The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Ancient & Lost Civilizations

Frisland – not mythical but submarine?

Here, you can discuss the Mayans, Atlantis, the Aztecs and other ancient and lost civilizations.

Postby Riaan » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:23 pm

Mercator’s 1569 map shows several ‘imaginary’ islands in the northern Atlantic Ocean. A study of the ocean floor reveals that several of these can be indentified as ‘islands’ now covered by the sea. This suggests that an ancient map-making civilization existed 12 000 years ago – some of the figures are shown below. Details here: http://www.riaanbooysen.com/terra-aus/87-terraproof1?start=7

Image
Mercator’s 1569 map with islands to be identified, including Frisland (D).

Image
Islands on NASA maps

Image
Islands on topographical sea-bed map

Image
Frisland and surrounding islands

Some other anomalies. Hudson discovered and began mapping Hudson Bay in 1610, yet it is shown in great detail on Mercator’s 1569 map. Where did he get this information from http://www.riaanbooysen.com/terra-aus/87-terraproof1?start=8?

Image
Hudson Bay – mapped before its discovery?

Likewise – who mapped the Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes (note the continuous northern boundary of the continent)?

Image
Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes on Mercator and modern maps
Any comments?
Riaan
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 2:24 pm

Postby Percival » Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:58 am

I really don't think those bodies of water on the final map represent the great bear and slave lakes. You can see from the coast line that this area of north america was not mapped in great detail or accuracy unlike the east coast, and i think its likely that the coastlines across the north are based more on sketchy travellers' accounts than good mapmaking. I think those bodies of water are the east coast of hudson bay, as such a large body of water would be unmissable on a map and it certainly doesn't appear any further east.

Frisland is a genuine mystery though. Interesting also that it shows greenland with inland mountains and rivers, rather than just an icecap and an inaccessible interior. On the other hand, maybe its artistic license by the mapmaker, influenced by dodgy reports from imaginative explorers.
Percival
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 2:21 pm

Postby Riaan » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:23 am

Others have argued that the two lakes in question form part of the Great Lakes south of Hudson Bay, but a careful look at the Mercator maps suggests that the Great Bear and Great Slave lakes are the best candidates. The Mercator map of Hudson Bay shows virtually all of the recognizable features of Hudson Bay (in my opinion, of course). I therefore do not think there is any possibilty of these two lakes forming part of HUdson Bay

The Great Lakes actually do not seem to be present on the Meractor maps, which is rather odd. The St Lawrence River was discovered by Cartier in 1536, but the Great Lakes were explored only in the next century see http://www.mce.k12tn.net/explorers/frenchexplorers.htm.
Riaan
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 2:24 pm

Postby Percival » Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am

I'm not convinced that the Gulf of Merosro is Hudson Bay. It is far too small, and I'm sure even early cartographers would not have got their measurements that wrong. The region around the St Lawrence is mapped in some detail but west and north is mostly guesswork based on travellers tales. I think Merosro is the name early portuguese explorers gave to the Hudson Strait and the 'Sea of Sweet Waters' is an inland sea sketchily added from reports of the Hudson Bay (or perhaps one of the great lakes) reached from land rather than sea, so its true extent and the way it connects to the atlantic is only guessed at. I just can't believe that the Merosro could be a mapping of all the seas beyond the Davis Strait right to the furthest coasts of Hudson.

Remember, just because the position of the Sea of Sweet Waters looks to be in the right location for the Great Bear Lake in relation to the rest of the continent shown, the western and northern coastline of North America would have been pure conjecture and so what is shown is in no way proportional. Whereas because Merosro is mapped in some detail one would have to assume it is proportional to rest of the mapped areas of the north east shown, and so to my mind is too small to represent the Hudson Bay. You only have to look and see how far inland the St Lawrence is shown to extend to to realise that the rest of the continent is mostly conjecture and not to scale with reality.
Percival
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 2:21 pm

Postby Riaan » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:27 pm

I fully agree that the Gulf of Merofro is proportionally small compared to Hudson Bay, but the details inside closely match those of Hudson Bay. For instance, it shows Southampton Island with the Bell Penisula, Coats Island and Mansel Island, along with other coastal inlets. Points F, G and H on my Figure 1.51 are easily identifiable, but are clearly in the in the wrong location on Mercator's map. I do not know which sources Mercator used to compile his maps - possibly verbal descriptions only.

On the issue of conjecture, any form of 'educated guess' requires at least some a priori knowledge, otherwise there should be no correlation between what is conjectured and reality. This principle is what convinces me that the continent had been mapped before the 16th century. Mercator's map of Africa shows lakes in the Sahara desert, the existence of which is supported by NASA maps (see Figures 31-39 here (http://www.riaanbooysen.com/terra-aus/35-proof?start=11). These lakes could only have existed probably 8000-10000 years ago. How could Mercator have guessed the existence of these lakes at all, and then reasonably accurately as well?

Terra Australis likewise is believed to be nothing but conjecture, a land mass believed to exist because it had to balance the land masses in the north. This is all very well, but two other forms of the southern continent also exist (see below), which in my opinion eliminates the possibility of pure conjecture.

Image

How could anyone have imagined these to exist shooting in the dark?
Riaan
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 2:24 pm

Postby Percival » Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:56 am

Looking at maps I think it's equally plausible to tie the Mercator map in with coastal details confined to the strait. Either way I'm not sure what the chain of islands at point 'e' is - they don't seem to fit either possibility.

If I were to play devil's advocate to my own opinion though, the thought occurred to me that if Mercator compiled his maps using ancient cartography perhaps 10000 years old, then with lower sea levels would the entire Hudson exist? The Canadian shield is a very flat old landscape but I don't know how deep or shallow the Hudson Bay is, and whether lowered sea levels before the end of the ice age would have rendered it mostly dry and so have taken the coastline all the way to the strait, leaving the coast of the north west more in proportion to how Mercator shows it. Just a thought.
Percival
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 2:21 pm

Postby Riaan » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:27 am

Your observation about the sea level 10 000 years ago is valid. If you look at the image showing the Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes, you will notice the blue shading of the Hudson Bay area. The light blue represents approx. 0-90m (0-50 fathoms) below sea level, the next darker level 90-180m, etc. The figure below shows the sea level over the past 20 000 years. In terms of my 'Atlantis' theory, if the survivors had indeed settled in Egypt and continued to sail the seas, they could have mapped Hudson Bay at a later time. It is also possible that Cartier, who sailed the St Lawrence River in 1535, had mapped Hudson Bay as well, but there appears to be no record of such an expedition.

Image [R. A. Rohde]
Riaan
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 2:24 pm


Return to Ancient & Lost Civilizations

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests