On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:34:33 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Aug 1, 4:01?am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:13:23 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
What a hot topic for rec.boats, 2007.

A 15th Century Turkish navigator produced a map that accurately
depicted
not only the not-yet officially "discovered" Atlantic coastlines of
North and South America, but also the Antarctic continent in an ice-
free state that last existed about 6000 years ago. Piri Reis claimed
that some of the source material for his map came from the libraries
of Alexander the Great, dating those documents to a time about 1800
years before Columbus sailed to the West Indies.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

Oh good lord, not this again.

I think I'll just let this thread die - as quickly as possible.

Besides, the Vikings discovered everything anyway long before any
other groups - including Idaho.

You scoff at Piri Reis?

Yes.

Maps and cartography is a hobby of mine and I've been at it ever since
I first read Thor Heyerdahl's "Kon Tiki" at ten years old. Which, by
the way, was one hell of a feat for a kid with dyslexia. Took me
almost six months but I got through it and it inspired me. Taught
myself how to read from that book. I owe Heyerdahl a huge debt of
gratitude that he will never know about.

Anyway, despite Erich von Daniken's claim ("Chariot of The Gods") that
if the projection is changed, it matches modern maps, it doesn't.

From what I've researched, some claim that it's a 16th century map,
others claim 17th. I'm in the later camp for what it's worth. Which
would mean the map isn't based on exploration, but largely guess work
based on verbal history.

There are numerous sites on the web pro and con, but there are several
which use actual mapping science to prove the point.

Has this somehow been shown to be fraudulent, or do you disbelieve
because it seems more comfortable to do so?

Fraudulent is a harsh term. I'm sure the map is genuine as far as it
goes. But it's 15th century status? Unlikely.

By the way, I take offense at the later part of that paragraph.

You're a student of history, Tom. You might enjoy a book I'm now
reading, "1491". Just in the last 30-40 years there have been some
amazing discoveries in anthropology and archeology that debunk a lot
of what we learned as kids in school. Some of these discoveries have
occurred as Amazon rain forests have been burned away, revealing
enormous areas of cultivated land, building sites in Peru (for
example) capable of housing populations many times larger than ever
officially thought to have existed there.

I am perfectly comfortable with archeological, anthropological,
historical and oral history types of evidence that challenge modern
beliefs. I'm also comfortable challenging those who belong to the
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod who tend to ignore historical,
archological and anthropological evidence which you are probably well
aware.

Do I doubt that the Americas were "discovered" prior to Columbus? Not
in the least. Do I believe that explorers and sailors of the High
Middle Ages made incredible voyages of discovery? I not only believe
it, I've seen evidence of it. I've even worked on a project that
claimed that Egyptians of the late dynasty's worked their way as far
south as the coast of South Africa and I have no doubt that it
happened, but the evidence is scant.

I have studied the techniques of early Polynesian navigation (called
wayfinding) and wrote a unpublished monograph for a UCONN cartographer
who was studying the subject - she used it as a basis for her own
dissertation on the subject.

Those guys knew how to do it right by the way. Winds, currents,
knowledge of stars and position even time which wasn't solved until
the 18th century by John Harrison. The Polynesians solved longitude
without even knowing it. They even had an Master/Apprentice system
for each groups Wayfinder.

Fascinating subject. But I digress.

Knowledge isn't stagnant. The state of the art "knowledge" from just a
generation ago is almost obsolete today. Doesn't mean that every new
thing that comes along is true, of course, but we should consider the
possibility and examine things carefully because some of the new
things will indeed prove to be valid.

Agreed.

However, studying it and applying the scientific method is one thing -
using the evidence to denigrate or lessen the achievements of those
who "discovered' something is quite another.

Columbus was one hell of a leader and he sold an idea and made it work
to his advantage. The fact that somebody got here a few hundred years
earlier is all well and good - astonishing, fascinating and wonderful
to comtemplate, but it still doens't lessen Columbus's achievement in
opening up a whole new land for exploration and exploitation.

However, to bring this back around to the Piri Reis Map, it's not what
it's claimed to be. It's most likely early 17th century, it's also
based on oral "tellings" and despite the fact that there are those who
will "fudge" the details to "prove" that aliens did satellite surveys
and gave that information to humankind, it's just not true and anybody
with a modicum of catrographical experience can do a projection and
see the difference.

Besides, the Vikings discovered everything including New Mexico long
before anybody else. :)