What's under Antarctica?

Originally posted by Hanslune
Yes that what he (Hapgood) suggested but that doesn’t mean you should believe him and one must ask why is the information for the caribbean so wrong?

Those islands on the Piri Reis map are not the Caribbean islands, but rather islands off the deglaciated coast of Antarctica! If you are going to attack Hapgood as well...then I guess that means a simultaneous attack on the military. I'll share a letter online.

Professor Charles H. Hapgood, of Keene College, contacted the US Air Force in 1960. In 1961, he received a response from the 8th Reconnaissance Technical Squadron's Cartographic section;

8 RECONNAISSANCE TECHNICAL SQUADRON (SAC)
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
Westover Air Force Base, Mass.

14 Aug 61

Mr. Charles H. Hapgood
Keene Teachers College
Keene, N.H.

Dear Professor Hapgood:

It is not very often that we have an opportunity to evaluate maps of ancient origin. The Piri Reis (1513) and Oronteus Fineaus (1531) maps sent to us by you, presented a delightful challenge, for it was not readily conceivable that they could be so accurate without being forged. With added enthusiasm we accepted this challenge and have expended many off duty hours evaluating your manuscript and the above maps. I am sure you will be pleased to know we have concluded that both of these maps were compiled from accurate original source maps, irrespective of dates. The following is a brief summary of our findings:

a. The solution of the portolano projection used by Admiral Piri Reis, ..checked in relationship to the grid computed by Mr. Richard W. Strachan (MIT), there is remarkably close agreement...It is our opinion that those who compiled the original map had an excellent knowledge of the continents covered by this map.

b. As stated by Colonel Harold Z. Ohlmeyer in his letter (July 6, 1960) to you, the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Laud, Antarctica, appears to be truly represented on the southern sector of the Piri Reis map. The agreement of the Piri Reis Map with the seismic profile of this area made by the Norwegian-British-Swedish Expedition of 1949, supported by your solution of the grid, places beyond a reasonable doubt the conclusion that the original source maps must have been made before the present Antarctic ice cap covered the Queen Maud Land coasts.

c. It is our opinion that the accuracy of the cartographic features shown in the Oronteus Fineaus Map (1531) suggests, beyond a doubt, that it also was compiled from accurate source maps of Antarctica, but in this case of the entire continent. Close examination has proved the original source maps must have been compiled at a time when the land mass and inland waterways of the continent were relatively free of ice. ..The comparison also suggests that the original source maps (compiled in remote antiquity) were prepared when Antarctica was presumably free of ice. The Cordiform Projection used by Oronteus Fineaus suggests the use of advanced mathematics. Further, the shape given to the Antarctic continent suggests the possibility, if not the probability, that the original source maps were compiled on a stereographic or gnomic type of projection (involving the use of spherical trigonometry).

d. We are convinced that the findings made by you and your associates are valid, and that they raise extremely important questions affecting geology and ancient history, questions which certainly require further investigation.

We thank you for extending us the opportunity to have participated in the study of these maps. The following officers and airmen volunteered their time to assist Captain Lorenzo W. Burroughs in this evaluation: Captain Richard E. Covault, CWO Howard D. Minor, MSgt Clifton M. Dover, MSgt David C. Carter, TSgt James H. Hood, SSgt James L. Carroll, and A1C Don R. Vance.

Antarctica Maps from Forbidden History

Are you also arguing with military officers who evaluated the maps? Hapgood? Or just me?

No I was expecting you to be knowledgeable about the PR map

Look buddy. Maybe you object to someone with a voluptuous chest talking about maps or something. But I do have a digital collection of over 10,000 maps that I've collected over the years. So far in your attacks on my credibility the only thing you've provided is 3rd rate pen sketches of South America when you claim to be disputing maps of Antarctica. I don't see how you can be attacking my credibility and knowledge of maps when the thread topic is ANTARCTICA and you haven't provided a link to even one credible source of Antarctica's subglacial coastline. If all that you can provide is a link to a pen sketch of South America with an inaccurate teeny-tiny sliver pen sketch of Antarctica's modern icy-coast (not the land beneath the ice)...then it's really not my credibility in question.

Originally posted by MapMistress

Those islands on the Piri Reis map are not the Caribbean islands, but rather islands off the deglaciated coast of Antarctica!

Yes they are! They are north of South America and west of Europe.

If you are going to attack Hapgood as well...then I guess that means a simultaneous attack on the military.

I will state quite categorically that the military officer who studied the map and drew that conclusion in the 1950s was very mistaken.

Meanwhile I would ask why the Piri Re'is map purports to show 'Antarctica' joined to South America and claims that this region was mapped by the Portuguese?

As for how Antarctica would look without ice, that's actually quite a difficult question. Firstly, sea levels would be much higher. But to counter that, without the weight of ice, Antarctica would rise up considerable due to isostasy (N America is still rising for that reason today). So the coastline would vary according to timescale.

Moreover, for Antarctica to be ice free we would have suppose the Arctic also ice free - further adding to sea levels.

All of which means that coastlines around the rest of the world would look totally different to how they do today.

Originally posted by MapMistress

Actually there's no such thing as one long ice age. The ice age happens in cycles. When the northern hemisphere is frozen, the southern hemisphere is melted due to the axis of the Earth. Because the north pole (Arctic Ocean) is all water, when the Northern hemisphere freezes the sea levels drop. But when the southern hemisphere is melted--there's land. When the southern hemisphere is frozen (like now) ice sheets cover Antarctica's land mass and the northern hemisphere melts.

The cycle lasts roughly 120,000-125,000 years and starts all over again. There's never been one constant long ice age, just cycles of freezes and melts. And POLLEN data shows that Antarctica melts each cycle.

Hmmm quite a novel new idea there. Never heard that one before.

So how come both hemispheres are glaciated at the moment?

And if Antarctica melted the sea levels would rise - so why were they lower during the last Glacial period? Especially given that whether the ocean surface is frozen or not does not affect sea levels - more Arctic sea ice would have no effect at all.

Not sure what palynological data you're referring to? Obviously, during interglacial (as now) the coastal fringe of Antarctic melts and some plants are able to exist there. The last interglacial (Eemian) was a little warmer than this one so it may even have been milder in West Antarctica 120,000 years ago. But it's been damned cold ever since.

Originally posted by Essan
I will state quite categorically that the military officer who studied the map and drew that conclusion in the 1950s was very mistaken.

Please go back and reread what I posted.

First I quoted the names of 8 military officers who did research on the Piri Reis map in 1961.
Captain Lorenzo W. Burroughs
Captain Richard E. Covault
CWO Howard D. Minor
MSgt Clifton M. Dover
MSgt David C. Carter
TSgt James H. Hood
SSgt James L. Carroll
A1C Don R. Vance

Then you jumped in to argue claiming that according to yourself that their research was "wrong" because as you claim it was "one man" in the 1950s. Please go back and reread. I didn't quote any research from the 1950s at all. The date on the Piri Reis Antarctica research that I posted was 1961. It wasn't the research of "one man" but rather 8 officers.

Second, in addition to the 8 officers named above doing their research on the Piri Reis map in 1961 there's a different study by a different officer in 1960, a year earlier. Harold Z. Ohlmeyer Lt. Colonel, USAF Commander.

Letter from another military officer researching the Piri Reis map to Hapgood.

6, July, 1960

Subject: Admiral Piri Reis Map

TO: Prof. Charles H. Hapgood
Keene College
Keene, New Hampshire

Dear Professor Hapgood,

Your request of evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed.

The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsular, is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.

The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.

This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap.

The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick.

We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.

Harold Z. Ohlmeyer Lt. Colonel, USAF Commander

from Antarctica- not always so cold and remote

So that makes a 9th military officer researching the Piri Reis map, a different year, not related to the study done by the previous 8 officers named.

Third, there's previous studies by other military officers in other branches of the military. The two quoted were Air Force branch, the next one is Navy branch research from the United States Navy Hydrographic Office.

In 1953, a Turkish naval officer sent the Piri Reis map to the Chief Engineer of the United States Navy Hydrographic Office. To evaluate it, the Chief Engineer asked the aid of Captain Mallery, an authority on old maps, who had previously worked with him.

After a long study, Mallery discovered the projection method used. Confirming this and other technical points, the Navy cartographers came to these conclusions:

1. Columbus had a map, on his historic voyage to America, which showed the coasts of Yucatan, Guatemala, South America to the Straits of Magellan and a large part of the Antarctic coast.

2. The original maps went back at least 5,000 years, and some data shown went back even farther. Part of the land areas shown had been buried under ice for twenty centuries or more.

3. Only highly trained survey teams and cartographers could have produced charts of such "amazing accuracy." Their operations must have covered the entire earth.

Piri Reis map from Sacred Texts

So that's now at least 10 different officers from different branches of the military (Navy or Air Force), different units within those branches, and different years of research.

As for how Antarctica would look without ice, that's actually quite a difficult question.

Fourth I posted links to maps of Antarctica's deglaciated coastline.

Wikipedia: Subglacial Topography and Bathymetry of Antarctica by Heinrich

Map of Antarctic Sub-Ice Topography, showing regions below present sea level in blue

Above map from Online Lab of Geology 2161, U of Minnesota

British Antarctic Survey Maps

Comparison of Piri Reis map to the coastline BENEATH the ice of Antarctica

Comparison of Piri Reis map to Antarctica-ImageShack

Originally posted by Essan
Not sure what palynological data you're referring to?

Different parts of the Antarctic coastline are deglaciated at different time frames. In the Northern hemisphere, there's the LGM and everything is locked in ice. The melt begins but the melt stops and there's a short refreeze known as the Younger Dryas. But in the Southern hemisphere it is the opposite. There's no refreeze in the southern hemisphere during the Younger Dryas but warming conditions. Some scientists call it the "cold reversal", others "assymetrical" or opposite.

This north-south asymmetry is consistent with the bipolar seesaw hypothesis which proposes a response to changes in the thermohaline circulation and heat transport, causing Antarctica to cool when Greenland warms and vice versa Broecker-1998.
-snip-

After a small cooling (0.6°C) at 11 kyr BP, SSTs exhibited a broad maximum between 5.5 and 8 kyr BP, reaching the highest values of the whole record (19.8°C) at 7.5 kyr BP. The record shows small SST variability during this Holocene broad thermal maximum, a period followed by a gradual decrease of 2°C towards modern SST values.

Antarctic deglacial pattern in a 30 kyr record

A different study showing a similar deglaciation pattern.

Hall, B.L. 2009. Holocene glacial history of Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic islands. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 2213-2230.
...in several areas, ice extent was less than at present in mid-Holocene time...the first Neoglacial ice advances occurred at ~5.0 ka," and that "glaciers in all areas underwent renewed growth in the past millennium."
Glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula & Sub-Antarctic Islands

In this study, it says that temperatures in the Southern Ocean were warmer during the early Holocene than they are now.

The relatively warm late winter-spring anomaly is stored below the shallower summer mixed layer until next winter when it is released, resulting in relative warm July temperatures in the early Holocene, especially over the Southern Ocean where it is up to 3.5°C above the modern level.
The Holocene climate evolution in the high-latitude Southern Hemisphere

Also The last déglaciation in Antarctica

Areas of Antarctica NOT Covered by Glaciers LGM to present

#1. Lützow-Holm Bay

Sawagaki & Hirakawa-1997, Omoto-1977 and Hayashi & Yoshida-1994 concluded that ice retreat from the Lützow-Holm Bay area occurred before 30 ka BP, and that it had not been ice-covered during the LGM.
Antarctic Glacial History

#2. Maud Land area, the area in question on the Piri Reis map.

Taken together, the evidence can be interpreted to suggest that the EAIS did not expand significantly during the LGM in Eastern Weddell Sea and Dronning Maud Land (Anderson et al., 2002)
same link as #1

#3. Bunger Hills, ice sheet not thick did not extend very far at LGM according to both Adamson (1992a) and Colhoun (1997).
#4. Anvers Island, Marguerite Bay

The inner shelf areas around Anvers Island and in Marguerite Bay, as well as George VI Sound, were ice-free at 7-6 ka BP (Clapperton & Sugden-1982; Kennedy & Anderson-1989; Harden et al.-1992; Pope & Anderson-1992; Pudsey et al.-1994; Hjort et al.-2001).
same link as #1

#5. Palmer Land had iceberg rafting (not solid) 11,000 BP.
#6. Schirmacher Oasis
#7. Untersee Oasis
#8. MacRobertson Land varying dates on inner shelf and outer ice shelf retreats
#9. Vestfold Hills

The oldest radiocarbon dates, giving minimum ages for the initial deglaciation and the incursion of marine water onto coastal areas, as well as for the initiation of aquatic moss growth, are between 8,6-8,4 ka BP (Pickard & Seppelt-1984; Fitzsimons & Domack-1993; Bird et al.-1991; Fulford-Smith & Sikes-1996)...Domack et al. (1991b) found evidence on the shelf for a middle Holocene readvance of floating ice tongues some time within the interval 7,3-3,8 ka BP
same link as #1

#10 Windmill Islands deglaciated 8-5 ka BP
#11 Victoria Land

After the deglaciation in Terra Nova Bay, the ice shelves entering the bay were less extensive than today (Orombelli et al.-1991, Baroni-1994, Baroni & Orombelli-1994b). The ice margins stood 2-5 km inside their present margins between 6.2 and 5.3 ka BP.
same link as #1

Most of the glacier research data shows that Antarctica had a very different history than the northern hemisphere in many cases asymmetrical or opposite of the North Pole.

reply to post by j619pinoy


read graham hancock - fingerprints of the gods. its all in there,and much more!!!

Originally posted by Marduk
Clues don't count unless they are based on actual evidence
what you mean is that you either made it up or someone else did
pitiful really
i wonder why you bother

what business is it of yours if people on this site believe in lost cities or shadow governments or flying spinny things in the sky?

you say you wonder why this person bothered, when they were obviously here talking about something they believe in, whereas you were only here to make yourself look smart and feel better by rubbishing their claims, now, with that having been said , i wonder why YOU bother

reply to post by fairguy


Marduk is long gone from this site. But you can find her on the JREF board in the science sub forum

reply to post by j619pinoy


Evidence points to Earth having had a magical pre-history. There's some confounding facts surrounding archeology, geology, astronomy and evolution that are hard to explain using simple "what we've seen happen before is how everything came to happen" science theology that leads me to believe that many of the taken as fact theories out there are severely lacking in acknowledging the 'x-factor' factor. For instance plate tectonics may have been more volatile to an extreme magnitude that is hard to imagine at certain key points in time. But this theory is not recognized by mainstream science like many other theories. Truth is likely far more interesting than easy to accept theories which may for the most part turn out to be false in reality. It would be a conundrum of delusion by people that are more comfortable accepting boring easily believed theories than the truth despite evidence that is not conclusive to their theories. There are people that prefer creating their own boring false-reality than accepting their ignorance and the mysterious nature of true reality.