

Good words. The evidence is undeniable, just how advanced were we back then, and when? We seem to think that our current civilization is the most advanced that the planet has encountered, but our society is extremely fragile. Something as relatively mundane as a large solar flare could send the whole planet into chaos and render our technology defunct. An iceage would send us back to square 1.




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lusitaniax
How was it possible to build the Gizeh pyramides oriented to face the four cardinal directions: true north, south, east, and west, without knowing that the Earth is a sphere ? Or how could one have built most ancient pyramids on Earth without being aware of the value of "pi" which was built into the Great Pyramid of Giza, hundreds of years before the Greeks allegedly discovered it ? etc etc etc etc


edit on 25-11-2010 by Lusitaniax because: format text


Could you walk me through the details of this? Is it true the Egyptian Paramids are on the center longitude and center latitude points? Thay would be something?

About the sphere part...wouldn't any placement of an item "on" the equator (latitude) point make it in the middle of the plus-sign, so to speak?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Remember navigation at that time was before it was possible to determine a ships latitude (North to South position) in the Southern Hemisphere. This was because the known method involved sighting the angle of the only fixed star - the North Star - which cannot be seen in the Southern Hemisphere because you would be on the under side of the ball, so to speak and could see upward (space wise).

Despite this, the OP’s map shows details and accurate latitude placement of many known islands in that part of the world…pretty nest huh? A fellow named Hapgood conjectured that the Piri Re'is map is plotted out in plane geometry, containing latitudes and longitudes at right angles in a traditional "grid"; yet is it possible/obvious it was copied from an earlier map that was projected using spherical trigonometry?



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 
There is lots of information about this on the internet, there are several very interesting researchers on these subjects. The two main researchers are Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock, but there are several other websites explaining this, even Wikipedia.

Check this one regarding the value "pi":

www.gizapyramid.com...

Check these ones regarding the orientation and other very interesting details:

en.wikipedia.org...
www.grahamhancock.com...
robertbauval.co.uk...

Good luck ! I need to sleep now, its 0300 in Portugal, but I have a day off tomorrow ! Yesssss !



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Lusitaniax
 


L,

Thanks for the links, I looked them over...

Hope you had a good nights rest and I'm off today as well...



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crutchley29
I'm going to grab the popcorn and see you dodge more bullets.


They ran out of ammo...??

Funny how less skeptics show when their argument isn't so clear.

I hope you saw my other reply to you.

To quote Bill O'reilly, "at least you came on the show"



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Well either the map is fake, or antarctica doesn't have as much ice as we're led to believe.

I believe a mr. Skipper from Marsanomalyresearch.com wrote about that very idea not too long ago?

Just throwing out that maybe for consideration purposes.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Well, ok then .. I'll give it a shot


Isn't the controversy surrounding von Daniken's conclusion paramount to the conclusion itself?

In other words, shouldn't the first question be: Is this indeed a map of Antarctica?
edit on 30-11-2010 by scraze because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by scraze
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Well, ok then .. I'll give it a shot


Isn't the controversy surrounding von Daniken's conclusion paramount to the conclusion itself?

In other words, shouldn't the first question be: Is this indeed a map of Antarctica?
edit on 30-11-2010 by scraze because: (no reason given)


Does it match the coast line? If so....yes!

Does it not?.....Then No!

Your thoughts accordingly?

Thx for stopping by...



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hybridkate
I've seen this years ago. Clearly you would have to have had an arial perspective to have drawn such details...Theres always going to be a skeptic there to debate the color of the sky. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. If it looks like an alien map thats because it probably is!



Why do you think that DO you actually know how the map maker worked out the shapes of the coastline and is the part claimed to be Antarctica could just be the South American coastline


Look at the history of map making aliens my A**
edit on 1-12-2010 by wmd_2008 because: spelling



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 

Apologies for the delay, I got a bit distracted while formulating my thoughts accordingly. Actually, I'm still not sure how to go about this. I think it's crucial to validate the premise that this is Antarctica, before we can use logical deductions to make, for example, a statement relating to the age of the earth.

But, including your OP, most posts in this thread already accept the premise. The burden of proof appears to have been lifted, so to say. There is already a discussion concerning the premise's implications in response to the OP.
Since there is enough material on the premise to fill a thread on its own, it appears to me that I'd possibly disrupt an otherwise interesting and stimulating discussion by interjecting this issue.

On the other hand, your intent seems to be to draw serious conclusions, not just to speculate. In that case it's just as much in your interest to focus on the validity of the premise, even though it's arguably the most boring part of the story. The implications are exciting, but figuring out the geometrical or historical probability of this being Antarctica itself is mostly just tedious work.

Long story a bit longer: I couldn't find a high-resolution overlay of Piri Reis's map and Antarctica's (solid) coast, so I've downloaded a few things in order to make one. There are three problems with performing a proper comparison though:
1. The map appears to be azimuthal equidistant projection, and I'll have to figure out how to use the software I have to render such projections of Antarctica to compare. Orthogonal comparisons won't do.
2. The center of the projection is a subject of debate. Von Daniken stated that Cairo is the center of the projection, Dr. Dutch proposes the center is just below Nigeria, in the Atlantic Ocean (skeptic linky). So it appears there is a number of projections to compare the map with.
3. Making a clean yet detailed trace-over of Piri Reis is a tedious job.

If you're indeed interested in the validity of the premise apart from its implications, then I'll try a bit harder to get useful comparisons. At the moment, I'm trying as well, but I always work faster when people are expecting results
. I can't guarantee anything of course - there are a lot of variables, including my abilities - but I can try! :]



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pierre6000

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 






whoopps.....

I'm sure there was a valid point in there...pls try again, ok?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by scraze
 



No problem....

No hurry....

Glad you are engaged here....

We'll talk more after I get back home...in Vegas right now...

I appreciate the time and effort and your wise "scientific method" approach...please keep invested here....



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 
Sorry for my late reply ... circumstances ... regarding your question if it is possible that the Piri reis map was copied from an earlier map that was projected using spherical trigonometry, my answer is yes. It would have been impossible to do it otherwise because of the way map features are associated with geographic locations. Knowledge of spherical trigonometry is not even enough in this case, they had to be aware of the precise curvature of Earth, and of the fact that Earth is not a perfect sphere. The only way to do this perfectly is if one is able to study Earth from ... space.

Another question is who else knew about this in the 16th century, as Piri reis got this information from several other maps. The age of modern maritime discovery began in 1434 when Gil Eanes (sent by Henry the Navigator) passed Cape Bojador, Madeira had already been discovered in 1419, the Azores in 1427, Cape Verde Islands in 1445, Portuguese Guinea 1453, they reached the area of what is today Sierra Leone in 1460 etc, and they reached the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa in 1487, which is 5 years before Columbus reached America. As you can see the Portuguese had already been exploring the Atlantic for almost a century when Columbus reached America. The objective was to reach India and China, not the American continent. Apparently, the Portuguese knew how to get there since the very beginning, the issue was not the direction but the means to get there. Henry the Navigator designed and started the project of sailing around Africa to reach the far-east but he died in 1460 ! Columbus requested ships from the Portuguese king to reach the far-east by sailing west but the Portuguese king refused, and later Columbus went to Spain that had no specific maritime project at all. The Treaty of Tordesillas (1493/94) was negotiated by the Portuguese so that the line that separated the world was located in what is now west Brazil and ... Brazil was "accidentally" discovered in 1500 ... 6 years after the treaty ! This gave Portugal control over a huge part of South America.

These are clear indications that the Portuguese knew much more than we think. It is said that when the Templars sacked Jerusalem and Constantinople they also found secrets from the past, including maps. When King Philip of France and the Pope convicted the Templars in 1307 in Europe, Portugal refused to do the same as the order had helped the Portuguese Kings in several key battles against the Arabs in the Iberian Peninsula which eventually led to the formation of Portugal as we know it today. The Templars had a fleet that disappeared,
probably to Portugal, and they loaded whatever they could on those ships ... Portuguese and eventually Spanish ships had the red cross of the Templars on their sails !...

It´s too bad that Lisbon was hit by an earthquake in 1755 that destroyed several Royal key buildings, where most national secrets and classified/secret documents were kept since Lisbon became the capital. These documents were lost, probably thousands of documents that could answer all these questions.

Even Columbus´ true identity was probably lost, however there is a very interesting possibility which you can study here, you need to take your time, but it really makes sense to lots of people:

www.dightonrock.com...

Good luck !



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join