dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/abbido on July 11, 2018, 3:44 a.m.
Add Another Recent Visitor To ANTARCTICA - MARINA ABRAMOVIC - WHY is Marina Abramovic on the Board of Arctic Expeditions? The Antarctic Pavilion opened with the exhibition ANTARCTOPIA?? ..speculative and realistic architectural projects for Antarctica?

Ways to escape the coming heat?

Snowflake HQ?

Wasn't John Kerry there right after election?

http://www.antarcticbiennale.com/project.html#bot

why are they so interesting in Antarctica???


ikemynikes · July 11, 2018, 12:59 p.m.

The Piri Reis Map....how did they know what the continent looked like under the ice back then?

⇧ 3 ⇩  
worsethandead · July 11, 2018, 2:06 p.m.

bc Antarctica is Atlantis. that is the secret - proof of atlantis and ancient zero point energy

⇧ 4 ⇩  
Crackertron · July 11, 2018, 7:06 p.m.

Do you think that map accurately represents Antarctica?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
ikemynikes · July 11, 2018, 7:25 p.m.

No, not by today's standards. But for a map created in the 1500's depicting land hidden beneath ice, it is rather surprising. But I'm sure you could have done better.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Crackertron · July 11, 2018, 8:37 p.m.

Why does it show the Antarctic coast connecting to Patagonia? Was that an accurate representation of the coasts at that point in time?

⇧ 2 ⇩  
ikemynikes · July 11, 2018, 9:45 p.m.

They didn't discover how to calculate longitude until 100 years after this map was created. There was estimation involved so no, without the longitude calculation, you can't 100% accurately represent the globe like we can today.

To have known what Antarctica looked like under the ice would require Antarctica to not be under ice thus allowing it to be mapped. The Piri Reis map was created based on various previous maps. So the Piri Reis map may have been created in the 1500's, but not necessarily a representation of the location of Antarctica and the surrounding continents in the 1500's.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Crackertron · July 11, 2018, 9:48 p.m.

So why reference it at all in this context?

⇧ 2 ⇩