Continent of North America does not exist... or could it be a part of Asia?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,987
Likes
9,704
#1
LOL, just kidding, of course it exists. But than again, I was only told that it does. I flew a lot of airplane miles. I drove thousands of road miles. I have not seen anything to confirm the below hypothesis. At the same time, I have seen actual places, but I did not see the entire planet from above. Nothing in my experience, or educational background supports this hypothesis. We have GPSs guiding our travels. We have Google Earth capable of showing us even the most distant areas with great detail. Yet, there are a few intricate historical details which prompted me to share some of the observations I made looking through various maps, and documents. Maps, in particular, do raise a few questions, for certain things do raise questions. Primarily why would questionable things of this nature exist in first place?

I will start by mentioning a person named Hubert Howe Bancroft. According to Wikipedia, "Hubert Howe Bancroft (1832 – 1918) was an American historian and ethnologist who wrote, published and collected works concerning the western United States, Texas, California, Alaska, Mexico, Central America and British Columbia."

Hubert Howe Bancroft
Hubert_Howe_Bancroft.jpg

1832 – 1918
Source: The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft - This is a 39-volume collection of histories of western North America and Central America, written by Hubert Howe Bancroft. It was published in San Francisco in the late 19th century.

In his History of the Northwest Coast, v1: 1543-1800 (1884), on page 41 I found the following map. Apparently Oronteus Finaeus in 1531 adhered to the original idea that the New Regions (North America) were a part of Asia.

Basically, what we see in the below map, is the continent of the South America hooked up directly to Asia. Sure does not make any sense.

Orontius_Finess_map_1531.png

For whatever reason I thought about the other topic on this forum - America in Asia: 1827 State of Nations map. Personally, I do find coincidences highly suspicious in general. At some point, they stop being just coincidences, and become something more than just that. But I was not at that point yet.

Orontius_Finess_map_1531_1.png

Not thinking much thus far, I kept on pushing the topic. Below is the map found on David Rumsey website.

1740 Carte des Lieux ou les
Differentes Longueurs du Pendule

Navigation Map
Carte des Lieux ou les Differentes Longueurs du Pendule.jpg
Not much done here, I simply moved North American continent from the left side of the map to the right side. I just figured, why not?

asian_america_1_1_3.jpg


1561 Carta Marina Nvova Tavola

Carta_marina_nova_tavola.png
I did the exact same thing, and ended up with the map below.

Carta_marina_nova_tavola_2.jpg


1620 - Alla carta da navigare - Porcacchi Tomaso

Alla_carta_da_navigare_-_Porcacchi_Tomaso_-_1620.jpg
Same operation followed

Alla_carta_da_navigare_-_Porcacchi_Tomaso_-_1620_3.jpg


Planisfério de Rosselli - c. 1508

planisferio-roselli.jpg
This map has Hispaniola and Cuba islands on it. From this perspective it is much more interesting to connect both sides. The original map is slightly uneven on the left side, hence the break in connection.

planisferio-roselli_2.jpg


Fun Part
As you can see, the above map has islands like Cuba and Hispaniola on it. From this perspective, the resemblance between the map above, and a few of the older maps below is somewhat weird. What's also weird, we have a Spanish colony Veragua which was located in the Central America situated on one of these older maps.

Mapa_del_Ducado_de_Veragua.png

And it's not where it is supposed to be at. For whatever reason it is placed in that weird non-existent peninsula looking chunk of land.

beragua_1_1.jpg

mundo-roselli.jpg

At the very least, we have a few very interesting maps out there. What they may suggest is up to the individual observer.


1827_Map_of_Nations.JPG stevens-brown.jpg Waldseemueller-1516-Carta-Marina.jpg Waldseemuller_1507.jpg ptolemy-early-world-maps.jpg

* * * * *
map of the world_1.jpg

KD: Not much here, just a few of my observations. Still trying to figure out how Tartarian Kings end up in the North America, and why Russia used to own Alaska, a chunk of a far away land. Remember that:
  • Fort Elizabeth is the last remaining Russian fort on the Hawaiian islands
  • Fort Ross is a former Russian establishment on the west coast of North America in what is now Sonoma County, California.
  • There are more than 20 towns in the U.S. bearing the name of Russia’s capital Moscow, three St. Petersburgs and about 10 spots featuring the monikers of Russian regional towns.
  • All other things, people and places hidden from us...
 

Observer

Member
Messages
10
Likes
37
#4
Perhaps it's more a case of "America WAS connected to Asia... but then changes happened which created a big ocean in between."

I currently am taking this embarrassingly normal stance, because (I think) I lived in California, looked westward at what seemed to be an ocean, and (I think) I saw the huge pacific ocean when (I think) I flew from California to Japan.

Of course it's possible I was fooled, for example when one looks westward from the California beach, I ASSUMED based on the official map stories that I was looking at "a vast ocean going all the way to Hawaii and Japan", but perhaps I was merely looking at a 15km tiny strip of salty water. And perhaps all passengers on flights "from California to Hawaii and Japan" are fooled by video screens which we naively assume are windows...

Such a grand "ocean hoax" is possible, but probably more probable is that the old maps WERE right back then, America WAS connected to Asia, but then there was an expansion, and now there really does seem to be a big ocean in between.

To say "The Pacific Ocean is not there" would require some kind of "it's there for some folks' current timeline/dimension/reality A, but not there for other folks' current timeline/dimension/reality B" complex qualification.

Still, I want to reassert my love of keeping an open-mind to all ideas, and my love of having the courage to admit that most of what we "know" is in fact a bunch of assumptions based on mountains of lies without any evidence and without any actual "knowing" at all.

Even if it turns out the "Pacific Ocean currently doesn't exist" theory is mistaken, and even if it turns out the "Australia is currently larger than they tell us" theory is mistaken, I still think that of the hundreds of wonderful ideas which you have shared so far (and are continuing to courageously share everday, thank you) most of your ideas seem very true, in my opinion.

For example, I still think it is quite probable that you ARE CORRECT about the fact that the current maps ARE somehow hiding land from us. Let's continue to try to figure out where. Perhaps Antarctica is huge?
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
341
Likes
1,751
#5
Thanks for providing all the maps. I knew some of them, and based on the history and context of the map creation I assume that America was indeed part of Asia around 500+ years ago. Columbus based all of his endavours on these maps, so he fully expected to reach India/Asia.

The maps were updated periodically, and before and after this time frame we see a continuous change in line with multiple earth changes. The creation of the oceans is one of the results of the growing earth.

The true state of things is not hidden, the maps are real. The true state of our past is hidden, or forgotten. I don't like that the implied line of thinking here often defaults to a grand conspiracy when the available data doesn't allow this interpretation. I invite you to take the available data of present and past as real, which creates a coherent view in line with everything we know about our past - geological data, history, religion, myths, cultural beliefs, migration patterns, ethnology, propagation of plants, etc.

Your map of Planisfério de Rosselli - c. 1508 is very interesting. It suggests that South America split off (from Africa?) before North America splitt off from Asia. Was this the setting Columbus encountered? Shortly after Columbus North America seems to have split off from Asia in what appears to have been one of the biggest earth changes in the last millenium. South America was pushed south, while the eastern part of Asia, now North America, was connected with South America. This explains a confusion I had, because I mistakenly attributed what is essentially the southern part of North America (the long part in Eastern Asia on the old maps) as South America. But South America was already there.

I think the past maps were not 100% right, but the cartographers did there best to map everything, so the general process of earth changes can be observed over time.

In the Steven Brown map South America also exists before North America. On the older Ptolemy projections Africa is biggr and seems to include South America, but it it also possible this was a part of Asia originally (I favor Africa). In fact looking at the above Ptolemy projection Africa was connected to South America, which both being connected to Antarctica (Terra Australis), which in turn connected Africa with East Asia. This was when the Pacific Ocean already existed, but not the Atlantic. Earlier maps show that the Pacific between Terra Australis and Asia was also a recent creation, and the older maps from around 1000-1200 AD show that only the Mediterranean Sea existed - also called the "Sea in the middle of the World" - as it was the only sea on planet earth originally, according to ancient documents and tradition, originally being indeed the middle of the world as Jerusalem was depicted as the South Pole near the Med Sea.

How can we explain the apparent dual existence of North America both in Asia and as a small piece of land in the above Waldsemueller map? It is explained by the fact that it takes some time to re-map the entire world after a catacylsm, so the original knowledge about North America in Asia was still included on the maps, as people were exploring the unknown continent in the west and adding the new knowledge to the maps, trying to figure out how everything is connected.

The editing of the 1740 map doesn't hold ground, as you are omitting certain parts of the map. By 1740 America and Asia were long seperated, but it's a helpful visulization.

The actual data implies that only 1000+ years ago our earth was basically one single continent, and much smaller. In the concave earth model, this also means it was nearer to the sun, which creates a more electrically charged atmosphere, warmer climate (this was pre-ice age) explaining magic and stuff.

The displacement of city and region names is a reocurring phenomenon, it seems that some places after the catastrophe were named according to collective memory of older places in the surrounding areas.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,987
Likes
9,704
#6
Appreciate the map analysis. Those older maps do pose a few riddles here and there, don’t they?

On a separate note, I think as long as North Korea and the U.S. are on the same Antarctic treaty, the true state of things is hidden. Same goes for the shenanigans with Earth curvature.

As far as the great conspiracy of today goes, that I do not know, could be none, or could be some. There are quite a few instances appearing isolated, to which I can not find an explanation beyond a plausible one. Things like 9/11, lack of Earth photographs from Space, loss of all Apollo program data, inability to go back to the Moon, doctoring of Mars images, California-like forest fires and melted cars in Greece, conflict free Antarctic treaty, no north to south circumnavigation, flight paths, twist-turn broken trees, ISIS destroying Palmira type relics, blinking Sun, square clouds, stars visible through the Moon, dinosaur fossils discovered under 2 feet of dirt... and many other ones.

Having classified documents pertaining to 100-300 years ago could probably be considered a contemporary conspiracy by some. Who cares who killed who in 1894? Unless of course those documents contain information which could affect our lives today. But what possibly could do it from that long ago? Yet, hiding it from people is a conspiracy. An accepted one, and named “national security” or some other such nonsense.

As far as old maps go. We are left to guessing. The appearence of those maps could be an issue of the past. Withholding of the information pertaining to those maps by the knowledgeable ones today is a conspiracy. And I do not believe for a second that nobody has factual knowledge of what happened back then.
 

Onijunbei

Well-known member
Messages
106
Likes
367
#9
Im gonna go with Ockhams Razor.. To my knowledge most of the great navigators came from Europe and went south or eastward and didn't bother going west (no gps or internet back then and very rare for people of one country i. e Spain to be wanting to share their maps with i dont know say England) . So they didn't exactly know where the lands were in exact position and without absolute knowledge of fresh water and food weren't gonna take a gamble trying to navigate every land mass of the world. The pacific being farthest away (going eastward of course) would have the least information for navigators and therefore to the cartographers trying to draw out the maps.
 

Observer

Member
Messages
10
Likes
37
#11
Even as it stands, our maps show wrong outlines. For the longest it was said that our maps were distorted due to the Mercator Projection issues. Somehow we can not even show the "real" representation of the current lay out.

Absolutely, and thanks for finding and sharing that map, seriously.

That map makes it clear they stretched everything further north, possibly to hide the reality of land up north.

Compared with the Mercator green misrepresentation, the black lines there are showing the real situation: that even according to official data, there is a surprisingly large space up north there, which the "Mercator Projection" has been successfully totally covering up until this moment, for me.

Wow, those black lines there show the whole contiguous 48 states could easily fit in that space up there above Greenland.

Plus, there is even enough space for those contiguous 48 states to be stacked double above Canada as well.

The Mercator Projection always had given me the assumption that above Greenland was just a tiny amount of space up there.

At one point, in my childhood, I think it was painted as supposedly just a little icy glacier area up there, and then recently somehow the north pole ended up being currently painted as a "long-long-ago-melted, whatever made you think there were glaciers up there?" small melted icy water area there, but now I see the black lines make it clear that (according to the official "de-mercatorized, de-stretched" calculations themselves) the no-go area surrounding the north pole is in fact a HUGE unaccounted-for amount of space which the Mercator Projection never allowed me to realize existed.

The popular stretched-upwards mercator-map has been hiding the largeness of a huge amount of space up there, either way, whether it is "just icy freshwater", or whether it is an actual hidden tract of LAND up there, within that space the size of multiple USAs.

So yes, the northern "Arctic area" is thus proven busted for having hoaxed us into assuming that area up there was quite small, when in reality that area up there is quite large.

Possibly more "just icy freshwater" but possibly hidden land exists there, and if so then probably an equal hidden extra land area in the southern Antarctic area too.

And whether we can prove they are fudging the size of those areas or not, the fact remains that the whole concept (which we are currently seeming to accept) (the north and south poles being kept from free passage absolutely without good reason) is crazy.

Meaning, it's crazy that society is currently agreeing to this strange "you can't travel north to visit the actual north pole, and you can't travel south to visit the actual south pole" off-limits areas in the first place. I's very strange, and this problem should someday by solved by us.

Storm the Gates! ;-)
 
Last edited:

LordAverage

Well-known member
Messages
82
Likes
251
#12
I never considered the "problems" with map projections were maybe hiding something from us but now that I know more on this topic it kinda clicks into place. Something very suspicious about antarctic for sure.

Seems like they have hid things pretty well (as well as the fact that most people are just ignorant and accept anything they are told helping them out) but we still find countless errors and oddities and contradictions in written history, combine them all, even excuse some for "imaginations" or w/e bs they say and it still doesn't quite add up does it.

As for north america itself this is even more interesting to me atm but i'll need to look more into it in the next day or so. Good posts.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
341
Likes
1,751
#13
Of course it's difficult to project a globe on to a flat map.

Wow, those black lines there show the whole contiguous 48 states could easily fit in that space up there above Greenland.
No. The black lines is the Mercator projection. And that's exactly why the old mercator projection is problematic. Just go to https://thetruesize.com/

Again, this kind of reasoning is why defaulting to conspiracy theories without having actually researched the issue is so problematic in my view, and will lead to nowhere. "Proven busted"? Not quite.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,987
Likes
9,704
#14
Yup, just like dreamtime said, it’s the other way around with the above projections.

At the same time, it’s equally hard to project a flat map onto a globe. Whichever one was done first is clearly explained by today's science, but I think is highly debatable. And that is becoming a much bigger issue.
”If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be belived.” - Mr. Hitler
As far as older maps go, we have zero understanding of their surveying powers. Apparently they did have some as shown on 1525 maps of Piri Reis. How they mapped the New World in under 33 years back then is somewhat interesting. There are also plenty of very old maps with some serious South American inland mapping.

piri_reis_map_1525.png piri_reis_map_1525_1.png
Given all the contemporary data, it appears that we know the layout of everything. Little "insignificant" things like inconsistency in curvature, bizarre flight paths, east to west navigation, etc... they all can and were explained independently. Yet, once they are added to the totality of things which need explanation, there appears too many requiring explanation. For me, it comes across, as something requiring further investigation.
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
423
Likes
1,758
#15
I am going to go with everything 1800 is a lie.

William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, introduced Uniformitarianism, in geology, in 1832. Before that the prevailing view (called catastrophism) was that Earth had originated through supernatural means and had been affected by a series of catastrophic events such as the biblical Flood.

Based on that info, this is definitely a catastrophe - rapid earth changes that left parts of north America in a crippled nomadic state.
 
Last edited:

Ilmarinen

Active member
Messages
23
Likes
135
#19
Sun Tsu wrote that the first casualty of war is truth. Taking a look at the past we can identify ongoing warfare. If I have understood correctly many countries are still both officially and unofficially at war today. Giving your opponent an opportunity to know where you are, how to get there, your history, where you came from, your beliefs and your technical secrets is like giving them the keys to your home and a loaded 357. Not very smart. Whose to say we are not at war right now? Who's the enemy? I think those with some awareness know the answer, unfortunately.

My personal observation has been that most people have a totally wrong idea about almost everything relating to the area they live, their past and technology that surrounds and controls them. The land area known to us basic hillybilly's is clearly a carefully crafted illusion. Proven conspiracy. I also have huge doubts about the distances international flights claim to cover. Either the speed or maps are wrong, I suspect both.

Did you know that we have Pumas (exactly the same looking guys as in North America) in Finland and Russia? They cross the border (Finland has the longest border with Russia in the world) freely since there is basically just forrest. Russians even feed them and keep them as pets sometimes but in Finland the subject is huge taboo and the government has done its share to put a gag order to this fact. We even have an old county called Puumala (Puma) next to Russian border where they have had several sightings by the local hunters over the decades and even centuries. Finnish academia (ran by occupying Swedish forces) claims mountain lions (puma, cougar) dont exist in the same continent we do. Also according wiki they exist only in North and South America. Puma (genus) - Wikipedia Oh, I forgot, our national seal has a lion in it and I ve seen old maps showing men fighting lions on them.

As summary, I am yet to prove government version of this reality what I observe, calculate, measure and read from more clever ones than me, right. We might be at war and the truth could be so terrifying to masses that no government want to disclose whats really up? Who knows, we might be a food source and you dont get many votes by telling people such tasty news. Its easier to control people who live in da lala-land.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
838
Likes
2,419
#20
Piece of Africa found beneath Alabama, 2014

An April 2014 article on Discovery.com tells of one of the most unusual discoveries in Alabama: A piece of the continent of Africa.

"Geoscientists have identified a chunk of Africa stuck onto the southeastern United States," Larry O'Hanlon wrote. The piece apparently remained with North America after an ancient collision and subsequent separation of the two continents.

"A long mysterious zone of unusual magnetism that stretches from Alabama through Georgia and offshore to the North Carolina coast appears to be the suture between ancient rocks that formed when parts of Africa and North America were pressed together 250 million years ago. If so, Africa could have left a lot more behind in the American southeast when the conjoined continents rifted apart and formed the Atlantic Ocean."

According to the article, geologist Robert Hatcher of the University of Tennessee said faults in the area are known as the Brunswick Magnetic Anomaly. Hatcher said: "There was an attempt to rip away Florida and southern Georgia. So you have a failed rift there. We know there's a suture there between African crust and newer crust from the Appalachians. There are pieces of crust that started in Africa." Read more here.
 

Top