Large detailed globe from 1630 by Willem Janszoon Blaeu

[Seiya]

I will guess the manufacture of this ball was 2019/2020

All ball map is froud and all map similar to Mercator is froud.

Don't lose time with this jewish mason trap.

Just look the name of the fake caracter, have so many 666 that hurt my eye.

 

[dlux]

The issue is that a historical artifacts such as this globe can be said to be from 1630, and yet may have actually been created in 1930 or 1983 or whatever. Ie create a new globe with the information you want, stain it with an old tea bag to make it look old and then get an expert to say it is that old.

I concur with this critical assessment that it's a fake. Just because it's in a museum and has been officially ordained by the freemason priests of science does not in-and-of-itself prove authenticity. This globe - whether its form, complexity, content or condition - in *no way* reflects an artifact from 1630 +/-. Some objective facts:

First, the heliocentric (globe) earth theory was not even 'accepted' by mainstream science until freemason Sir Issac Newton demanded that everyone do so in about the 1660's.

Next, the stunning detail & complexity of the graphics, apparently machine generated typography, and perfectly seamless knowledge of world geography was simply not available to anyone in that time. Explorers were still finding new lands and cartographers were still debating about the composition of earth's continents, oceans and inhabitants.

Finally, look at the condition. Have any of you seen an artifact made of cellulose (paper) and wood from even 100 years ago? How about 200 or 300? If you can even find a piece of paper or wood that old, such as the united states Constitution of 1791 (original construction), it is invariably damaged and aged by humidity, UV, oils/enzymes of human hands, shipping/storage/handling, etc. You don't have to be a professional archivist to observe these factors. Now consider (((they))) are purporting this artifact to be 400 years old? Look at its impeccable condition - it doesn't compute.

All things considered, I propose this is a fake. Who knows the reasons? Possibly an attempt to further mislead and distract real researchers. After many years of critical research, I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that our world is a spheroid. So I think that's the real con of this fake artifact.

I welcome critical rebuttals of my theory.

 

[Tomkat]

I don't know the reasons why people do what they do. But I can think of a few reasons why it might appear to be the case that history is rewritten.

Go on...

Maybe there is a nefarious 'they' and they do direct history. Having implemented the structure, 'they' simply allow it to play through. I wrote about this sort of idea here:
“Subaltern voices” and the Marxist revision of History

You know there is. A nefarious group, I mean. That is a cool thread btw.

There is a value is having the history you want of course, as it provides the backdrop for the present behaviour you want to encourage.

Perhaps also a coordinated group, with financial interests in play, would create artifacts that people want, for their financial benefit. Antiquarians would be in this position, in that they would have knowledge and expertise and commercial incentive. Antiquarians of the 18th century would be able to operate very discretely. But here is a potential example of this type of thing from the daily fake thread:
The Daily Fake

I agree these are possibilities. I'd also throw in that all this stealing and rewriting has been about taking our power from us as a possibility as well. Nothing like good old subjugation for its own sake.

Perhaps from another perspective, we all an have incorrect set of expectations of what history can do for us. We hope that it will give us the truth about the past, but actually all it can ever be is a set of interpretations about the past, filtered through a series of imperfect humans that hold flawed worldviews, have only a partial understanding, etc. Ie even with goodwill, it is impossible to uncover the truth, because no one has the truth in the first place

No one has the truth in the first place. That, that right there is what is illogical. Not you feralimal, you're totally correct. But it makes no sense; why don't we know the truth? We should. We should know who we are and where we come from.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I concur with this critical assessment that it's a fake. Just because it's in a museum and has been officially ordained by the freemason priests of science does not in-and-of-itself prove authenticity. This globe - whether its form, complexity, content or condition - in *no way* reflects an artifact from 1630 +/-. Some objective facts:

First, the heliocentric (globe) earth theory was not even 'accepted' by mainstream science until freemason Sir Issac Newton demanded that everyone do so in about the 1660's.

Next, the stunning detail & complexity of the graphics, apparently machine generated typography, and perfectly seamless knowledge of world geography was simply not available to anyone in that time. Explorers were still finding new lands and cartographers were still debating about the composition of earth's continents, oceans and inhabitants.

Finally, look at the condition. Have any of you seen an artifact made of cellulose (paper) and wood from even 100 years ago? How about 200 or 300? If you can even find a piece of paper or wood that old, such as the united states Constitution of 1791 (original construction), it is invariably damaged and aged by humidity, UV, oils/enzymes of human hands, shipping/storage/handling, etc. You don't have to be a professional archivist to observe these factors. Now consider (((they))) are purporting this artifact to be 400 years old? Look at its impeccable condition - it doesn't compute.

All things considered, I propose this is a fake. Who knows the reasons? Possibly an attempt to further mislead and distract real researchers. After many years of critical research, I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that our world is a spheroid. So I think that's the real con of this fake artifact.

I welcome critical rebuttals of my theory.

One little criticism - the heliocentric model was "accepted" much later , early 19th C at the earliest. De Lacaille's astronomical survey 1750s in Southern climes disagreed with the silly model.

Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille - Biography

Nice short description of his work and a bit of an introduction to the controversy that lasted into the 19th C.