Misunderstanding Squared -- Don Barone: The Histories

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 00:04:25 05/24/02 Fri
Author: Leonard (no J)
Subject: Misunderstanding Squared
In reply to: Don Barone 's message, "Sorry LJ" on 20:37:10 05/23/02 Thu

Don, I have no home page, and I do not live in Angels Camp. My ISP just happens to have their office there. It is a nice little town though, one bar & 17 churches...the exact opposite of the way it was during the gold rush, but still full of main-chance shysters ready to empty your pocket any way possible. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

It seems we are misunderstanding each other about these old maps. You did not specify you were talking about the Orontius F. map when you said it did not show Australia, it seemed you were talking about your Bauche map. The Bauche map clearly shows Australia as Nouvelle Hollande because it comes from a time when Australia was known. In 1531 when the Orontius map was made, no European mariners other than Magellan's expedition had been anywhere near it, and they missed it. Nothing further south than Java is shown because that area was still truly unknown. The assumption is that Orontius used ancient sources to depict his southern polar continent because it depicts this area in startlingly accurate shape & orientation. This is a meaningless digression however. The point I was trying to make is that Antarctica is depicted (on the Orontius map) with mountains, rivers, and bays..which you claimed no old maps showed...thus you are wrong..clearly Orontius depicted a southern polar continent uncovered by glaciers. So did Piri Re'is if you accept that his extension of S.America is actually the Antarctic Peninsula. In fact, Kircher's 1665 "Atlantis" map which he said he compiled from ancient egyptian sources has been interpreted as a map of Antarctica & if so it also shows mtns. & rivers. Hapgood's "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" is replete with out-of-place examples of such esoteric knowledge. I don't know what your point is in claiming no old maps show Antarctica W/O ice cover, but you are clearly wrong. No offense.

>
>I think I took a quick visit to your home page and was
>hoping to see a picture of one of my harshest critics
>but all I saw were some race cars, oh well. By the way
>how is Gold Mining country these days ? By the way
>the downtown area of your little town looks neat !
>
>Anyway here is the largest map I could find and I
>still fail to see where New Holland is marked on it.
>
><img src="http://24.141.54.174/Oronteus_large.jpg">
>
>
>Could you point out where on this map it appears. I
>honestly don't see it.
>
>In Love and The Light
>
>Don Barone

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

A clarification: -- Don Barone, 02:18:20 05/24/02 Fri