+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14492
Total Topics: 265
Most Online Today: 12
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Lost Cities and Civilizations  (Read 13246 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31427
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2015, 03:11:52 am »
Second and final part of:

Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
The Consensus Historical View that Piri Reis used South American Coastline maps made by Columbus


Corneille Wytfliet’s map of 1597

Quote
It wasn't until 1616-1624 that the the southern tip of South America was mapped.
The discovery of the Le Maire Strait and Cape Horn by the Dutch mariners Jacques Le Maire and Willem Corneliszoon Schouten in 1616 at last provided explorers and merchants with a viable alternative to the vagaries of the Magellan Strait.


Quote
Published before the Dutchmen Jacques Le Maire (1585–1616) and Willem Corneliszoon Schouten (d. 1625) rounded Cape Horn (1616), the map shows the Strait of Magellan separating Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, which still was considered to be part of a vast southern continent. The charm of the map lies in its depiction of Patagonian giants, the mythical        race of large people first mentioned by Antonio Pigafetta in his chronicle of Ferdinand Magellan’s voyage.  Bertius’s note next to the illustration states that the giants can reach ten feet in height   :o and that they paint their bodies in various colors from diverse herbs.  ;D

Quote
It was not until 1624 that another Dutch explorer, Jacques L’Hermite, charted the islands and waters around the cape, proving that Cape Horn was really an island.

Quote
Rounding Cape Horn, of course, would prove to have serious weather issues of its own—ones that continue to confront and confound sailors today—but it would become the preferred transoceanic route for sailing ships for centuries to come.


Quote
Gerritsz., Hessel, 1581?–1632. “Provincien van de Straet van Magallanes, ende vande Straet Le Maire.” Copperplate map, with added color, 27 × 35 cm. From Joannes de Laet’s Nieuwe wereldt . . . (Leiden, 1630). Acquired with funds provided by the Friends of the Princeton University Library. Reference: Martinic, Cartografía magallánica, VIII, 89. Historic Maps Collection

Oriented with north to the right, the map explodes the long-held belief that Tierra del Fuego was attached to a southern continent. Fifteen years after the circumnavigation of Le Maire and Schouten, Hessel Gerritszoon, the official mapmaker for the Dutch East India Company, is able to show the alternative route navigators can take to reach the Pacific from the Atlantic: around Cape Horn via the Strait of Le Maire.

The last map in this series I will present is a truly beautiful map. It's truly a work of art, as well as exceptional cartography. Put the establishment is not altogether happy with it.

This is an excellent example of serious historians engaging in conjecture and clever suggestions of PROPAGANDA when the data does not fit their historical paradigm. 

Whenever a serious scholar wants to undermine the credibility of some map data and/or annotation, they use descriptive terms like "mythical", "incongruous", "propaganda", "alleged", "unproven", etc.

What's wrong with that, you (or Ashvin  ;D) might ask?  They are just being prudent, measured, serious (and so on), RIGHT?   

WRONG! It is, in fact, quite the double standard! WHY?  ???  Because, in regard to exactly the SAME map, they will use descriptive terms such as "Tour de force", "elegant", "detailed", etc. to support   the accuracy and credibility of the cartographer!   


Quote
1675: Wit, Frederik de. “Tractus australior Americæ Meridionalis, a Rio de la Plata per Fretum Magellanicum ad Toraltum.” Copperplate map, with added color, 48 × 54 cm. From Wit’s Orbis maritimus ofte zee atlas. Amsterdam, 1675.  Reference: Martinic, Cartografía magallánica VIII, 121. Historic Maps Collection

One of the most elegant and detailed charts of southern South America produced in the seventeenth century. The map continues the now archaic, headland view of Cape Horn but offers a much fuller picture of the west coast of Chile, identifying many capes and ports. In the Atlantic, an unspecified Dutch naval battle takes place.

The dramatic cartouche, however, is the tour de force of the map (see the map detail): a meeting between Dutch merchants and natives (Patagonians or Fuegians?) who are mining, refining, and molding what appears to be gold. The onlooking animal with the spiral horns looks like a blackbuck antelope, native to India, or even an eland or oryx from Africa—but is out of place in South America.

At the time of this map, the continent was a literal gold mine for Spain, and Dutch commercial interests were focused on the East Indies.

Hence, this iconography seems incongruous: one would expect to see Spanish conquistadors and Peruvian Indians portraying their contemporary master/subject roles. Here, the scene suggests that a new deal or trade could be made.

Perhaps the artist/cartographer is dramatizing the possible rather than the status quo in a work of Dutch propaganda.
Princeton University collection and history of South American maps made by Magellan and those who came after him:

In short, the cartographer from centuries ago is JUDGED to be perfectly honest, thorough and accurate AS LONG as he tows the present "serious" historian paradigm. Any departure from that is poo pooed with erudite puffery. 

That is not serious scholarship. Yet Ashvin NEVER even considers the possibility of interpretative perfidy among "serious" scholars. The fact that scholars ALWAYS use careful language blinds Ashvin and others to their paradigm turf protecting duplicity. They use it sparingly to preserve their credibility but do not hesitate to invent long screeds of logic free discourse to demonize any revisionist history that questions their paradigm. But they are so polite about it!

Consequently, NOBODY  is allowed to consider the possibility of mens rea because academics are, OF COURSE, not affected by peer pressure, establishment line towing, tenure considerations, social climbing, status and money.  SNIFF! Oh no!

It's all those pseudo historians out there that that are immediately suspect... BALONEY!  >:(  News flash! The higher up on the civilizational hierarchy a human is, the MORE PRONE he is to engage in mendacity, duplicity, perfidy and fraud to DEFEND the status quo. But our credentialed "priesthood" must always be sanctified while anybody questioning, with data and evidence, their paradigm gravy train is demonized and ridiculed (see double standard on steroids  :P).

And all the while, these logic challenged credentialed meat heads have the audacity to claim they will change their views with "sufficiently valid" evidence that their paradigm requires a shift to understand the data. I don't think so. It is not hard to change the paradigm because of lack of evidence; it's hard because of ossified, stubborn and pride filled status quo turf defending.

Of course it's part of human nature. But, if we were logical and reasonable about this, we would, given that power and position CORRUPTS, look with a more jaundiced eye at the establishment pooh bahs than women or men (like me  ) that just want the honest God's historical truth to be accepted, regardless of who's pride is hurt by looking like a world class turf protecting reprobate.

I don't think any of the maps or mapmakers presented here are deliberately inaccurate or mendaciously annotated in any way, shape or form. (the Piri Reis NOTES allegedly APPENDED to the Piri Reis map are another matter).
And YEAH, Ashvin, that INCLUDES those rather large natives Magellan saw in Patagonia! They are NOT on alleged NOTES APPENDED to the map; they are written on it! But I KNOW what your reaction to Magellan's eye witness account will be.  ANYTHING that doesn't fit your paradigm is "not relevant" to the "best" explanation so you will use your rhetoric to    away from it.  ;D

The Piri Reis map has the South American coast twisted to the right with no gap at the end, giving the, PROBABLY MISTAKEN, impression to a modern cartographer that it was mapping Antarctica. I am not convinced of the Antarctica mapping but that's neither here nor there. I have some theories about why that is if you want to hear them (it has to do with the accuracy of the available time pieces of the mappers).

CONCLUSION

It is IMPOSSIBLE for Columbus to have provided the map info credited to him by Piri Reis in the "NOTES APPENDED TO IT" (the map), as serious scholars claim because.

1) No European explorer was THERE to map eastern South America in this DETAIL until AFTER 1519!

2) Even if Cristofero had lived past 1506 and sailed to map said coast, he wouldn't have had enough time to map 13,599 km = 8,500 miles of coastline, get it to Spain and hand it off to the Turks!


But you believe them. Fine and dandy, Ashvin, you have lots of company in your beliefs. But that's all they are.

Cabot went out in 1497 but it was much farther north than Columbus (Newfoundland).

Cortes starts out in 1519. Pizarro in 1531 and Hudson in 1609. END OF STORY.


Check all voyage geography and dates HERE:
Early Voyages of Exploration 1492-1609

When the accurate, indisputable data (I know, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE for an adversarial lawyer  ;)) does not fit the paradigm, a shift in the paradigm is required. Vested interests and the scholarly historical consensus do NOT want to undergo a paradigm shift BECAUSE that requires eating a LOT OF CROW and rewriting history.

They rightly fear that the pseudo-historians and scam artists will have a field day if the credibility of serious scholars is undermined BY serious scholars.
 
But that's just turf protecting, not logic or serious scholarship.  No amount of clever rhetoric by you or anybody else can disguise that. The scam artists will always be there. That is NOT an argument for disingenuously inventing the baloney that Cristofero Colombo provided the South American map data to Piri Reis.

Among the pseudo historians there is a subset of "pseudo" historians (i. e. Serious, truth searching historians - something you REFUSE to believe) that have pointed to the truth. Serious scholars don't want to give them the time of day for the reasons I have stated, but serious scholars have PECUNIARY reasons as well. Try not to forget that when you attack the credibility of an author (i.e. claim they are ruled by conscience free greed instead of truth) based on the fact that he is making a buck by writing revisionist history.

And spare me the "true believer" motive you pejoratively ascribe to me for writing these pieces. This is my work. I am not quoting Hapgood, Hancock or anybody else. So feel free to claim I am not "credible" because I am not credentialed. 

That argument works well in a court room but not in a debate where truth is more important than sophistry. 
No, I DO NOT think that ET gave Piri the map info. LOL! ET would have space age mapping photographic quality accuracy. The Piri Reis map DOES NOT have that level of accuracy, but there is NO QUESTION that the coastline is South America's east coast. And time travel is impossible, as far as I'm concerned. I think we can agree that the Columbus mapping ships were not time machines.    Columbus did NOT map the coastline of eastern South America below 10 degrees north latitude.

What you SHOULD be doing now Ashvin, instead furiously Googling "Piri Reis map fraud" and "pseudo history of Piri Reis map" (and so on) is asking yourself WHERE did Piri Reis get the indisputably accurate, according to modern maps, coastline map information of eastern South America below 10 degrees north latitude. Cristofero Columbo never went there.

But I know you well, Ashvin. You are going to bring up good old Amerigo Vespucci. You are going to bring up the serious scholarly claim that Vespucci DID map the coast of South America from Guyana on down between 1500 and 1502. And then you are going to put two and two together and get the 1510 "historically accepted level of knowledge" that Spain had of South America.

You are going to claim that Amerigo Vespucci, named by the king to be top dog on "New World" (that term Cristofero was allergic to) exploration procedure and authorized by said king to set up a school to teach explorers how to map and how to navigate, of course shared this South American map knowledge with Cristofero Colombo and his brother Bartolomeo, who shared the work of running the the same "taller" (map workshop) the Colombo brothers ran.

The last link in this trail of serious scholarly logic is that after Cristofero's death in 1506, Bartolomeo made a few (more like a LOT!) of pesetas selling a copy (Maps were INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE and tenaciously guarded in those days of early exploration because of the ORO and PLATA filled lands explorer/conquistador/plunderers who had them could navigate to.) to Piri Reis. 

My, what a gem of reasonableness and plausibility. Is that is your "best" explanation? With a few insignificant variations, that is what serious historians claim.

The accepted historical paradigm that, in 1510, the knowledge of South America indisputably displayed on the 1513 Piri Reis map was the level of mapped knowledge by European civilization at the time is inaccurate. It is a fairy tale. It is a willful denial of the evidence. It is a deliberate distortion of the truth in order to defend the claim that Piri Reis got his info from the Spaniards. It is an absolute scandal that they persist in this fantasy.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

1) There are some serious scholarly historian issues with Amerigo Vespucci. While alive, he was QUITE secretive about what he knew and who he shared his mapping info with. This was, of course, normal for that time period.

I present that fact to you in order for you to understand the context of the data that historians question. You will find that one of his "voyages" is considered fictitious by historians due to letters Vespucci allegedly wrote of his "four" voyages, conveniently discovered many years after his death, that turned out to be forgeries. So the exact details of his voyages are STILL, unlike Cristofero's voyages, a matter of historical conjecture.

But aren't his maps evidence of his voyages? Somewhat, but they are a BIG FAIL in confirming he had anything to do with the Piri Reis map.  I told you I'd get Vespucci's RUSH JOB and now we are here.  ;D

There is a 1507 map ( a German one) that claims the data for "America" (what is now South America) and the Caribbean came from Vespucci (and Colombo too). It does not show the track of the voyages of Vespucci or how many of them there were. And by the way, that's how South America was the first to receive the name "America".

Quote
Waldseemüller’s 1507 map of America re-drawn on an equirectangular projection and on the same uniform scale as that of Schöner of 1515, so as to be readily comparable (E.G. Ravenstein, Martin Behaim: His Life and His Globe, London, George Philip & Son, 1908, p. 36).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%C3%BCller_map

Here's another one from 1515 (a little late for Piri Reis and looking just as coarse as the Waldseemüller 1507 map)..

Quote
Schöner’s 1515 map of America re-drawn on an equirectangular projection and on the same uniform scale as that of Waldseemüller of 1507, so as to be readily comparable (E.G. Ravenstein, Martin Behaim: His Life and His Globe, London, George Philip & Son, 1908, p. 36).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%C3%BCller_map

2) If the above two maps showing South America ARE from Vespucci's mapping efforts, as serious historians have accepted, it is evidence of a RUSH JOB. But serious historians don't accept it was a rush job. I wonder why.  ;) As I previously mentioned, the mapped coastline is far too lengthy to have been mapped at the required detail in in time to get the data to Spain and Piri Reis before 1513.

3) Even if the above two points could be explained away somehow, there is the further "problem" for the serious scholars that the Andes mountain chain is accurately portrayed for a distance on the Piri Reis map. Balboa was somewhat near there between 1510 and 1513 when he discovered the Pacific Ocean but he was too far away to sight the Andes in his location in Central America. The Andes were NOT discovered by Balbo. Pizarro discovered and began mapping them in 1533.

4) The Piri Reis map shows that the Amazon river tributaries begin on the east side of the Andes mountain chain and join to make the Amazon river. Yes, the distance from the mountains to the delta is inaccurate. So? The point is there is no way Vespucci could have guessed the Andes were there or that the head waters were west-southwest of the delta.

Yes, Vespucci mapped the Amazon river delta. But he probably did not know it was a delta for sure.
Quote
... the mouth of the Amazon is so huge (over 200 miles across) that early explorers navigating the Atlantic coastline of South America simply didn't recognize the mouth of the river as a river!
http://www.projectamazonas.org/brief-history-amazon-exploration

The fact that the headwaters of the Amazon river are just east of the Andes was not discovered until 1541 and not confirmed as the headwaters, despite reaching the Atlantic Ocean on 26 August, 1542, until many years later.

Quote
Despite the fact that indigenous people had been living in the Amazon for at least 10,000 years, and possibly for as long as 15,000 year, the Amazon River itself was "discovered" by a Spanish explorer and conquistador.  Don Francisco de Orellana left Quito, Ecuador in February of 1541 in the role of lieutenant to the company of Gonçalo Pizarro ...
http://www.projectamazonas.org/brief-history-amazon-exploration

But not only is successfully imagining a mountain chain like the Andes rather far fetched, placing imaginary or speculative land marks was NOT standard operating procedure for a cartographer of that day.

As you can see from much later maps, like this detailed southern South American Dutch map from 1675, cartographers did not 'make things up' inside a land mass that they did not know precisely where to locate.


Quote
1675: Wit, Frederik de. “Tractus australior Americæ Meridionalis, a Rio de la Plata per Fretum Magellanicum ad Toraltum.” Copperplate map, with added color, 48 × 54 cm. From Wit’s Orbis maritimus ofte zee atlas. Amsterdam, 1675.  Reference: Martinic, Cartografía magallánica VIII, 121. Historic Maps Collection

Drawing scenes of this and that may be okay to add a little razzle dazzle, but locating a mountain chain AND river tributaries for aesthetic effect was not acceptable then or now. Cartographers were/are fastidious about landmarks, Ashvin. When a landmark position is not certain but still claimed by an eye witness, the cartographer will so state on the map. The Piri Reis map does NOT state that the Amazon tributaries, the Amazon river OR the Andes are speculation.

5) The Piri Reis map accurately portrays the Malvinas (The Falklands for the Brits). Portuguese cartographer Pedro Reinel, in about 1522, produced the very first map to show the Falklands AFTER the Piri Reis map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Vespucci turned north about 400 miles north of Tierra de Fuego. He never sighted or mapped the Malvinas.


Piri Reis map with detailed South American east coastline, a portion of the Andes mountain chain, Amazon river headwaters not discovered officially until much later and accurately portrayed Malvinas islands pointed out by A. G. Gelbert.


The probability that Amerigo Vespucci, in a mapping voyage that took LESS THAN two years, mapped, at the Piri Reis level of detail, 10,000 km PLUS of the eastern coast of South America and "got lucky" positioning a large part of the Andes he had never seen, the headwaters from them that feed the Amazon river and the accurate portrayal of the Malvinas is ZERO.
   

Serious scholars in their ivory towers are allergic to paradigm shifts.    So are you. I understand.

Except for the quotes and links, I, A.G. Gelbert, wrote all the above.

Among the pseudo historians, there is a subset that I belong to of "pseudo" historians that are serious, truth searching amateur historians who labor to expose the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us God.     I am a man of respect and integrity. I am not credentialed but I am credible.

Anyone reading this is free to publish it, send it to a university, shout it from the rafters (and so on) with, or without, attribution. I am unconcerned if the "serious" scholar historians print this on a roll of toilet paper. If they do, at least it shows those stuffed shirts have a sense of humor.  ;D

I freely give this authority to readers in order to nip in the bud, so to speak, any spurious and defamatory claims of pecuniary motives on my part. Of course some may try to claim I am a pseudo-historian fishing for a book contract like any "good" con artist. Anyone that claims that is engaging in libel and is also suffering from glial cell colonization by fecal coliforms. Have a nice day.   8)
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 03:51:52 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

Comic Relief by AGelbert
14 Dec, 2019 23:33

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
14 Dec, 2019 23:29

1984 by George Orwell: Crash Course Literature 401 by AGelbert
14 Dec, 2019 23:22

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
14 Dec, 2019 18:14

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
14 Dec, 2019 18:02

Wild Cats can be Small as well as Large by AGelbert
14 Dec, 2019 16:38

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
14 Dec, 2019 13:24

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
14 Dec, 2019 12:57

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
14 Dec, 2019 12:07

Creeping Police State by Surly1
14 Dec, 2019 06:55