Multiple Temperate Antarcticas

Anonymous

Active member
Messages
29
Likes
124
#1
My hypothesis is that the continent we know of as "Antarctica" is actually multiple continents, many of them temperate. The "antarctica" shown on maps is the result of amalgamating these landmasses into one large continent.

During the age of exploration, many landforms were discovered south of the known continents, at locations much further north than the "antarctica" we know today.

One of these landforms was labelled "countrie of parrots" - or country of parrots. It is located south of Africa. This landform is drawn between 40 and 50 degrees south, a temperate latitude equivalent to Europe.

1708:
1708 countrie of parrots.jpg
1721 Amsterdam:
1536602781195.png
1745 Strausburg (labelled "terra vitae")
1536602853994.png
1748 Augsburg:
1536602961888.png
This landform, like many, conveniently dissapears during Captain Cooks voyages, but some mapmakers still drew them in. There seems to have been some disagreement as to whether Captain Cook's mappings were 100% truthful. Here is one map 60 YEARS after cook, that shows a rather large landform in this general area.

A quick aside about Cook. All of his journals and materials were immediately seized by the crown upon his returns to England, and it was the king ultimately who decided what to publish. He could very well have selectively published certain maps of continents and not others. Cook continued his journeys but spent little time in England. Cook died during his third voyage, reportedly killed by native Hawaiians.

1853:
1853 post cook - land below africa.jpg

Notice "Bouvet Island" in the image. That tiny island is what "cape circumcision" turned into, although "cape circumsision" was drawn for many years connected to a much larger landmass. Look how large "cape circumcision" was shown on this 1790 map. For the record, 1790 is also post-cook

1536603288347.png

Like Cape Circumcision, many landmass discoveries shown on these maps are later conveniently turned into "islands" that no one is allowed to go to. They are turned into UNESCO heritage sites. UNESCO is an organization it might be interesting to dig into, but that's beyond the scope of this introductory post. One exception is this mindblowing map from 1780 which shows a landmass east of Argentina.

1780 london inset.jpg

Given its location, this landmass cannot possibly be "Antarctica", and it most certainly not the Falklands which is already shown on the map in its proper location. The names given are Gulf of St Sebastion, and Cresalina Island. Neither name are anywhere to be found in an internet search, so these landmasses were not changed into UNESCO islands like other landmasses were.

This landmass seems to have been discovered a SECOND time, in 1823, when it was given the name "New South Greenland"

new south greenland.png

This landmass was discovered a different time, from an easterly direction, and named "I. S. Pierre" seen on this 1778 map.

1778 augsburg inset.jpg
The bay shown on the above map can be found on modern maps, belonging to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. What happened to the name I. S. Pierre? It moved to Newfoundland, Canada.

1536604321420.png

Believe it or not, this is not the only time the name of a far southern island was moved to Canada. It also happened to "Prince Edward Island" shown on this German map 1889


1889 germany - mystery islands.jpg 1536611104888.png

This island is still called "Prince Edward Island" - but what happens when you search for "prince edward island?" Obviously, you will only get information about the prince edward island in Canada.

I theorize that this strange trading of names is a method of redirection of your attention from the southern hemisphere back to the north. We also have 2 sets of Sandwich Islands (one in the north, one in the south) and even the name Antarctica itself, which used to be a part of Brazil.

The Prince Edward Islands (Marion and Prince Edward) sit at 46 degrees south, the same latitude as Seattle or Paris. However, it is classified as "Tundra" even though the record low temperature is only 6 below 0 celcius and the island photographs appear to show lush green islands very little snowcap. Interestingly, these islands used be drawn at 41 degrees south, not 46 degrees south. The difference is blamed on an error by the original dutch discoverers.

1536611292973.png 1536611269149.png 1536611449800.png


Sometimes, when an island is TOO far south, they are dissapeared entirely. These are called "phantom islands" The best known is Emerald Island, shown here far south of Tasmania.

1536611997464.png

There are dozens of "phantom islands" listed on wikipedia. Entire GROUPS of islands were later reported to be "phantom"

1536612240601.png

1536612758321.png

Where do you normally find Islands? On continental shelves. I suspect many of these "phantom islands" must be removed from the record, because if anyone visited them, they would be too close to actual hidden continents (multiple temperate antarcticas)

Ill finish with a very bizzare map from 1957 that shows many of the odd landforms I've already shown, as well as an extra one near Chile that I haven't found yet on other maps. It was an advertising map so don't take it too seriously. It also shows Tazmania as part of Australia.

1957 france.jpg
 
Last edited:

Apollyon

Well-known member
Messages
145
Likes
653
#7
Not to derail, but... is there something I'm missing here?

I hadn't realized that those two words were synonymous. It took us how long to figure out dinosaurs are pretty much giant birds even though we draw them in pop culture as lizards. When our language may have known that connection all along. There may be a popular reason why they call a duck a drake but I don't know it.
Earth has way more trees than we thought, but not nearly as many as it used to
 
Last edited:

PrincepAugus

Well-known member
Messages
370
Likes
589
#8
I hadn't realized that those two words were synonymous. It took us how long to figure out dinosaurs are pretty much giant birds even though we draw them in pop culture as lizards. When our language may have known that connection all along. There may be a popular reason why they call a duck a drake but I don't know it.
Earth has way more trees than we thought, but not nearly as many as it used to
Well there is no debate about dinosaurs and birds, since according to evolution, avian dinosaurs became birds.
 
OP
OP
Anonymous

Anonymous

Active member
Messages
29
Likes
124
#12
I know that airplane routes are pretty restrictive. Who knows how restrictive sea routes are?
there are some events where civilians race around the world by sailboat. None of the routes go anywhere near the landforms I have found on the old maps. Here is one event called "Clipper Round the World" Clipper Round The World Race

sail around the world 2.jpg


One way the space below the equator is minimized, is by drawing the map so that the equator is pretty far south from the centerpoint of the image. In the above example, I put the equator in red.

I actually like to draw some of my maps starting at the polar circle (see cone earth thread) and extend the southern hemisphere further south (see admiral bird comments, flat earth map etc). Here is a map I made to illustrate some of my ideas:

more continents.gif
 

sharonr

Active member
Messages
61
Likes
282
#14
My hypothesis is that the continent we know of as "Antarctica" is actually multiple continents, many of them temperate. The "antarctica" shown on maps is the result of amalgamating these landmasses into one large continent.

During the age of exploration, many landforms were discovered south of the known continents, at locations much further north than the "antarctica" we know today.

One of these landforms was labelled "countrie of parrots" - or country of parrots. It is located south of Africa. This landform is drawn between 40 and 50 degrees south, a temperate latitude equivalent to Europe.

1708:
View attachment 8471
1721 Amsterdam:
View attachment 8472
1745 Strausburg (labelled "terra vitae")
View attachment 8473
1748 Augsburg:
View attachment 8474
This landform, like many, conveniently dissapears during Captain Cooks voyages, but some mapmakers still drew them in. There seems to have been some disagreement as to whether Captain Cook's mappings were 100% truthful. Here is one map 60 YEARS after cook, that shows a rather large landform in this general area.

A quick aside about Cook. All of his journals and materials were immediately seized by the crown upon his returns to England, and it was the king ultimately who decided what to publish. He could very well have selectively published certain maps of continents and not others. Cook continued his journeys but spent little time in England. Cook died during his third voyage, reportedly killed by native Hawaiians.


Notice "Bouvet Island" in the image. That tiny island is what "cape circumcision" turned into, although "cape circumsision" was drawn for many years connected to a much larger landmass. Look how large "cape circumcision" was shown on this 1790 map. For the record, 1790 is also post-cook


Like Cape Circumcision, many landmass discoveries shown on these maps are later conveniently turned into "islands" that no one is allowed to go to. They are turned into UNESCO heritage sites. UNESCO is an organization it might be interesting to dig into, but that's beyond the scope of this introductory post. One exception is this mindblowing map from 1780 which shows a landmass east of Argentina.


Given its location, this landmass cannot possibly be "Antarctica", and it most certainly not the Falklands which is already shown on the map in its proper location. The names given are Gulf of St Sebastion, and Cresalina Island. Neither name are anywhere to be found in an internet search, so these landmasses were not changed into UNESCO islands like other landmasses were.

This landmass seems to have been discovered a SECOND time, in 1823, when it was given the name "New South Greenland"


This landmass was discovered a different time, from an easterly direction, and named "I. S. Pierre" seen on this 1778 map.

The bay shown on the above map can be found on modern maps, belonging to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. What happened to the name I. S. Pierre? It moved to Newfoundland, Canada.


Believe it or not, this is not the only time the name of a far southern island was moved to Canada. It also happened to "Prince Edward Island" shown on this German map 1889



This island is still called "Prince Edward Island" - but what happens when you search for "prince edward island?" Obviously, you will only get information about the prince edward island in Canada.

I theorize that this strange trading of names is a method of redirection of your attention from the southern hemisphere back to the north. We also have 2 sets of Sandwich Islands (one in the north, one in the south) and even the name Antarctica itself, which used to be a part of Brazil.

The Prince Edward Islands (Marion and Prince Edward) sit at 46 degrees south, the same latitude as Seattle or Paris. However, it is classified as "Tundra" even though the record low temperature is only 6 below 0 celcius and the island photographs appear to show lush green islands very little snowcap. Interestingly, these islands used be drawn at 41 degrees south, not 46 degrees south. The difference is blamed on an error by the original dutch discoverers.



Sometimes, when an island is TOO far south, they are dissapeared entirely. These are called "phantom islands" The best known is Emerald Island, shown here far south of Tasmania.


There are dozens of "phantom islands" listed on wikipedia. Entire GROUPS of islands were later reported to be "phantom"


Where do you normally find Islands? On continental shelves. I suspect many of these "phantom islands" must be removed from the record, because if anyone visited them, they would be too close to actual hidden continents (multiple temperate antarcticas)

Ill finish with a very bizzare map from 1957 that shows many of the odd landforms I've already shown, as well as an extra one near Chile that I haven't found yet on other maps. It was an advertising map so don't take it too seriously. It also shows Tazmania as part of Australia.


This is great. Old maps are everything...can't wait to look more. They say so much. Thanks.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
682
Likes
1,614
#15
The old maps had problems with longitude. Latitude was easier to figure but longitude was a hit or miss proposition with countries offering substantial prizes to anyone who could accurately reckon longitude. When a system was finally perfected (1767) it gave rise to not only more accurate maps but also to the first almanac.
longitude

Of course, we now have more sophisticated methods than the lunar method but, at the time, being within 1/2 a degree of accuracy, was a big improvement. In fact, one king, when learning of the change in maps due to the new method of reckoning longitude bemoaned that the cartographers had cost him more of his kingdom than the invading armies. :)
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,635
Likes
7,171
#16
With those official explanations it’s very hard to differentiate between the reality and the made up stuff. They could have been sending people to remap the world after the cataclysm, and hide it behind this long/lat issue.

Honestly, after seeing blank maps of Africa extending all the way into the 19th century, there are some serious grounds to question the official natrative. Just what I think.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
682
Likes
1,614
#17
No doubt and the shenannigans going on with the mapmaking wouldn't explain the differences in LATitude we see on the various maps. Latitude had been relatively easy to figure out ages before LONGitude unraveling occurred. Outright lies can be uncovered with patience but half-truths require endurance to discover whatever truth there is.
 
Top