>>I think the point I tried to make was that study of who we are, where we have been and what we have done is a detailed part of academic study. Study based on the collection and analysis of evidence from many sources which is published and open to peer review. Peer Review enables all those with an interest and expertise to examine and challenge hypotheses as they are generated.<<

I'm not writing a frigging Ph.D. thesis, for god's sake. I'm pointing out some anomalies in our histories that aren't explained very well or aren't explained at all.

>>When somebody suggests that people had maps that show Antarctica, and that it was hot, we are entitled to some pretty detailed and strong evidence because all the other evidence points to a 19C first discovery of an Antarctica covered in ice.<<

I mentioned two maps: one which looks like part of Antarctica is showing and other that is Antarctica and it has its own projection and looks surprisingly like the actual Antarctica which is pretty good considering they had no idea if anything was really there. The Fine map is clearly not depicting a counterland since counterlands were only for decor. Therefore, it is a perfectly fair question to ask how Fine came by the information from which he made his map and where he got it from. Your answer appears to be that he was just funning around but it certainly doesn't look to me like he was funning around. Nor is the Fine map the only one to show Antarctica bereft of ice. The Buache map does also and it also shows Antarctica as fragmented which it actually is according to geological data. These maps DESERVE some consideration. Your scientific method consists of "Nobody could have done it so it isn't so." There's something more to it than that.

>>Your evidence is neither detailed nor strong.<<

You seem to think I'm presenting some air-tight case that can't be argued with when, in fact, I am presenting items that don't fit comfortably into our histories and bear serious investigation into their origins. If you dont find it compelling, that's fine. But your reasons are amazingly dismissive: "It couldn't happen because it doesn't fit our histories so it didn't happen and your evidence that it did is flimsy." It's not much evidence surely but it is enough to merit a serious investigation. The data for those maps came from somewhere and it wasn't a contemporary source, so what is it? Not that people like you could ever be expected to conduct a porper investigation into it since you've obviously already made up your mind.