Topographic Information In The Book Of Mormon

[prismsplay]

The narrow pass is the narrow neck. Access to the beginning of it would be a "point". The land of desolation included the narrow neck.

 

Ether 10:20-21:

And they [Jaredites under king Lib] built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land. And they did preserve the land southward for a wilderness to get game. And the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants.

 

Since the impassable Isthmus of Panama is over 400 miles long, if it were being described here, it would be "where the land divides the seas [plural]". Instead, "where the sea [singular] divides the land" indicates the north end of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, where everything west of it was considered the land northward and everything east of it was considered the land southward.

 

Since the Isthmus of Panama is impassable, no army would be needed to stop a quick passage through it. The over 400 miles of jungle, swamps, and mountains would take care of that. Even if an army could cross it from the south end to the north end, they would only end up in the Lamanite territory of the land southward and would still need to cross the narrow strip of wilderness running from the sea east to the sea west, separating the Lamanite and Nephite territories, and then go through Nephite territory to get to the north end of the land southward, which land was nearly surrounded by water.

 

Either end of the impassable Isthmus of Panama is too wide to be a point that the army of Teancum could secure. But then there would be no point in securing it, since it runs southward from the southern end of the land southward which was nearly surrounded by water, thus leading away from both Nephite and Lamanite territories towards a land that the Nephites and Lamanites never inhabited. The inhabitants down there were another branch of the house of Israel, since there are legends down there of Christ having visited them separately from His visitation in Nephite territory.

[prismsplay]

a topographic map of Mesoamerica:

 

[Rob Osborn]

Its because the land southward is the land southward of Panama. You keep saying its impassable and yet they drove a two wheel drive vehicle through what can be described by you as the most impassable area- the Darien gap. I hardly call that "impassable". The land southward was entirely surrounded by water except for the narrow neck. Meso-america has a narrow eck to the south and one on the northwest. That doesnt fit the description required.

You also are forgetting that the narrow neck was avoided by the early nephite migrations. They used ships to bypass the narrow neck and ships were also used to transport supplies to the land northward. My belief is that the Nephites cleared the jungle enough to make a pathway through the narrow neck so that ships wouldnt need to be required. The isthmus of Tehuantepec makes no sense for this "shipping" activity. The earlier Jaredite civilization never inhabited the land southward. Why? Was the narrow neck an obstacle? Apparently so. But it wasnt impassable, just a deterrent, a deterrent that was later cleared by Nephites so that they could have a country to flee into. In description, a land divided by sea, the narrow neck, described by Nephites, was a narrow piece of land with the sea on both sides of it. This is why they also called it a narrow pass. We could add to the word, meaning the same thing, and call the narrow neck a "passageway". Another feature of the narrow neck that is oft forgotten about by mesoamerican models is that it was a land feature that connected the land southward and by traveling through it, it "led into" where the Jaredite nation was destroyed. This narrow neck had some discernable distance to it. In late Nephite times the lands were divided with the Lamanites reciwving the land southward and the Nephites recieving the land northward and the land of the narrow neck. The mesoamerican model doesnt fit these descriptions at all!. The isthmus of Tehuantepec is not a feature that when on then goes fron that point and "leads into" the land northward. Instead, you get to that exact point, indiscernable from the ground, and take a step and suddenly you are already in the land northward. At no point of this isthmus from ground level can one truly call it a narrow neck that leads into another land. Sorenson even states boldly that one would not be able to tell if it was a narrow neck at all from ground level. From where I live in Idaho, I would have to travel halfway across the state passing by many hills, mountains, rivers to traverse the distance involved. If I was on foot or even horseback with my foot army, there would be no way I could easily guard that long stretch of land.

Short and simply, the tehuantepec model for a narrow neck fails miserably.

[prismsplay]

The land southward was entirely surrounded by water except for the narrow neck.

 

The text does not add "except for the narrow neck." That is your interpretation.

 

Here is a map showing the relationship of the Isthmus of Panama to North America and South America:

 

 

Clearly, the land southward in Mesoamerica is nearly surrounded by water.

 

The mere fact that the continent of South America is nearly surrounded by water means nothing when nothing in South America matches anything described in the Book of Mormon. The topographic information in the Book of Mormon, the going down to the land of Zarahemla from the land of Nephi, etc., fits Mesoamerica. It does not fit, nor can it be made to fit, South America.

[Tiki]

32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

29 And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful.

The text mentions 2 lands nearly surrounded by water, using the Line Bountiful and the Land Desolation as the point of reference:

The Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi which is south of the Land of Zarahemla.

**** The text mentions the Nephites possessed the northern parts of the land INCLUDING THE HEAD OF THE RIVER SIDON! ***

This fits neither an Usumacintas River-Mesoamerica setting nor a Magdalena-Colombia River-South America setting.

Since *** The Head of the River Sidon was in the North **** it would indicate the River Sidon flowed south, as the head of the River Sidon was near the land Bountiful and its line to the land of Desolation.

This is a North America setting and places the Hill Cumorah exactly where it is, in Western New York state, not in Mesoamerica.

Read and study the Scriptures! Not F.A.R.MS. not FAIRLDS.

[prismsplay]

Read and study the Scriptures! Not F.A.R.MS. not FAIRLDS.

 

I would classify topographic information in the Book of Mormon in two categories: (1) obvious and (2) requiring study to notice. Under "obvious" would be references to hills or valleys, features that should show up on a topographic map. Under "requiring study to notice" would be traveling descriptions, where one must go "up", "down", or "over" to get from one place to another. Through study of the descriptions, one may sense that changes in elevation are indicated, escpecially since most of this type of information in the Book of Mormon was written by Mormon, who as a military leader was keenly aware of topography.

 

Mormon's description of chief captain Moroni's military strategy in Alma 43:16-54 is loaded with both "obvious" topographic features and those "requiring study to notice":

 

43:22: "took their journey round about in the wilderness away by the head of the river Sidon that they might come into the land of Manti and take possession of the land"

 

43:25: "marched over into the land of Manti"

 

43:27: "secreted in the valley which was near the bank of the river Sidon which was on the west of the river Sidon in the wilderness"

 

43:31-32: "Therefore he divided his army and brought a part over into the valley and concealed them on the east and on the south of the hill Riplah. And the remainder he concealed in the west valley, on the west of the river Sidon, and so down into the borders of the land Manti."

 

43:34-35: "And it came to pass that the Lamanites came up on the north of the hill, where a part of the army of Moroni was concealed. And it came to pass that as the Lamanites had passed the hill Riplah and came into the valley and began to cross the river Sidon"

 

As I contemplate this information, I get a mental picture of the wilderness referred to as being of a hilly or mountainous nature with various tributaries of the river Sidon flowing northward through different valleys. Following one of them would lead down to the land of Manti, which was higher in elevation than the city of Zarahemla downstream. The "head" of the river Sidon obviously means its "headwaters", which began in the narrow strip of wilderness separating Nephite land on the north from Lamanite lands on the south. Since there are many tributaries of the Sidon in its headwaters, which one of them was still considered to be the Sidon? In elevated regions, it would have been possible for an army to cross a stream named Sidon, whereas further downstrean an army might need bridges or boats to cross the river Sidon.

[cdowis]

>"This is a North America setting and places the Hill Cumorah exactly where it is, in Western New York state, not in Mesoamerica."

 

I know you have probably already addressed this issue, but where do you find evidence of the technology and culture mentioned in the BOM text -- e.g. written records, calendar.

 

Look for evidence of a massive number of written records, and you will find the location of the Book of Mormon.

 

Edited October 21, 2013 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

**** The text mentions the Nephites possessed the northern parts of the land INCLUDING THE HEAD OF THE RIVER SIDON! ***

 

You should be careful in attempting a geographic correlation on a single verse when there are others to assist:

 

Alma 50:11 And thus he cut off all the strongholds of the Lamanites in the east wilderness, yea, and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, from the west sea, running by the head of the river Sidon—the Nephites possessing all the land northward, yea, even all the land which was northward of the land Bountiful, according to their pleasure.

 

This (along with those that mention the head of the Sidon near Manti) establish the head at the border between Zarahemla and the land of Nephi. Thus the head of the river is north only of the land of Nephi, but south of Zarahemla. The location of Manti in relation to the other cities confirms this location. To get from the head of the river to Zarahemla therefore requires a northerly flow.

[Rob Osborn]

>"This is a North America setting and places the Hill Cumorah exactly where it is, in Western New York state, not in Mesoamerica."

 

I know you have probably already addressed this issue, but where do you find evidence of the technology and culture mentioned in the BOM text -- e.g. written records, calendar.

 

Look for evidence of a massive number of written records, and you will find the location of the Book of Mormon.

 

I would like to slightly modify or add to your statement -

Look for a massive number of ancient ruins of buildings of every kind, and you will find the evidences of the BoM peoples.

 

I am not sure one would find much as far as written records go as the warring Lamanites left in the land would of destroyed the Nephite culture from existance including their writings. Lucky for us though Mormon took and hid most of these records which have yet to come to light.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[Capitalis]

Like many LDS people, I was taught to believe in the tradition of a Mesoamerican BoM setting and I don't really even remember hearing much about a "heartland" theory, but recently I was reading a lot on this site - http://bookofmormonpromisedland.com/ - and have found many of the arguments compelling. Of several points made, one most interesting to me is the basic idea that the scope and grandeur of the BoM peoples and lands are traditionally very inflated (and I would add romanticized). 

 

Placing the BoM geography where he does, and for the reasons he does, seems to make a lot of sense when you consider the scale of BoM events to be more in line with Moses' children of Israel, instead of the traditional model that makes Lehi's children the "principal ancestors" of the American Indians. 

 

I believe there are still problems with the model proposed by Mr. Coon, but that may be because not all of the questions I have are addressed on the website. I have yt to read his book. 

 

I'm interested to know other thoughts here. I enjoy reading (minus the bickering) the thoughts of so many well-informed and passionate students here. 

[prismsplay]

I am not sure one would find much as far as written records go as the warring Lamanites left in the land would of destroyed the Nephite culture from existance including their writings. Lucky for us though Mormon took and hid most of these records which have yet to come to light.

 

Doesn't the LDS church own Hill Cumorah in New York? If so, and if the sacred records are hidden in that hill, why hasn't the LDS authorized tunnelling into it to find the sacred records and move them to Salt Lake City for study by scholars? The skeptic would answer that because the Book of Mormon is a fraud, such records do not exist.

 

For many of those who believe that Mormon really existed and really hid real sacred records in a real Hill Cumorah, the fact that no attempt has been to retrieve those records from the "Hill Cumorah" in New York suggests that the hill from which the Book of Mormon plates were extracted is not the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

 

Among Book of Mormon enthusiasts in the the RLDS tradition a significant percentage believe that the real Hill Cumorah is Cerro Rabon in Mexico:

Edited October 25, 2013 by prismsplay

[cdowis]

del .

Edited October 25, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Doesn't the LDS church own Hill Cumorah in New York?

 

Yes,

 

If so, and if the sacred records are hidden in that hill, why hasn't the LDS authorized tunnelling into it to find the sacred records and move them to Salt Lake City for study by scholars?

 

Is this a joke?

 

The skeptic would answer that because the Book of Mormon is a fraud. Therefore, such records do not exist.

 

Yawn.

 

[Rob Osborn]

Like many LDS people, I was taught to believe in the tradition of a Mesoamerican BoM setting and I don't really even remember hearing much about a "heartland" theory, but recently I was reading a lot on this site - http://bookofmormonpromisedland.com/ - and have found many of the arguments compelling. Of several points made, one most interesting to me is the basic idea that the scope and grandeur of the BoM peoples and lands are traditionally very inflated (and I would add romanticized). 

 

Placing the BoM geography where he does, and for the reasons he does, seems to make a lot of sense when you consider the scale of BoM events to be more in line with Moses' children of Israel, instead of the traditional model that makes Lehi's children the "principal ancestors" of the American Indians. 

 

I believe there are still problems with the model proposed by Mr. Coon, but that may be because not all of the questions I have are addressed on the website. I have yt to read his book. 

 

I'm interested to know other thoughts here. I enjoy reading (minus the bickering) the thoughts of so many well-informed and passionate students here.

One of the big issues to deal with for me is limiting geographical settings with a people who were very numerous and adventurous. Almost every popular model is so limited it doest make much sense to me. Army sizes alone begs for a larger geographical area. The Jaredites and Nephites manned armies in the hundreds of thousands. These were wars of nations not tribes.

[Calm]

Is this a joke?

 

PP does not believe the modern Hill Cumorah is the ancient one.  He is simply saying that the Church leadership likely agrees with him by his reasoning.

[prismsplay]

PP does not believe the modern Hill Cumorah is the ancient one.  He is simply saying that the Church leadership likely agrees with him by his reasoning.

 

Thank you for interpreting my comments correctly. If the brass plates, the 24 gold plates, the large plates of Nephi, and other sacred treasures were hidden within the little "Hill Cumorah" in New York, whoever owned that hill would have access to them. Since the LDS now owns that hill, how could the leadership refrain from at least attempting to find where the records are stored? They must realize that the records are somewhere else.

 

Mormon 6:4:

And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah. And it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains. And here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites.

 

Does Cerro Rabon in Mexico show any resemblance to Mormon's description of hill Cumorah?

 

 

Mormon 6:6:

And knowing it to be the last struggle of my people and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer that the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites - for the Lamanites would destroy them - therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.

[Calm]

Thank you for interpreting my comments correctly. 

I'm paying attention.  

 

Cool picture, btw.

[Tiki]

 

You should be careful in attempting a geographic correlation on a single verse when there are others to assist:

 

Alma 50:11 And thus he cut off all the strongholds of the Lamanites in the east wilderness, yea, and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, from the west sea, running by the head of the river Sidon—the Nephites possessing all the land northward, yea, even all the land which was northward of the land Bountiful, according to their pleasure.

 

This (along with those that mention the head of the Sidon near Manti) establish the head at the border between Zarahemla and the land of Nephi. Thus the head of the river is north only of the land of Nephi, but south of Zarahemla. The location of Manti in relation to the other cities confirms this location. To get from the head of the river to Zarahemla therefore requires a northerly flow.

 

 

Brant Gardner: "To get from the head of the river to Zarahemla therefore requires a northerly flow."

 

Then by your definition, the River Sidon flowed north of Zarahemla, which is contrary to the text.

There is no indication in the text that the River Sidon ever flowed north of the Land of Zarahemla into the Land Bountiful, as your Mesoamerica setting claims:

 

 

PROOF:

The Prophet Mormon as an 11-year old child, was carried south to the land of Zarahemla, and speaks of one of the first battles between the Nephites and Lamanites starting at the River Sidon (Mormon 1:10).

After taking command 5 years later at age 16, Mormon's armies "began to retreat towards the north countries." (Mormon 2:3). There is no mention of Zarahemla nor of the River Sidon since because Zarahemla was taken by the Lamanites.

 

There is no indication Mormon's armies retreated northward down a river valley. They retreated north to lands [also occupied by Nephites] and eventually to the narrow passage were numerous battles took place over many years before the final battle at Cumorah. (Mormon 3:5)

 

The lands of the Lamanites, centuries early, were described in Alma 22:27

 

[The Land of Nephi] "which was divided from the land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, which ran from the sea east even to the sea west,

and round about on the borders of the seashore, and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land of Zarahemla,

through the borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided....

 

"the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west"

This is referring to that part of the River Sidon running or flowing from the east towards the west.

 

This phrase "east towards west" is again noted two verses later in Alma 22:29

 

And also there were many Lamanites on the east by the seashore, whither the Nephites had driven them. And thus the Nephites were nearly surrounded by the Lamanites; nevertheless the Nephites had taken possession of all the northern parts of the land bordering on the wilderness, at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west, round about on the wilderness side; on the north, even until they came to the land which they called Bountiful.

 

"the head of the river Sidon, running from the east towards the west" - verse 27

"at the head of the river Sidon, from the east to the west" - verse 29

 

This would be the Ohio River, which runs from the east toward the west, its head defining the Nephite lands east and north by the land of Zarahemla.

 

Alma 50:11, which you quoted, talks of the Nephites western lands:

 

"and also on the west, fortifying the line between the Nephites and the Lamanites, between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Nephi, from the west sea, running by the head of the river Sidon"

 

The phrase "from the west sea, running by the head of the river Sidon" would refer to the head of the Mississippi River.

 

This is because the Nephites would have considered both the Ohio and Mississippi river to be the River Sidon having two heads, one in the east, one in the west.

 

Thus the land of Zarahemla contained portions of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers:

 

Mormon1:10 "And it came to pass that the war began to be among them in the borders of Zarahemla, by the waters of Sidon."

 

or WITHIN the borders of Zarahemla, by the waters of Sidon. The river Sidon flowed through and was within the Land of Zarahemla.

 

This is why the Land of Nephi was separated from the Land of Zarahemla by a narrow strip of wilderness, not by a river, as we know the City of Zarahemla was built on the west of the River Sidon or the Mississippi side (D&C 125:3)

 

[Alma] departed from them, yea, from the church which was in the city of Zarahemla, and went over upon the east of the river Sidon, into the valley of Gideon. Alma 6:7

 

Therefore, the Nephite lands, consisting at the peak of Nephite prosperity, would roughly be defined as the Land of Zarahemla encompassing portions of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, their heads defining their western and eastern borders, then Nephite lands going northward to the Great Seas or Great Lakes.

 

The narrow strip of wilderness defining the line between the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Nephi could be the hill country of Kentucky, Tennessee, and even portions of the Appalachian mountains.

Narrow doesn't mean thin. It took many days for the people of Mosiah to travel from the Land of Nephi, to Zarahemla, when the Land of Zarahemla was first discovered.

 

Thus the Nephites, occupied the river valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi, northward through the plains of the Nephites as Joseph Smith stated in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and into Michigan to the narrow neck of land which when Mormon lost, he was forced eastward to the Land of Cumorah. There are numerous mounds in those states as well as Wisconsin to the west.

 

 

[prismsplay]

Tiki wrote:

 

"Thus the Nephites, occupied the river valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi, northward through the plains of the Nephites as Joseph Smith stated in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and into Michigan to the narrow neck of land which when Mormon lost, he was forced eastward to the Land of Cumorah. There are numerous mounds in those states as well as Wisconsin to the west."

 

My knowledge of the geography theory that Tiki is promoting is limited to "A Response to the Heartland Book of Mormon Geography Theory" by Shirley R. Heater (Glyph Notes January/February 2012). This article effectively killed off for me any desire to further study of that theory. Why? Because Heater demonstrated that the founders of the Heartland Theory prefer nonscriptural comments of dubious authority over the plain language of what was translated by the gift and power of God.

 

Here is a key quote from Heater's article:

 

"By dismissing Book of Mormon geography references as 'incomplete and misleading,' it is Meldrum's presentation that is incomplete and misleading. Meldrum's statement that 'the secular and physical information ... was in large measure edited out by inspired men of God' (Porter and Meldrum 2009:136-137) demonstrates a lack of understanding of this treasured record and numerous statements by the record keepers that its contents were divinely controlled."

 

I am convinced that the Book of Mormon contains topographic information that when considered in conjunction with the book's statements related to geography rules out both the continental and heartland theories.

Edited October 26, 2013 by prismsplay

[Anijen]

One of the big issues to deal with for me is limiting geographical settings with a people who were very numerous and adventurous. Almost every popular model is so limited it doest make much sense to me. Army sizes alone begs for a larger geographical area. The Jaredites and Nephites manned armies in the hundreds of thousands. These were wars of nations not tribes.

Emphasis mine.

 

This is completely untrue. A very large army does not mandatory require a large (hemispheric) area. Not a single army in the Western Hemisphere has ever waged a battle over that hemisphere. They also were not wars of Nations, for example the Hopewell is a tradition (a time period) were not a single nation, neither were the Adena or the Mayan. In fact history proves the opposite of your argument, the larger the army and the larger the area fought over the greater difficulty, it becomes a logistical nightmare. 

 

In essence army size does not "beg for a larger geographical area."

[Rob Osborn]

Emphasis mine.

 

This is completely untrue. A very large army does not mandatory require a large (hemispheric) area. Not a single army in the Western Hemisphere has ever waged a battle over that hemisphere. They also were not wars of Nations, for example the Hopewell is a tradition (a time period) were not a single nation, neither were the Adena or the Mayan. In fact history proves the opposite of your argument, the larger the army and the larger the area fought over the greater difficulty, it becomes a logistical nightmare. 

 

In essence army size does not "beg for a larger geographical area."

I didnt say they were fighting over the whole hemisphere. I just have my doubts that army sizes as reported could be supported by small geographic areas.

They were wars of entire nations. You had the great Jaredite nations and then you had the great Nephite and Lamanite nations. These nations were organized and united in their causes. Later warring Lamanites turned into tribal warfare on a much much smaller scale.

[Capitalis]

One of the big issues to deal with for me is limiting geographical settings with a people who were very numerous and adventurous. Almost every popular model is so limited it doest make much sense to me. Army sizes alone begs for a larger geographical area. The Jaredites and Nephites manned armies in the hundreds of thousands. These were wars of nations not tribes.

 

From what I've read and seen so far (just so far) the Heartland theory gives the Nephites/Lamanites a lot of room to work with - the whole Ohio River Valley (I think someone mentioned it here, including NY, OH, IL, MI, etc.). 

 

There's another series of videos here (just grit your teeth through the initial production value) that gives a good introduction I think:

 

[Anijen]

From what I've read and seen so far (just so far) the Heartland theory gives the Nephites/Lamanites a lot of room to work with - the whole Ohio River Valley (I think someone mentioned it here, including NY, OH, IL, MI, etc.). 

 

There's another series of videos here (just grit your teeth through the initial production value) that gives a good introduction I think:

Capitalis, this video is full of errors.  I don't know if you know this, but the very archaeologist that were used for this video were lied to by Meldrum and he twisted the use of the information to a point were he only published what supports his {Meldrum and his followers] theory.

 

Meldrum leaves a lot (I mean a huge amount) of analysis out, this is the stuff  that goes against a heartland theory.  Again the archaeologist they all distrust Meldrum. They have threatened to sue him, and all six have written a rebuttal on how Meldrum misused their information.

 

Another glaring mistake is their use of fraudulent artifacts to bolster their claims, i.e. the Davenport Tablets, the Batcreek stone etc. This is like me writing on a rock and saying it was written 2000 years ago in Hebrew so it must be proof that their were people here who knew Hebrew, just overlook the fact that I wrote on that rock a month ago....

Edited October 28, 2013 by Anijen

[Capitalis]

Here's something I ran into recently: Earthquakes estimated to be 10x more powerful than the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (largest US earthquake we have on richter scale) occurred in 1811 with centers where Missouri, Tennessee and Arkansas meet. Seems this could be a "precedent" (not chronologically but evidentially) for the great destructions at the time of the death of Christ in the heartland of USA. Very interesting to hear about the eye witness accounts on the History Channel vids.

 

 

 

The 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes /nuː ˈmædrɨd/ were an intense intraplate earthquake series beginning with an initial pair of very large earthquakes on December 16, 1811. These earthquakes remain the most powerful earthquakes to hit the eastern United States in recorded history.^[1] These events, as well as the seismic zone of their occurrence, were named for the Mississippi River town of New Madrid, then part of the Louisiana Territory, now within Missouri.

There are estimates that the earthquakes were felt strongly over roughly 130,000 square kilometers (50,000 sq mi), and moderately across nearly 3 million square kilometers (1 million square miles). The historic 1906 San Francisco earthquake, by comparison, was felt moderately over roughly 16,000 km² (6,200 sq mi).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811%E2%80%931812_New_Madrid_earthquakes

[Capitalis]

Capitalis, this video is full of errors.  I don't know if you know this, but the very archaeologist that were used for this video were lied to by Meldrum and he twisted the use of the information to a point were he only published what supports his {Meldrum and his followers] theory.

 

Meldrum leaves a lot (I mean a huge amount) of analysis out, this is the stuff  that goes against a heartland theory.  Again the archaeologist they all distrust Meldrum. They have threatened to sue him, and all six have written a rebuttal on how Meldrum misused their information.

 

Another glaring mistake is their use of fraudulent artifacts to bolster their claims, i.e. the Davenport Tablets, the Batcreek stone etc. This is like me writing on a rock and saying it was written 2000 years ago in Hebrew so it must be proof that their were people here who knew Hebrew, just overlook the fact that I wrote on that rock a month ago....

 

I do remember reading somewhere about the issue with Meldrum but there isn't much of that in the videos, and I've watched them all. These don't say much about the controversial Batcreek stone, etc.