Changes I've noticed to the World Map (Timelineshift)

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
If New Zealand had been to the west of Australia, it would put it in closer proximity to Africa than to South America, in which case, the Maori would have more in common with Africans than Polynesians

Yet Maoris are believed to be of Polynesian, not African, origin

Doesn't that indicate that New Zealand was never to the north-west of Australia ?




posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock9
If New Zealand had been to the west of Australia, it would put it in closer proximity to Africa than to South America, in which case, the Maori would have more in common with Africans than Polynesians

Yet Maoris are believed to be of Polynesian, not African, origin

Doesn't that indicate that New Zealand was never to the north-west of Australia ?


I never said that I believed that New Zealand was to the west of Australia but some other people do.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sphinx551
 


Yep, which is why I didn't direct my last post to you


Was just trying to inject some mild critical thinking



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock9
some mild critical thinking

A couple general questions:

1. Does anyone think that super advanced aliens might be involved/have something to do with these anomalies?

2. Is CERN connected with these anomalies in some way?

3. Do these "timeline shifts" eventually prove that parallel universes exist?

4. Can this "timeline shift" phenomenon be controlled by will? (meaning that we can "jump" to other timelines if we want to)


[edit on 5-3-2010 by sphinx551]



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dashar
also i dont rember iceland being so close to greenland it seamed to me more in the middle just under half way to greenland.

Oh wow! This is getting interesting and scary at the same time!

I just opened Google Earth to look at Iceland and, wow, I thought, what is it doing so far north and close to Greenland? I never recalled it being so far north and especially close to Greenland. I think these "changes" or anomalies really do happen as we speak. To be honest, I really think that timelines are collapsing.

P.S.: I remembered Iceland being a little bit more to the south and a little bit to the west. It looks too far up north and a little to the east from what I have remembered. Looks "way too close to Norway" even.

P.S. 2: It even looks like the Atlantic Ocean shrunk or is smaller in size.



[edit on 5-3-2010 by sphinx551]



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I really don't believe maps have changed, exept our satellite images are better than the older maps perhaps in school classes, for small changes.

But if it were the case, HAARP would probably be causing this, and CERN, perhaps we'd be going through a deliberate, slow, crustal displacement at the hands of the bloodlines for some nefarious reason, and I wouldnt blame Mr. Et for it.


But so far, not convinced.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
There are other colliders operating in addition to CERN. As I have stated elsewhere, I first noticed a great change after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that time I believed that the atom smashing, reality shredding bombs had done something far more destructive than the atomic bombing of two civilian cities in Japan.

The various bombs and their testing, nuclear power stations, microwave radiation employed in a variety of machines, and now colliders in various countries plus CERN ... enough for one to wonder what the extent of the damage is for future generations or for our immediate experience of time itself.

I would like to think that if damage was done to 'Time' -- for lack of a better word -- then the strongest expressions of reality would coalesce into a stable present, and would keep shifting until there was coalescence.

I also wonder if the momentum is moving in the opposite direction with various expressions of reality being shredded and colliding together in rapid succession without rhyme or reason.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
There seems to be a divergence of what the manifestations of a timeline shift would be.

If we, for sake of argument, agreed that a timeline shift had occurred, all empirical evidence would instantaneously change to the characteristics of the new timeline. So, requiring a map demonstrating the changes doesn't seem to make sense in the context of a shift. As well as, all understanding of traits, characteristics of people, animals, or things; all awareness and concept of these things will be instantly altered to a new timeline memory and reflect the characteristics of the new timeline.




Originally posted by Dock9

Yet Maoris are believed to be of Polynesian, not African, origin

Doesn't that indicate that New Zealand was never to the north-west of Australia ?


If, again for sake of argument, a timeline shift did occur where New Zealand was originally NW of Australia, the timeline could have reflected that they were African origin, and all the subtle characteristics of that race would be changed to reflect that timeline.

It's a powerful, but, daunting and sobering concept once you get your mind wrapped around it. The implications are scary, precisely because the changes that occur go unnoticed and evidence is, by nature, scarce.

Worthy of exploration for that reason alone.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
In 1998 or 1999 an extra lane appeared overnight on the 405 fwy. north as it passed the Santa Monica fwy. There was no construction leading up to this extra lane and I found no agreement on the lane - not because anyone knew but because no one noticed. Everything went on without hesitation except mine. I think it is a rare event to notice these changes which, even as they occur, appear to have always been so.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtform
There seems to be a divergence of what the manifestations of a timeline shift would be.

If we, for sake of argument, agreed that a timeline shift had occurred, all empirical evidence would instantaneously change to the characteristics of the new timeline. So, requiring a map demonstrating the changes doesn't seem to make sense in the context of a shift. As well as, all understanding of traits, characteristics of people, animals, or things; all awareness and concept of these things will be instantly altered to a new timeline memory and reflect the characteristics of the new timeline.




If all awareness is instantly altered, why are people saying they remember something different? And why the position of land masses? Why not something like yesterday my pet was an aardvark and today he's a hedgehog.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
youtube clip that might answer some of the questions posed in this thread

Look. I don't have all the answers and I'm the first person to say that there are happenings in the world that defy rational explanation, but this answer to what appears to be going on with the world map seems very reasonable to me.

tamale.

[edit for lousy grammar]

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Tamale_214]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sphinx551

Originally posted by dashar
also i dont rember iceland being so close to greenland it seamed to me more in the middle just under half way to greenland.

Oh wow! This is getting interesting and scary at the same time!

I just opened Google Earth to look at Iceland and, wow, I thought, what is it doing so far north and close to Greenland? I never recalled it being so far north and especially close to Greenland. I think these "changes" or anomalies really do happen as we speak. To be honest, I really think that timelines are collapsing.

Funny, because I remember Iceland and Greenland always being very close together and both very far north.


P.S.: I remembered Iceland being a little bit more to the south and a little bit to the west. It looks too far up north and a little to the east from what I have remembered. Looks "way too close to Norway" even.

really, it's right where it's always been.



P.S. 2: It even looks like the Atlantic Ocean shrunk or is smaller in size.

which is it? Shrunk or smaller in size?

I am not convinced of any of this. It just seems to me so much more likely that TPTB have been at least moderately successful with their dumbing down program.

Knowledge without reason is wasted
Reason without Knowledge is pointless.

tamale



[edit on 5-3-2010 by sphinx551]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I am sorry, I have no recollection of most yours.

However, Baffin Island was slightly smaller on the south side leaving the Hudson Bay slightly more open.

And I live in Canada and have been seeing maps of the Hudson Bay for pretty much the vast majority of my life. My mother did a large floor to ceiling topological map of Canada when I was in Elementary.

The Southern Pole Glaciation is also larger to me. But I cannot claim that I have paid significant attention to the South Pole.

However, I will look around and see what the topology of Baffin Island is. It would be interesting if I remember Australia being less barren, Baffin Island's south side being further North and the straight being wider, the Antarctic being smaller AND Baffin Island's Southern half being close to sea level. It would be.....consistent.

Perhaps testable in that it holds together as a concept. If the seas one remembers are higher - or perhaps the planet slightly larger - then some of those geological points around those ground elevations should remain somewhat consistent.

So if I remember fewer islands between Australia and India, AND that Baffin Islands south side turns out to be at about the same ground elevation, one starts to see a global trend that is consistent.

I'll poke around and see if I can find a topological or ground elevation map that has Baffin Island's south side.



[edit on 2010/3/6 by Aeons]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by thoughtform
There seems to be a divergence of what the manifestations of a timeline shift would be.

If we, for sake of argument, agreed that a timeline shift had occurred, all empirical evidence would instantaneously change to the characteristics of the new timeline. So, requiring a map demonstrating the changes doesn't seem to make sense in the context of a shift. As well as, all understanding of traits, characteristics of people, animals, or things; all awareness and concept of these things will be instantly altered to a new timeline memory and reflect the characteristics of the new timeline.




If all awareness is instantly altered, why are people saying they remember something different? And why the position of land masses? Why not something like yesterday my pet was an aardvark and today he's a hedgehog.



I don't subscribe to exactly the same vision of what a "time shift" is that is being depicted here.

All the same, for the sake of argument let us run with it.

Most people when given choices where one is distinctly held as being correct by a majority of their peers, a person will decide to eschew what they know and instead agree with the majority. This is well founded human behaviour by now.

So even if people NOTED differences, they would not SAY so. They would not risk it. Even if they knew that everyone was "wrong" they would not.

Sociological experiments have demonstrated this several times.

This is still not exactly the point I am making but might explain why people do not speak up. They assume that they are just wrong. And even if they know they aren't, they will submit to the will of the group. Which means they aren't going to admit it or invite "shame" upon themselves.

That being said - a database can hold different "states" or a history of an object, and even hold two complete different variations of an object at a time.

Not all databases can do this. Some of them will reject that an object can be both A and B due to their underlying relationships.

However, one CAN program a database to hold multiple version of an object without rejecting any of them, and still have an internally consistent object relationship model. The problem is that more complicated relationship and data requires more processing and more storage capacity. Processing that extends beyond the objects components having only two states.

If you presume that a brain can be a sort of quantum computer, and a quantum database, if that brain has the right relationship model it might be able to expand and accept storing and processing several variations of any object/data at a time.

So while one "variation" may not be existent (and never was in some ways), the "historical" records exist in the exact same place as the existent ones.

(I'll stop now so that the few people who are enraged can stop being red, and everyone else can mop their brains off the floor.)

[edit on 2010/3/6 by Aeons]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtform
 


The Maori are not the original inhabitants of NZ. They conquer and killed the original inhabitants. Whom their legends and the Australian Aboriginies specify were lighter skinned.

That isn't to say "white" mind. Even many Africans are lighter than an Australian Aboriginie!

There were several incursions of humans into the area.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
I really don't believe maps have changed, exept our satellite images are better than the older maps perhaps in school classes, for small changes.


Entirely possible that all the maps used in classes have been terrible.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 


Most people would be "native" to the variation and therefore not notice one wit of difference. The "other" version of them is just gone.

Two variations don't co-exist.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
After seeing all these recent threads about weird land mass movements, I've been thinking about what might explain all the attention they're getting. I believe it might be because of the way we were taught geography. I've been studying spatial sciences (GPS, Aerial photography, Satellite imagery etc.) for the last 5-6 years, and I've been discussing all these threads with my friends in the last weeks. And what I'm about to add might have been mentioned before but some of those threads were too long to read completely. Here's what I think is happenning.

Geography is usually taught using traditional (paper) maps. I don't know how it is today in high schools because it's ben a while for me. Maps use different projection systems. The projection systems, by their nature, introduce an error in the visual representation of the map. I could try to write up an explanation but wikipedia sums it up nicely:

"Map projections can be constructed to preserve one or more of these properties, though not all of them simultaneously. Each projection preserves or compromises or approximates basic metric properties in different ways. The purpose of the map determines which projection should form the base for the map. Because many purposes exist for maps, many projections have been created to suit those purposes."

"These properties" being : Area, Shape, Direction, Bearing, Distance, Scale. Basically, what that means is you either choose to preserve the angles (conformal map) or the distances (equal-area map) in and between objects on the map. Many projection systems have been are produced for different purposes and for different regions of the world. This means that countries in different parts of the world have different perceptions of where land masses should be.

And since a lot of people here are referring to google earth images i have this to add. Google earth uses the World Geodetic System 1984 map projection. This means that this exact map would not have been seen by students prior to 1984. Although I doubt the earlier versions of the WGS (62 and 70 I think) would be that much different. However, if you're specifically studying maps of europe, north america, australia, middle-east or whatever, these maps will be very different from the zoomed in region of google earth.

So I think that the maps we were shown when studying geography define the way we imagine them to be in the present day. Sounds reasonable. Of course this doesn't account for the jumping of new zealand... All I have to say about this is that I doubt in another timeline, I doubt it would be possible for such land masses to physically switch places. It would take a massive coincidence for an exact same form of land mass to detach from the other side of the continent or whatever. A simpler explanation might be:

Map upside down?



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tamale_214


I am not convinced of any of this. It just seems to me so much more likely that TPTB have been at least moderately successful with their dumbing down program.

Knowledge without reason is wasted
Reason without Knowledge is pointless.

tamale

While I can't say that I came from another timeline (along with some other people who had these experiences), but I can say that we should remain open-minded and investigate this "timeline shift" issue.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sphinx551

Originally posted by dashar
also i dont rember iceland being so close to greenland it seamed to me more in the middle just under half way to greenland.

Oh wow! This is getting interesting and scary at the same time!

I just opened Google Earth to look at Iceland and, wow, I thought, what is it doing so far north and close to Greenland? I never recalled it being so far north and especially close to Greenland. I think these "changes" or anomalies really do happen as we speak. To be honest, I really think that timelines are collapsing.

P.S.: I remembered Iceland being a little bit more to the south and a little bit to the west. It looks too far up north and a little to the east from what I have remembered. Looks "way too close to Norway" even.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by sphinx551]


I'm with you this one. It's way too close to Greenland.

What do guys think about New Orleans? For some reason, I get goose bumps when looking at its location. At the time of Hurricane Katrina, in 2005, it was located on the coast somewhere near Corpus Christi or lower facing straight Gulf of Mexico. I remember this because I was interested to explore it via Google Earth from close distance to find out how vulnerable it really was as the city was straight next to the big Gulf of Mexico. I even zoomed in and out the map of New Orleans with photographic accuracy to get more accurate view of those floodwalls and levees. The city was not next to Lake Pontchartrain but Gulf of Mexico and the whole lake seems like a ghost lake appeared from a different timeline.





top topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join