Science & Space :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For all that is Scientifically related to Cosmology and Space. (NB: Please take discussions about UFOs, possible Alien contact, Crop-Circles, Alien Abductions, Planet-X and Niburu to the ‘Paranormal and Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
In his books Fingerprints of the Gods and Magicians of the Gods, Graham indicates the possibility that Antarctica may have been free of ice towards the end of the last ice age in order to explain the depiction of Antarctica by various ancient maps such as the Oronce Finé Map and Piri Reis Map.
This hypothesis is very difficult to sustain and in order to do so Graham has to consider the possibility of Crust Displacement also very difficult to defend for a number of reasons, among them I just mention a couple. If Antarctica was free of ice few thousand years ago, how comes that we could drill ice cores extracting 800,000 years ice showing the evolution of the climate during all this time. If the crust shifted by 2000km sometimes during the last ice age, how comes that the Hawaii Islands are still active. The Hawaii are created by a hot spot, unique in the world, that pierces through the earth crust, if the crust shifts the island shifts but they become misaligned with the plum and therefore the volcanoes should go extinct and new underwater volcanoes should be generated somewhere 2000km from the Hawaii. In addition if Antarctica was indeed 2000km Northwards when it was mapped compare do its current location, why it is not located there in the ancient maps? If the ancient maps are so precise to identify the difference between the land mass and the ice contours they should definitely locate Antarctica with 2000km accuracy.
My point is that it may not be necessary to buy into such, almost impossible to defend, theories. The fantastic work done by Graham still stands and stands better, even if the contour of the ancient maps represent the ice and not the land.
In order to support the view that the maps represent the cap and not the land mass, please note that the difference between the contour of the land mass and the ice mass in summer is not that different. There are only two large ice shelves that effectively contribute to this difference, the Ronne and Ross ice shelves. In total all ice shelves account for only 8% of the total surface of the continent. So the question really is, are the ancient maps accurate enough to account for such small difference?
In addition there is another element of uncertainty when we compare the various contours, we should not compare the current land mass contour to the ancient maps but the contour that existed during the last ice age when the sea was 100m lower or more.
If we lower the sea level the extent of the ice shelves is further reduced.
Most of the argument in favor to the hypothesis that the Antarctica profile shown by the ancient maps represent the land mass, comes from the analysis done by Lorenzo Burroughs Chief of the 8th Reconnaissance Squadron cartographic section of the US Air force at Westover Air Base.
Lorenzo confirms that the map probably depicts Antarctica land mass but it has compared it to the seismic survey made in 1949 and therefore not the contour of the land mass as it was during the last ice age and it is not said how much the two contours matched therefore we don’t know the level of error that Lorenzo has considered acceptable to say that they probably match.
To remove such ambiguities from the comparison it would be sufficient to superimposed the contour of the land at the time of the last glaciation (considering a certain range of uncertainty because we cannot be sure about the reference time when the map was drafted and therefore the level of the see) to the ancient maps, using the same projection and see if we can really say that they actually identify the land profile and not the ice boundary. I cannot obviously do that myself, but by looking at them I am quite sure that the differences could be much more than the extent of the ice shelves.
In conclusion, it is much more likely that the maps depict the ice contour some time during the last ice age than the ancient maps are precise enough to say that they represent the land contour, the crust of the entire planet shifted and Antarctica lost all its ice only few thousand years ago. I encourage Mr. Graham Hancock to consider this possibility that could protect his work from easy attacks from the mainstream science.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Ancient maps likely to show Antarctica ice contour not land 2478 marco alpini 06-Jun-17 00:28
Ice free Antarctica hypothesis NOT difficult to sustain... 385 hendrik dirker 02-Jul-17 05:46
Re: Ice free Antarctica hypothesis NOT difficult to sustain... 317 marco alpini 24-Jul-17 07:24
Ice, precession, obliquity, impacts, and Dodwell's curve 259 Edmond 12-Dec-17 11:12
Re: Ice free Antarctica hypothesis NOT difficult to sustain... 123 Nemobutwhatiimagian 11-Jan-18 03:01
Re: Ice free Antarctica hypothesis NOT difficult to sustain... 292 ianw16 18-Jan-18 12:40
Re: Ancient maps likely to show Antarctica ice contour not land 332 carolb 02-Jul-17 13:36
Re: Ancient maps likely to show Antarctica ice contour not land 242 marco alpini 24-Jul-17 03:33


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.