Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:30 pm
by Digit
See what I mean?
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www. ... ziWtxCMf_w
And a volcano would not have to physically break the surface to melt the overlaying ice, all that would be required would be an underlying warming, it would not even have to melt the top of the ice, just the lower surface and the ice would head down hill.
Roy.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:32 pm
by Minimalist
Yeah...but Reis did not just show a coastline. He showed sub-glacial topography, too.
I remain as bemused as Ohlmeyer.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:50 pm
by Digit
Quite Min. But a sub glacial hot spot would clear the ice around itself, we saw what would happen then in Iceland.
The heat could well keep a large area free from ice for very many years.
An alternative is that the info dates back to a date BCE.
They weren't magicians, either the map is in some manner a forgery or the land was ice free. I can see no other alternatives.
Roy.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:34 pm
by Minimalist
It wasn't ice free when we moderns mapped it, either and we aren't magicians.
Forgery seems as unlikely as giving Reis credit for a wild-ass guess.
Yet....there it is.
It's mind-boggling.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:45 pm
by Digit
Forgery seems as unlikely as giving Reis credit for a wild-ass guess.
Which leaves the area as being ice free then Min, which of course is the most likely answer.
If volcanism is the answer, and there was no vent, then the map constitutes the only evidence.
Roy.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:17 pm
by Minimalist
Even the story posted admits to the volcano only effecting about 110 miles. Reis' map covers far more than that.
That's not the only problem, though. There are other maps. Such as the Bauche Map.
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Buache_Map.html
Bauche shows Antarctica divided into two parts. Hancock calls this "accurate" and it is fairly close.
This modern image
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... l%26sa%3DN
indicates that Bauche was onto something. BTW, this fellow, Heinrich who put this map image out, can work himself into quite a lather denouncing those who claim that Bauche's depiction is "accurate." He may be right in a 21st century kind of way... but in keeping with a hand-drawn map from the early 18th century it looks to me as if Bauche understood the concept as it was relayed to him..... or copied by him.
Interesting stuff.
