+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8922
Total Topics: 232
Most Online Today: 5
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 18, 2018, 06:27:34 pm »

Bob Cornuke - Search for the Temple 2018 Part 1


Prophecy in the News

Published on Jan 3, 2018

Dr. Kevin Clarkson and biblical archaeologist, Bob Cornuke, dive into the scripture to decipher what the Bible has to say about the location of the Temple.


Bob Cornuke - Search for the Temple 2018 Part 2


Prophecy in the News

Published on Jan 17, 2018

Dr. Kevin Clarkson and biblical archaeologist, Bob Cornuke, dive into the scripture to decipher what the Bible has to say about the location of the Temple.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 12, 2018, 06:34:34 pm »

Byzantine fountain and pools discovered in Israel

FEBRUARY 6, 2018 BY NATALIE ANDERSON


A ceremony was held last month to commemorate the opening of Ein Hanniya Park in Jerusalem, attended by various religious and political officials, including the directors general of the Jerusalem Development Authority, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The site of Ein Hanniya after Israel Antiquities Authority Conservation Administration work. Photo: Assaf Peretz, Israel Antiquities Authority

Excavations at the site uncovered a large and impressive system of pools from the Byzantine period (4th–6th centuries CE), a fragment of a capital typical of royal structures and estates in the First Temple period and a rare silver coin from the 4th century BCE, one of the most ancient ever found in the Jerusalem area.

These remarkable and significant finds were unearthed in Israel Antiquities Authority excavations at the site of Ein Hanniya between 2012 and 2016.  The park will open to the public in the coming months. The excavations, which were carried out as part of the establishment of the park, were financed by the Jerusalem Development Authority in cooperation with the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and were accompanied by conservation and development work by the Israel Antiquities Authority’s Conservation Administration.


Pottery vessels used by inhabitants in the Byzantine period. Photo: Clara Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority

The excavations were headed by Israel Antiquities Authority archaeologists Irina Zilberbod and Yaakov Billig, under the direction of the Jerusalem district archaeologist, Dr. Yuval Baruch.

The park was dedicated this morning at a planting ceremony with the participation of Minister of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem and Heritage Ze’ev Elkin, The Grand Sacristan of the Armenian Apostolic Patriarchate of Jerusalem, His Eminence Archbishop Sevan Gharibian, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, Jerusalem Development Authority Director General Eyal Haimovsky, Israel Nature and Parks Authority Director General Shaul Goldstein and Israel Antiquities Authority Director General Israel Hasson.

According to Irina Zilberbod, the excavation director for the Israel Antiquities Authority: “The most significant finding in the excavation is a large and impressive pool from the Byzantine period. This pool was built in the center of a spacious complex at the foot of a church that once stood here. Roofed colonnades were built around the pool that gave access to residential wings.” According to Zilberbod: “It’s difficult to know what the pool was used for – whether for irrigation, washing, landscaping or perhaps as part of baptismal ceremonies at the site.” The pool’s water drained through a network of channels to a magnificent and very special structure, the first of its kind known in Israel – a fountain (nymphaeon).”

Settlement in the area of Ein Hanniya apparently began at the time of the First Temple and perhaps even earlier. The most outstanding find from this period uncovered in the excavation is a fragment of a proto-Ionic capital – an artistic element typical of structures and estates of the kings of the First Temple period. The image of such a capital appears on the Israeli 5-shekel coin. Similar capitals have been found in the City of David in Jerusalem, which was the capital of the Kingdom of Judah, and at Ramat Rahel, where one of the palaces of the kings of Judah was found. Such capitals were also found in Samaria, Megiddo and Hazor, which were major cities in the Kingdom of Israel. According to the archaeologists, the site at Ein Hanniya may have been a royal estate at the time of the First Temple. After the destruction of the First Temple, settlement was renewed at the site in the form of an estate house that was inhabited by Jews.


Rare silver coin from the 4th century BCE, one of the most ancient ever discovered in the Jerusalem area. Photo: Clara Amit, Israel Antiquities Authority

The most significant find from this period is a rare silver coin, one of the most ancient so far discovered in the Jerusalem area – a drachma, minted in Ashdod by Greek rulers between 420 and 390 BCE.

The coins, pottery, glass, roof tiles and multicolored mosaic tesserae from the Byzantine period unearthed in the excavation attest to the fact that it was during this period (4th–6th centuries CE) that the site reached its zenith. According to Jerusalem District Archaeologist Dr. Yuval Baruch: “We believe that some early Christian commentators identified Ein Hanniya as the site where the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, as described in Acts 8:26–40. The baptism of the eunuch by St. Philip was one of the key events ✨ in the spread of Christianity 🌿. Therefore, identifying the place where it occurred occupied scholars for many generations and became a common motif in Christian art. It’s no wonder that part of the site is still owned by Christians and is a focus of religious ceremonies, both for the Armenian Church (which owns the property) and the Ethiopian Church.”

The Jerusalem Development Authority, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Israel Antiquities Authority undertook conservation and development work at the site over the past few years. The result is an extraordinarily beautiful site incorporating archaeology, an ancient landscape and a unique visitor experience. The conservation work was carried out by a team from the Israel Antiquities Authority Conservation Administration. The team was headed by conservator Fuad Abu Ta’a, with architectural planning by architects Avi Mashiah and Yehonatan Tzahor. The work included restoration of the ancient water systems, which are now functioning once again. The original spring that fed the pool discovered in the excavation had dried up over the years, and major efforts were invested in channeling water from the existing spring to replenish the pools. The work revealed additional water sources under an impressive stone arch whose surroundings have been restored as a shallow wading spot.

A great deal of attention was paid to restoring the imposing fountain structure (nymphaeon), including cleaning and replacing stones in its façade based on historic photographs and paintings.


http://www.medievalists.net/2018/02/byzantine-fountain-pools-discovered-israel/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 26, 2017, 08:35:34 pm »

 

Google Earth reveals hundreds of ancient structures in Saudi Arabia
LAST UPDATED ON OCTOBER 26TH, 2017 AT 3:16 PM BY MIHAI ANDREI


Article and pictures:


https://www.zmescience.com/science/archaeology/google-earth-structures-saudi-arabia-26102017/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 01, 2017, 08:51:17 pm »


When The Sahara Desert Was Green


Science Documentary 2017


Top Shelf Award to AG for this post   :

 

That was amazing stuff about the 20,000 clock switching the area from jungle to desert in a mere single generation of humans! And that 150 degree F FRESH water all over the place under that desert is another amazing tidbit of info. It's a strange world out there, for sure. 
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 01, 2017, 05:50:32 pm »


When The Sahara Desert Was Green

Science Documentary 2017
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 06, 2017, 06:33:03 pm »

Forbidden History, Out of Place Discoveries TV


Published on Feb 3, 2017

Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.

The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth evolved from primordial soup, which then somehow formed into many different species like birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals, plants and fish evolved into many different types of species themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe that plants created everything from vines to trees to flowers, and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans. If that’s true, then I have to ask the evolutionist why is it for the last 6000 years of recorded history that not a single new species has ever been created?
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 25, 2017, 07:08:21 pm »

 

Ancient carvings show comet struck Earth, triggering mini Ice Age

Last updated on April 25th, 2017  at 5:27 pm by Mihai Andrei

Scientists have translated famous carvings found in Turkey, and they now believe it is indicative of a comet which struck Earth around 10,950 BCE — the same time a small ice age kicked off on Earth, changing the planet forever.

The carvings depict a dramatic event which shaped mankind and Earth for over a thousand years. Image credits: Alistair Coombs.

Some 10,950 years ago, the Younger Dryas period started to kick in. It was a huge disturbance to what was a generally warming Earth, sending the planet into an unexpected, thousand-year-long mini Ice Age. It was then that mankind started taking the first solid steps towards a true civilization, potentially as a result of this change in climate. This cold period has been studied to great extent, but we don’t really know what caused it. A comet impact is one of the leading hypotheses, but no evidence of a comet was ever found — until now.

Although it isn’t physical evidence, it’s still pretty intriguing. Researchers analyzed glyphs from a pillar known as the Vulture Stone, which suggest that a bunch of comet fragments hit the Earth some 13,000 years ago, which fits the timeline perfectly. A telling image is that of a decapitated man, which symbolizes great tragedy and loss of life.

“I think this research, along with the recent finding of a widespread platinum anomaly across the North American continent virtually seal the case in favour of [a Younger Dryas comet impact],” lead researcher Martin Sweatman of Edinburgh University told Sarah Knapton from The Telegraph. “Our work serves to reinforce that physical evidence. What is happening here is the process of paradigm change.”

The pillar was located in Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey, one of the most exciting archaeological sites in human history and the earliest temple we’ve ever found, established over 11,000 years ago (potentially much more), 6,000 years before Stonehenge. Although the details of the structure’s function remain a mystery, there is growing evidence indicating that the site served as an observatory — aside from a site of worship.

“It appears Gobekli Tepe was, among other things, an observatory for monitoring the night sky,” Sweatman told the Press Association. “One of its pillars seems to have served as a memorial to this devastating event – probably the worst day in history since the end of the Ice Age.”

Computer algorithms showed that the animal carvings fit with the shape of astronomical constellations. Image credits: Martin Sweatman and Stellarium.

The Vulture Stone had been found decades go, but the inscriptions on it still puzzled scientists. Now, the Edinburgh team believes they’ve found the key: the symbols are actually constellations, which helped researchers put a date on the symbols as well. They used computer models to match the carvings of animals to patterns for stars, confirming firstly that the shapes fit the astronomical situation of the time, and secondly, that the 10,950 BCE date fits the theory. The date also matches cores from Greenland, which pinpoint the Younger Dryas period as beginning around 10,890 BCE. A few decades is a more than acceptable error rate when working at this scale.

But it gets even more interesting. Computer models indicated that the comet would have been visible in the night sky for thousands of years. According to the models, the comet entered the solar system more than 20,000 years ago and was likely visible for most of this time. Brighter and brighter, generation after generation until it finally struck our planet. Considering the obvious symbolism humans attributed to it and the massive impact the comet had on the planet, it’s easy to understand why the event was given such a great importance and was immortalized on the Vulture Stone. For thousands of years, the Gobekli Tepe priests guarded the stone and probably told the story of the bright rock in the sky that came crashing down on Earth.

Quote

“If you consider that, according to astronomers, this giant comet probably arrived in the inner solar system some 20 to 30 thousand years ago, and it would have been a very visible and dominant feature of the night sky, it is hard to see how ancient people could have ignored this given the likely consequences.”

This isn’t the first time archaeology has given indications on such ancient events. Many paleolithic cave paintings and artifacts give indications on catastrophic, or otherwise significant astronomic events. It’s not exactly the most reliable evidence in the world, but when you can correlate computer models of comets with carvings from 13 millennia ago — that’s got to feel good.

The research has been published in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry.

http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/AncientCarvings_web_1024.jpg
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 11, 2017, 04:51:28 pm »

 

Found: oldest settlement in North America, confirms local tribe history

Mihai Andrei April 10, 2017
 
When Alisha Gauvreau, an anthropology PhD student at the University of Victoria started excavating a rocky spit on Triquet Island, some 500 kilometers northwest of Victoria, she didn’t really know what to expect, but this definitely surpassed even her most ambitious expectations.

The first North American settlers might have arrived on the coast and not on a frozen land bridge through Siberia  :o, as was previously believed. Image via Wikipedia

The archaeological team patiently dug and then sifted through meters upon meters of soil and peat, before they finally found something interesting: the charred remains of an ancient hearth. As it so often happens, that’s just the start of interesting things. Not long after that, Gauvreau and collaborators found a trove of items, including tools for lighting fires, fish hooks, and spears, all dating back from 14,000 years ago.

Quote

“I remember when we get the dates back and we just kind of sat there going, holy moly, this is old,” said Gauvreau.“What this is doing is just changing our idea of the way in which North America was first peopled.”

The findings tell an interesting story, that of an early migration occurring on British Columbia’s ancient coastline, and challenges some of the most widely-held beliefs about humans migrating to North America. The classic story is that humans arrived some 13,000 or 14,000 years ago, crossing a land bridge that connected modern-day Siberia to Alaska. But more and more research is starting to challenge that belief. The challenging theory is that people arrived on the coast, settling down on a coastal strip of land that did not freeze during the ice age. In a radio interview with the CBC, Gauvreau says that her research adds significant weight to that idea.

Quote
“[A]rchaeologists had long thought that … the coast would have been completely uninhabitable and impassible when that is very clearly not the case,” she explains.

To make things even more interesting, these findings support the ancient, oral, histories of aboriginals. The Heiltsuk people are the descendants of a number of tribal groups who came together Bella in the 19th century. For countless generations, Heiltsuk First Nation elders have told the story about how their ancestors arrived in the area, on the coast.


Quote
“{I}t reaffirms a lot of the history that our people have been talking about for thousands of years,” William Housty, a member of Heiltsuk Nation, proudly stated.

Now, anthropologists and archaeologists want to explore more of the coast and the coastal islands, to further document how the migration happened.

http://www.zmescience.com/science/archaeology/oldest-settlement-north-america-10042017/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 06, 2017, 01:49:47 pm »


How Did the Aztecs Feel about Alcohol?   

The Aztecs did not tolerate crime or misbehavior in their society. Numerous offenses were punishable by death in the Aztec legal system, including homicide, perjury, robbery, destruction of crops, witchcraft, and even public drunkenness -- but only for younger offenders. Aztec elders could consume as much alcohol as they wished. The Aztecs' tipple of choice was pulque, a mildly alcoholic drink made from the fermented sap of the maguey plant. In the Aztec language, it was known as octli. The beverage's potency could be increased by adding certain roots and herbs.

Matters of life and death:

•Capital punishment could be carried out in a number of different ways, including hanging, stoning, beheading, disembowelment, burning, and quartering. If the victim chose to forgive the perpetrator, the death sentence could be vacated, and the perpetrator would become a slave of the victim’s family.

•Adultery was also a capital offense. Men were punished for adultery only if they had relations with a married woman. Married women were considered guilty regardless of the circumstances.

•The children of Aztec nobility could be sentenced to death if they were disrespectful, cowardly, or wasteful.

http://www.wisegeek.com/did-people-in-ancient-civilizations-drink-alcohol.htm
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 03, 2016, 02:59:06 pm »

Have Ancient Monuments Always Been Protected?


It’s always sad to see visitors deface important monuments, and now most governments do their best to preserve their cultural heritage. At Stonehenge in England, tourists can no longer get near the stone monoliths -- they’ve been roped off and off-limits to visitors since 1977, to keep vandals from climbing on them, or chipping off hunks of stone to take home. However, taking a stone souvenir was actually encouraged before 1900 -- visitors were even given chisels when they arrived at the site so they could have a bit of Stonehenge for themselves.

Protected thousands of years later:

•Stonehenge landowner Sir Edmund Antrobus decided that the 5,000-year-old monument needed to be protected and petitioned for the help-yourself practice to be outlawed in 1900.

•Throughout the Victorian period, Stonehenge was a popular gathering place. More than 3,000 people would assemble at the summer solstice each year to watch the sun rise over the Heel Stone.

•Stonehenge was substantially restored in the early 20th century, when stones that had become wobbly were straightened, and then set in concrete.

http://www.wisegeek.com/have-ancient-monuments-always-been-protected.htm
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 23, 2016, 02:28:35 pm »


Divers Find Roman-era Sunken Treasure in Shipwreck Off Israel

SNIPPET:

Divers in the Eastern Mediterranean last month came across a treasure trove of sunken artifacts dating back to the Roman Empire, finding remarkably well-preserved metal figures, statues, lamps and coins.

The treasure was submerged 1,600 years ago when the cargo ship it was on, taking the metal items to melt and recycle  :o  ;D, sank in the harbor of the ancient Roman port city of Caesarea, which is today part of Israel's Caesarea National Park. A layer of fine sand covered the artifacts, which helped protect the statues, leading authorities to say they looked as if they were cast yesterday.


 
http://now.howstuffworks.com/2016/05/17/roman-empire-caesarea-treasure-shipwreck-israel
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 19, 2016, 04:25:28 pm »

A tale of lust and intrigue, of bribery and seduction.


Greedy, immoral human behavior is certainly not a recent phenomenon; it just has more 'leverage' now than several centuries ago. From making money off of parts of Saint bodies to stirring up people to "defend" a "sacred" place, it's always been about empathy deficit disordered, opportunistic individuals motivated by greed and power. They used then, as they do today (with a bit more nuance), an Orwellian interpretation of the Christ's teachings to "justify" it all. The fig leaf of "doing God's work" has ALWAYS been used to do EVIL.   


If you read what a certain French Cistercian Monk wrote on "Penitential Warfare"    in an effort to stir up a "holy" army to go down to Jerusalem and kick "infidel" ass, you can see EXACT propaganda parallels with the recent "Clash of Civilizations/War on Terror Arabs" BULLSHIT.  >:(   




And the atheists have the unadulterated gall to blame Jesus Christ for all this!

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 24, 2016, 08:33:15 pm »

Hard Evidence that Egyptian Mummies have traces of Co caine and Nicotine.  :o HOW did they get them there from South America?  ???

Enjoy this fascinating video with many facts that scientists cannot explain    OR deny/discard because the data does not fit their world view.    

RE will particularly enjoy the fact that the Aztec SUN STONE with their SUN GOD describes the world ending with a GEOTECTONIC upheaval.

The Aztecs beat Doomstead Diner Admnistrator RE to the Geotectonic Theory of Catastrophic Climate Change.   

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 30, 2015, 07:47:13 pm »


Quote
The middle ages: was it really as gruesome as it's commonly portrayed to be?

Daniel Baker, M.A. in European History, George Mason University

3.5k Views •  Daniel has 150+ answers in History.


Daniel is a Most Viewed Writer in Middle Ages.


The shortest answer I can give to this question, is "No, in most respects."  :o There are some ways in which the Middle Ages were as bad as they were commonly portrayed, but mostly they weren't.  I'll use a down-and-dirty definition of the Middle Ages as running from 476-1521 (fall of the last Western Roman Emperor to Luther not getting burned at the Diet of Worms), and blithely ignore all the subtleties and nuances.

No, not as bad as commonly portrayed:  


1.  Witchcraft.  It used to be popularly believed that the Middle Ages were the height of the witchcraft craze.  Not true; for most of the Middle Ages, it was actually heretical to believe in witches, as St. Augustine had said God wouldn't allow witches to exist.  There were a handful of witch executions in the late Middle Ages, but witch hunts didn't really take off until the papacy approved Heinrich Kramer's book Malleus Maleficarum in 1486. The witch hunts were at their worst in the late 16th to early 17th centuries, long after the end of the Middle Ages.

2. Prima nottae/jus primae noctis/droit de seigneur.  I love Braveheart as a movie, but as history it is inaccurate, and in no way is it more inaccurate than in relaunching this old canard. There is not the slightest evidence that medieval aristocrats ever had the legal right to deflower their peasants' brides on their wedding nights. Certainly a baron or his sons might rap e or sexually coerce women on the fief, and there wouldn't be much the victims could do about it in courts controlled by those very same barons, but the lords couldn't have done it openly without getting into trouble with the church and the royal courts.

3.  Bad teeth.  Sure, dental care was primitive in the Middle Ages, but there was a compensating advantage: a very low-sugar diet, which kept tooth decay under control.  People's teeth got much worse after the end of the Middle Ages, when sugar started to flow in from the Caribbean colonies.

4.  Absolute kingship. The popular image of the medieval king as an absolute ruler is a fiction; absolute monarchy is a post-medieval concept of the 16th and 17th centuries.  Medieval monarchs were constantly struggling for control with the church (a struggle they ultimately lost when the church won the right to name bishops and abbots), and with their own nobles (which turned out rather more successfully for the kings). 

5.  Technology.  It was once conventional wisdom that the Middle Ages were a time of technological retrogression.  In fact, most Roman technology was preserved, and lots of new technology was invented or imported: the compass, the moldboard plow, the horse collar, the stirrup, the waterwheel mill and trip-hammer, Arabic numerals, stained glass (brought to a height of perfection that we can't duplicate today), plate armor, and  the longbow.



Yes, as bad as portrayed, but no worse than earlier or later times:

1.  Disease. Yes, the medieval world suffered horribly from bubonic plague, not only in the famous outbreak of 1346, but also the more obscure but equally devastating Plague of Justinian in 541.  And there was the "sweating sickness," still not certainly diagnosed by modern physicians, and many other pestilences.  Against this, all medieval Europe had was Galen and the bogus theory of the humors.  The Muslim world was somewhat better off, since the Muslims had invented hospitals and understood the importance of cleanliness, but without the germ theory of disease even the Muslims were largely helpless against the power of epidemics.  Still, other eras suffered as badly or worse from disease as the Middle Ages; plague may have cost Athens the Peloponnesian Wars, and Roman medicine was no better than the medieval.  Plague continued into the early modern era, and smallpox got worse. And the virgin soil epidemics caused by the European discovery of the Americas dwarfed anything in the Middle Ages. Tetanus, diphtheria, small pox, syphilis, measles, mumps, cholera, typhoid were never ending dangers for which there was no treatment or cure. Slight scratches could easily become septic, and develop into blood poisoning to kill you.

2.  Famine.  When the crops failed, medieval European peasants died in droves - just like Roman peasants, Greek peasants, or early modern European peasants.

3.  Cruel punishments.   Hanging by slow strangulation was a medieval invention, but Roman death penalties were just as bad: crucifixion, impalement, mauling by beasts, and fustuarium (beating to death by cudgels).  Likewise, penalties like piercing the tongue with hot iron, breaking on the wheel, and hanging continued long past the end of the Middle Ages.

As bad or worse than portrayed: 

1.  Outside raids and invasions. It wasn't just the Vikings, who have a stranglehold on popular imagination: it was also the Alans, the Avars, the Bulgars, the Arabs, the Magyars, the Turks, and the Mongols.  The Romans had been pretty successful in keeping their borders secure, and while early modern Europe was rent with internal war, it had little to fear from outside invasion.

2.  Illiteracy.  The Middle Ages were the least literate period in European history since the Greek Dark Age  Yes, the German tribes had always been illiterate, but with the Middle Ages they helped make illiteracy the normal state of the ruling class in Christian Spain,  France, Britain, Italy, and the Balkans.  The ordinary Roman was illiterate too, but the upper crust was expected to read and write; that ceased to be true by the 800s.  Writing from the early Middle Ages is even more fragmentary than records from Rome, even though the Roman records are older.  Coming to Islamic Toledo, Gerard of Cremona himself remarked on the "poverty of the Latins" in books as compared to the Muslims.  The printing press, in turn, made the early modern period much more literate than medieval times.

3.  No road building.  The medievals seem to have relied mainly on Roman roads for land transport throughout the era. This was not because the technology had been lost, but because access to huge amounts of slave labor had been lost.   

4.  Crazy judicial methods. There may not have been much to choose from between Roman punishments and medieval ones, but at least the Romans had fairly sane methods of trial, without any oath-helpers, trials by ordeal of iron or water, or trials by combat.  While the frequency of these medieval judicial methods is somewhat exaggerated in the popular press (I read a pipe roll from King John of England's reign that had only one trial by combat and no ordeals out of several dozen judgments), the very fact that they were significant at all made the Middle Ages worse than the Roman or early modern periods.

https://www.quora.com/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 31, 2015, 03:15:28 am »

Million-Dollar Find: Shipwreck's Golden Treasure Includes Very Rare Coin

by Elizabeth Palermo, Associate Editor   |   July 28, 2015 03:56pm ET
The "Tricentennial Royal" coin pictured here was die-cast, unlike most coins minted in the Spanish colonies during the 1700s. Credit: 1715 Fleet Queens Jewels, LLC

 
Treasure hunters off the Florida coast recently pulled up the haul of a lifetime: nearly $1 million worth of gold coins and elaborate gold chains, as well as an extremely rare Spanish coin known as a "Tricentennial Royal."

The treasures were hidden on the seafloor for 300 years before the crew of a salvage vessel brought them to the surface last month, on June 17. The riches were found just 1,000 feet (305 meters) offshore of Fort Pierce, Florida, according to Eric Schmitt, captain of the aptly named salvage vessel, Aarrr Booty, which was used to locate the treasure.

The ships that once carried the valuables set sail from Cuba on July 24, 1715, when the island was a Spanish colony. The ships' mission was to transport the riches below deck to Spain, which at the time was waging a war against France and was desperately in need of money to fund battles. [Shipwrecks Gallery: Secrets of the Deep]

But the ships never made it to Spain. A hurricane off Florida sank all but one of the 12 ships on July 30, 1715. The so-called "1715 Fleet" has been a treasure-hunter's fantasy ever since. In 2010, Brent Brisben and his father, William, obtained permits to explore the wrecks in search of sunken riches.

The lucky haul off Fort Pierce was the work of the entire Schmitt family, which includes Eric and his wife, as well as Eric's sister and parents. The Schmitts were subcontracted to explore the 12 different shipwrecks for Brisben's company (1715 Fleet Queen Jewels, LLC), which owns salvage permits.

Included in Aarrr Booty's recent haul were 51 gold coins and 40 feet of golden chain. But the real treasure salvaged from the deep was the rare Tricentennial Royal, one of very few gold coins minted for King Philip V of Spain, according Schmitt, lead diver of the Aarrr Booty vessel's treasure-hunting expeditions.

The coin is "very round" compared to most coins salvaged from the wrecks, said Schmitt, who told Live Science that the royal coin was die-cast (made by pouring molten gold into a coin mold). Most Colonial coins from this period were made using cruder methods that resulted in less uniform shapes, according to the coin-collecting website Coinquest. The round royal coin, which is about the size of a silver dollar, is worth an estimated $500,000, according to Brent Brisben.

And even though Brisben and Schmitt are excited about the discovery of this precious coin, both remain hopeful that even more treasure lies hidden off Florida. Brisben's company owns the salvage rights to five of the 11 ships that sank on July 30, 1715, he told Live Science. He estimates that $440 million worth of coins and other treasures have yet to be recovered from these centuries-old wrecks.

Among the treasures that are still at large are the elusive queen's jewels, which belonged to Philip V's second wife, Elizabeth Farnese, Duchess of Parma. The elaborate jewels were to be a part of the queen's dowry and were supposed to be brought to Spain by the 1715 Fleet. Because jewelry wasn't a taxable commodity in Spain at the time, details about the jewels weren't entered on any official documents, but a few ornate items were allegedly aboard the fleet when it sank, including a 74-carat emerald ring and 14-carat pearl earrings, according to Brisben.

Follow Elizabeth Palermo @techEpalermo. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Elizabeth Palermo
Elizabeth is an associate editor at Live Science who writes about science and technology. She graduated with a B.A. from the George Washington University. Elizabeth has traveled throughout the Americas, studying political systems and indigenous cultures and teaching English to students of all ages.


http://www.livescience.com/51679-shipwreck-treasure-hunters-gold-coins.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 08, 2015, 03:36:51 pm »

Quote
Archaeologists have discovered a mysterious Stonehenge-style monolith in the deep sea off the coast of Sicily, shedding new light on the earliest civilizations in the Mediterranean basin.

Broken in two parts, the 3.2-foot-long monolith has a rather regular shape and features three holes of similar diameter. One, which can be found at its end, crosses it completely from part to part, the others appear at two sides of the massive stone.

Such features leave no doubt that the monolith was man-made some 10,000 years ago:o

Underwater 'Stonehenge' Monolith Found Off Coast of Sicily
 
 Aug 6, 2015 04:50 PM ET  //  by  Rossella Lorenzi

http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/underwater-stonehenge-monolith-found-off-coast-of-sicily-150806.htm
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 15, 2015, 01:27:40 am »


Quote
In 536 A.D., the greatest volcanic catastrophe in human history rocked Central America and set off a lethal chain of events, from climate change to famine to the Bubonic plague.

 How could one volcano have such a cataclysmic effect?

Follow experts in environmental hazards as they investigate the eruption that smothered the planet with billions of tons of ash.

Then see how new evidence and theories have shed new light on the apocalyptic disaster that destroyed empires and gave birth to the Dark Ages.

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/dark-age-volcano/34030?auto=true
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 28, 2015, 02:08:12 am »


Stone Age Britons imported wheat in shock sign of sophistication


Agelbert NOTE: That isn't shocking to me.  ;D


Thursday, February 26, 2015  Alister Doyle for Reuters   


OSLO (Reuters) – Stone Age Britons imported wheat about 8,000 years ago in a surprising sign of sophistication for primitive hunter-gatherers long viewed as isolated from European agriculture, a study showed on Thursday.

British scientists found traces of wheat DNA in a Stone Age site off the south coast of England near the Isle of Wight, giving an unexpected sign of contact between ancient hunter-gatherers and farmers who eventually replaced them.

The wheat DNA was dated to 8,000 years ago, 2,000 years before Stone Age people in mainland Britain started growing cereals and 400 years before farming reached what is now northern Germany or France, they wrote in the journal Science.

“We were surprised to find wheat,” co-author Robin Allaby of the University of Warwick told Reuters of finds at Bouldnor Cliff.

“This is a smoking gun of cultural interaction,” between primitive hunter-gatherers in Britain and farmers in Europe, he said of the findings in the journal Science.

“It will upset archaeologists. The conventional view of Britain at the time was that it was cut off,” he said. “We can only speculate how they got wheat — it could have been trade, a gift or stolen.”

The scientists also found DNA of oak, poplar and beech and of dogs or wolves, deer, grouse and auroch, a type of cow. There was no trace of wheat pollen in the samples, indicating that it was not grown locally.

The scientists found the DNA at what was apparently a pre-historic site for boat building. The sediments are now 11.5 meters (38 feet) below sea level.

Britain used to be connected by land to Europe during the Ice Age but melting icecaps pushed seas higher about 10,000 years ago. A land bridge may have lingered 8,000 years ago.

Farming reaching the Balkans about 8-9,000 years ago from the Middle East and eventually spread throughout Europe.

Greger Larson, an American archaeologist at Oxford University who was not involved in the study, praised the experts for extensive checks to ensure against misinterpretation or contamination of DNA.

The find of wheat “will make us re-evaluate the relationships between farmers and hunter-gatherers,” he told Reuters.

He said there has been other signs of contacts, including bones of domesticated pigs in Germany in Stone Age hunter-gatherer settlements. “There are trade networks that pre-date agriculture,” he said.

(Reporting By Alister Doyle)

Read more at http://newsdaily.com/2015/02/stone-age-britons-imported-wheat-in-shock-sign-of-sophistication/#P8lIKQy3SEYOrtdm.99
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 24, 2015, 06:06:24 pm »


(Image Credit: Daily Mail)
A scale model of Noah’s Ark has been built in India according to instructions on a 4,000 year old script.  :o   ???

Noah's Ark Rebuilt According To Ancient Specs 

The vessel, based on the ancient instruction manual, is coracle like, and was built using traditional methods with materials in India.

Built at around one fifth of the original size, the replica would be big enough to carry only some pairs of ‘well behaved animals’, according to Dr Irving Finkel of The British Museum, who first discovered the ancient cuneiform text.

The replicated ark weighed around 20 tonnes, with walls 20 feet high and a small living area on top. It was built as part of the documentary feature being produced called ‘The Real Noah’s Ark’, which is set to air shortly.

Building An Ark

The text describes God speaking to Atram-Hasis, who apparently is the original ‘Noah’ used in the stories that Noah’s Ark was allegedly based upon.

Quote
‘Wall, wall! Reed wall, reed wall! Atram-Hasis, pay heed to my advice, that you may live forever! Destroy your house, build a boat; despise possessions And save life! Draw out the boat that you will built with a circular design; Let its length and breadth be the same.’

Should be an interesting documentary. Read more here at The Daily Mail, along with some pictures and video.

http://itsastrangeworld.com/noahs-ark-rebuilt-according-ancient-instructions/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 22, 2015, 08:00:06 pm »

Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 2 of 2 PARTS

Also, the number of days this ark was out of sight of land implies a mind boggling amount of water for Noah, considering that he DID NOT live next to the ocean (if that had been the case, he would have built the ark next to the water) but lived up in the hills,  mountains or whatever. Even if the flood area was LOCAL, Dr. Ross is disingenuously lowballing its size by avoiding a DETAILED discussion of the time period the ark was on the waters. How convenient.

But this perfidy, hairsplitting and doubletalk is predicated on the premise, and Ashvin's premise too, that God does NOT do overkill. Yes He does. But it is a clever way to get Christians to nod their heads, isn't it? This charlatanry abuses the faith of Christians in a "GOOD" God by refusing to accept that there is no human way we can justify God's overkill.

It's God's universe, period. There is no need to baby talk and abuse the faith of people by making sanctimonious claims about what God's actions are limited by. But it sells books and keeps the simpletons happy. That does not make it right or logical.

See below a fascinating example of premise upon false premise leading to more and greater incorrect assumptions:


Quote
Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth."

Baloney. Dr. Ross cleverly leaves out a certain verb in the Noah account NOT present in the Adam account.

Quote
The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth.

God DID NOT "Repeat" the command to Noah that God gave to Adam. Mr. Ross takes ONE  VERSE out of context and throws in the Tower of Babel to confuse the issue. In fact, the Tower of Babel is OBVIOUSLY allegorical unless you think God was A) physically located at a distance from mankind down on the planet AND B)  concerned that humans could "get to him" with a united effort like a tower or human space flight. LOL! The last time I checked, humans are no threat to God. The Tower of Babel is an allegory, period. 

Quote
This view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia."

The first nine chapters of Genesis is a LOT of territory to cover with such a blanket statement about the consistency of his view. LONG before Moses sat down to write (more like rewrite from hand me down documents or oral traditions) Genesis, there is evidence of civilizations that came and went that God never told Moses beans about.

The Bible is trapped in a vice of chronology in this regard.  There no way that Biblical Scholars, who pay any attention to the chronology of the generations and the names, can handle a flood that happened 12,500 years ago.

That is why many fundamentalists, true to their rigid, all or nothing, personalities,  have to locked themselves in a Procrustean bed that denies verifiable science that PROVES the allegorical nature of several biblical passages.

This in no way denigrates from Biblical authority as a handbook for proper human behavior. Nevertheless, any crack in the scientific accuracy of the Biblical account is used by many to give the Bible, and God, the giant finger.

Dr. Ross is trying to straddle this arbitrary fence with his defense of the Bible and the Christian Faith. Good for him. But his cherry picking is the wrong way to go about it.

Ross left out the Noah quote from Jesus Christ. How convenient. The Kenotic school of thinking (see Kenosis -the relinquishment of divine attributes by Jesus Christ in becoming human ), rejected by many Christian scholars and accepted by many more today, is that J.C. shrunk his mental data base to Homo SAP size through the incarnation to the point of actually being a scientific ignoramous while He walked the earth. I agree that He did not have the full God picture of the universe; that would have made Him an ACTOR in THEATER, as RE has postulated. J.C. had doubts, and plenty of them. A fellow confident of kicking DEATH's ass by getting killed does not sweat blood.

But when He was talking about His return and Noah, He is making it rather clear what He KNEW and what HE DIDN'T KNOW (He didn't know when He was going to return but He knew Noah's flood affected all mankind throughout the world as His return would affect mankind throughout the world). Your logic that, "if the flood was local, then J.C. obviously believed it was local", applies equally if the flood was global.

Dr. Ross, makes broad statements based on the "macro" scientific evidence, only to devolve into the hairslpitting "micro" to support his broad claims. This is one of them:


Quote
The mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have extremely long time constants, so long that the effects of such a catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global.

Plate tectonics is a red herring wild goose chase that is irrelevant to geologic events within human history. Yeah, they happen slowly. But floods, particularly post ice age ones, happen rather quickly with a lot of help from a few large meteor fragments.

The evidence of global flooding has, in fact, been presented by credentialed geologists for over fifty years. Is it "easily" measured? Yes, but it is controversial to the mainstream uniformitarian geologic paradigm. Consequently, it has been rejected based on uniformitarian ideology, not lack of evidence. And spare me the "dating sediment layers" business. Dating a rock says NOTHING about whether that rock sediment was moved from here to there by a lot of water in a brief period. Sedimentation evidence, on the other hand, DOES.

According to uniformitarianism, all rock formations, including sedimentary rocks where fossils are found, formed over millions of years.

The fact that land AND MARINE fossils are found on land (not in the oceans) and fossilization mostly occurs in conditions of rapid sedimentation (which introduce anoxic conditions that preserve the shape and favor mineralization of the remains - small insects trapped in amber are an exception to this rule because amber also is an anoxic biochemical trap). IS evidence for global flood(s). Furthermore, it is NOT evidence, as mainstream geology claims, of "shallow seas covering the earth millions of years ago" BECAUSE fossils DO NOT FORM in sea water. The skeletons dissolve UNLESS anoxic conditions and biochemical bacterial decomposition is HALTED.

At the bottom of ALL oceans, no matter how deep OR ANOXIC, bacterial decomposition RECYCLES whale skeletons and anything else smaller. Please don't hairsplit with microscopic phytoplankton fossils and such. That is not evidence for ocean preservation of (above microscopic) marine fossils.

Fossilization is an ANOMALY! The biosphere is DESIGNED to recycle all parts of all life forms. Biological science accepts that! But mainstream geology does not want to admit that OBVIOUS fact BECAUSE their "geologic column" is their "BIBLE"!

The "body of geologic knowledge" Dr. Ross is referring to is selective and proven to be partly erroneous as well.

Dr. Ross obviously does not know or believe that a lot of water, carrying massive amounts of sediment and then receding within days or months, leaves multiple levels of sediment that give the FALSE uniformitarian school geologic paradigm view that it happened over millions of years.

But empirical proof of this is has already been obtained subsequent to the Mount Saint Helens eruption caused lake flood. The Grand Canyon strata is also evidence, hotly debated, that uniformitarians cannot counter with their dating methods. They found a mosquito with detectable, not mineralized blood in its gut. This was in a Grand Canyon area sedimentary rock strata allegedly over 16 million years old. The ROCKS may be that old, but a massive flood could have DEPOSITED them in sedimentary layers 12,500 years ago along with the mosquito. As usual, like the dino soft tissue, it's considered a mosquito that just happened to have preserved hemoglobin for 16 (or more) million years. It's a little too close to Jurassic Park for comfort IF that blood found in the gut from a feeding just before it got crushed was from a "you know what".  LOL

Since the effects of a catastrophic global flood 12,500, or so, ARE measurable to this day (good science is NEVER "easy"; it's always methodical and challenging), Dr. Ross CANNOT  assume or conclude that the flood was local. But he does anyway (see large "body" of "knowledge"). Dr. Ross's conclusion is based on the uniformitarian geology scientific consensus that is controversial, not on scientific evidence. 

The fact that fossils are found intermittently in sedimentary layers on land is evidence of (more than one) global flooding event. Dr. Ross is in denial of the FACT that fossilization is a FUNCTION of rapid sedimentation.

But there is more.


The Carbon-14 identified remains of humans in widely dispersed areas of the globe around the time (and before) of the catastrophic meteor fragment strikes 12,500 years ago argues for global flooding along with the 250 plus flood  "myths" of diverse cultures all over the planet. 

But let's talk Bible for the moment:

Below please find Genesis mentions of "the earth". I am certain that the author of Genesis was not changing his definition of "the earth", equating said expression to the entire planet sometimes and a local area at other times.

DR. Ross, and you, obviously do. I accuse Dr. Ross of using the cherry picking fallacious debating tactic. I accuse Ross of trying to stuff the local flood Procrustean bed into the Genesis account of a worldwide flood.

Putting aside the ancient world wide human remains Carbon-14 evidence, sunken cities pretty far from a local area of about 500 to 1000 miles around Turkey and the 12,500 year old meteor fragment catastrophe/possible breaching of massive underground, rock bound waters/massive volcanic eruptions/massive earthquakes/rapid glacial melt/giant tsunamis/flood for a moment, the Scripture is quite clear that the flood was worldwide.

If you accept that the flood was local, then when the Scripture describes the "whole heaven" in connection to the extent of the flood, I guess you will have to claim the "whole heaven" were local too! That is just one of several glaring logical inconsistencies in trying to squeeze  the "local flood" meme into Genesis. The Paul quote that Dr. Ross cherry picked is not evidence that the flood is local.


Quote
King James Bible
Chapter 7:
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the [size=12]whole heaven[/size], were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Chapter 8:
1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;
3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.


Agelbert note: Please do not hairsplit with me here by bringing up the flight range of a dove (or a raven) as DEFINING the range of the flood.
That logic ignores all the other mentions of "the earth" quoted here.

Furthermore, any claim that this particular passage is "more significant" than the others, because it inserts the word "whole" in the phrase "the earth", completely ignores the fact that Ross is quite willing to equate the entire planet with "the earth" when he uses the "fill the earth" passage as alleged evidence that humanity AND the flood were area limited. Ross also cleverly forgets to mention the "replenish" verb in Genesis 9:1. How convenient. Ross CANNOT have it both ways.


Quote
13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Chapter 9:
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

According the Scripture passages above, "THE EARTH" = 

But you are otherwise convinced, so I see no point in discussing it further. I maintain my stance that you and Dr. Ross are wrong. We will have to agree to disagree.

I am done with this thread. Any further posts about strange sh it by me will be on some other thread.  I don't think it is prudent to spend long periods analyzing articles submitted by an allegedly objective party that expects me to diligently do so (your posted verbiage far exceeds mine but you are rather quick to remind me when I miss something  )  while simultaneously the very same allegedly objective party calmly admits he sees no need to watch the videos I post.

Those videos actually save time. The one presented by Az (by  scientist Dr. Robert Schoch that documented Egyptian Sphinx age and ancient high tech with data, not speculation) was a good one too. Yes, one can't put quotes to debate the video claims one by one but that is easily taken care of by recording the time period in seconds a certain quote was made. That is not hard and is quite specific. It saves time typing as well.

But that is, unfortunately for me, not your style. So I end up reading long articles you post, your arguments to me and other posters, and you end up never watching my posted videos.
 
Here's another excellent and informative video by Dr. Robert Schoch. I'm sorry you won't watch it, Ashvin. It's a bit boring but really quite good. Yep, Schoch sells books too.

The Sphinx, Gobekli Tepe, Ancient Catastrophes Dr Robert Schoch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R1TQ6ZiQBI&feature=player_embedded


End of Part 2 od 2 Parts.

Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 1 of 2 PARTS
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 22, 2015, 07:53:02 pm »

Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 1 of 2 PARTS

Agelbert NOTE: This is my last post on this thread. I will post any subsequent information in regard to the subjects of ancient maps, archeology, the worldwide flood(s), ancient high tech civilization evidence and evidence, or the lack of it, for ET influence on Homo SAPS on some other thread.   

Quote
Ashvin,
I stand corrected. I see that you believe humanity was limited to the area around where Noah lived. Then, of course, the flood would not need to be world wide.

Of course the account of Noah does not say that non-aquatic animals were singled out for destruction; that's a logical conclusion a biblical researcher I read about in the 1980's reached when he studied the Noah's Ark and what types of life forms (all surface air breathers) were in it. Quite frankly, that's a no-brainer. But that researcher went on and on about seeds surviving so no seeds needed to be carried, dormant insects, insect eggs and pods that float (and so on). It wasn't necessary for all that to be spelled out in Scripture, was it?

As to the polar bears and penguins, both species would survive in a worldwide flood even though they are air breathers because they hang around and feed on ice flows. But the gist of your question is not about polar bears and penguins; it's about overkill. I get it.

So let me address it. You are the Biblical Scholar, not me. You are the one that has discussed the curse now and then from Adam on down. I have absolutely no sympathy for God's decision to curse all of life because Adam was disobedient.

Quote
I don't believe God "cursed" all creation, as in he supernaturally placed a hex on it. I believe he was pointing out the simple fact that creation would now be subjected to the misuses and abuses of sinful humans. The "curse" was a natural consequence of humanity's fall.

You can define "curse" anyway you want, but  "Entropy and the wearing down and deterioration of every life form until it physically dies" is a fairly good working definition.

Nature apparently got shafted because of Adam's disobedience, PERIOD. Dr. Ross, when discussing another act by God  (Noah's flood) claims it was local, but the laws of thermodynamics that govern physical life processes in this universe, not just biochemstry on planet earth,  oviously are not.  I consider that massive overkill.

Quote
I'm right there with WHD in being highly ****ed about the idea that a just God would do such a thing. I do not get it. I do not understand it. But just like all of nature was cursed because of whatever actually happened (I DO think the garden of Eden is 100% allegorical!) a long time ago between our species and God, the death of millions of totally innocent animals in the flood is a given that I accept.

So yeah, I believe the flood was worldwide and covered all the mountain tops (as the Scripture says). There are marine fossil shells found in the highest of mountains. The scientists claim that is because the mountains got pushed up. Some of them, sure. But marine fossils on mountains are ubiquitous all over the planet. And Ashvin, there is lot more evidence, hard evidence, of a geologically recent worldwide flood than that.

Quote
I primarily rely on Hugh Ross for the scientific side of this:

Quote
The Waters of the Flood
January 1, 2000
By Dr. Hugh Ross

"Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Genesis Flood is its geographical extent. Part of the basis for the controversy is that Genesis addresses the geophysics, geology, and geography of the flood only secondarily. Its main message is that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of the wickedness of man. The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.

A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific. As I mentioned in part seven of this series, the Bible is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence, we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's choice of the Hebrew words for creatures" destroyed by the flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further details.

In Genesis 7:4-12 we are told that the flood arose from the earth's troposphere and from underground aquifers (not from some unknown place in outer space). These water resources are considerable, to be sure, but fall short of what verse 19 seems to require. According to Genesis 7:19, the waters "rose greatly ... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." The English translation seems to imply that even Mt. Everest was submerged under the flood waters.

Science has indeed discovered there is enough water locked away beneath the earth to flood the planet ABOVE the mountain tops. I'll dig up the article if you want.

Dr. Ross is unconvinced by the evidence presented by the scientific community of meteor fragments hitting the planet 12,500 years ago as a direct cause of Noah's flood BECAUSE of a biblical account that is NOT an eye witness account like the waters all around the ark are.

I see his logic. It's pretty good but it falls short. Noah saw a lot of water but there is no way he could have ascertained that the flood was global, so Noah's account of a global flood is suspect, particularly in the area of water torrents coming from inside the planet.

But that certainly does not rule out the hard scientific evidence of meteor fragment strikes, fossilization mechanism (discussed below) and the discovery of, not small, but gigantic (enough when added to our oceans to flood the whole planet!), under the earth, amounts of salt water that certainly could get freed by a lot of meteor induced tectonic activity. That knowledge comes from that very same geophysical body of knowledge Dr. Ross subsequently uses to claim the flood was local. He is cherry picking. That's not kosher.


Quote
  The Hebrew word for "high," however, simply means elevated" and for "mountain," means anything from "a small hillock" to "a towering peak." The Hebrew verb for "covered" allows three alternatives: (1) inundated, (2) rained upon, or (3) washed over as by a rush of water. In any of these cases, 15 cubits of standing water, 15 cubits of sudden rainfall, or a 15-cubit rush of water, there would be no human or animal survivors. 

This is speculation. Wood floats. People hang on to it and float too. A cubit equals 450 mm = 18 inches. Fifteen cubits =  22.5 feet. The 2004 tsunami had survivors that hung on to things that floated. Some of these people were found alive in the ocean after several days.

Does Dr. Ross accept that the waters were (15 cubits above the surface of all Homo SAPS) for the length of time Moses claims that Noah claimed there were? If so, he had better deep six that word "rush" to describe the waters.  If so, he has a lot of explaining to do about how so much water could be in a previously dry area for so long.

But he doesn't go there because that would argue for a much larger flood (though not necessarily a planetary one) than a relatively small local flood. His faulty calculus is that God is limited to offing just mankind and the "defiled by association" animals and land. I wish that was true.

Please obseve more cherry picking below. Here he accepts the rather broad, and impossible to verify, Biblical claim that the waters went back to their previous levels. There is simply NO WAY that Noah could know that unless God told him that. Dr. Ross is reticent to believe other things God allegedly told Noah but accepts this revelation as fact?

Hello? We all agree that, after Noah's flood, the human population did not require birth control, right? It was going to be a while before Piri Reis made his map, right?  Noah did NOT KNOW WHERE the shores were before the flood and certainly did not know afterwards, period (this is an excellent argument for claiming antedilluvian civilization was NOT high tech. If it had been, Noah would certainly have known where the pre-flood shorelines were - Dr. Ross probably would claim that Noah and mankind were in such a small area that they COULD, in LOW TECH fashion,  measure the shorelines before and after the flood - how convenient for his local flood hypothesis.).

If the flood covered the planet and Noah knew where the shorelines were before and after the flood, he either lived in a global high tech civilization prior to the flood or got his info through Divine Revelation.   

As you see below,  Dr. Ross is being highly selective in what he claims science backs up as accurate and what Genesis is accurate on. His statement about the claim made by some that there were no high mountains before the flood is impossible to verify and not accepted by geological science OR claimed by the Bible either; it's just another red herring we must ignore. I've already stated that science has, indeed, discovered that there IS enough water to flood our planet to the mountain tops.


Quote
Genesis 8 gives us the most significant evidence for a universal (with respect to man and his animals and lands), but not global, flood. The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.

The argument I have heard most frequently against this conclusion is that before the flood, there were no high mountains or deep oceans. The present day relief of the earth's surface is said to have been generated in a period of just a few months. I see several major problems with such a suggestion:
-it contradicts a vast body of geological data;
-it contradicts a vast body of geophysical data, at the same time requiring such cataclysmic effects as to render highly unlikely Noah's survival in an ark;
-it overlooks the geophysical difficulties of a planet with a smooth surface; and
-it contradicts our observations of the tectonics. The mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have extremely long time constants, so long that the effects of such a catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global.

As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.

Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth." The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth. This view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia."

Dr. Ross is a marvel of supposition and groundless logic. He is obviously swayed by the "vast body" of geological "evidence" by our geologists being challenged today by credentialed scientists.  He is rather pedantic as well.
His claim that the main controversy from a scientific perspective with the flood is the geographic extent is inaccurate. The main controversy, from a scientific perspective, is the FACT that one, or seven, breeding pairs is too narrow of a gene pool to guarantee the survival of species.

There is zero evidence that biblically clean animals require more breeding pairs than biblically unclean animals. The whole Ark trip is a massive bag of worms scientifically. So that means portions of it may be allegorical and there possibly were hundreds of arks in diverse places on the earth.

Ross is merely trying to establish the geographic area of the flood (the subject of his analysis), as the most controversial issue. It's a nice rhetorical touch. If the local flood hypothesis is established as the correct one, the other "issues" are minor details.   

Then he comes up with this clever gem of pedantic posturing:
Quote
A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific.

That application of that "good rule" properly depends on what the definition of "less specific" and "more specific" is. But on the face of it, it is an illogical premise. "MORE SPECIFIC", in regard to EVIDENCE, is where one must start to reach and/or define "LESS SPECIFIC", not the other way around. But we can hairplit that all day so let's assume he has a lick of sense and see where he goes with this.  .

Quote
" defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land."

Beyond the "defilement" of the sinners and progeny , possessions and land, WHILE THEY LIVE ON IT ONLY (there is old testament scripture that challenges the progeny "defilement" too, by the way), the Bible certainly does not maintain anywhere that animals that are part of sinner livelihood (beyond DOMESTIC ANIMALS) are "defiled". But that term, "defilement", is a very, very devious term as applied here. Millions of WILD animals, totally unrelated to the LIVELIHOOD of mankind were KILLED by drowning.

To claim it was because they were "defiled by association" using his "less specific" to "more specific" baloney is ridiculous!

And this is the prize of gross assumptions:


Quote
"Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. "

It's magical thinking but it sounds so pious and good. So he is saying that every bullock and every turtle dove and so on that got sacrificed on an altar deserved it? Will he doubletalk sacrifice for sin as NOT being "judgmental" or related to JUDGMENT?  According to Scripture, God ORDERED that done, NOT because those animals were part of the livelihood of man but because of mankind's sins.

Those animals were NOT DEFILED. In fact, unclean animals COULD NOT be sacrificed! 

And even that SENSELESS BUTCHERY was low level atonement sans total forgivess (not enough to do the job), so Christ had to be the Lamb of God. Christ was/is INNOCENT. ALL those sacrificed animals were INNOCENT. Scape goating ordered by GOD is a buck passing prima facie UNJUST act!

Dr. Ross is full of doubletalk.

To human eyes, unjust behavior by God is ALL OVER THE OLD TESTAMENT!  The young girl that had to DIE because some idiot promised God that the first person he saw would be sacrificed was UNJUST.

Many, many other examples abound. The 21 or over Israelites in Exodus were judged for their disobedience but the kids got a free pass. That was logical and just! The under 21 members of a people that had attacked the Israelites ordered killed was NOT justice.

People slaughtered because of what their ancestors did to the Israelites centuries previous, anyone?

Job, anyone?

Dr. Ross reads what he wants to into the Bible. I don't question God's sovereignty. And I do not sugar coat it either.

Then Ross proceeds to play fast and loose with "the earth" and "the heavens" by cherry picking a quote from Paul. And hairsplitting with the translations of "hills", "mountains" and water depths ignores that Scriptrure quote in Genesis where it states that the Ark was a certain number of cubits ABOVE the  HIGHEST mountains at maximum flood. He wants to define the term "highest" away too!  How convenient. This is hairspliting on steroids! Even a cursory search of the 66 Bible books would find numerous irrefutable uses of the adjective "highest" to mean exactly that!


End of Part 1 of 2 Parts:  Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local

Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 2 of 2 PARTS
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 20, 2015, 12:07:52 am »

UB,
Well said.

Ashvin,
You are right. You know nothing about maps ( I know that is a bit snarky but since you like to dish it out, I expect you can take it.).

As UB says. The type of map projection (Portolan) discussed does not invalidate a twisted coastline. The author is presenting a non-argument.

The author had one valid argument about Piri Reis that he subsequently contradicted. I will provide a post on that tomorrow along with addressing Dr. Ross views.

But here's something for you to ponder in regard to Portolan maps:

Quote

Portolan Charts 'Too Accurate' to be Medieval

by Frank Jacobs
 
Portolan charts, it was always assumed, were compiled by medieval European mapmakers from contemporary sources. A Dutch doctoral dissertation now disproves this: these nautical charts are impossibly accurate, not just for medieval Europe, also for other likely sources, the Byzantines and the Arabs. So who made them – and when?

Mystery has always shrouded the sudden emergence, seemingly ex nihilo, of portolan charts. The oldest known example emerged in Pisa around 1290, without any obvious antecedents. This Carta Pisana kickstarted a tradition of amazingly accurate sea charts almost up to modern standards, although as with most other portolans, that accuracy was mainly limited to the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

A typical portolan chart showed coastal contours and the location of harbours and ports, ignoring virtually all inland features. It would be criss-crossed by straight lines, connecting opposite shores by any of the 32 directions of the mariner's compass, thus facilitating navigation.

After popping up in Italy, portolans became coveted possessions in the seafaring nations of Spain and Portugal, where they ranked as state secrets.

Little or nothing is known of their origins and production, so the working hypothesis among cartographic historians was that portolans were somehow gathered together from the knowledge of medieval European sailors, possibly enhanced with older knowledge from Byzantine or Arab sources.

That hypothesis has now been disproven by Roelof Nicolai, a Dutch geodetic scientist who on 3 March obtained his doctorate degree from Utrecht University for a dissertation titled A Critical Review of the Hypothesis of a Medieval Origin for Portolan Charts.

In it, Nicolai puts forth the theory that portolan charts were made using techniques that were not at all available to medieval Europeans. So they must have copied them from unknown older sources – in all likelihood while failing to grasp how accurate those maps really were.

Nicolai demonstrates that portolans achieved their accuracy by using what seems like an early version of the Mercator Projection – almost three centuries early. Only in 1569 would the Flemish cartographer introduce his mathematical method of projecting spherical data onto a flat surface that would prove crucial to navigation (straight lines on the map equal straight lines at sea).

mozaik (graphic at link)

In blue: portolan shorelines; in red: actual shorelines. A close match in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, wildly off the mark in the British Isles and the Baltic.


“The portolan maps I've researched all seem to be made using the Mercator Projection”, Nicolai says. “They've all clearly been produced on medieval parchment, but those mapmakers probably didn't realise the accuracy of the maps they were producing. We immediately recognise the shape of the Mediterranean, but even in the Late Middle Ages, that shape was far from established on maps. Nobody really knew how all of the Mediterranean's shorelines ran”.

 Nicolai also showed that the portolans weren't produced as single pieces, but in fact are a mosaic: “There are obvious differences of scale and orientation between different areas on portolan maps. Not only does that demonstrate clearly that they were collated from different maps, it also shows that those medieval cartographers were not familiar with the techniques used to produce those different sources”.

The doctorandus also tried to replicate the presumed method by which portolan charts were produced, by averaging the data from numerous single sailing records detailing the location of harbours, the directions of sail, etc. The resulting accuracy was worse by a factor of 10 to that of the actual portolan charts – even while using methods of calculation averages that were developed only at the end of the 17th century. Only in the 19th century did cartographers manage to re-achieve the accuracy of the portolans.

So who was the producer of this anachronistic accuracy? Nicolai only points to the likely source of the maps: Constantinople. “But it is highly unlikely that they were produced there as well. As far as we can tell, the Byzantines really didn't add much to the scientific knowledge inherited from the Classical Age. They only acted as a repository for ancient Greek and Arabic knowledge. And why would the Byzantines even try to chart English and French coastlines? Those were way beyond their sphere of interest”.

Could portolans have an Arabic background? After all, the Arabs were keen astronomers and navigators, giving us the nautical rank of admiral (from 'Amir al Bahr', ruler of the sea). But Nicolai contends the accuracy of the portolans transcends the Arabs' navigational ability of the time. And what we know of Roman and Greek scientific knowledge, for that matter.

“Perhaps we should re-evaluate what we think was the state of science in Antiquity”, says Nicolai. “As long as this doesn't generate any speculation on so-called lost civilisations. As far as these portolans are concerned, we'll just have to think our way back step by step”.
[color]

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/648-portolan-charts-too-accurate-to-be-medieval

Ashvin,
Your author does not have a clue of what he speaks in regard to Portolan maps.    In fact, anyone knowledgeable of maps does not want to use the Portolan chart nature of Piri Reis to claim it is "no big deal" because the reverse may be true BECAUSE it is a Portolan type chart.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 18, 2015, 12:51:02 am »




https://youtu.be/RvHD-oLT-qE
Underworld - Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age (part three)

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 17, 2015, 06:07:00 pm »

Ashvin,  Let me get his straight. You think that JESUS CHRIST was referring to a LOCAL flood when he was discussing Noah and the Ark?

I think it's a valid interpretation of the Genesis account and scientifically more plausible than a global one. If it is in fact the CORRECT interpretation, then it's obviously the one Jesus would have held too.

Quote
Do you want the Gospels in Greek (as supposedly they were originally written in) and the old testament in Aramaic, Hebrew and whatever to accept that JESUS was raised in the JEWISH faith and read and beleived the Scriptures that do not say BEANS about the flood and Noah being allegorical, a parable, some children's scary story or a warning? Your NON-answer is absolutely BREATHTAKING!

I'm having a hard time believing that you are having such a hard time understanding what I'm saying. My posts have made clear that I do NOT believe it was allegorical, a parable or any other literary device. So I don't know why you keep mentioning those things.

Quote
Fast forward to Mathew 24:37-39. Here the overall context is His RETURN when He won't be Mr. Nice Guy. He is using a historical reference (Noah, the ark and the flood that drowned every non-aquatic creature on EARTH, according to the scripture (the date it happened is not the issue, Ashvin - it's WHETHER it happened or not on a global scale that IS the issue AND the reason I said anybody claiming J.C. did not believe in global flood is mistaken.).

Where does it say "every non-aquatic creature"?

Quote
J.C. is predicting what some Homo SAP civilizational conditions when He RETURNS. It's a prophecy. It's a rather IMPORTANT prophecy, is it not? Do you HONESTLY think Jesus Christ  would use a LOCAL FLOOD (where Noah and family got warned and survived while the bad people in a limited area drown)  comparison to HIS RETURN to JUDGE the EARTH?

Do you think He was planning to drop in on the same area as that LOCAL FLOOD and to hell with the rest of the planet?

Perhaps I am not understanding you, Ashvin. Would you please clarify your position on Noah and the extent of the flood? GO was kind enough to state right out that he thought it was a parable. He considered it a myth. He may still consider it a myth but he promises to ponder the issue. There is an honest response. Is that your opinion too?

Yes, you are misunderstanding me, and no that's not my opinion.

We BOTH agree that the Flood was universal (and that Jesus was talking about a literal, universal Flood), i.e. it wiped out ALL of humanity except Noah and his family. My position is that ALL of humanity could have been confined to a limited portion of the Earth at the time the Flood occurred. This position would assume that Adam & Eve and their descendants up to Noah didn't make it too far from Eden before the Flood came.

(this is the position held by Hugh Ross and others at Reasons to Believe - www.reasons.org)

Quote
And by the way, I'm surprised you did not immediately point out to GO that "image and likeness" of God has absolutely nothing to do with our biology and everything to do with our spirit. Or do YOU labor under the erroneous view that our bodies are what was made in the "image and likeness" of God too?

I think GO and I both say it is about human spirit, NOT biology. But GO's point seemed to be that it would be weird for God to create humans in his image, but also more advanced and intelligent beings who are not in his image. My point was this would only be weird if the beings were fallen, since Jesus would be incarnated on at least one other planet as another being (not human) for their redemption. If they are not fallen, then it's not so weird (theologically), since we already accept the existence of unfallen angels who are probably more intelligent than we are.

Quote
Back to Jesus Christ, we have enough trouble in forums like this to get people to believe Jesus Christ Himself came even the FIRST TIME, never mind returning! Look at all the hoops you jumped through when that article about J.C. being a myth was dropped here by Da godfader for fun and jollies over a year ago. I was so disgusted with it I could not bring myself even to comment on it. I am indebted to you for fighting the good fight then.

But now I'm very unsatisfied with your response about J.C. and Matthew 24:37-39. J.C. was not whistling Dixie, to put it mildly. He was talking about the most important event in Church Prophetic Teaching History. You CANNOT just gloss over that and concentrate on the cross, salvation and leave it at that. The Early Church got through those awful times with help from the Holy Spirit, sure. But the HOPE of His RETURN was one of the main forces in keeping the early Christians united.

That biblical passage is a HUGE deal! I caution you, JD and GO and any other believers reading this, to not pretend Jesus Christ was making an "unimportant" comparison between Noah's life saving ark and Jesus Christ's return.

Of course. I pointed out this same HUGE comparison to GO back when he still believed it was allegory, and I'm pretty sure that's why he decided to treat it more literally. The comparison rests in the LITERAL judgments of sin/evil which affect ALL of humanity, and the "Ark" (Jesus Christ) which offers us salvation. I hope my position is more clear to you now.

I also have a question - do you believe God would wipe out Arctic polar bears or penguins in Antarctica, even though they would have no interaction with humanity at the time of the Flood? That seems like overkill to me...

Ashvin,
I stand corrected. I see that you believe humanity was limited to the area around where Noah lived. Then, of course, the flood would not need to be world wide.

Of course the account of Noah does not say that non-aquatic animals were singled out for destruction; that's a logical conclusion a biblical researcher I read about in the 1980's reached when he studied the Noah's Ark and what types of life forms (all surface air breathers) were in it. Quite frankly, that's a no-brainer. But that researcher went on and on about seeds surviving so no seeds needed to be carried, dormant insects, insect eggs and pods that float (and so on). It wasn't necessary for all that to be spelled out in Scripture, was it?

As to the polar bears and penguins, both species would survive in a worldwide flood even though they are air breathers because they hang around and feed on ice flows. But the gist of your question is not about polar bears and penguins; it's about overkill. I get it.

So let me address it. You are the Biblical Scholar, not me. You are the one that has discussed the curse now and then from Adam on down. I have absolutely no sympathy for God's decision to curse all of life because Adam was disobedient.

I'm right there with WHD in being highly disgusted with the idea that a just God would do such a thing. I do not get it. I do not understand it. But just like all of nature was cursed because of whatever actually happened (I DO think the garden of Eden is 100% allegorical!) a long time ago between our species and God, the death of millions of totally innocent animals in the flood is a given that I accept.

So yeah, I believe the flood was worldwide and covered all the mountain tops (as the Scripture says). There are marine fossil shells found in the highest of mountains. The scientists claim that is because the mountains got pushed up. Some of them, sure. But marine fossils on mountains are ubiquitous all over the planet. And Ashvin, there is a lot more evidence, hard evidence, of a geologically recent worldwide flood than that.

But let us assume that there is NO EVIDENCE and the Bible is our only reference. Let us assume that God did some major overkill during Noah's flood. There is no question that the animal pairs that got lucky and were chosen to ride the boat equates to a death sentence for the numerous representatives of their species that were slated to drown. Without even considering polar bears or penguins, we are already into overkill=unjust God territory, are we not? We are not talking about the difference between a Divine misdemeanor and a felony. God is either 100% just or He is not God, right? Right.

So where do these apparently calloused and cruel Divine death sentences on innocent animals, never mind severely narrowing the gene pool, leave us? Shall we give the finger to the God of the Bible? Shall we say all religion is baloney? Shall we say J.C. did not know His ass from a hole in the ground? Not me. Only God has the authority to judge God.

Shall we say that it is obvious that there is no God and we are all evolved pond scum doing a Rorschach exercise on what we see in nature by projecting our feverish imaginations on why this, that and the other happened to try to make some sense or order where there actually is no order or sense? Are we just making it up as we go along because of our 'evolutionary advantage' (used to quickly discern threats, particularly threatening faces) called Pareidolia?

Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant.

I used to listen to a Pastor called J. Vernon McGee. He would respond to questions of that nature by saying that it's God's universe. What seems unjust as all hell to us has some purpose that we cannot fathom because of our limitations as humans.

The unbelievers call that wishful or magical thinking. I don't believe it is. It's a recognition that trying to logically countenance each and every action that God takes that involves causing the physical death of his creations as "good", only if it is limited to the guilty party (Homo SAP), is a quixotic effort.

Towards the end of His earthly ministry, J.C. said something that has always struck me as evidence that the Bible is VERY limited in what knowledge it has imparted to Homo SAPS on what goes on and why.

Quote
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

IOW, He has given them the basic stuff. The other info is WAY OUT there, more complex, more voluminous and more difficult to believe. We know very little about this universe.

My belief is that there was a worldwide flood (at least one). My evidence is the 12,500 year old catastrophe that scientists have found evidence for about some LARGE meteor fragments hitting the planet mostly in North America and triggering massive, rapid melting.

I believe that carved the Grand Canyon in decades, not millions of years, along with wiping out some very advanced civilizations. I believe THAT was Noah's flood. I think Jesus Christ knew that and a whole lot more He did not tell us.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 17, 2015, 01:24:04 am »

JD,
I researched the Chinese maps. Unlike Piri Reis, the dates cannot be authenticated. Consequently, they cannot be used as evidence of Chinese pre-European discovery of the Americas.  :emthdown:

UB said,
Quote
Agelbert, thanks for the time taken producing the above posts, kindly cue the cat in the labcoat, it needs to be my new signature.

The cat in the lab coat?
 

You mean THIS ONE?


WHOOPS! That's the one that comes later.... 
 

You are welcome.

I hear what you say about Antarctica and Piri Reis. But you have to look closely at Cape Horn (in the right twist distortion) versus the location of the Malvinas on the Piri Reis map. That is BIG deal. WHY? Because Cape Horn looks like the stretched, flattened Antarctic coast that a modern map like the one below shows.



Now check out the other map that shows what the world looked like before the ice melted 16000 years ago. It is quite interesting that the South American tip begins to swing RIGHT as the ocean level gets shallower.



Does that mean Piri Reis data down there was that old? I don't think so BECAUSE the Malvinas would be bigger.


 They aren't bigger than when they got officially mapped by some Dutch dude in 1524 or so. Nevertheless, I agree the Dutch were not letting on what they knew (the Dutch have a historical HATRED for Spaniards). I'll dig up that Dutch 1524 map if you like. Here's a modern close up map of the area:


At any rate, Piri Reis and the Dutch were probably NOT pals either. My hypothesis is that the ancient knowledge came from the middle east. I've got some leads but no proof. So, for now, I am simply TOTALLY convinced that Europeans did not make Piri Reis.


Ashvin,  Let me get his straight. You think that JESUS CHRIST was referring to a LOCAL flood when he was discussing Noah and the Ark?

Do you want the Gospels in Greek (as supposedly they were originally written in) and the old testament in Aramaic, Hebrew and whatever to accept that JESUS was raised in the JEWISH faith and read and believed the Scriptures that do not say BEANS about the flood and Noah being allegorical, a parable, some children's scary story or a warning? Your NON-answer is absolutely BREATHTAKING!

Let's take it from the top. Jesus Christ is GOD, right? He comes into this world in the flesh and His knowledge gets downgraded (according to the New Testament). He did not have the FULL PICTURE that GOD has. The specific passage is where it says he GREW in KNOWLEDGE.

God does NOT need to do that. But J.C. needed to do that because he was part Homo SAP. The point is that he LEARNED and BELIEVED the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Judges, Chronicles, Samuel I and II and so on. He was a smart guy, RIGHT? He probably had a photographic memory, RIGHT? Of course! He may have been human but here is no question that He was a GENIUS when He walked the earth.

You and I have taken pains trying to explain to RE and others that J.C. was NOT ACTING in a play. That is why he had his data base Homo SAP sized when He came here. Otherwise it would have been just theater. He HAD to feel DOUBT about who He was/is or he was doing theater.

But maybe you have never wanted to delve into the divinity/humanity mix all that much. Fine. Me neither. I just KNOW the Gospel says He LEARNED and He INCREASED in KNOWLEDGE. There is no way to dance around that fact. And I don't believe you want to so I will assume you agree that J.C. learned his Scriptures like a good Jewish boy.

Fast forward to Mathew 24:37-39. Here the overall context is His RETURN when He won't be Mr. Nice Guy. He is using a historical reference (Noah, the ark and the flood that drowned every non-aquatic creature on EARTH, according to the scripture (the date it happened is not the issue, Ashvin - it's WHETHER it happened or not on a global scale that IS the issue AND the reason I said anybody claiming J.C. did not believe in global flood is mistaken.).

 J.C. is predicting what some Homo SAP civilizational conditions will be when He RETURNS. It's a prophecy. It's a rather IMPORTANT prophecy, is it not? Do you HONESTLY think Jesus Christ  would use a LOCAL FLOOD (where Noah and family got warned and survived while the bad people in a limited area drown)  comparison to HIS RETURN to JUDGE the EARTH?

Do you think He was planning to drop in on the same area as that LOCAL FLOOD and to hell with the rest of the planet?

Perhaps I am not understanding you, Ashvin. Would you please clarify your position on Noah and the extent of the flood? GO was kind enough to state right out that he thought it was a parable. He considered it a myth. He may still consider it a myth but he promises to ponder the issue. There is an honest response. Is that your opinion too?

And by the way, I'm surprised you did not immediately point out to GO that "image and likeness" of God has absolutely nothing to do with our biology and everything to do with our spirit. Or do YOU labor under the erroneous view that our bodies are what was made in the "image and likeness" of God too?

Back to Jesus Christ, we have enough trouble in forums like this to get people to believe Jesus Christ Himself came even the FIRST TIME, never mind returning! Look at all the hoops you jumped through when that article about J.C. being a myth was dropped here by Da godfader for fun and jollies over a year ago. I was so disgusted with it I could not bring myself even to comment on it. I am indebted to you for fighting the good fight then.

But now I'm very unsatisfied with your response about J.C. and Matthew 24:37-39. J.C. was not whistling Dixie, to put it mildly. He was talking about the most important event in Church Prophetic Teaching History. You CANNOT just gloss over that and concentrate on the cross, salvation and leave it at that. The Early Church got through those awful times with help from the Holy Spirit, sure. But the HOPE of His RETURN was one of the main forces in keeping the early Christians united.

That biblical passage is a HUGE deal! I caution you, JD and GO and any other believers reading this, to not pretend Jesus Christ was making an "unimportant" comparison between Noah's life saving ark and Jesus Christ's return.

Of course you could chase down King James' translators and do a bit of hairsplitting about what J.C. said and how He said it. I'm sure you and Ka could discuss the matter for weeks. But there is no way you can extract Noah and the ark from Jesus Christ's return to "kick ass and take names" for non-obedient and the reward of the obedient for His sheep.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 16, 2015, 10:13:44 pm »


Quote
Wallace's Line separating southeast Asian and Australian fauna today, and around 50,000 years ago ...

Snippet from an article with the above graphic in it. Aside from the "subspecies" groundless speculation about interbreeding, it points to some type of hominid species that was NOT Homo SAP.

Quote
A study of ancient DNA suggests that a mysterious sub-species of ancient human could have reached Australia after crossing Wallace’s Line in southeast Asia over 100,000 years ago.

The Denisovans are the newest addition to the human family tree following the  discovery in 2008 of a 40,000 year-old finger bone in the Denisova cave in Siberia’s Altai Mountains.  Scientists were stunned when analysis of its mitochondrial DNA revealed that it was genetically distinct from modern humans and Neanderthals.  They were further amazed when they found that some modern human populations carried traces of Denisovan DNA, the relic of ancient interbreeding between the two subspecies.   

Puzzlingly, the traces of Denisovan DNA in modern human genomes appear to be confined to indigenous populations in Australia, New Guinea and surrounding areas, but absent or at very low levels in populations on mainland Asia where the fossil was found.
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/denisovans-discover-australia/


Agelbert NOTE: I don't know how advanced or how primitive they were.
However, I think it is arrogantly biased to automatically assume the Denisovans were brutes that could only follow the animals they hunted over land to Australia and were too 'unevolved' to know how to make boats!  :( Regardless of the patronizing prejudices they have been branded with by our scientists, there is no question that they existed more than 16,500 years ago when sea levels were lower.

Were there OTHER hominid species besides the Denisovans and Neanderthals out there then? How advanced were our ancestors and/or other hominid species we shared the planet with?

The answers, never mind the QUESTIONS, have not been addressed with much rigor by our scientific community. They seem to be rather comfortable with their view of human history and have no wish to have it revised by embarrassing evidence. Consequently, researchers like Graham Handc ock, that question the consensus of history AND provide evidence that it needs revising, are either ridiculed or demonized. So it goes with the turf defending stuffed shirts in academia.  >:(   

A LOT of antediluvian civilization got flooded when sea levels rose. A moron can see that humans have a habit of building coastal cities! A person with an IQ of 80 or better can figure out that when ice caps melt, coastal port cities will be flooded and disappear from the historical record. With a few more IQ points, they can even look at modern civilization and SEE where most of our population AND HIGH TECH is concentrated. DUH... The COASTAL mega cities. So if you tell a scientist/archeologist that if you want to look for ancient advanced civilizations and possible high tech, the OBVIOUS place to start is the location of coastlines in the three melt surges post ice age, WHY do they look at you cross eyed?  ???  It's either because they are stupid or they are in to arrogant turf protection. I don't think they are stupid.  ;D

According to modern science, the world wide coastal flooding post ice age occurred in three major surges. The lowest sea level before the ice began to melt was 16,500 years ago. That was the pre-flood civilization. But since the three periods of surges were separated by thousands of years, there were technically three levels of pre-flood coastal city civilizations. After each massive flooding event, mankind would build cities on the new coasts.



Map created by Martin Vargic, an amateur graphic designer from Slovakia.

'It is the first map of its kind on such a scale and level of complexity, and depicts our planet as it looked during the late glacial maximum of the last ice age, 14,000 years BCE,' he told MailOnline.

The world 16,000 years ago was in many ways radically different to the present; because large amounts of water were concentrated in the massive ice sheets covering the majority of North America and western Eurasia, sea levels were about 110 meters lower when compared to today.

This exposed massive land bridges, most notably Beringia, Sundaland and Sahul.

Martin Vargic said,
Quote

 "I was genuinely surprised about how the climate and geography of the world has changed in only about 16 thousand years (only a fraction of time when compared to Earth's history)".

The two maps below show the weather now versus the weather 16,000 years ago. Also please note that in this type of projection, Antarctica's coast line is severely distorted.





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2630738/How-world-looked-ice-age-The-incredible-map-reveals-just-planet-changed-14-000-years.html


If the scientific community ever does decide to seriously address the possibility of advanced antediluvian civilization, the answers will probably be found in ancient submerged cities.

Here for your edification and enjoyment is some research done by Graham Handc ock in the company of scientists. These videos are about scientific evidence for pre-flood cities and civilizations. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va0BIqfzpvo&feature=player_embedded
Underworld - Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age (part one)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRq56cWLyZQ&feature=player_embedded
Underworld - Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age (part two)


Flooded Kingdoms of the Ice Age: A Vedic and India Perspective by David Frawley

SNIPPET (relating to the research in the above videos):
  8)

Quote
Vedic literature describes its homeland on a long lost river called the Sarasvati, which according to Vedic descriptions flowed east of the Indus from the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. Modern satellite photography has clearly indicated the existence of this great river, as have numerous geological and ground water studies conducted over the last few decades, which show that the Sarasvati was once over ten kilometers in width and flowed from the mountains to the sea, dwarfing the nearby Indus. As the Vedas say, the Sarasvati was the largest river of the region at the time. It was the center of a great civilization and the vast majority of ancient Indian and Harappan ruins have been found on the now dried banks of the Sarasvati.

 As the Sarasvati River dried up around 1900 BCE, the Vedic civilization which describes the river as its immemorial homeland must be much older.

Graham Han**** breaks down this anti-India barrier and elevates ancient India back to the forefront of ancient civilizations. He shows that the spiritual foundation of the Vedas cannot be divorced from the earliest civilization of the region. He quotes the Vedas to show how they reflect a great flood and the establishment of a new civilization after it. Han**** shows how the Vedas reflect a maritime civilization which developed amidst the crashing glaciers that produced the waters to make the now dry Sarasvati the largest river in India. Marine archaeology shows a number of submerged sites off the coast of Kachchh and Cambay in what would have then been the old Sarasvati delta region.

A Gulf of Cambay urban site has recently been dated by Indian archaeologists to 7500 BCE. This would totally change our view of history as we now date cities only after 3500 BCE. It is here that Han**** is now seeking what he calls the holy grail of his quest for this older civilization of the pre-Ice Age era. It is here that we can look for the tradition of Manu, the Hindu flood figure and first king and law giver, and the great sages, the Angirasa and Bhrigu rishis who were traditionally connected both to Manu and to the sea. This earlier civilization was preserved in India in two traditions. The first is the Vedic tradition, which grew up on the Sarasvati River at the end of the Ice Age. The second is the Tamilian tradition, which reflected pre-Ice Age cultures off the coast of South India.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_cienciaindia_5.htm

Mankind does not just have over 250 flood "myths"; we have MASS AMNESIA about our past! 
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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)
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 13, 2015, 02:03:30 am »

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

Christopher Columbus (Italian: Cristofero Colombo; Spanish: Cristóbal Colón; Portuguese: Cristóvão Colombo; born between 31 October 1450 and 30 October 1451, died 20 May 1506) was an Italian explorer, navigator, and colonizer, citizen of the Republic of Genoa.



Quote
Cristofero Colombo's handwritten notes in Latin, on the margins of his copy of The Travels of Marco Polo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus

Explorers need maps. So Cristofero began scrounging around for maps, after being inspired by Marco Polo (keep that in mind, please  8)), that would help him in his quest.


Quote
Toscanelli's notions of the geography of the Atlantic Ocean, which directly influenced Columbus' plans.
Columbus estimated the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan to be about 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km, or 2,300 statute miles). The true figure is now known to be vastly larger: about 12,500 km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus

First KNOWN map by Cristofero Colombo. This map is quite logical. It covers what Cristofero actually knew before he hitched a ride on the trade winds on the good ships ""Saint Mary" (real name - all ships were named after saints), the "Pint" or "Painted lady", depending on the translation, and the  "Young Girl" (non saint names were probably nicknames - test on Monday  ;D).


Quote
Mapa de Cristóbal Colón. Lisboa, taller de Bartolomé y Cristóbal Colón, hacia 1490.
Christopher Columbus map. Lisbon, workshop of Bartolomeo and Christopher Columbus, c.1490
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus

Who in the world would've ever known
What Columbus could do
If Queen Isabella hadn't hocked her jewels
In fourteen ninety two! (it's a song Ashvin. Settle down!).  :D

http://www.songlyrics.com/jimmy-jones/good-timin-lyrics/

Queen Isabella's timing was good, but in regard to the Piri Reis map, Cristofero's timing was not. 

So off he went with his crew of fear filled sailors.


Replica of the Pinta. I actually walked on it and talked to a sailor that made the Atlantic crossing (imitating Columbus) on this replica in 1992. A voyage on this vessel is NOT for the feint of heart. It is VERY small for a transatlantic vessel! :o

Quote
The New World was first sighted by Rodrigo de Triana on the Pinta on October 12, 1492.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinta_(ship)

Voyages of Columbus


First voyage 1492




All four voyages


More detail of the four voyages. Ashvin, PLEASE observe how far SOUTH Columbus went.  8)

Quote
Columbus always insisted, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that the lands that he visited during those voyages were part of the Asian continent, as previously described by Marco Polo and other European travelers.[9] Columbus' refusal to accept that the lands he had visited and claimed for Spain were not part of Asia might explain, in part, why the American continent was named after the Florentine explorer Amerigo Vespucci and not after Columbus.[40]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus

That's NOT all, folks. Cristofero died in May of 1506 DENYING the existence of the "New World". That is a historical FACT, Ashvin.

Was Cristofero keeping some land area map knowledge a secret?    I don't think so. But there is "evidence" out there that serious scholars (this is not a joke, pal) accept/swallow/claim/push (and so on) that makes absolutely no sense unless Cristofero was a world class liar and insane too. Yet no serious scholar has called him a liar or an expert in shooting himself in the foot and face.  ???  I'll get to that later on.

Mapping South America


Mapping the east coast of South America, especially in those days when some native tribes along the east coast were quite warlike, is a rather time consuming task. It is safe to say that in 1504, from Cristofero's last sighted point on down, said coast had NOT been mapped by humans yet, right?  Wrong. Well, that's what serious scholars state, so I guess that's what you believe too, Ashvin. I agree. But the serious scholar historical doubletalk is in the details, so to speak.
Let's take the last bit of South American coastline that Cristofero sighted on his third voyage. That was the southernmost point in his four voyages. After the fourth voyage he died without added coastal mapping knowledge beyond what he had mapped.
Guyana = 459 km
Brazil = 7,491 km
Uruguy=  660 km
Argentina = 4,989 km
Total 13,599 km = 8,500 miles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline

Going back and forth from Europe to South America must be added to the length of time such a herculean task as mapping the east coast of South America would take. 

Back to Cristofero, he mapped most (not all - he did not map a large part of  Cuba and part of what is now Haiti) of the Caribbean islands and part of Central and South American coast in FOUR voyages at varying intervals from 1492-1504. Islands have a lot of coastline so he was quite busy. In 12 years, he mapped approximately 3,500 km (2,187 miles) of coastline.
Vespucci is credited with mapping the coast of eastern  South America south of Cristofero's last point at about 10 degrees south latitude (Guyana).

Vespucci voyages NOTE: Vespucci turned north back to Spain, on his voyage down the east coast of South America, 400 miles north of Tierra de Fuego.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1350spanish.htm.

Then we have the Balboa voyage discovering the Pacific (1510-1513). Observe that he did not go further south than Columbus. Balboa is considered the FIRST Conquistador.
Early Voyages of Exploration 1492-1609

But, SO WHAT? Hadn't Vespucci mapped the eastern coast of South America in 1501-1502?  My answer is a DEFINITIVE NO! The "serious" scholar historians are quite satisfied that my claim is false.

The historical record also is clear that Vespucci DID NOT go back to South America after that voyage. Magellan (1519) was the next explorer that took Vespucci's route.

Let me be clear. I'm not saying Vespucci did NOT sail down the coast to approximately 400 miles north of Tierra de Fuego before turning home to Spain. I AM saying his mapping was a cursory job with only the most salient details in his map.

It's a LONG coast. He did NOT know when it would end. He had warlike tribes to deal with if he got too close to the coast (something you HAVE TO DO to map on the relatively tiny vessels of the day with much shorter masts than the tall ships that came centuries later).

You need a daily sun shot to get your latitude at noon and some sort of time keeping to figure your longitude too. It's been a while since I've studied it but is NOT something he could have done quickly, no matter how skilled Vespucci was.

There's also the weather to deal with. ANY TIME it rained, he could NOT map accurately and had to drop anchor until he could see the sun at noon for latitude (for longitude the stars and/or preferably the moon were needed along with the time piece, of course - so rain at night was a pain too!).

And then there were his trip provisions. He had a certain amount of time before he HAD TO turn back to Spain, regardless of what he could forage for on land.

Finally, there were the carreer advancement goals of Vespucci. Columbo was still the big dog when Vespucci became convinced,  on his second voyage, that this was a "new world". He needed to get back to the king to gain favor for his hypothesis. He was a smart cookie (For any scholar reading this: No, I will not stop using pedestrian "man in the street" common terms, language and expresions that make scholars sniff in derision when they read my work. I rather enjoy using vocabulary that communicates reality rather than some ivory tower, high brow, erudite fuddy duddy,  self aggrandizing prose.).

My contention is that Amerigo Vespucci did a RUSH JOB on the eastern South American coast. More on that later.

That brings us to 1513 and, you guessed it   , the Piri Reis map.

Piri Reis map next to current land mass photo. 
Ashvin, there is NO WAY in God's GOOD EARTH that ANYBODY could have mapped 8,500 miles, or even HALF that much, of South American coastline, brought it to Spain, sold a copy to the Turks and enabled Piri to get his dibs on it, never mind reconciling the other maps he had access to and produce the Piri Reis map by 1513!

By 1550, sure. The Spaniards were going to town on the injuns down there by then. They surely had to have the coastlines mapped to find who to torture or enslave for God and Country next (along with knownin' where the ORO and PLATA was too!)

But our serious scholars are having none of that post 1510 (that's right 1510, NOT 1513! ) business.     No sir! It has been accepted by historians that 1513 is the actual date the map was finished.   

Quote
The map was signed by Piri Reis, an Ottoman-Turkish admiral, geographer and cartographer, and dated to the month of Muharram in the Islamic year 919 AH, equivalent to 1513 AD.[12][13] It was presented to Ottoman Sultan Selim I in 1517.[4][14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map

Our SERIOUS SCHOLARS in this wikipedia article, and EVERY serious historical reference to this EMBARRASSING Piri Reis map (discovered in 1929),  CLAIM that Piri used maps from Cristofero Colombo!

You know, that guy that went to his grave claiming there was no "new world" (see Marco Polo fixation).
You know, that guy that got one upped by Amerigo Vespucci for that very reason!
You know, the guy never got south of about 10 degrees north latitude in all four voyages!


And you claim these "serious" scholar historians (and you) rely on the "BEST" explanation!!!? ???




Quote
In the map's legend, Piri inscribed that the map was based on about twenty charts and mappae mundi.[15][16][17] According to Piri, these maps included eight Ptolemaic maps, an Arabic map of India, four newly drawn Portuguese maps from Sindh, Pakistan and a map by Christopher Columbus of the western lands.

From Inscription 6 on the map:

From eight Jaferyas of that kind and one Arabic map of Hind [India], and from four newly drawn Portuguese maps which show the countries of Sind [now in modern day Pakistan], Hind and Çin [China] geometrically drawn, and also from a map drawn by Qulūnbū [Columbus] in the western region, I have extracted it. By reducing all these maps to one scale this final form was arrived at, so that this map of these lands is regarded by seamen as accurate and as reliable as the accuracy and reliability of the Seven Seas[18] on the aforesaid maps."[19]


Quote
Surviving fragment of the Piri Reis map showing Central and South America shores. In his notes appended to it is written "the map of the western lands drawn by Columbus"[1]

Piri Reis map
Quote
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surviving fragment of the Piri Reis map showing Central and South America shores. In his notes appended to it is written "the map of the western lands drawn by Columbus"[1]

The Piri Reis map is a world map compiled in 1513 from military intelligence by the Ottoman admiral and cartographer Piri Reis (pronounced [piɾi ɾeis]). Approximately one-third of the map survives; it shows the western coasts of Europe and North Africa and the coast of Brazil with reasonable accuracy. Various Atlantic islands including the Azores and Canary Islands are depicted, as is the mythical island of Antillia and possibly Japan.

The historical importance of the map lies in its demonstration of the extent of exploration of the New World by approximately 1510 , and in its claim to have used Columbus's maps    , otherwise lost, as a source. It used ten Arab sources, four Indian maps sourced from the Portuguese and one map of Columbus. More recently it has been the focus of pseudohistoric claims for the premodern exploration of the Antarctic coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map

Magellan DID travel along, and map, the east coast of South America beginning at a point midway down the coast of Brazil, but he began this voyage in 1519!

What about the Ashvin style "best" explanation logic that the Piri Reis map, if Vespucci didn't produce it, is a backdated Magellan map? 

The Piri Reis map could not have been a "backdated" Magellan piece BECAUSE of two reasons:


1) The Piri Reis map shows the coast of Guyana and Brazil AFTER the last point Columbus sighted and BEFORE the point in Brazil where Magellan sighted land.

2) Magellean mapped the coast from the point he sighted land to the Strait of Magellan, and kept going WEST. His maps DO NOT twist the southern part of South America to the right.



1520 Strait of Magellan map

Quote
Magellan’s 1520 transit of the strait took thirty-eight days, many of them spent scouting and discounting alternative paths through the labyrinth. The following expedition in 1525, led by the Spanish nobleman Garcia Jofre de Loaísa, required four and a half months to solve the strait’s puzzle. As a result, the commander recommended that Spain abandon using the route to reach the Pacific. Henceforth, most Spanish expeditions to the Pacific were launched from their ports on the western coasts of Central and South America.

The first English venture through the passage—in a speedy seventeen days—was that of the privateer and circumnavigator Sir Francis Drake in 1578. Exiting into the Pacific, his expedition met fierce winds that pushed his ships south and east to a latitude of about 57° S, where they were surprised to find open water. (Later, this serendipitous discovery was named the Drake Passage; it offered the possibility of a more southern route around South America.)

Final half  in next post on this thread.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 10, 2015, 08:45:04 pm »

UB said to Ashvin,
Quote
Your evidence presented  by Fitzpatrick is all ad hoc and ad hom and totally unprofessional, several people have noted this including the comment by "John" he downvoted but did not repond to. He sets up a website called "Bad Archaeology" Capitals are appropriate as a proper noun for HIS site. He then goes on to repeatedly refer to OTHER peoples work as "Bad Archaeology" not even "bad archaeology" which would be bad enough. But it seems it is his best shot at smug superiority and assorted appeals to irrelevant technicalities such as Hancock not knowing what species of spider is shown carved on rock instead of addressing how the hell the giant spider picture got there.

Exactly. And then Ashvin tries to turn it all around and claim we are the ones who lack objectivity. Also, what you mentioned about how Ashvin switches between the macro and micro to dance is par for the rhetorical course in fallacious debating techniques. Then he claims I am "accusatory" and going al "ad hom" on him. Nope. I just want him to stop dancing. He won't do it.

The fact I believe the ET presence is real does not have jack sh it to do with the EVIDENCE presented by Graham Hanc ock, who DOES NOT hold the "ETs taught humans how to draw maps" theory ( or any other 'ETs are here' theory, for that matter - but Ashvin likes to group the "con artists" for effect.

As Eddie said (and I had mentioned it previously too)
Quote
Graham Hanc ock is not a UFO guy, really. I haven't read his books, but none of the videos I've seen tries to make a case for ancient astronauts or anything of that sort.

But it is QUITE important for Ashvin's argument to cast me as an "ET true believer sans evidence" even though I took pains to show him the logical steps in the premise; ALL of which he has STUDIOUSLY avoided discussing with his micro to macro and back dance. 
As I said a couple of pages ago:

Quote
I do my homework. I consult medical science and mainstream archeology BEFORE I present the possible speciation evidenced by these other skulls. Whether they are or aren't ET is NOT the issue in regard to the skulls themselves. The ISSUE is whether they are a different hominid species.

IF they are a different hominid species, then, and only then, can we ask further questions about the FACTS, as established by our credentialed historians and archeologists, that:

1) Widely diverse "primitive" cultures (separated by oceans before transatlantic travel) practiced cranial deformation for tribal leaders. NO other practice like neck expanding, ear lobe enlarging, teeth sharpening, and so on, was practiced in widely diverse cultures. So please spare me the "primitives do weird things to distinguish their leaders" business. Yes, they do. BUT not on a worldwide basis UNLESS it was cranial deformation.

2) Wherever they were, they were leaders in the community as evidenced by funeral garb.

We CANNOT logically proceed to the next question until, or if, it is confirmed that the 20% greater brain pan sized (and higher bone density as well) cone heads (NOT DEformed and NOT genetically Malformed - they are symmetrical and show no signs of trepanation or cranial plate forcing distortions) is the product of hominid speciation.

THIS IS THE NEXT QUESTION THAT IS MOOT until all the above is confirmed:
Is there any evidence that they were ETs such as, but not limited to, written records, ancient schematics, knowledge of astronomy, a recovered flying saucer or part of one in a dig or high tech artifacts such as machines?

Then Ashvin claims this is ALL ABOUT ETs. :evil4: Sure, Brien Foerster includes it in the possibilities (that Ashvin views as  a premise that is number umpteen on the priority list of possibilities  ;)). But Brien Foerster has said, QUITE CLEARLY, that  the evidence has NOT proven in any way whatsoever that the skulls were ET. How many times does Ashvin have to be told this to understand it?  They have found DNA in the New York SUBWAY TUNNELS that matches no known organism. SO WHAT? That doesn't mean they are ET bugs on the subway tunnel walls! I continue to claim that Ashvin keeps parading the ET thing here as a rhetorical tool used to undermine the credibility of the researchers dealing with ancient civilizations and their level of advancement. Then he accuses me of attacking the messenger.

Ashvin has not answered the questions posed with evidence. Yet he claims that is sufficient to counter them. 

I beg to differ. And I will continue to differ. Notice I posted two screen shots with questions and he completely ignored them (about Plato and about the Rephaim). This is called glossing over. Then he gets pissed when I point at his glossing over.     
:

PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS, ASHVIN:


Ashvin, did PLATO make this STRANGE SH IT up? 



How about the Hebrews? Did they make up this STRANGE SH IT too?     




Ashvin, please address the following two claims by Eddie:

Eddie said,
Quote
I'm only willing to make two claims.
1.  Graham's take, that it is likely that there were one or more somewhat advanced civilizations that probably got wiped out in Younger Dryas flooding, seems to make some sense.

2. UFO and alien type stories exhibit uncanny parallels with ancient glyphs and cave paintings, and would seem to be associated with shamans and the inner world described by those who have ingested plant entheogens, like Ayahuasca.

Eddie,
The two points you make are quite adequate to the task of cornering Ashvin logically. He has not countered either one.
Ashvin said,
Quote
I didn't bring Antarctica into the discussion, UB did after reading a sentence in the BA post. I couldn't have anticipated that he would bring that up. That being said, YES, I do think that is a very weak part of their arguments. Please do go into that and the South American boundaries too, if you want.
You mockingly asked if a portion of a map looked like Antarctica. DON'T DENY IT.

As to maps, when I went to photo interpreter school many years ago, I studied cartography including Lambert conformal conic, Mercator and so on. I understand how distortions build on maps. As I pilot, I had to know ho to read maps rather well.

In pre-accurate time piece times, they could draw coastlines okay but locating them was a bit of a challenge, to put it mildly. The guy that made the Piri Reis map ADMITTED it was a copy with several iterations from the original! He was no ET. Handcock says a past high civilization of HOMO SAPS obtained the cartographic info and it was passed down, PERIOD.

It being that you have some QUESTIONS to answer on this post, I will make a separate post on the Piri Reis map with an explanation of the projection issue. If you want to haul in another hit piece "debunking" Piri Reis as a fraud, there's plenty of them on the internet.

I suggest you do a little more checking on what you post here than some "Bad Archeology" hit piece heaven. UB is far more patient and learned than I am and will continue to deconstruct disingenuous claims presented. ;D

I await your answers to the above questions.  8)
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 10, 2015, 03:32:02 pm »

+-Recent Topics

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
February 18, 2018, 10:52:39 pm

Lost Cities and Civilizations by AGelbert
February 18, 2018, 06:27:34 pm

Money by AGelbert
February 17, 2018, 07:55:28 pm

Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable by AGelbert
February 17, 2018, 07:44:09 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
February 17, 2018, 06:01:56 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
February 17, 2018, 05:25:47 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
February 17, 2018, 05:13:50 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
February 17, 2018, 05:02:39 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
February 17, 2018, 02:34:35 pm

Ocean Species Habits and Ocean Conservancy by AGelbert
February 16, 2018, 10:26:50 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial