Ancient FE

ok, here's more proof, because some more is always needed, based upon some research into the geologic periods of Earth's history. First I will post the RE geological timescale from 270 million years ago to 90 million, trust me that's all we need to make my point.
right, now look at the ancient geography of FE


Spotted it yet?

Any answers, Tom, Username?

Maybe the conspiracy is somehow involved.

The icewall is actually not in any of those images and lies just beyond their edge.  The images you show just show the land as it changes within the 'walls', though inaccurately (obviously)

Quote

The icewall is actually not in any of those images and lies just beyond their edge.  The images you show just show the land as it changes within the 'walls', though inaccurately (obviously)

No, the south tip of Pangea (240MYA) became the landmass that the icewall begins at, if Antarctica is the edge of the wall as FEers suggest. InFE geography, Pangea's southern tip would not be world-encompassing until 100+ million years ago

The icewall is actually not in any of those images and lies just beyond their edge.  The images you show just show the land as it changes within the 'walls', though inaccurately (obviously)

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on October 09, 2007, 05:32:57 AM

Quote

The icewall is actually not in any of those images and lies just beyond their edge.  The images you show just show the land as it changes within the 'walls', though inaccurately (obviously)

No, the south tip of Pangea (240MYA) became the landmass that the icewall begins at, if Antarctica is the edge of the wall as FEers suggest. InFE geography, Pangea's southern tip would not be world-encompassing until 100+ million years ago

I think you may have misunderstood me.  There is another land mass beyond the scope of the pictures that is merged with the mass that became Antarctica in RE.

The mythical pangea never existed. The continents have, more or less, always been as they are.

Anyone want to come up with some compelling evidence for some giant supercontinent instead of some bogus CGI pictures?

Uh-huh, because dinosaurs had boats, thats how fossil records of identical 'saurs appear both on the eastern coast of America and the west of africa

we know for a fact that continents move (is it 2cm a year? i forget exact figures)

Actually, there is evidence for continental drift via plate tectonics.

And one day, roughly 250 million years in the future we will form Pangea Ultima, when I find a decent pic of that I'll see how it looks on FE

Uh-huh, because dinosaurs had boats, thats how fossil records of identical 'saurs appear both on the eastern coast of America and the west of africa, we know for a fact that continents move (is it 2cm a year? i forget exact figures)

Alright, I'll accept that one grudgingly as I can't disprove it, my next point would be to ask how tetocic movements could have produced the massive 'spagghettification' of the southern landmass.

You know what? I attempted to create an 'accurate' FE map, slicing apart atlas-accurate continents and trying to make them fit. It doesn't work, you can get away with it with landmasses even as big as North America but Eastern Europe/Northern Asia will not fit, they have to be curved like every Fe map produced.

A Northern Polar Projection of the Earth is the closest thing to accurate you have. No Feer is going to commision trained cartographers to try and map the FE because:

a) it doesn't exist
b) It costs too much
c) no-one cares enough

and who is funding it? Who's going to go to a credited cartographer and say we want a map of the flat earth? or do you plan on surveying every inch of the world yourself?

Come on, a genuine FE map is as much of a non-starter as asbestos flavoured beer

The mythical pangea never existed. The continents have, more or less, always been as they are.

Anyone want to come up with some compelling evidence for some giant supercontinent instead of some bogus CGI pictures?