It's not about me any more, but about what Fine himself admits in the legend.
"On the same map, Fine drew Terra Australis to the south, including the legend "recently discovered but not yet completely explored," by which Finé meant the discovery of Tierra del Fuego by Ferdinand Magellan.[7]"
Or try these facts, also from the map legend:The text box names the publisher (Hermannus Venraed), gives Fine's Latin name (Orontius Fineus), and mentions the Ancient Greek geographers (Ptolemy, Eudoxus, and Erastothenes), whose accounts Fine had tried to reconcile with the new discoveries being made.
One also has to ask what he meant by Terra Australis? Antarctica, or Australia? If you look into the history of it they simply didn't know what the 'Great Southern continent' looked like because it was all based on ancient Greek supposition.
Terra Australis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now, the plot thickens. That 'Ross Sea' you keep harping on about? It may in fact have been the North of Australia, or more specifically, the Gulf of Carpentaria. (See map below, and historical analysis below that).
Which historical sources believe Fino was actually drawing Australia, and why?
Try here.
Fine biography
"Leonardo da Vinci, for example, produced a globe with a southern land below Africa more than twenty years before Fine drew his map. The northern coast of Australia had probably been visited by Europeans by this time and the northern coast of Fine's Antarctica is probably drawn from such representations. There may also have been reports which did indeed represent the sighting of Antarctica and Fine put the reports together to produce a half real, half guessed, map. Of course this explanation puts the fact that Fine's Antarctica looks quite close to the actual Antarctica down to just good luck.
What evidence do we have for the above suggestion? On another map of about 1513 (also investigated by Hapgood) the following is written on land in this region:-It is related by the Portuguese that on this spot, night and day are, at their shortest period, of two hours duration, and at longest phase, of twenty-two hours. But the day is very warm and in the night there is much dew.
The first sentence here suggests that Portuguese explorers had indeed reached Antarctic latitudes. The second sentence suggests a climate more like the north coast of Australia. Certainly this is evidence of Antarctica being confused with Australia and we suggest that Fine's 1531 map suffers from a similar confusion.
Poulle [1] sums up Fine's contributions as follows:-Fine's scientific work may be briefly characterised as encyclopaedic, elementary, and unoriginal. It appears that the goal of his publications, which range in subject from astronomy to instrumental music, was to popularise the university science that he himself had been taught. "
An even more devastating historical source comes from page 1467 of this PDF from the History of Cartography:
It's not that hard. It's on the 1531 map itself!
All this nonsense, and that is all it is, cannot get rid of the fact that the actual continent, as drawn (not described) in the Orenteus Fineaus Map of 1531 varies from the actual continent of Antarctica by no more than 300 miles at any point. Nor can you get rid of the fact that it shows these coastlands as modern soundings have determined they actually exist under the mile of ice that currently covers Antarctica. Nor can it get rid of the fact that the map not only shows the two main bays in the correct relationship to each other, it also shows minor bays in the correct locations on these main bays, and shows rivers in the locations where modern soundings have found valleys.
You have concentrated on mountains shown in locations where you pretend there are none, and the absence of the antarctic peninsula, while simply pretending that the uncanny accuracy of the map as a whole. The absence of the peninsula may be an imagined "correction," based on the very partial explorations that had been made at this time.
What your raving has totally neglected to notice is, that in attempting to reconcile all the ancient reports mentioned in your articles, Orenteus Finaeus somewhere stumbled upon an accurate map of Antarctica that he used as a source for his 1531 map.
Since the lurkers will have by now lost track of what I am talking about, I will re-post the map itself, plus a second map with the same features projected according to the rules of cartography onto a modern map of Antarctica. By saying "projected according to the rules of cartography," I mean that each feature is shown on the new map in the same latitude and longitude that it was shown in on the ancient map. Your supposition about this map actually representing Australia is nothing short of ludicrous. Just try to accurately project the southern land mass of the Orentrus Finaeus map of 1531 onto a modern map of Australia. You will find that the correspondence is close to zero. And you cannot escape the fact that the map shows this land at the south pole, not even close to where Australia is located.
On the other hand, The "corrected" map he drew 28 years later, shows Antarctica distorted to include Australia as part of the same land mass.
Antarctica from Orenteus Fineaus Map of 1531:
Features from this map, projected according to the rules of cartography onto a modern map of Antarctica:
You can rant, you can rage, you can mock. But you cannot escape the proof presented here. But please continue with your lame attempts to discredit the map. All you are doing is compounding proof of what I said in the first place, that this map is conclusive proof that someone made an accurate map of Antarctica in the distant past, and that at the time that map was made, at least the coastlands of Antarctica were not covered with ice.
Who knows, maybe the Bible is true after all!!!!! Maybe the things God said will happen will actually happen. And maybe, just maybe, the things He said did happen actually did happen.
Maybe you'll learn something.
Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all.
