The Orontius Finaeus map

Another map of Antarctica, this time from 1531

The map of Oronce Finé
The map of Oronce Finé

Charles Hapgood (and those derivative of him) used other maps allegedly showing Antarctica that are, at first sight, even more convincing than the Piri Re‘is map. The first of these is a product of Orontius Finaeus Delphinus (1494-1555), whom most Bad Archaeologists consistently and incorrectly refer to as Oronteus (more properly, his name was Oronce Fine or Finé, although the Latinised version seems to be in more common use, at least among the Bad Archaeologists). The map in question was published in 1531 and its supporters claim that it shows the continent at the correct scale, placing the Weddell and Ross Seas as well as Queen Maud Land, Wilkes Land and Marie Byrd Land in their correct longitudes. Again, if these claims are correct, they would display an even more remarkable knowledge of the continent than that supposedly (but demonstrably not) shown by Piri Re’is.

Although there are fairly obvious similarities between the general depiction of the southern continent by Orontius Finaeus and modern maps of Antarctica, they do not stand up to close scrutiny; indeed, there are more differences than similarities, much as one would expect from a map drawn without genuine knowledge of the southern continent! To show that Orontius’s Terra Australis corresponds to the outline of Antarctica, it was necessary for Hapgood to rotate the depiction by about twenty degrees, move the South Pole by 7½° (1,600 km) and alter the scale, as Terra Australis is 230% the size of Antarctica. Hapgood used this change in scale to explain the absence of the Antarctic Peninsula (Palmer Land), which he believed Orontius Finaeus had to omit from his map as it would have overlapped with South America at that scale; he explained that Finaeus confused latitude 80° south with the Antarctic Circle. Just as with his treatment of Piri’s map, Hapgood also had to shuffle whole sections of coastline to make them fit. It is unclear how the hypothesised original map had become fragmented and wrongly recombined; it is even more unclear how the fringe writers can go on to claim that various geographical features are shown in their correct places and at the correct scale. Again, these writers ignore what we know about the life of Oronce Fine.

The life of Oronce Fine (Oronce Finé, Orontius Finaeus, Oronteus Finaeus) (1494-1555)

Oronce Finé (1494-1555)
Oronce Finé (1494-1555)

Not unexpectedly, given the way fringe writers tend to ignore inconvenient facts, a great deal is known about the biography of Oronce Fine. He was born in Briançon (France) in 1494 and educated in Paris. After a brief spell in prison in 1518, he earned a medical degree from the Collège de Navarre in Paris in 1522, although he was to follow a career as a mathematician. In 1524, he was once again in prison and in the same year built an ivory sundial that still exists. Like many mathematicians of the sixteenth century, Fine was considered an expert on fortifications and worked on the defences of Milan. In 1531, he was appointed to the chair of mathematics at the Collège Royal in Paris. He wrote voluminously on scientific subjects, his publications including treatises on astronomical instruments and astronomy (he suggested in 1520 that eclipses of the moon could be used to determine the longitude of places); he also invented a map projection, producing a map of the world in 1519 that emphasised it. He also drew the first domestically published map of France in 1525 and on his world map of 1531, the name Terra Australis appeared for the first time. It is this latter map that is popular with Bad Archaeologists. Other productions include works on arithmetic and geometry. In 1544, he calculated the value of π to be (22 2/9)/7, which he later refined to 47/15 and, in De rebus mathematicis of 1556, 3 11/78. In astronomy, he believed that the earth was at the centre of the universe (in common with most of his European contemporaries) and he built an astronomical clock based on this belief in 1553.

88 Replies to “The Orontius Finaeus map”

  1. This is quite an interesting map. I suggest using a 3D rendering program like blender. Use the map as a texture for a sphere and align the longitude and latitude numbers. To do this you will have to cut it up in Photoshop. It will look a little distorted, but it will still resemble a globe very similar to our world with one key difference… mainly the Pacific Ocean. It’s tiny. Notice the icy-looking islands on the top of the globe next to “China.” Notice how Asia and North America are connected. There is no corresponding ice in the south, but there is no land either it is water. So perhaps this is ice and the lon/lat is incorrect, this part of the map was the north pole?

    This is not the only map which looks this way, there is also the nearly-identical Mercator map. The infamous Piri Reis map actually fits better with the world looking this way. If you look at the Pacific Ocean floor, it looks as if a hole was ripped into the planet or something.

    Something changed the Earth… changed its poles, expanded it, flooded it, or all of the above. This is supported by archaeological evidence. Mammoths with tropical stomach contents frozen as if the weather changed suddenly. Pottery and a house-building style in South America which matches one in the islands near Japan. A pyramid-ish structure carved into the rock complete with humanoid and feline statues submerged near a Japanese island and reminiscent of similar ones in that same area of South America. The aborigine have their own interesting Antediluvian tails. The name Austrailia.. Antaratica… Antediluvia.. Atlantis. Yeah I said it. It’s obvious. Plus there is the Aztlan in South America and the cache of interesting artifacts found in Ecuador that all glow in black light.

    Something messed up the Pacific rim. That’s where we get call our flood stories from. It also ripped Australia off of Antarctica and now Antarctica is covered in ice stuck in the South Pole.

    Debunk that. You can’t. All you can do is laugh and smear me as a nutter and a kook. I have my common sense and I know my heart is in the right place. The artifacts don’t lie, consensus and theoretical science and archaeology are the liars. This map is probably a copy of a similar one. We don’t know anything about our own history. Whatever knowledge survived was destroyed during the dark ages compliments of the Catholic Church.

    Websites like these distort reality. Portray uncommon sense as common. Take advantage of scientific ignorance. Use smear tactics, weasel words, and rhetorical tricks and then say that is what pseudoscience uses. The truth hides in plain sight and it is unfortunate the majority of the world is too ignorant to see it. When you see it you cannot unsee it. Anybody passionate enough to create a website such cannot be a useful idiot either. They are part of the problem.

    1. I learned from this map just this week via a TV program.
      However, more careful and clear study of the map on a large jpeg (still it could be larger), it looks to me that his “antarctica” which is definately called “terra australis” is INDEED parts of Australia , and not Antarctica.
      You see ABOVE it you see the mentionings of JAVA and many of the islands and islets of Indonesia as it CONTiNUES on the northern half map (0 sumatra).
      Now, in those days (1500’s) the portuguese were “fingering” in the India pond (looking to find the SOURCE of the spices),; India is already mentioned but NOT PERFECt…Malaysia and Indonesia are even LESS perfect..but they ARE mentioned and THUS seen as IMPORTANT.
      Likely, the mapmaker(s) sought out information from indians, arabs and other seafaring local populations (bugis ?) and thus it is assumed that the Bugis supplied the contours of NORTH australia.
      As Orontius and probably any other mapmaker of the time would have guessed the earth to be round but SMALLER in size than it actually is, they made the MISTAKE to carpet over the KNOWN world over a SMALL globe and THUS came up with a piece of Australia that must have been located at this smaller globe’s south point/pole.
      And becoz South America’s tip is known (!!) to be so long/deep, it touches this misplaced Terra Australis.
      Personally I find the intrigueing part to be the south america tip.
      It is 1516 that a spanish explorer went in that area…how good were his maps and how soon did it come to find its way to this map of Oriontius ..

  2. Unfortunately Suppressed Truth is pretty close to the mark. In is book “Finger Prints of the Gods” Graham Hancock goes through point by point how archaeological evidence has been suppressed and ignored simply because it does not fit into a Ph.D Museum archivists dissertation.

    Consider that only a few generations ago Europe and the west believed the world to be flat. The Chinese knew it was not flat, their maps included most of the world including America which they had visited already, but the Europeans called people crazy who believed the world was round.

    It is extremely unfortunate that the system under which we live completely suppresses any evidence or worldview that disagrees with it.

    At least his website addresses it though, which is more than can be said of many academics. There are many Brazillian and South American museums and researchers who’s archaeological findings completely disagree with the currently established ideas, and that is all that they are, ideas.

    If tomorrow the scientific community in the US/EU reversed their opinion, this website and others would be changed as well.

    I am going to finish my second Masters degree and then will start on a Ph.D, and I can tell you from personal experience that my professors are just as blind as the Catholics who burned Galileo at the stake for daring to say the world is round. I have learned never to speak about what I really think about at Uni because professors will torpedo your grade if they learn that you have ideas that don’t agree with their world-view. When people tell me that the truth is being suppressed, I can believe it, because there is absolutely no disagreement in the academic setting.

    Regardless of the evidence, if you write a paper that disagrees with the currently accepted worldview , you run the risk of losing both your academic standing and you position as a professor, and once that happens you’d be lucky to get a job at a community college, very luck.

    1. You are utterly wrong.

      If there is “Suppressed Truth”, how is it that Graham Hancock is able not just to publish it but to make a lot more money from it than mainstream academics? If his ideas were right, academics would be running to adopt them.

      You’ve fallen for the myth that “only a few generations ago Europe and the west believed the world to be flat”; there is no evidence that this was the case and a lot to the contrary (Classical and medieval texts are full of references to orbis terrarum (‘the globe of the lands’) to refer to the earth, the monarch’s symbol of an orb surmounted by a cross represents the triumph of Christianity over the world, and a number of texts use the phenomenon of lunar eclipses as proof of the sphericity of the earth. It’s just wrong to say that it was believed that the earth was flat. The idea that the ”Europeans called people crazy who believed the world was round” is just plain wrong. You probably think that Columbus set out to prove otherwise.

      The Chinese maps that you claim show “ most of the world including America” is wrong: where are these maps? Don’t be taken in by the unfounded assertions of Gavin Menzies, please!

      Which “Catholics burned Galileo at the stake”? He may have been placed under house arrest, but he died a natural death! I really hope your proposed PhD isn’t in history, because you need to be more careful with your facts if it is…

      As someone who has taught in a university, I would always give extra marks for original thought, so long as it was backed up by evidence. I’ve never seen anything being suppressed. Marking university level essays is more to do with the judging how the student has handled the evidence, understood the hypotheses of other people and is able to critique others’s ideas. You seem to be muddling university papers with school work, in which children are supposed to trot out a succession of ‘facts’; if university is about anything, it is about learning that knowledge does not depend on authority but on the ability to handle and understand evidence.

      1. You missed his point while you attempted to deride his argument lol and I think he is right. Human civilization is much older than what is accepted and still taught in mainstream academic circles. Evidence seems to be pouring in yet very little of it sees to get much mainstream exposure or acceptance. And our understanding of certain ancient civilizations and their technologies is utterly incomplete. Mainstream archeology seems far more willing to accept these holes and move on with inadequate theories than consider the possibility that ancient Egyptians had knowledge of electrical power that could be harnessed without wires (as Tesla attempted to do before he was essentially ruined by JP Morgan who had a monopoly on copper wires for electrical transmission). Before you insist that everything I stated is incorrect – recall it was a university professor who told Tesla that AC motor was impossible. Have a nice day.

        1. So where is all this evidence that, according to you is “pouring in” about the immense antiquity of human civilisation? In my day-to-day work, I deal with great piles of evidence in the form of stone tools, potsherds, animal bones, metal artefacts and so on, that come from excavations where we find the remains of walls, pits, turf banks, quarries and so on. It’s the data that comes from these excavations that help to add a few more details to the “utterly incomplete” picture we have of ancient societies. I can assure you that “[m]ainstream archeology” is not content “to accept these holes and move on with inadequate theories”!

          But, if you want to propose that the Bronze Age Egyptians had knowledge of electricity, go ahead. Show the evidence that they possessed the power in the form of generators; that they used it in the form of artefacts that require electrical power for operation. If they had such things, it won’t be hard. Go on, show me!

          And I know that the best you’ll be able to do is show me some reliefs from the Temple of Hathor at Dendera that date from the Hellenestic period. In other words, the centuries between the death of Alexander the Great and the conquest of Egypt by Octavian’s armies. A period that is well attested in ancient literature, a period where we have no mention of the Egyptians’ amazing technological wonders, a period for which the artefactual evidence is plentiful and contains not one single item that points to the generation and use of electrical power.

          And if you want to interpret those reliefs as showing electrical Crooke’s tubes (or whichever electrical explanation is your favourite), you then have to explain all the other reliefs showing near identical designs that don’t look like electrical apparatus. You also have to explain why the texts that surround these reliefs don’t mention anything about electricity and why they instead go on about the journey of the sun god through the sky and under the earth.

          But little details like that don’t really interest you, do they? You want the big picture, the astounding revelation. Minutiae, the careful work of scholars who spend their working lives dealing with one single, apparently insignificant problem, are not things that interest you.

          And thanks for the irrelevant “recall it was a university professor who told Tesla that AC motor was impossible”. What’s that got to do with anything? And it’s not even true: AC generators had been developed in Europe in the 1850s: Tesla only started work on an AC generator for the Westinghouse company in 1888. No “university professor” told Tesla that an AC motor was impossible, as they had existed for years; you seem to be getting confused with the spat between Edison and Tesla, and Edison was not a “university professor”.

          Why do so may critics of mainstream archaeology get such basic facts wrong, do you think?

          1. “But, if you want to propose that the Bronze Age Egyptians had knowledge of electricity, go ahead. Show the evidence that they possessed the power in the form of generators; that they used it in the form of artefacts that require electrical power for operation. If they had such things, it won’t be hard. Go on, show me!”

            Who says they needed electricity? Humans are selfish. This is why they used to believe Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. This is why today that some people are not willing to accept that statistically we cannot be alone in this universe. Does that mean aliens are visiting and probing people? No it doesn’t. But it does throw a wrench into mainstream interpretation of Abrahamic beliefs.

            So what makes you or anybody else think that an ancient advanced civilization needs to be like our current so-called advanced civilization? Why do they need Western-style electricity generators? What if there is an even simpler way to harness energy? One of Tesla’s last theories (which allegedly was also tied to a hypothetical energy weapon so the US classified much of his information to keep it away from the Soviets if you believe such a thing) was more or less about free energy extracted via hypothetical means which are scientifically thought to be impossible. Tesla also didn’t like Einstein’s theory of relativity. What if Einstein was wrong and science was pursuing a dead end?

            When people ask “where is the evidence” for an advanced civilization, are they thinking about 2,000 year-old iPhone being discovered by archaeology in the desert or something? Why does it have to be like ours? This is a selfish belief. What if – for example – aircraft could be designed in a much less complex way to harness something like the Earth’s magnetic field? Science really doesn’t understand or even care about magnetism as much as they should. It is rarely discussed along side energy or gravity. Mention ‘perpetual motion’ and permanent magnets and watch the big oil shills come out from nowhere and smear you with personal attacks despite the fact that it isn’t exactly a stupid idea. But as long as the oil corporations are in business, you can forget about it. Forget about that, forget about even researching viable alternatives, and definitely forget about free or near-free energy. They have the means to make it appear you are not to be taken seriously (money… lots of it).

            So what if ancient civilization had figured out how to harness something like magnetism in a way we don’t think to be possible? Mostly because we don’t think. We don’t have time to think for ourselves. Hardly anybody thinks outside the box. If you do, you are labeled a nutter or a kook. Or ‘fringe’ which is my favorite term. What if they made primitive magnetic (or whatever) gliders that function more efficiently than airplanes? Proof of an ancient civilization are the so-called Baghdad Battery (which science cannot explain, they only have unprovable theories) or my favorite the Antikythera mechanism. If they found these three hundred or so years ago, they most certainly would have been advanced by then-modern standards. It would’ve been akin to finding an iPhone in the desert today.

            The problem is selfishness. The West is selfish. The West discovered the ‘new world’ which if you do your homework was known of for centuries.. just not to the West. Western society and Western Dumbocracy is controlled by an unelected level of folks primarily in the finance industry. The big corporations (pharma, oil, entertainment) also have a lot of pull in terms of using their pocket book. Money, blackmail, whatever it takes. The masses do not understand that their politicians were pre-selected and their public opinion was instilled upon by the will of a third party. Sure the system could in theory work, you just have to play by the rules. They make the rules. They are above the law. They write the laws. This is how society works. It is not difference for science.

            If you are a scientist in a specific field of research that the ruling class and government is interested in because it relates to an agenda they can use to either tax us or limit our rights, the results are going to be biased in favor of those with the most money. If you are a scientist who has been made famous by a theory and/or your students (and yourself) profit from this heavily, that’s great. But what if somebody comes along with an alternative that makes your theory worthless. It jeopardizes your claim to fame and your income, so they smear the alternative as ‘pseudo-science’

            This has gone on for centuries. Flat Earth, Galileo, this same sort of thing happens today. Corporations, lobbies, central banks, the fiance and entertainment industries all steer the establishment. Even science. Theoretical science is based on consensus, but the consensus might be based upon a financial interest to keep a majority consensus less an alternative appear as a threat to the status quo.

            Once you being to realize the way of things, it is not pretty. Our society is completely dumbed down from our ‘primitive’ ancestors. Oh those ancients and their pagan beliefs. They worshiped the sun and phalluses… Oh they weren’t much different than animals. Really? You believe that? Ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Vedas? These people were creative and intelligent. Maybe not at our level of technology, but look what that does. Information at your fingertips and high school grads are dumber than ever before.

            Which brings me back to this map. The following sentence sets up the deceptive and persuasive rhetoric by the skeptic:

            Not unexpectedly, given the way fringe writers tend to ignore inconvenient facts

            Inconvenient facts and fringe writers. We’ve already been setup for failure. Not even Wikipedia smears Oronce Fine, and that says a lot. Here is an inconvenient fact: Western Civilization is founded on a lie. The Jesuits are responsible for a lot of our history and they made it up. Some of the things they teach you about ancient history in grade school are the same events told different and applied to different eras when in reality they are the same thing. READ! Research! Don’t just blindingly be skeptical of everything. If you don’t research or if you accept the mainstream official story at face value, you are foolish. I’m not asking you to believe in unicorns or holographic 9/11 planes or alien races in control of the planet. I’m asking that you use critical thinking and spend some time to do independent research while thinking outside of the box. Don’t believe anything, don’t settle on any one opinion religiously as IDIOTS and KOOKS like to do, and don’t trust official history above anything because liars can only be trusted to tell lies.

            Why are skeptics so passionately skeptical anyways? Normal people don’t act like that. I don’t go out of my way to tell the flat Earth believers they are nuts. Or the Bosnian pyramid believers that they are mountains. Regarding the latter, the fact that there are people who do and they use the same deceptive rhetorical tricks is reason for me to believe they are hiding something. Because again NORMAL PEOPLE ARE NOT RELIGIOUSLY SKEPTICAL like this.

            Look at Google Earth, the Pacific Ocean takes up half the Earth’s surface for the most part. It was NOT ALWAYS THERE. This is an incoveniant fact. These maps are partially copies of ancient sources. Something nasty happened and if anybody knows the truth they are hiding it. This is not a fringe belief, but if you want to laugh it off without doing research, you’re a fool. I don’t know what created the Pacific Ocean, but I have a feeling it is responsible for flood myths. Even the ‘mythical’ Hyperborea is real and you can also see it in google earth. Compare Mercator’s map to Greenland and the surrounding area. The Baffin Bay is the center of Hyperborea and the Hudson bay is STILL the Earth’s magnetic north pole just as the Mercator map eludes to.

            The Western establishment and a good portion of our history is nonsense from a selfish group of people who want to be the first when somebody was already first, second, third, etc. They stole a birthright from some group of people I will not name, but I suggest you do your homework. Don’t avoid skeptical sites like this, some of the info is good to read. In this case, not so much. This map is one of the most important surviving clues to our ancient world.

          2. I know! You are correct! These new fangled scientific ideas are heresy! Everyone, including all of us scientific experts on the internet know that the Earth is flat and it is the center of the Universe… The sun simply rotates around us.

      2. As someone who has taught in a university, I would always give extra marks for original thought, so long as it was backed up by evidence. I’ve never seen anything being suppressed. Marking university level essays is more to do with the judging how the student has handled the evidence, understood the hypotheses of other people and is able to critique others’s ideas.

        No offense, but the “someone who has taught in a university” line sounds narcissistic. I have a degree in computer science and clashed with many instructors and professors because if they were so smart and knowledgeable about what they were teaching, how come they weren’t working in the field? I would selfishly even proclaim my knowledge has usurped theirs just as I ‘arrogantly’ thought back then. I was right.

        When you speak of handling evidence, what do you mean? Is circumstantial evidence dismissed? Is this a murder trial? Circumstantial evidence is like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle. With enough of it, you know what the picture looks like. That’s not good enough for a court of law, but the criminal justice system is flawed in favor of the ruling class. Justice is blind, and the authorities don’t have an intuition at all. Maybe being closer to 100% would be important if a life was on the line like again a murder trial.

        As somebody who never even cared about this stuff two years ago, it’s interesting to look at the skeptics from outside the box and realize they use many of the same tactics. Most of them have to do with persuasion and manipulation. They also show symptoms of Psychopathy proven via Hare’s checklist. So IMO, what if you are a professional/pathological liar? Because you exhibit some of the symptoms of psychopathy. Manipulative rhetoric, weasel words, narcissism… “I am an educated (by the conditioning system) instructor in an educational facility (big deal) which makes me an expert (no it doesn’t)”

        History has been suppressed. Either that or lost and forgotten and what little remained distorted by religious nutters or political/financial agendas. If you believe the official version of history at face value, then there is no point trying to convince you otherwise. Only you can convince yourself. If you don’t want to, that’s your problem. I can’t tell if you are a shill or a useful idiot. Either way, I pity you

        1. Insult me, pity me: I really don’t care.

          I mentioned my experience of teaching in a university purely to rebut your criticism that “the system” doesn’t reward original thinking. It can do (I’m not saying that i always does!), especially when the student brings real data to bear on the subject in hand. It isn’t meant to be narcissitic at all.

          I don’t know why you categorise scepticism as a psychopathology: it’s a useful way of looking at data. Question everything. Again and again. Don’t trust authority. Nullius in verba is the motto of the Royal Society of London (the world’s oldest scientific society) for a good reason.

          The point of this website, the reason I devote so much of what little spare time I have to it, is to provide people with the tools to question the lies they are fed by the “alternative” archaeology crowd.

        2. Just so you know, circumstantial evidence is welcome in courts of law. Go visit Scott Peterson on death row at San Quentin for murdering his wife and baby son if you don’t believe me. The only direct evidence would be a witness testifying they saw the murderer act–and how often do we have witnesses to crimes who are trustworthy? Either they helped with the crime, conspired before or after, or they simply are as untrustworthy as studies have shown all eyewitnesses are–we can’t trust our perceptions or our minds to remember details correctly…all too often our minds fill-in blanks with false info from earlier experiences, or from prejudices. Circumstantial evidence is actually far more trustworthy because it is what it is and we can see exactly what suppositions about it we and others are making.

          I find your insults about professors and others in academia just p[lain ignorant. The kind of crap drop-outs promote….trying to convince everyone it was a prof’s or a university’s fault they decided to quit a month shy of graduation–as if anyone does that. Lose jobs and tens of thousands of dollars a year the rest of their lives because degrees are so meaningless to them. Uh huh. That’s what your arguments about lying and dishonesty in academia sound like. In my experience, what excites a teacher or professor the most is a student who has learned the material really well and can argue with it, against it, and anything in between. Tell a math professor he is wrong and show him where and why, he’ll respect you forever. Argue with a political theory prof or T.A. and used other noted theorists to justify your position and you will get them to forget when class ended and try to get you to come to their office to finish the discussion. But don’t just say they are wrong because they are corrupt. That’s bs. Lazy, dumb, prejudiced, silly and a gargantuan waste of time for everyone. Know who says what that makes them agree and who disagrees and why and why you think one side has more merit. It’s a lot of work–hours and hours of studying week after week. But that’s who gets A’s and doctorates. And they don’t think it’s cool to criticize them without working just as hard. How can you blame them?

          Saying they have taught and therefore have experience to base the following opinion on does not make them narcissistic–that requires a lack of boundaries, a sense of entitlement that would tell them they need not explain why their opinion has merit, and some masochistioc joy watching others suffer, as well as pathological lying. If anyone displayed those characteristics, it’s you–calling someone names, accusing them of a mental disorder without any degrees or license to diagnose! All based on a single phrase that explains where he formed his opinion. Really?

          1. I bet you teach somewhere! Look, like in the cases of the flat Earth or the Terracentric theories, there were dudes that pushed the knowledge further by proposing other theories, many of them being intuitive, but fitting better the observations. We do not have all the knowledge and if we keep out mind closed, just because we are sure we know everything, we are not wise. There are many famous examples in history. I read the French Academy said that a device heavier than teh air, cannot fly. The dude, has an out of the box approach. Do you know if, till today, did somebody explain the gravity force? Last time I read about it, they were saying it may be a manifestation from a multiverse. If true, ALL we know is garbage, in any science, as they would describe only the effects and not the causes.

      3. re :”catholics burned Galileo at the stake”. — this discussion is too emotional and instead of learning from each other to distill the best knowledge about real truth out of the bribes we got you waste your time cockfighting. Lets take for ex. the supposed burning of Galileo: Instead of understanding the correct description of the prevailing ignorant official atmosphere at the time and admitting that “official” science almost always stubbornly hangs on to anachronic though well established theories you pick on him by insisting in the tiny error concerning Galileos survival. Yes he survived the ordeal, while the much greater Giordano Bruno who was the first to widen the vision from helocentric to galactocentric vision was really burned at the stake. This proofs what he meant when he mentioned Galileo. The whole official scientific community has constantly been about 50 years behind the understanding of the real visionaries, – and you know it (I hope so) Just look for how many years on average most decent pionneers have to endure rejection and ridicule from the same people who later pretend they always knew it. Take Mendel, –or Wegener who wrote his “Continental drift theory” in 1912 and had to wait 40 years to be vindicated. Or take Higgs, with his boson,waiting since when ? or see the still stubborn defenders of the ridiculous but official “Clovis first” theory. The facts always prove the whole selfrighteous gang wrong, slowly but surely. Its just a question of time.Just wait till we know more about “Monte verde” and the cavedwelling africans who arrived in Brasil about the same time their brothers got to Australia. (50 or 60 K b.P.)The arrival date of paleoaustralians was also completely underestimated by the selfrightous gang of official Archaeologists, and homo florensis can simply not be real, must be a fake. Come on, wake up and see who is the “Bad” Archaeologists ? in this planets history . Advancing more by trial and error than truthfinding of intuitive genius.

    2. I think you are right saying the facts that do not fit the “official” theory are discarded, ignored. I would simply start with checking the authenticity of the maps, if they were made five centuries ago. If that is confirmed, I would be amazed Oronce knew about the existance of Antarctic, no matter what shape and latitude he mismatched. Just think, making a copy of a copy of a copy … will introduce errors. If the original maps are thousand of years old, there is no way the originals survived till 16th century AD.
      I did not check if somebody else noticed here but not Galileo was burnt, but Giordano Bruno. Both sustained the heliocentrical theory, and nto necessary the spherical shape of the Earth. I think the Jesuits, at leasts, knew the Earth is spherical because they approved the first voiage of Columbus, to reach India by navigating West, not East, which does not make sense if the Earth would be considered flat.

      1. Around the XVI century it was common knowledge that the world was round. Eratostenes had even measured the circunference of the earth with an error margin of 10%, around the III century BC!!

        As it happened, Columbus was wrong. Any european scholar at tht time knew the circunference of the earth measured aorund 44,000 to 46,100 km, Columbus insisted it was only 12,000.. km ( he did now suspected the existance of the Pacific Ocean). That is why always tought he had arrived to Asia. … he was lucky… but wrong.

  3. Regarding Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews’ last sentence, “Why do so may critics of mainstream archaeology get such basic facts wrong, do you think?”
    That’s easy! When dealing with a complicated subject such as history covering millennia we introduce so many factors, interpretations and good old-fashioned legends that the pure massiveness of the subject makes accurate measurements mere interpretation.

    It can be said that time doesn’t exist without a measurement. Similarly, in a courtroom a “measurement” that has been recorded becomes truth. An example is a picture with a date on it or a police officer’s measurement with a tape measure written in a report. Any scientist knows that the accuracy of the measurement can’t be reliable without scrupulous testing and even with the testing we only reach a theory!

    Pardon my diatribe, but this is what fascinates me about history, culture, and beliefs. Simply put, facts change. Our thoughts on the accuracy of archaeology will certainly change as the scrutiny of our peers introduce ideas.

    Back to Keith’s question, my opinion is that because it’s easy to make up bull crap to support preconceived thoughts on history.

    In other words, there are a bunch of idiots on earth.

  4. While Fine’s Map may not accurately describe the coastline of Antarctica and it’s size and orientation may be off by a few degrees – what else would you suggest it represents? Australia? I don’t think Fine came up with the continent on his own but rather drew his idea and representations based on historical account or ancient maps… that is quite plausible since the crusades had just ended a a wealth of knowledge was transferred from the muslims to the christians, just like 1000 years earlier when the muslims took it from the Egyptians/Persians and Indians…
    I am not sure what you are trying to disprove regarding this map or the fact that Fine knew about Antarctica way before the Russians officially discovered it in 1820.

    If you are going to ttempt to disprove that it is a map of antarctica by saying the exact coordinates don’t match, then what are your thoughts on the Persian Gulf going into the Arabian Desert halfway to Mecca? or the fact that Greenland is also way out of proportion….

    So i agree his cartographic skills were not perfect but what else but Antarctica can it represent??? I mean to say, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and if it looks like this map from 1531 has Antarctica on it… HOW did that knowledge get into Fine’s mind???? Perhaps you are saying he just dreamed it up….

    1. Someone else dreamed it up; Fine put on his map a representation of a theory that the land in the north had to be balanced by land in the south.
      When Columbus landed in the Caribbean, he thought he was in Asia because he had a map in his head that did not allow for lands in between. The lands in the western hemisphere are named for the man who recognized them for what they are; therefore, they are call the Americas and not the Columbias.
      If a person thinks that something exists, they are going to make some representation of it even if they are lacking the proof. This is the difficulty in many sciences; the balance of land between the north and the south is not an illogical hypothesis. Until the research is done, or in some cases, until the research can be done, we have no proof.

      1. Dean, while I heard before about the “balance” of the lands, that would not explain the map of the South America. By that time nobody knew America’s are new continents, and what shape the Suth America had. Ther few explorers that reached the coast of Brazil, did not map the full coast. I am sure the Chilean coast was mapped even much later. And I bet Columbus had a map, but he thought on that map was figured the Asian continent.

  5. Suppressed Truth: “The name Austrailia.. Antaratica… Antediluvia.. Atlantis. Yeah I said it. It’s obvious. Plus there is the Aztlan in South America and the cache of interesting artifacts found in Ecuador that all glow in black light. ”

    wow… how much speculation about those “modern names”… becuase in the historical context, they are modern.

    By the way Aztlan is a mitical place of the nahua people, and it´s in north-america (Mexico is at the north of central america… unless your maps are as much distorted as the orontoius maps) and the nahua people are recent… they were contemporary of medioeval Europe!!!

    Seem almost all your suppose facts are wrong, yet you claim you know the truth…

    The problem is that you have been blinded by ideology, so you will pick of the bits that seem to suport you belifes, even if those bits are wrong.

    for example, the the Antikythera mechanism you mention. Its an elaborated calculator… but no only is at the level of what we know of Greek technology, but the calculus it does, have the same mistakes the Greeks had in astronomy. The Antikythera mechanism is based on a geocentrical model of the earth.

    That you can use a 3D render program, does not make you an expert in maps, you are using the same tactics used by Hapgod and Hanckock. You are distorting a map in order it fits your preconceived ideas. Thats the only way when you have no facts to support your claims.

  6. betrix: “it looks like this map from 1531 has Antarctica on it”

    really? Since when Brasil and patagonia are in Antartica…? (read the captions on the map).

    For some reason most of the claims on ancient maps ignore completely the authors notes on those same maps…

  7. It is definitely a map of Australia. Wonky perhaps but all the major points and references are all there. Also what is not realised, is that this area of the map is UPSIDE DOWN in relation to modern maps of Australia.

    I believe that one of the original maps used to make this world map would have looked something like the following… This is a map of Australia and New Zealand. Essentially, New Zealand got confused with Madagascar, and this map was swivelled and adjusted to fit on an all new and modern world map of that time.

    My Arguments for my little theory are as follows

    1. Following your finger along the coastline against another in an atlas, most of the coastline is basically correct. Allowing for ancient mapping methods in an old boat can account for the general shape.

    2. The points around the coastline that stand out as being identifiable (see picture above), are all in the correct location in relation to one another.

    3. Terra Australis is upside down, but when rotated clearly shows Tasmania, New Zealand and Kangaroo Island.

    4. Take a single map containing both Australia and New Zealand and place it on a current world map with New Zealand overlaid where Madagascar currently is, you come up with a world map not unlike the Oronteus Finaeus Map of 1531.

    5. The mountain ranges are all where they should be for a map of Australia.

    6. It does not look anything like a map of the Antarctic in any form of any period with or without ice. In any case, the technology to photograph under the ice was not around 500 years ago.

  8. This thread is absolutely amazing. My favorite part is when the Suppressed Truth guy said that he wasn’t asking us to believe in aliens or holographic 9/11 planes, he’s just asking us to accept that much of western history was fabricated by the freaking Jesuits. I’m honestly not sure where people come up with this stuff, but they’re sure entertaining.

    1. You’re not sure where it came from because you never looked it up, you haven’t done the research he has. To instantly dismiss it as foolish without even investigating is the epitome of ignorance. To the site-master here, you have at least done more than most skeptics by giving yourself a permanent base of operations here, most “skeptics” just pop up out of nowhere, publically and loudly challenge beliefs and demands facts or evidence, then dissapear into the void, their mission accomplished – completely ignoring the vast majority of (generally large) bodies of evidence given. Debunking one or two points, ignoring the rest, and calling everyone who believes anything different than you uninformed or crazy is not debate. It’s pure ignorance. Always will be.

  9. Is there not something written on the map that reads Terra Australis recenter inventa, sed nondum plene cognita,
    and doesn’t it means something like recently invented but not yet completely known southern land ?

  10. Well well lots of ideas. Hmm where to begin. First it could be a map of antarctica or who knows what. I would like to believe it is an attempt to copy a older map of antarctica just because that means there was a civilization that sailed the world that long ago. Which would help explain numerous sites around the world that we can’t explain. For those “flat earth” people no they didn’t believe the earth was flat they beleived the ocean was to vast to sail across and they would run out of food before reaching asia if they tried. Yes there is proof other civ’s found america first and it’s well documented. Galileo was inprisoned by the church for claiming the earth was not at the center of the universe nothing about the flat earth idea. Furthermore all of you are wrong there is no great conspiracy to stop the truth there’s only a lack of evidence to support your theories. However mainstream belief if very flexable if you have a sound clear theory with proper evidence that can’t be debunked in minutes then people will listen.

    Well maybe I got you attention with that first part now let’s move past the facts everyone has gotten wrong although I do have to tell you that by blindly putting “facts” like that out there you really hurt people trying to get a legitimate idea out there and that is why mainstream archaeology laughs at people with these ideas.

    So there are large ancient ruins around the world a lot of which are underwater. Which suggests a civ during or prior to the last ice age. Most records have been lost so we know of a city of the coast of india which dates back 10000 years at the least. Rather advanced from what I’ve read about it (not much) but I heard they had a indoor plumbing thing goin on so impressive. We know that the egyptions spoke of ancient cultures and civs that we don’t know anything about. We know about the ruins of puma punku but know nothing of the builders. We know about the multiple stone henges and the similair but slightly diffrent styles of arcutecture around the world. We also know my spelling sucks and typing this on a phone is hard.(lol)

    Okay so from this I believe there was a ancient peoples that travelled the world. Perhaps they could fly but I’m not ready to go there more so they could travel the oceans.w Let’s just say hypothetically there was a “atlantis” this being their capitol they would only build citys and such on other sites near the ocean as they used it for transport. I’m not saying they had electricity or anything but a great understanding of mathmatics and astrology. Great cataclysm strikes atlantis sinks and the oceans start rising and great rapip flod occurs causing most of this civ to be destroyed and lost. It’s taking us so long to find them that anything that would have been of use is gone (writings and such) however we have a framework to start us in the right direction with their citys and all the civ we do know. So these people are scattered to the wind and integrate themselves into other civs and helpb them progress. Now we exam all the earliest texts we have in search for this civ. And we find it in the way of gods. Interpurted diffrently you can assume gos came from the oceans not the stars. They say gods came from the skies (except the one who came by a boat in south america) well what if ancient people had it wrong or interputed wrong and thbey came by boat using the stars to navigate. Then everything falls into place a little.

    Yes this theory has holes and won’t stand up to scrutiny yet but I just started forming it and would love the insight/help in finishing it. So with that Keith if you think this may be plausable let me know. Too the rest of you start checking your facts because most of you don’t have a clue.

    I know ancient aliens great show with interisting ideas and I know it’s easy to blame mainstream for cover ups but all the facts are out there if you lok and your not looking your recycling half done research and fictional stories that for whatever reason became fact. L up the flat earth myth it comes from a fictional story about columbus and some where people decicded to believe it. For whatever reason you all have decided that your right and everyone else lies but the points made here are valid ones. And no point any of you made was valid or correct.

    Oh and tesla screwed himself over. He was supposed to be inventing a way to send telegraphs over the ocean wirelessly or that’s what he said he was doing in reality he was working on a way to tap into the earth energy field and send electricity wirelessly. Morgan pulled the plug because he sand a tn of cash into the project and then his competotor came up with the tech first and then tesla went a little crazy and ruined himself. Also interisting to note after he lost funding he tried selling it to the military as a weapon. Then in siberia we had the odd occurence where a explosion in the skie bhappened. We still don’t know the cause but from his tower to the explosion a light could be seen and after that day tesla swoe his invention worked. So maybe he did create it and maybe he blew up a huge secton in siberia and the military still has all of his work including the tower locked away somewhere so I guess you never know. But that’s all maybe this and maybe that just thought i’d shine a little light on that subject since someone brought I up. But also point out that it wasn’t power companies at fault he lied to get the funding then retreated from the world after he lost the funding.

    I think I’ve made my point. Later people enjoy the post get back to me on my theory please.

    1. What specifically is your theory on this map? Are you stating that in your opinion, the Antarctica was mapped before it was covered with ice millions of years ago? Not sure that homo-sapiens have been around that long.

    2. Yes, Tesla was working on sending wireless electricity, but that is all. At that time the electricity requirements were so low that they thought that electricity generated by the niagara could be so cheap, that it could be considered as free.

      Sending electricity wireless is very inefficient, since most of it just dissipates. But that is how radio works.

      There is not such thing as “free energy”,

      1. “There is not such a thing as wireless electricity” I think this would be very beneficial for the oil companies, wouldn’t it? And even if it was discovered, I don’t think we would know. Or you think that the establishment would let scientist end up with the oil, gas businesses? Economic interests are ahead of the scientific ones and everybody knows that. Governments invest in science, but they tell scientists what to study. That’s why more money is invested in weapons, drugs, iphones, instead of space exploration. This is what “Science” does today They kill and use people as slaves in Africa for us to have ipads, iphones, laptops… Scientists are funded by the government and government is controlled by the big multinational companies so I am sorry if I don’t trust the “mainstream”. Tesla was a real altruist and he believed in science as way of helping humanity, not to destroy it. So “official history” and science are always controlled by the mainstream which is controlled by economic and politic interests. By the way the magnetic and geographic poles are not always located at the same point, as it happens with our planet, and plate tectonics is actually a theory. Definition of theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
        I am not saying that the plate tectonics theory is wrong, but we cannot consider it as a proved fact, which is not.

        1. Mary , Simply, there is no way to suppress that kind of knowledge. Specially in this age of internet.

          There are fundamental laws of the universe, and one of them us that energy can not be created.

          And.. tectonic plate theory was been proved beyond doubt.

          While since is founded MAINLY by governments, is not controlled by them. Climate change is one of such case, where science and governments disaggree.

          1. Definition of a theory:

            “In modern science, the term “theory” refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support (“verify”) or empirically contradict (“falsify”) it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative.”

          2. No way of supressing it? First of all there is not people interested in creating free energy because the government wouldn’t fund such a research project, have you ever heard of any project called free energy? We are not talking about creating energy magically, the whole universe is made of energy and we still need to use dead animals to move a car? Internet? There is much more interesting stuff to do with the internet for the common people, (facebook, etc) so even if someone published something, who would care? Tesla discovered and invented many dangerous (for the establishment) things, and many of his patents were bought by private hands after he died, and therefore haven’t been made public. His belongings and papers were taken by the FBI when he died and who knows what they’ve given back and what not. Tesla is officially the actual father of the radio but it isn’t a very known fact. I wonder why… He’s actually an irritating individual for the establishment and that’s why his name is rarely mentioned. Shouldn’t he be famous for trying to help humanity? No, instead Oppenheimer is much more well-known for killing people. It seems to me that science is not quite fair with its own fellows. Politics and science are more closely linked than you think, how else would have USA won the war? Same happens with official history, I know that i will be burnt at the stake for saying this

        2. No such thing as wireless energy?!? What about powerpad charging stations for cell phones ipad and so on. Yes wireless energy does exist. Yes it’s not the mos efficient as of yet. However if we took the time to develop it then it could be. Oh and Tesla did create a wireless energy tower. All his work on the subject is classified so noone can be sure how efficient his method was. If your going to comment on something at least look into it a little first. As for free/cheap energy it is very possible. Just not probable the problem being people convnced it’s not. I do believe solar panels on every house would go a long distance twords this goal. There are other things that can be done as well. You can build your own high power solar panels for 1/3 the price of buying them. They are made to be expensive so people believe this is not in their reach. But with tax breaks and building yourself they are inexpensive and can cut your elctric bill in half. If everyone did this electric demand would decrease dropping the cost of energy.
          Energy can’t be “created” it also can’t be destroyed. So all we have to do is find better ways to harness it.

          1. Robert, please read my post, i never said “No such thing as wireless energy”, I said “There is not such thing as “free energy”

            As I said , Electricity can be sent wireless, it´s called “radio”. TV and radio stations pump megawatts of power to the atmosphere, and radio devices pick up just a few milliwatts.

            Tesla experimented with this, but he believed that the electricity from niagara Falls would be so abundant and cheap that i would not matter.

            He was wrong, yet he did not realized he had discovered something more important : “radio”.

            Now, while energy is all around us, it does not means we can use it. If you study a bit of thermodynamics you will understand why. The universe has it ´s laws, we can use those laws to accomplish things, bu we can not break them.

            A plane does not break the laws of gravity, it uses them.

            Please. Read and learn about the three laws of thermodynamics, that would allow you to understand why we are so confident some things can not be done, and some surely can.

            By the way, the powerpad for Ipad, ITS NOT wireless electricity, it´s a magnetic device that works like a power transformer.

            Basically, if a loop of wire goes trough a magnetic field, electricity if generated, so the power station generates a variable magnetic field, and the receptor has a simple loop of wire. It´s easy, it has nothing mysterious about it.

            yes, it´s a wireless charger, but it´s not wireless electricity, nor free energy.

  11. how long has the ice been on Antartica?
    i think its tied in with frozen mammoth/ crust shift
    10-12 thousand years ago
    ive been looking at this stuff for twenty years and i would bet a pound to a penny traditional history is wrong.

    1. The ice has been on Antarctica for a VERY long time: the ice sheet contains over 160,000 annually deposited layers, which means that it must be more than 160,000 years old.

      Crustal shift is a fraud; it might (just) have been plausible before we understood about plate tectonics, but now that we do, we can see that it’s never happened. All you need to do is look at the magnetic reversals going back millions of years in the mid-Altlantic ridge: any shift would have changed not just the polarity of the remanent magnetism but also the direction of the poles!

      Mammoths were not killed out by a sudden freeze: they lived in tundra conditions and the bodies that turn up from time to time are of unfortunate individuals that fell through thin ice covering lakes and bogs with anaerobic deposits.

      1. Keith. I think you’re awesome.
        And you have the patience of a saint. If you’re not careful you might wind up being my hero.

      2. Keith, you say that if you cannot see it, i never happened! That does not make sense! The Geology speaks about massive scale eruptions and several mass extinctions. What would be the causes of such planetary catastrophes?
        Not sure somebody really measured 160,000 layers of… snow, and how, but maybe there were a lot of layers on the top of the mountains. What if somebody would take samples from the glaciers of Europe? He would conclude Europe is still covered in thick ice, right? Can you see how focusing on a small picture we miss the full image?
        What about the snow that never melts, on top of the mountains in the Equatorial regions?
        I do not say you are wrong, but I say there may be things we do not know, we did not discover yet and closing our minds, it means we refuse to accept any future proofs.

        1. Of course there are things we do not know. Some things we will never know. But, yes, someone has counted the rings of annual ice formation in Antarctic cores. There is a difference between the glaciers of Europe and the ice sheet in Antarctica, though: the European glaciers are limited in extent, currently shrinking and because of the way they are flowing downslope, are considerably younger than the Antarctic ice cap. The existence of unglaciated land beyond the margins of the European glaciers is surely enough to show that the continent is not covered in an ice sheet. Antarctica, on the other hand, is almost entirely covered in such a sheet.

    2. I would take that bet, but what would it take you to accept that you are wrong, so I can collect my money?

  12. The map may not stand up to close scrutiny but its amazing enough for the fact that it represents antarctica centuries before it was even explored… The contorns may not match accurately but the shape and the size is it misteriously similar taking into account that it’s the most unknown continent due to its extreme environmental conditons. To me, it justs seems that you want to diminish the importance of the map talking about Oronce personal life wich i think is superflous as we are talking about the map, not gossips wich actually dont help to explain the nature of the map, because the facts are still there. It seems that archaeologists are full of prejudices. Again it seems to me that you are trying to stress the fact that he was in prison twice, wich i wouldnt pay much attention to as we know that authorities were prone to imprison people (specially scientists) for convenient (for them) reasons, Galileo was imprisoned in his own house but that doesnt make him a criminal as we all know why. Oscar wilde was imprisoned because he was said to be homosexual so we cannot say that the law is always fair, and not to mention in the 16th century. So in the end you talk about everything (half of it about his personal life, very conviniently) but don’t explain nothing.

    1. Mary, please read the map carefully. The map does not shows antartica, it claims that land is Regio Patalis and Brasielie Regio

      Regio Patalis is Latin for “the Region of Patala”. It took its name from the ancient city of Patala (now Thatta) at the mouth of the Indus River. By medieval times its actual location had been lost to the Europeans, and it appeared on late 15th and early 16th century maps and globes in locations ever eastward and southward of India,

      Also the map says Brasielie Regio, which is the name Marco Polo gave to Greater Java.

      a Close scrutiny shows that map has nothing to do with antartica, compare that map with other maps of the same period.

      1. I still say it is a map of Australia. Too may points of reference that can be confirmed (almost traced over) a modern map of Australia. See my links in my past posts.

        1. Uhh.. Australia?

          How can be Australia be in the “Magallanicum Mare”, and near Zansibar and Madagascar.

          By the way… did you overlay australia, using a polar proyection?…

          That map is pure fantasy!

  13. For the people just trying to quire information perhaps the scholars should translate the entire map in stead of 2 sides translating convenient parts of it, there seems to be a lot written on all of them and its sad the time ive spent trying to find a complete translation

  14. The map doesn’t show the current coastline of Antartica what it does show with odd accuracy, not of global scale or position, but of proportion and relative position is the underlying geology of Antartica, as in under two miles plus of ice. I’ve seen a couple of the source maps for this work and they’re a lot clearer in coastal outline but no two agree on the orientation of the landmass in question. The Latin can also translate as recently found or discovered, as in he found source material that he didn’t understand? Food for thought.
    Antartica has been frozen under over a mile of ice for over 200,000 years, the total core depth is 300,000 years at select locations. Make of that what you will.
    If this map’s source data came from firsthand observations of the antartic continent in controversy then any similarity to the modern world is remakable to say the least, India has moved roughly 9000km in that time.
    If anyone in the “serious” academic community attempts to publish anything that flies in the face of “accepted wisdom” or current theory the PBR (Peer Based Review) system ensures that their work cannot get into ANY journal or published in any other academic form and I’m not just talking about archaeology that goes for any academic field, I’ve seen it firsthand.
    That’s all I have time for today.

  15. So, for those of you keeping score at home:

    Holographic 9/11 Airplanes? Crazy
    Aliens controlling the planet? Crazy
    Atlantis and ancient aircraft that harness the Earth’s electric fields? You’re brainwashed sheeple for not believing.

    Also known as, “special pleading”. You’re wrong for the same reason that Alex Jones is wrong. Because what you’re proposing makes no sense.

    Plus, news flash, there is no “eastern” or “western” science, it’s just science. There’s no magical “Eastern” history or science that offers any kind of legitimate evidence for that kind of bull.

  16. Opinions on ancient aliens and aircraft’s using earths electronic field are valid opinions only a suggestion and dont draw discrediting light to a map found in the 1500s drawn earlier that shows a map of Antarctica with no ice
    you can choose the easy argument instead of the difficult question it will just make you like 90% of the population…. congratulations
    More people in the world should question human races written history
    What we know is
    Myens never built there calenders fact
    Incas didnt build there pyramids fact,
    why would the egypations have built them?
    Atlantis is written into platos records by Egyptian historians 10000 ish years ago there is written proof it sat just outside off the coast of Europe they were at war with grease, how old is grease and there myths how many civilizations have been burnt to the ground only to start from scratch
    And what made the 2miles thick ice across all of north America melt 10000 years ago
    carbon from petrol cars……….dont be a pawn
    discuss dont cutdown

    1. “they were at war with grease”

      I’ve been at war with grease myself – very hard to get off the oven! You just have to keep at it.

      If only we could harness the “free energy” from all the whirling cranks on this page! But Big Wind won’t let us!

  17. Hi Keith,

    I look forward to your demolition of this latest offering of bad-archaeology =)

    A couple of observations with regards to a pre-occupation with which archaeologists of many persuasions are fond; that of digging :

    1. know when to put down the spade (or scalpel) in favour of a nice cup-of-tea & garibaldi.
    2. always ensure that you are not so entrenched that you cannot climb back out.

    Seriously, pls don’t mind my provocative comments above! This site is a badly needed reaction to the mountains of gibberish out there on the i/webs. (& how did Tesla manage to make his way into this thread??). I do *not look forward-to or even expect any such demolition from you, since you appear sincere, and not at all arrogant ~but, well i /do/ find Doug Fisher’s argument presented so far, intriguing , /compelling/ even.. it would be great to get an orthodox reaction.

  18. Evolution is fraudulent. It takes no less than 8 mutations for a protein to change its program. Although performed in a laboratory, it is estimated that for this to take place in the natural world, it would far succeed the age of the universe. Bye bye Darwin.

    1. Evolution is not fraudulent: it is the most robust theory currently available to explain the diversity of life on Earth. By referring to the “program” of a protein, it’s clear that you have fallen for the lies of the Discovery Institute. So what if it does take eight mutations before the function of the protein is changed? That means that there are lots of mutations from generation to generation that have no effect on descendants of an organism: if it is at the eighth mutation that the function changes (and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here), then any effect on the organism will occur after a minimum of around eight generations, not in the 14 billion years or so that the universe has been in existence!

      The only thing you’ve managed to get right is your name: Darwin is indeed dead and has been for a little over 131 years.

    2. Darwinisdead : Each born human being has between 70 to 110 new mutation, multiply that for each human and you will have an idea of the number of mutation generated.

      And that is more or less the same of each of the billions of living beings on earth. Seems yo need to check your math.

  19. I would recommend “The Lost Science of Measuring The Earth” Robin Heath/John Michell as both a scientific and scholarly piece of work which seems to present a pretty good argument for the ability of ancient civilisations to be able to both survey and have knowledge of the dimensions and shape of the world. The proof that our ancestors had the necessary knowledge and abilities to make these maps is more important than the existence of the maps themselves.
    I personally do not adhere to the view that our society is necessarily progressing to a more advanced or civilised state. The advances of science and growing understanding of the physical universe does give this impression, but it is a one sided view and it’s product is to create a society based on a materialistic cosmology. As much as science proclaims its higher ideals, at its extremities it is understood and driven by an elite and there are few who have the knowledge and wisdom to question their motives or direction.
    Science, divorced from any philosophy of its own serves the predominant ‘religion’ of the time loosely described as free market economics itself based on a bastard science ill conceived and understood and driven again by an elite whose motives are far from philanthropic.

  20. New visitor and I’m astonished at the volume of the ignorant quacks out there…

    Supressed Truth, JM, Lamumba’s Ghost, Mary – your arguments appear to be little more than incoherent non-sequiturs filled with errors or irrelevant assertions. When Keith and others patiently point our your errors (Galileo, Tesla on AC etc., using modern names to imply some early correlation) you either counter them with more poorly argued assertions or just ignore their corrections and continue down a different track.

    Your credibility is tied to the accuracy of your statements. Have the humility, the intellectual honesty to admit when you have been found wrong. Listen and regain some credibility or arguing with you becomes pointless.

    Group-think and dogma can pervade all human endeavours and science is no exception, but that’s no reason to abandon critical thinking. If you can use facts to back up your statements you may not win over all the sceptics but you will at least win over the open minded ones.

  21. Antarctica has been more or less ice-covered for millions of years. How many million years seem to be a matter of debate within the scientific community. But everyone agrees the Antarctic ice cap has existed at least as long as humanity. Does Austen Reid have any idea of how thick it is? The Antarctic ice cap is up to four kilometres (two and a half miles) thick! Considering how little it snows in most of Antarctica it could certainly not have formed in 12,000 years or less. Furthermore, it consists of many more than the 160,000 annual layers Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews states. The longest ice core drilled out of it was reported (by mainstream mass media) to cover 650,000 years. Even if the ice at the bottom of it was wrongly dated or reported it could definitely not have been less than 2% as old. Drilling up kilometres of ice cores can only be done on stable ice fields. So even if the the ice cap has existed far longer currently stable ice fields might not have been much older than that.

    1. Lena, you rationale is simplistic: you assume “how little it snows in most of Antarctica” like the situation never changed over millennia. In my country there are years when it snows 2 m in two days!

      1. This is not simplistic: it is climate statistics. What I mean is the average yearly weather pattern over the course of a longer time period, usually thirty years. There is just not that much precipitation near the poles. Moreover, global climate has changed relatively little in the last 12,000 years.

  22. That is an interesting point , was there not a ice cap ovet north america a few miles thick , do u have the statistics on the years it took to degrade into nothing and or build ? Would be a good bace line for everyone

    1. I’m not sure about the North American ice cap, but that over northern Europe started to melt around 18,000 years ago; you could say it’s not quite gone, as there is still permanent ice on the Scandinavian mountains, but it was certainly gone from the lowland parts by about 8,000 years ago.

  23. The North American ice sheet was actually larger than the north European one. I covered almost all of Canada, the mountains of Alaska, parts of the United States right south of the Canadian border and the entire area around the Great Lakes. I don’t know when it retreated to Greenland (which is still ice-covered except for most of the coasts), Baffin Island (which has an mountain ice cap) and some glaciers in the Rocky Mountains. But since climate is a single, global system I think it was roughly simultaneous with the melting here in Europe. Also, I seriously doubt that any ice cap has ever been thicker than two and a half miles. At least not during the time humanity has existed.

  24. During the last couple of million years the Earth’s climate has changed a great deal. The periods when it was considerably colder than today are called “glacials” (or “ice ages”). The periods about as warm as today or warmer are called “interglacials”. These are thought to be ultimately caused by three large astronomical cycles:

    ¤ How elliptical the Earth’s orbit is which varies over roughly 100,000 years.
    ¤ How much the Earth’s axis tilts compared to the plane of its orbit which over 41,000 years.
    ¤ Towards which direction in space the Earth’s axis points which varies over 26,000 years.

    These are called Milankovitch cycles after Milutin Milanković (1879 – 1958, the letter Ć is pronounced “tch”). They have a considerable influence on the size of temperature differences between the seasons. The mechanisms are rather complicated and not fully understood. However, it is thought that an ice age starts when the difference between the seasons is the smallest in the northern hemisphere. Similarly, an ice age is thought to end when the seasonal difference in the northern hemisphere is as largest. Why the northern hemisphere? Because the it has the most landmass on latitudes susceptible to glaciation. When Milankovitch cycles have the opposite effect in the southern hemisphere it is just less affected. As mentioned before the Earth’s climate is a single interconnected system. So when northern hemisphere conditions causes an ice age they do it for both hemispheres.

    As the name suggests the ice caps where larger during ice ages than interglacials. But 3 – 4 kilometres (1 7/8 – 2 1/2 miles) seems to be typical polar ice cap thickness regardless of extent. The only exception I know about is the Greenland ice sheet at the peak of the previous interglacial. It did not only shrink in extent but also in thickness. If I remember it correctly it was then only one kilometre (5/8 of a mile) thick. At the same time the West Antarctic ice sheet melted away altogether while the the East Antarctic one remained largely intact. A world map of the opposite extreme can be found on my website:

    This map shows the world as it looked 18,000 years ago. The ice sheets may have been slightly larger but not much larger. Also, the sharp boundaries between the vegetation zones should not be taken too literally. I don’t think the North American ice sheet bordered directly to the temperate forests, woodlands an prairies south of it. There must have been a narrow zone of tundra or tundra-steppe in between since climate don’t change that abruptly. Yet it may have been too narrow to show on my source map:

    The changes between different climate states always took at least several decades. Also, they where not as drastic as Catastrophists like Graham Hancock tend to imagine. You did not have an area with a nice, subtropical climate suddenly turn into a frozen wasteland. Instead you typically had a subarctic area where all the trees froze to death over the course of decades. The more rapid end of the last ice age still took fifty years. Furthermore, it only meant that for example England got three instead of eight months of winter.

    Please note that the position of the geographic poles is known to have changed very little. What little change has taken place was too small to change regional climate. Instead, it has turned out that parts of the crust actually move compared to each other. But these movements are to slow to be obvious during a human lifetime. To my knowledge all such movements are slower than two inches per year. The main effects of them that matters to us are earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. All in all, during the entire time humanity has existed the positions of all larger land masses has been virtually the same. This holds true compared to the poles as well as to each other.

      1. I usually trust Wikipedia, but not always. Anyway, I have printed sources (books and magazines) backing up all my main claims. It is only the map I linked to which is based on one found on Wikipedia. It is now found here:
        My latest recoloured version can be found here:,000-BC
        Apart from that I am personally convinced that borders between climate zones never are as sharp at the original map give the impression of. Are outdoor temperatures supposed to change by tens of degrees in just a few hundred yards? Unless we are talking changes in elevation rather than distance on the map I don’t think the laws of physics allow for that.

  25. Skepticism is necessary, but so is exploration with an open mind. Let the skeptic and the iconoclast embrace each other understanding each is essential to the other. The most important aspect in science and all other human endeavors is humility, objectivity, and the courage to say, ” I was wrong…”

  26. Much of Graham’s arguments would be put to rest if the coast lines were returned to 18,000 BCE. This would expose the period habitable coastal zones and allow for search of the artifacts required to support a vast rewriting of civilization. Graham is if nothing else, a mesmerizing speaker and wonderful storyteller.

    I was struck at the age of 10 when a novice conventional archeologist friend of the family guided me to some local Salish Native American sites that were out of the way and as secretive as possible to keep the scavengers out. I was captured by Larry’s explanation of their significance in terms of Clovis, as I live on the southern end of the glacial gap responsible for the habitation of the Americas. Of course there is nearly always a required gap in the glaciers in maps representing the glaciers after 18,000 BCE or so…. There MUST be to support Bering Strait routed Clovis theory in the Americas. Sooo… in the middle of progressive mass mega fauna extinction, Asiatic nomads push south (LONGITUDINALLY- Jared Diamond struggles with the North South versus east west migration) to the Andes and give up their nomadic lifestyle to fit megalithic stones together with a still unexplained methodology that is, pictographically anyway, (I haven’t been there) EXACTLY the same as other, independent megalithic stone structures of roughly the same period spread worlds apart, where agriculture and absolutely fantastic stonework spontaneously erupted in multiple locations within a thousand years of each other. Despite this incredible longshot theory, it is (doctrine) mainstream theory. Sigh.

    I place very little in the value of source documentation of these crude maps. Furthermore, I don’t know for sure if there are pre Sanskrit petroglyphs across the world. I can tell you that aliens probably DID NOT generate homo sapiens. I can’t decipher the hieroglyphs of the Maya, Inca, Aztech, Olmec, Egyptians or any other culture on my own to determine if they in fact do have similar mythology or star worship. Since we are bound by what experts tell us at the risk of ridicule, there is a monopoly on much of this information to determine much of anything.

    BUT IF the mythologies mesh across continents, IF the similar star worship occurred, IF reliance on similar astronomic events for similar cues to warn of similar events occurred, well then- we must rely on conventional knowledge that two monkeys on distant islands could generate the same patents!

    It is complete BS in my reptilian survival brain to believe that man in multiple locations on the globe on the edge of existence would waste so much energy and time to dedicate their lives to build great monuments in line with thousands of years of astronomical observations to satisfy ego as opposed to today when we spend enormous amounts of time and energy to find better ways to destroy our neighbors. What changed in our psyche?

    I suspect that the key to these mysteries lay on the ocean floor just outside our reach.

  27. Forgive me- a few errors leaked through and I’m a bit retentive in this respect: Aztec. Archaeology. Mongoloid is more appropriate as opposed to simply Asiatic. I cling to Inca with a hard c.

  28. I disagree. The main problem with your surmise is that you base your beliefs off current understanding and neglect any acknowledgement of ancient understanding. We currently know brain surgery was performed, to some greater or lesser degree, in ancient Egypt. We know sophisticated mechanics were employed, the Antikythera Mechanism. You, like most main stream thinkers ignore “possible” and focus on what would be acceptable to your colleagues at Stanford. This is the problem with science and why scientists are rapidly losing credibility (scoff at your leisure). The world has had enough of your smithsonian rhetoric. It’s time enough to really look at “recorded” history and understand what exactly they (our ancestors) were talking about and leave your judgement and silliness at the gate. When you discount historical figures you only serve to make yourselves the fools. If you can not disprove a thing you have no bases to call the opposite proof of non existence.

    1. I don’t know anyone at Stanford and have never even been there. The type of “brain surgery” carried out in ancient Egypt (and in many cultures across the globe) was mostly trepanation, a procdure that may have been carried out to reduce recurrent head pain. If you know of other types, please show me what the evidence is. the Antikythera Mechanism is a well known and slightly unexpected example of the use of cogged gears in the first century BC. You can’t conflate mechanical knowledge in Classical Antiquity with Egyptian sugical techniques: they are different cultures.

    2. The Antikythera Mechanism.was a sophisticated use of gears, but it was based on the geocentrical model, All within the knowledge of that time. The gears were uses to sum, multiply and divide. Nothing more.

    3. So, you’re saying we should stop paying attention to what most evidence shows, and let you take us on whatever wild ride you feel like. You’re saying that healthy skepticism, which requires you to prove your point, is unwelcome to your world view.

      Then you wonder why academics don’t take you seriously.

  29. Sorry man. The chances of Fine’ speculating about the existence of an entirely unknown continent and additional coincidences in features?? I appreciate some healthy skepticism but the chances of this occurring without some extraneous knowledge are close to nil.

  30. So Finaeus drew a map of an imaginary continent he had never seen, and it just so happens to bear more than a very striking resemblance to Antarctica, with mountain ranges in the correct places?
    All from conjecture and guesswork?
    When I think of what the odds of this must be, all errors such as scale, rotation etc still don’t explain why it’s so eerily similar

  31. There is no “bad” archaeology except that which refuses to keep an open mind.

    I am not at all sold on the Reis map, however, someone apparently was, someone who had access to hard scientific data:

    Westover Airforce Base
    6 July 1960
    SUBJECT: Admiral Piri Reis World Map
    To: Professor Charles H. Hapgood,
    Keene College,
    Keene, New Hampshire.
    Dear Professor Hapgood,
    Your request for evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis World Map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed.
    The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land Antarctica, and the Palmer Peninsula, is reasonable. We find this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.
    The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.
    This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap.
    The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick.
    We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.
    Lt Colonel, USAF

    (This is the first page of “Fingerprints Of The Gods” by Graham Hancock).

    One might also take note of the Mercator World Map of 1569, which clearly shows, inset bottom left, a continent at the bottom of the world with mountain ranges and rivers, and what appears to my eye to be a central peak (I am no expert). How accurate it is, I have no idea. But its absolute accuracy is really beside the point. The actual point is, something is there. Given that, and how can it not be conceded at this point by any open minded scientist, two major questions which are raised, to whit:

    1) Prior to 1818 A.D., it was known by someone(s) that there is a large continent at the bottom of the planet – period.

    2) There is a body of evidence to suggest that at least parts of this continent were mapped, however accurately or inaccurately, as it was before there existed an ice cap.

    MY point in this post is not to pick sides, merely to say that there are extremely good reasons to question the dating of the beginning of civilization. In my mind, the many theories which abound at conferences like Megalithomania, etc, are pretty half baked. That is NOT to say that they are far-fetched, merely that there isn’t evidence enough, to me, to buy the whole basket.

    However, there is plenty of evidence to justify scientific pursuit. Gee, what were people in the ‘mainstream’ saying about the age of the Sphinx before the unveiling of Gobekli Tepi, after all? “Show me some evidence, show me one pottery shard, show me anything!” Ok, how about that? This is simply to amplify my point. Having a web site called “Bad Archaeology” is in and of itself questionable behavior. ;)

    PS: I hope I didn’t miss any typos or spelling errors. LOL

  32. So this is not evidence that Antarctica was discovered before the 1500s? His map is obviously a terrible representation. But what is his Terra Australis? Is he trying to show what they knew of the Australian continent? (Dutch explorer doesn’t map Cape York till 1606) Or is this a representation. (A very bad one) of Antarctica? (Not discovered until 1840). Agree it’s bad achealogogy. But even so can we not deduce something from it still?

Agree or disagree? Please comment! If you've never commented before, you may have to wait until I approve it: please be patient.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: