- bigalemc2 s comment re Chiasson s book on the Island of the Seven Cities made me realize I ought to post something here. I had previously read 1421 andMessage 1 of 2 , Feb 20, 2008View Sourcebigalemc2's comment re Chiasson's book on the Island of the Seven
Cities made me realize I ought to post something here. I had
previously read "1421" and wanted to believe all of it, so I loved
Chiasson's book when I found it, but wondered why there appeared to
have been no followup to his findings, since they seemed so striking.
I did a websearch and found this article -
which includes comments such as these -
"...The rock walls along the roadways reported to be of Chinese origin
were actually built by road construction activities of the fire roads
and the road upgrading and construction of 1989. The landscape at Cape
Dauphin and many other upland sites are considered to be very rocky
with plenty of surface granite rocks and boulders. These rocks are
pushed to the sides of the roads during construction and maintenance.
They form what look to be low loose rubble rock windrows along the
edges of these roads.
The feature in the aerial photos reported to be the ruins of an
ancient city wall are the result of the bulldozers constructing the
firebreaks in 1953 and 1968, by pushing the ground material (which on
this location contained a lot of surface rocks and boulders) outward
away from the fire to expose the bare mineral soil to prevent the fire
from spreading. These firebreaks with a width of up to forty feet
would contain a great deal of surface rocks and boulders. This would
result in low windrows of rocks around the outside edge of the
firebreak. After a number of years of weathering on the site they may
look like low walls to the untrained eye..."
The whole article at that link deserves a read. I don't believe
Chiasson anymore. But I still want to believe in "1421."
- Stan - Man! I am sorry to read that about The Island of the Seven Cities. I read pretty much all of what the skeptic said about the whole thing. I amMessage 2 of 2 , Feb 21, 2008View SourceStan -
Man! I am sorry to read that about The Island of the Seven Cities. I read pretty much all of what the skeptic said about the whole thing. I am leaving a small window of hope that the skeptic is wrong, but it doesn't look good, does it?
I had emailed with Chiasson and there is nothing about either his book or his emails that indicated he was anything but sincere in his efforts. The thing I can't figure out is why, with all his research the skeptic's information never came to light. Chiasson looked high and low, expecting at every turn to find some simple, mundane, explanation, as you know from reading the book. How he could have missed the fire break explanation is beyond me.
I think I will email him for his side of that story. I have found that 'professional' skeptics online - which this guy sounds like - tend to be VERY strong in their denunciations and hyper in their assailing of anyone challenging the status quo, and they leave a VERY bad taste in my mouth. This one is no exception. He gets my radar up, something that Chiasson does not do. And my radar works for researchers as well as skeptics, as some of you have seen already; it is not just aimed at people I want to be wrong. I am sitting on the fence right now, and I'll come back to you all if I find out anything new.
As you know, there are a LOT of skeptics online about Menzies and 1421. At the same time, there are also lots of people who support Menzies. Certain of his assertions I recognize as going far beyond what I consider objectivity (especially late in the book), while other parts seem solid and at least intuitively correct. He certainly does not solidify his positions before tying them into other issues and points. That is a weakness. The skeptics jump on his weak points and throw it all out based on those.
The single thing that Menzies' accomplishes, IMHO, is the Piri Reis map. His explanation of the mapping of Antarctica in an unglaciated state is a true Occam's Razor, obviating the need for pre-ice-age dating of the map.
So, all in all, I am hopeful that the skeptics are wrong, while acknowledging that Menzies and Chiasson may have gotten it wrong. At the same time, big freaking deal - at least they are out there exploring and trying to figure it out, while the skeptics are sitting on their duffs playing Monday morning quarterback... (Like me . . . LOL)