UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Apr > Apr 18

Re: Ancient Piri Reis Map And UFOs? - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:09:40 EDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:27:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Ancient Piri Reis Map And UFOs? - Sparks

>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:21:44 -0400
>Subject: Re: Ancient Piri Reis Map And UFOs?

>>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:42:44 EDT
>>Subject: Ancient Piri Reis Map And UFOs?


>>This map and it's history have always perplexed me.

>>It flies in the face of convention and upends mainstream

>>It's a map of part of the Antarctica coastline that was drawn
>>300 years ago and based on maps that went back much further in
>>history. What's also of interest is that it's an exact map of
>>the coastline of the continent_without_ the ice.

The Piri Re'is map of 1513 is _not_ at all in any way shape or
form even close to being an "exact map of the coastline" of
Antarctica minus the ice. This is widespread misconception and a
major error on Hapgood's part, in what is otherwise an
outstanding contribution, in his book Maps of the Ancient Sea
Kings, which I still highly recommend as a classic.

Hapgood got the idea in his head that when subsurface ice
soundings in Antarctica for the IGY in 1957-8 showed some of the
land terrain deeply buried under the ice that this corresponded
exactly with the island-dotted outline shown in the Piri Re'is
map. It does not!

Hapgood did not realize that the scientific principle in geology
called glacial "isostasy" means that the weight of the
accumulated ice on top of the land depressed it down. It would
be very difficult to reconstruct the pre-glacial land forms but
you certainly can't just simplistically take away the average 1-
mile thick ice layer on a diagram and imagine that the land
before the ice was exactly like that.

If with billions of tons of ice on top there was land area at
roughly sea level, as Hapgood thought, then in actuality before
the ice pressed it down these would have been most likely a
range of mountains, not islands. The ice would have pushed down
the mountains by thousands of feet. It would have looked little
or nothing like what is depicted in the Piri Re'is map.

I was always disappointed by Hapgood's scientific error here,
and it seemed he was always pushing to try to prove that someone
had been mapping the globe before the Ice Age. Just proving
there were mappers soon after the Ice Age didn't seem to be
enough to Hapgood or of much interest to him - yet it would
still be an astounding development.

Hapgood had other maps showing Antarctica that were far more
accurate and modern-looking than the Piri Re'is map. The
Oronteus Finnaeus map of 1531 and other maps of that era, even
the famed Mercator maps, show Antarctica 300 years before it was
officially "discovered" by Palmer and Waddell in 1820-40. The
only real differences were that the Antarctic continent the
early mapmakers showed was too big and was rotated with respect
to the tip of South America - as if someone had a chart of
Antarctica but wasn't sure what scale it was drawn at or exactly
how it was positioned with the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, Hapgood was not as interested in these other maps
as he was with Piri Re'is, because they showed Antarctica with
much of its present ice sheet. I don't agree that Piri Re'is
shows Antarctica at all, with or without ice. It looks like
highly inaccurate junk to me, requiring pages and pages of
excuses by Hapgood to try to convince you that there was
something extraordinary there. While meanwhile Hapgood glossed
over the really extraordinary and obvious- at-a-glance early
maps of Antarctica when he went into these tedious defenses of
Piri Re'is. Yes he covered them later on in his book but he
devoted way too much attention to Piri Re'is.

>>Perplexing to this day it suggests applications of technological
>>achievement mainstream history says did not exist.

>>Are we really the top dog civilisation wise? Sure we're big but
>>who says big is the way to go? A smaller more dedicated
>>population could do quite well methinks.

I agree it was the product of a highly advanced ancient earth
civilization, just not UFO's or aliens. None of the maps that
Hapgood found look like satellite photos. They look like a human
product of numerous smaller maps with many small distortions and
errors, compiled into larger charts. Overall they look like the
entire planet had been mapped, but with a lot of errors, as if
an ancient seafaring human civilization had done the mapping
over a long period. The Piri Re'is map for example is so grossly
distorted and cobbled together from so many other maps that if
Hapgood had not singled it out for an excess of attention no one
would have looked twice at it.

Whereas the other maps Hapgood researched are far more
impressive than Piri Re'is, just not at satellite photo quality
or accuracy.

>>Who knows what achievements have been made and devices in use
>>that to us seem otherworldly.

>Hi Greg,

>I would recommend Graham Handcock's Fingerprints Of The Gods,
>which begins with a chapter on the Piri Reis map. It is indeed
>one of the more interesting mysteries that have yet to be
>explained, and Handcock does a good job of making them
>interesting and readable.

I disagree. I do not recommend Hancock (not "Handcock"). His
books are vacuous. Read the original Hapgood books.

>What appears to emerge from the 'map' is the fact that a far
>more advanced civilization existed 12,000 years ago than is now
>commonly accepted, but without any other artifacts the map
>appears to be an object out of time.

See discussion above. Hapgood was on a mission to prove a
maritime global civilization existed before the Ice Age, hence
such numbers as "12,000 years ago." The best evidence as I have
pointed out really points to a global sea peoples who mapped the
earth after the Ice Age. One of the few reputable scholars who
endorsed Hapgood's work, Prof Cyrus Gordon, agreed with him but
put the maritime civilization in about the 3000-2000 BC date

>The fact that the Antarctica coastline beneath the ice was only
>re-discovered with the use of satellite imaging makes it all the
>more interesting, since the last time it was visible there was
>no known 'civilization' advanced to the level of map making.

There was no satellite imagery in 1957-8. These were sub-surface
acoustic soundings done during the IGY and very limited
(soundings along the path of the scientific party as it crossed
the ice in a line, stopping to do soundings).

The ancient maps put forth by Hapgood look much too distorted to
be photos taken from space (which would imply UFO's or aliens or
perhaps humans in space in ancient times).

Also, I went over every single geographic feature listed with
latitude-longitude by Hapgood from the old maps, listed in the
back of his book, where he calculated the amount of error. He
claimed that longitudes were even more accurate than the
latitudes and that this was amazing because longitude could not
be determined at sea until the invention of a workable marine
chronometer ca. 1760-70 AD ("longitude" is simply "exact time
zone" and you need to keep the exact time or time zone from back
home at your home port without error for months and months as
you sail the world so that you can compare the exact time zone =
longitude at each new place you visit).

But I found that Hapgood was very sloppy in his tabulations of
both the ancient maps' lat-long coordinates as well as in his
modern lat-long coords. The longitudes were a little less, not
more, accurate than the latitudes. Yet still overall the
longitudes were accurate to within usually 1-2 degrees (about
70-140 miles at the equator maybe 50-100 miles at mid-
latitudes). And these accuracies were obtained at a time that
historians claim no one had even the foggiest notion of relative
longitudes between far regions of the world.

And the latitude accuracy was astonishing. Yes, latitudes could
be determined with astrolabes in ancient times, using the Pole
Star (Polaris), but even so, to find hundreds of places along
the entire European coastline mapped to within 1/2 to 1 degree
accuracy of latitude in the 1400's (the Dulcert Portolano maps,
etc.) is unimaginable. Today we have geodetic survey groups with
huge budgets to do this sort of mapping (or skip ahead to
satellite mapping). But who was doing that in the 1400's,
possibly 1300's or earlier (there are indications of great
antiquity as with river deltas shown not yet filled in, etc.)?
No one has any record in history of such an ancient mapping
project which would have been enormously expensive, as well as
seemingly unnecessary for any conceivable commerce to lots of
uninhabited areas, etc.

I also verified that Hapgood's maps really exist and are not
fakes by the way. There are various compilations of medieval and
other early maps by recognized cartographer historians such as
Nordenskiold which show the same maps printed in Hapgood's
books, plus a few that Hapgood missed.

>As with numerous other intriguing historical facets, the
>provenance of the Piri Reis map dead ends at the Library of
>Alexandria - if memory serves. I believe there are many who
>would agree that mankind's technology was probably set back many
>Centuries with the burning of that information, and we are only
>beginning to get a glimpse of the science and technology that
>has only recently been rediscovered.

If I recall correctly the only evidence of an Alexandria
connection were some Alexandrian faces on the map, not from any
text on the map.

Brad Sparks

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com