This map is missing the Azores plateau, the Rockall plateau, the Great Bahama bank, etc. which would or could have been above water, making them large islands. And as mentioned before, the curious thing is that Cuba, Florida, the Yucatan, etc. are further North than Northern Europe, which had a large ice shield.
Hapgood took those old maps (with sophisticated projection) , identified different location points( 50 to 90) , identified latitude and longitudes , tried to identify current locations and their latitude/longitudes. He worked with professionals from US military who are into this type cartography. His approach was very good. There are many location points which didn't change much and used it as validation points. He did this half dozen maps and gave tables in Appendix of his book. Using those and ask AI to recreate map is best way. I tried to ask Grok to do that, its illustrative ability pretty bad. Needs to do some work on that. There are quite a few variables ( tilts,missing lands, expanding oceans and so on). Here are few and lot more nuances can be found in it. Here is my line of analysis.
Tilts
There are 2 tilts C's suggested from YD times, 7 degrees at YD ( 10.9 K BCE) and 22 degrees tilt. This 22 degrees tilt at 2200 BCE is hard for me to understand for few reasons.
Regarding 7 degrees tilt
In the hapgood's Maps of Ancient sea king's book, there was a diagram that comparing the position of the current south pole with that from Oronteus Finaeus Map.
View attachment 118105
I fed this map to Grok and asked to find out how much earth's tilt needed for this shift ( current south pole to what is shown in the Oronteus Finaeus Map).
Grok says 7.5 degrees. That is too close to C's 7 degrees at YD time.
This is the map from Hapgood's sea kings book. I want you to tell me how planet tilt needed to make this south pole movement?
According to Charles Hapgood's analysis in Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (the source of this exact Figure 54), the Orontius Finaeus map of 1531 requires a South Pole relocation of approximately 7.5° (roughly 830–835 km or ~515 miles) to align its topography and projection with modern Antarctic geography.
This is not a change in Earth's axial tilt (the obliquity of the ecliptic, which is currently ~23.4° and has varied slowly over tens of thousands of years due to astronomical forces). Hapgood's theory is Earth Crust Displacement (sometimes loosely called "pole shift"): the Earth's outer crust slides as a unit over the mantle, moving the geographic poles relative to the continents and ice caps without significantly altering the planet's spin axis or tilt angle.
What Hapgood specifically did with this map (Figure 54 + Table 2)
- He traced the Orontius Finaeus map and overlaid new **projection lines** (the grid of meridians and parallels you see in the image) based purely on how the map's labeled topographic features (rivers, mountains, coastlines numbered 1–60+) best matched known subglacial Antarctic geography from 20th-century surveys.
- The map's own labeled "SOUTH POLE (ORONTEUS FINA EUS)" and "ANTARCTIC CIRCLE (ORONTEUS FINA EUS)" do not coincide with the true center of its projection once the topography is aligned.
- To make the depicted "Terra Australis" fit modern Antarctica, Hapgood (and later analysts following his method) also had to:
- Rotate the entire map ~20°.
- Shrink the scale (the map shows the continent roughly **230% larger** than actual size).
The 7.5° South Pole offset is the key "movement" that makes the topography and projection lines work in his study. Some popular retellings round this up to ~1,000 miles / 1,600 km or call it a "polar shift," but the figure most consistently tied to this specific map and Hapgood's grid analysis is the **7.5°** adjustment.
Quick context on Hapgood's bigger theory
He proposed several larger crustal displacements in the last 100,000 years (e.g., North Pole moving from Hudson Bay to its current position ~12,000–17,000 years ago, implying a ~15–30° total shift depending on the model). The 7.5° figure for the Orontius map is a localized adjustment for the Antarctic projection, not one of the full global pole-shift events.
Hapgood's ideas (including ancient ice-free mapping of Antarctica) are considered pseudoscience by mainstream geology and cartography. Modern evidence shows Antarctica has been under ice for millions of years, and no rapid crustal displacements of this scale have occurred in the last 10,000+ years. The map's similarities to Antarctica are more likely explained by 16th-century speculation, projection errors, or accidental resemblances plus later analysis bias. That said, the question asks for the specific "planet tilt" / South Pole movement implied by **this map in Hapgood's book**, and the answer from his own analysis and Figure 54 is the **~7.5° pole relocation** described above.
If you have the exact page/table from the book or want me to dig into a different aspect (e.g., the direction of the shift or comparisons to other maps like Piri Reis), just let me know!
Grok keep on telling me that it is due to Processional cycles. So I asked, how much tilt can be expected in 14,000 years, it said .8 to 1.0 degrees reduction. So procession itself can't be accounted for all the tilt.
In 14,000 years, how much tilt due to obliquity of ecliptic?
Over the next 14,000 years (from now until approximately the year 14026 CE), Earth's axial tilt (obliquity of the ecliptic) is projected to **decrease by roughly 0.8° to 1.0°**.
### Current Context and Projection
- **Today** (2026): obliquity ≈ **23.44°**.
- We are currently in the **decreasing phase** of the ~41,000-year obliquity cycle.
- The cycle's recent maximum occurred around 8,700–10,000 BCE (roughly 10,700–12,000 years ago), when obliquity was near ~24.1°–24.2°.
- The next minimum (around 22.1°–22.5°, depending on the exact model) is expected around 11,800–12,000 CE (roughly 9,800–10,000 years from now).
From the current value, obliquity will continue decreasing through the upcoming minimum and then begin a slow increase as the cycle turns. Over a full 14,000-year span:
- It will first drop toward the minimum (losing most of the remaining ~0.9°–1.0° to reach the low point).
- Then start rising again for the remaining few thousand years.
The **net change** over exactly 14,000 years is a modest **decrease of approximately 0.8°–1.0°** from today's value (ending around 22.5°–22.6°). This is not linear—the rate of change is slowest near the extremes and faster in the middle of the cycle—but the overall amplitude of the full cycle is only ~2.4° (from 22.1° to 24.5°).
### Comparison to Your Previous Question
For context with the 12,000-year figure I gave earlier:
- Over the **past 12,000 years** (from ~10,000 BCE to now): decrease of ~0.73° (from near-maximum to current).
- Over the **next 14,000 years**: a similar-magnitude but slightly larger net decrease (~0.8°–1.0°), as we pass through the upcoming minimum and begin the upswing.
These values come from standard Milankovitch models and numerical integrations (such as those by Jacques Laskar). The exact number can vary by a few hundredths of a degree depending on the precise astronomical solution used, but the change remains very small and gradual—no more than about 0.07° per millennium on average in this phase.
This slow astronomical variation influences long-term climate patterns (e.g., milder seasons as tilt decreases, which can favor ice-sheet growth at high latitudes), but it is far too tiny and slow to explain rapid geographic or "pole shift" effects discussed in other contexts.
I asked Grok to Identify location of the north pole considering the south pole mentioned in the Oronteus Finaeus Map. It came up with Hudson Bay. So it is matching.
Hapgood has a long section saying the Maps of Medieval times are highly unsophisticated and even the Ptolemy maps of 100 BCE are very less sophisticated compared ancient maps. He concluded that these maps are very very old.
so we have 7.5 degrees difference between Oronteus Finaeus Map and current south pole location and decrese of .8 to 1.0 degree's decrease due to obliquity of eclipse in 14K years.
- There are few minor differences between Oronteus Finaeus Map and Piri Re'is Map w.r.t how much ice exist in some areas of Antarctica. He has a theory with the assumption that Ice coverage came from south pole and he was not aware of technological thawing method C's mentioned. But we will leave it aside.
- C's mentioned:
- Piri Re'is Map dated back to 14,000 BCE.
- 7 degrees different due to YD impact.
session-5-december-1998
Q: (L) In that sense... (A) Okay, this brings us to the question about the Piri Reis map. We wanted to know the origin of this map?
A: Complex, but the origin would date back to 14,000 B.C.
session-7-may-2016
(Pierre) Two quick questions about flash-frozen mammoths. [laughter] The cometary body that impacted Earth, I would like to know what was the location of the north geographic pole before and after the impact?
A: 7 degrees different.
Q: (Pierre) Well, 7 degrees... I was asking for the location of the north geographic pole before and after the impact.
A: Close to South Central Canada.
Regarding 22 degrees at 2300 BCE, there are quite a few data points suggesting, it was a temporary tilt rather than permanent tilts. Interestingly Gaby too mentioned that in another thread.
- In order to assess the star positions mentioned from Hinduism scriptures ( Ramayan and Mahabharata) which Vedveer Arya and Nilesh Oak mentioned in their books, I tried to recalculate based on C's 7 degrees. Indian epics use pole stars and other constellations for the background plot of the characters. This 22 degrees permanent tilt is missing (hoping that I didn't do any mistakes).
- Interestingly, Oronteus Finaeus Map seems to be saying 7.5 degrees tilt. The sophisticated projections of this map along with similarity with Piri Reis makes this Map before YD and around this time.
That temporary nature may be related to earth going through the long tail of newly settled Venus that created lot of convulsions and destruction of empires at the time.
If these YD maps are accurate, Do we see Atlantis in these maps?
C's mentioned Atlantis size is 1.35 Million Square miles.
session-10-december-1994
Q: (L) How big was the main island of Atlantis?
A: 1,354,000 square miles.
Most probably it is before 48K BCE split. Atleast Cayce seems to be saying as one island and C's seems to be validating it.
Here is a
high resolution map of piri reis map with identified and detailed islands
Look at the middle islands (Antilia and Ox Island) which are NO LONGER EXIST in the Atlantic Ocean. Given that Cayce mentioned poseidon as one big island after 28K BCE, I asked Grok to size (relative) these islands w.r.t contour sizes of west africa and Northern part of south america. It came up with 52.5K sq. miles ( in between size of iceland and great britain) .
Far too less for C's 1.35 sq. miles.
Here’s the size of
"Ox Island" (İzle de Vaka) from the Piri Reis map, calculated in square miles based on the dimensions I gave earlier (300–450 miles long and 100–180 miles wide):
Estimated Area
- Low-end estimate: 30,000 square miles (300 mi × 100 mi)
- High-end estimate: 81,000 square miles (450 mi × 180 mi)
- Mid-range / most reasonable estimate: ≈ 52,500 square miles (using average length and width)
For a more realistic island shape (slightly irregular/oval rather than a perfect rectangle), a conservative adjustment brings it to roughly
39,000 – 45,000 square miles.
Comparison for Context
- About the size of Iceland (≈ 39,000 sq mi) to Great Britain (≈ 88,000 sq mi).
- Roughly 1.5 to 2.5 times larger than the island of Cuba (42,426 sq mi).
- Significantly larger than modern Hispaniola (≈ 29,500 sq mi) or Puerto Rico (≈ 3,500 sq mi).
In your framework where the Piri Reis map is treated as accurate ancient geography, this would make Ox Island a
very large island — easily one of the major landmasses in the Atlantic at that time, comparable to a mid-sized modern country or a substantial piece of a lost continent/island chain.
There are few nuanced observations from the Piri Reis map. Some are:
- Hapgood's students (who worked on this project) identified missing 900 miles in the south american coast ( mainly agentinian side).
- The critics of Hapgood pointed out that missing 900 miles are showin in Antarctica. But, Hapgood though acknowledged it, still considered as 'missing' due to near 'perfect' matches in the Antarctica. He wrote:
The students were responsible for discovering many of the errors. Lee Spencer and Ruth Baraw examined the east coast of South America with great care and found that the compiler had actually omitted about 900 miles of that coastline. It was discovered that the Amazon River had been drawn twice on the map. We concluded that the compiler must have had two different source maps of the Amazon, drawn by different people at different times, and that he made the mistake of thinking they were two different rivers. We also found that besides the equator upon which we had based our projection (so far as latitude was concerned) there was evidence that somebody had calculated the position of the equator differently, so that there were really two equators. Ultimately we were able to explain this conflict. Other important errors included the omission of part of the northern coast of South America, and the duplication of a part of that coast, and of part of the coasts of the Caribbean Sea. A number of geographical localities thus appear twice on the map, but they do not appear on the same projection. For most of the Caribbean area the direction of North is nearly at right angles to the North of the main part of the map.
Fine, Piri Reis is not showing Big islands, what about other maps of this sophistication - Namely Oronteus Finaeus Map , Mercator Map and so on. They too showing small islands in the Atlantic ocean.
I tool the asked Grok
I drew approximate purple lines surrounding all islands. According Edgar cayce, it was one island before 50K BCE, got split into 5 pieces after a cataclysm. According to cassiopaen, Atlantean home base in Atlantic is 1.34 Million square miles. so I want to reconsile how it works. Consider C's as source of truth.
Grok "obliged" to come up 1.34 sq. miles. I know it is "force fitting". I am simply experimenting to see what will happen.
Where did Atlantis big island during Younger Dryas period ( contrary to what Cayce is saying, C's confirming) came from?
This is what Plato documented the story he heard. From
Plato Prehistorian book:
Among all the wonderful achievements recorded here of your city, one great act of courage is outstanding. Our records tell how your city checked a great power which arrogantly advanced from its base in the Atlantic ocean to attack the cities of Europe and Asia. For in those days the Atlantic was navigable. There was an island opposite the strait which you call . . . the Pillars of Heracles, an island larger than Libya and Asia combined; from it travellers could in those days reach the other islands, and from them the whole opposite continent which surrounds what can truly be called the ocean. . . . On this island of Atlantis had arisen a powerful and remarkable dynasty of kings, who ruled the whole island, and many other islands as well, and parts of the continent.
In addition it controlled, within the strait, Libya up to the borders of Egypt and Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This dynasty, gathering its whole power together, attempted to enslave, at a single stroke, your country and ours and all the territory within the strait. It was then, Solon, that the power and courage and strength of your city became clear for all men to see. Her bravery and military skill were outstanding; she led an alliance of the Greeks, and then when they deserted her and she was forced to fight alone, after running into direst peril, she overcame the invaders and celebrated a victory; she rescued those not yet enslaved from the slavery threatening them, and she generously freed all others living within the Pillars of Heracles. At a later time there were earthquakes and floods of extraordinary violence, and in a single dreadful day and night all your fighting men were swallowed up by the earth, and the island of Atlantis was similarly swallowed up by the sea and vanished. ( Timaeus 24-25)
I asked Grok for the size of libya (mostly norther Africa West coast) and Asia ( it is Asia minor -Turkey and surrounding ) . It came around 1.2 million square miles much nearer to C's 1.35 million square miles.
1. What Plato Meant by "Libya"
Libya in Plato's story does
not mean the entire African continent.
- To the ancient Greeks (including Plato in the 4th century BC), "Libya" referred to North Africa west of Egypt — roughly the coastal and near-interior regions of modern Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and parts of Morocco.
- It was the Greek name for the known African territories bordering the Mediterranean, excluding Egypt itself.
- Plato says the Atlanteans ruled “Libya as far as Egypt,” which confirms Libya was a region adjacent to Egypt, not the whole continent.
Estimated size of "Libya" in Plato's context:Roughly
600,000 – 800,000 square miles (1.55 – 2.07 million km²).(This is a broad ancient geographical term, not a precisely measured country.)
2. What Plato Meant by "Asia"
"Asia" in this context does
NOT mean the entire continent of Asia (which would include Siberia, India, China, etc.).
- To Plato and the Greeks, "Asia" primarily meant Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey/Anatolia) and sometimes the nearer parts of the Persian Empire (the western edge of what we now call the Near East).
- It was the large landmass east of the Aegean Sea and north of the Mediterranean, opposite Europe.
Estimated size of "Asia" (Asia Minor) in Plato's context:Roughly
300,000 – 400,000 square miles (about the size of modern Turkey + some adjacent areas).
Siberia (or any far northern/eastern parts of modern Asia) was
completely unknown to Plato and the Greeks. They had no concept of it, and it played no role in the story. The "Asia" Plato refers to is much smaller and closer to the Mediterranean world.
3. Size of Atlantis According to Plato ("larger than Libya and Asia together")
Plato states that Atlantis was
"larger than Libya and Asia together."
- Combined size of Libya + Asia (as Plato understood them):≈ 900,000 – 1,200,000 square miles
Athanasius Kircher’s famous 1665/1675 Atlantis map
Kircher in 1678 who used Plato's story.
C's said Plato's story 70% accurate (
session-13-january-2024 ) and they did validated Atlantean vs Athenian battle at YD period. I know I am experimenting with the assumption, these maps are not deliberately tampered. These leads me to this possibility.
"Island larger than Libya and Asia combined" from Plato's Story is before 48K BCE, but the battle between Atlantean and Athenians just before YD period. It is highly likely Poseidon the remnant island is not a big Island.
It got mixed it up in the narration Flow of thousands of year. If some body is going to impress up on, it is natural use largest size even if it is older.
Remember what C's said regarding the 'battle of 10 kings' from Rigveda
session-1-november-2025
(seek10) "The War of the Ten Kings" is from the Rigveda, and it is between the Puru clans and other clans. Do the C's mean that "The War of the Ten Kings" is part of the "Athenians vs. Atlanteans" battle on the Indian front?
A: Memory of similar and simultaneous conflicts.
Multiple parallel battles were going on at the same time before YD. It is not one encompassing singular battle of "NATO vs Warsaw". i.e. even the smaller size Poseidon fits into the story.
There are different angles to Atlantis story from others. Randall Carlson and Who suggests Azore plateau for Atlantis main island. We have this Bermuda triangle between Puerto Rico to Florida to Bermuda.
Accomodating all these areas makes total area lot more than 1.35 million square miles. Grok gave 2 million square miles. This led me to the next question. What if Atlantic ocean is expanding that can account for drifting pieces? Grok says 15 to 25% increase.
Expanding Atlantic Ocean along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
does the distance between puerto Rico to African coast same from now to what is mentioned in Piri Reis map. take some horizontal line
No, the distance is not the same.
Here is a clear comparison using a **horizontal line** at roughly the latitude of Puerto Rico (around 18°N) from Puerto Rico eastward to the nearest African coast (around the Guinea / Sierra Leone area, which is the relevant section on the Piri Reis map).
Modern Real Distance (today)
- Straight-line (great-circle) distance from **Puerto Rico** to the **West African coast** (nearest point near Guinea / Sierra Leone at similar latitude):
- Approximately 3,100 – 3,300 miles (≈ 5,000 – 5,300 km).
This is the typical east-west distance across the Atlantic at that latitude.
On the Piri Reis 1513 Map
When you anchor the map at **Puerto Rico** and scale it to match the **West African coast** (as you have been doing in our earlier overlays), the horizontal distance between them on the Piri Reis map is **noticeably shorter** than reality.
- On the Piri Reis map, the distance from the labeled Puerto Rico area across to the African coast (Guinea region) appears roughly **2,400 – 2,800 miles** when scaled consistently with the African coastline.
- This makes the Atlantic on the Piri Reis map about 15–25% narrower than the actual modern distance at that latitude.
### Summary
- **Modern distance** (Puerto Rico → African coast at ~18°N): ~3,200 miles
- **Piri Reis map distance** (same points, scaled to match Africa): ~2,500 – 2,700 miles
The Piri Reis map compresses the east-west width of the Atlantic in this region. This is a well-known characteristic of the map — it depicts the Caribbean and South American coastlines quite well when anchored properly, but the overall width of the ocean between the Americas and Africa is underestimated compared to reality.
This compression is one reason why some researchers (including those following Hapgood or alternative interpretations) argue the map may derive from much older source maps drawn under different geographic or projection assumptions.
