400 year old Sahara Desert, or why people forgot everything they knew about Africa

[KorbenDallas]

"All right, Beatrice, there was no alien. The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." - Kay, MIB.

I always thought that Sahara Desert was thousands of years old. Of course, the official version confirmed it in the most scientific way possible, "During the last glacial period, the Sahara was much larger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries. The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps because of low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north. Once the ice sheets were gone, the northern Sahara dried out. In the southern Sahara, the drying trend was initially counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. By around 4200 BC, however, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today, leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara. The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago."

​

Scientific American reports that they updated the age of the Sahara Desert to a whooping 3,000,000 years old.

Apparently, some cartographers of the "not so distant" past, failed to consult with the scientists of the 20th and 21st centuries. Somehow, in the 16th, and 17th centuries the map makers forgot to update their maps with the wisdom of the scientists of the future. Instead they depicted the Sahara Desert the way it was back then, 400 - 450 years ago. And what a beautiful site it was: lakes, rivers, cities, people, animals. Everything but the Great Egyptian Pyramids, so to speak.

Years: 1475 - 1570 - 1595 - 1642 -1658 - 1688​

​

And then, all over sudden people got dumber. Well, either dumber, or the Mankind suffered some serious case of global amnesia. For whatever reason the Africa had to be re-discovered all over again. Blank uncharted territories cover the continent of Africa in the areas which were well known before.

Years: 1782 - 1802 - 1812 - 1842 - 1853 - 1860

​

1592 Prioris Hemisphaerii, totiusque Geographici

​

Today's scientists give us tons of false information (read BS) about so many things, that sometimes it's hard to figure out which part could be trusted. I choose to trust the cartographers who put these maps together at the time when they were alive, just like I trust Piranesi with what he depicted for us. Coincidentally, Piranesi lived at about the same time when the transformations started to happen.

Dear scientist: It's probably fun sitting in some lab, building a "scientific" model of the formation of the planet, as long as you do not push it onto people through educational channels. And if your models do not match eyewitness accounts, than may be you should check your data (hint: you can start with maps above). When you teach people about what happened millions of years ago, yet have no clue about a few hundred years back... you probably have an agenda.

Google Books Ngram: Sahara

​

Sahara Desert is clearly not thousands of years old. Why we are being fed this false information is a totally different topic. Whatever initially happened in the 18th century, changed the face of this planet in multiple locations. Sahara Desert is just one of those.

The Eye of Sahara and Weapons of Mass Destruction
​

It appears that we have hundreds of different size craters spread out through out the entire African continent. None of those is bigger then the mysterious Eye of Sahara. The formation is 25 miles in diameter. Our "scientists" claim that it was formed 100 millions of years ago. Considering that this formation is not on the maps predating the 19th century, we could make our own conclusions. I can.

​

Then we have a bunch of smaller craters all over the African Continent. As an example I could use the 8 mile wide Aorounga Crater claimed to be 345 millions years old.

​

There are multiple others, named and unnamed out there: Tenoumer Crater, Aouelloul Crater, Ouarkziz Crater, Talemzane Crater, Tin Bider Crater, Aorounga Crater, Amguid Crater... and there are more. Here are Google assisted Sahara Craters and African Craters.

​

It appears someone very powerful whacked the entire African Continent a few hundred years ago. Hundreds of cities and towns were destroyed. Millions, if not billions of people could have been killed in the process. Yet we are being fed a bunch of baloney about millions of years, and meteorite craters. Be dull, or be attentive.

Yes, this World has a secret to keep...

 

[Falkes]

I am so glad I found this website/ community. I've only read small portions of information in my research of drastic changes occurring centuries ago, and I feel more sane seeing others coming to a simliar conclusion. That some major event happened during the 1800s that changed the complete landscape of the world. I cannot wait to wade through all the information people have put together here. Obviously centuries ago information was a lot less centralized and personal first hand accounts of traders & explorers didn't have to go through some sort of official "scientific / academia" filter before it could be put to paper.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Welcome Falkes! This is a very new community. Real glad to see that other people are interested in the obvious things hidden in the open as well.

 

[in cahoots]

I am so glad I found this website/ community. I've only read small portions of information in my research of drastic changes occurring centuries ago, and I feel more sane seeing others coming to a simliar conclusion. That some major event happened during the 1800s that changed the complete landscape of the world. I cannot wait to wade through all the information people have put together here. Obviously centuries ago information was a lot less centralized and personal first hand accounts of traders & explorers didn't have to go through some sort of official "scientific / academia" filter before it could be put to paper.

It's tragic that by current scientific community attitudes, "eyewitness account" is comparable to "utterly irrelevant" - we profanely unscientific ones are unfit to reliably observe reality itself. Good thing, eh?

 

[KorbenDallas]

It's tragic that by current scientific community attitudes, "eyewitness account" is comparable to "utterly irrelevant" - we profanely unscientific ones are unfit to reliably observe reality itself. Good thing, eh?

The part which is really said is explanations kind of like, "It’s clear that the pre-19th century mapmakers were exercising a bit of creative license in the absence of reliable geographic data. There’s all sorts of trippy stuff on old maps. That’s what makes them so cool to look at."

Basically, let me make a map that nobody can use. Come up with some lakes, some rivers, and some cities. Sort of an awesome practical joke on their traveling compatriots.

And people are buying such explanations today.

 

[Falkes]

Which is very interesting because in European culture up until pretty much the 1940s your word as a man was law and liars were shamed pretty bad. At one point a handshake was a legal binding agreement. So it's rather interesting that Scientists say that people were bigger liars back when they were more honest and what people said was taken really seriously, rather than today where lying is almost taught on television to children to get what they want.

 

[KorbenDallas]

I think them scientists cannot explain what we can see on those maps, without admitting that the world was very much different a few hundred years ago. Therefore, the traditional science has nothing left but to ridicule the authors of those maps, by stating that they were making stuff up due to some desire to leave nothing blank on the map.

What I find the most pathetic about this approach is that they present their non-scientific speculation to the studying generations as a matter of fact, thus creating a false and distorted way of thinking from the very beginning.

 

[in cahoots]

I was thinking more about this over breakfast today. To be a conventional materialist is actually quite an extreme position to take when you realize the entire contents and phenomena of Mind (e.g., the only thing we are actually able to experience) cannot be accounted for by the physical. Probably for the vast majority of human history this has been recognized, until this past century or so. I was reading just the other day about spontaneous human combustion, and let me tell you, the 18th century accounts were a lot more plausible than the out-of-hand dismissals given in the Wiki page itself -- "Oh, it was probably just some unaccounted-for ignition in each case, not hard to explain". A "critic" (how can you be a critic of a phenomenon??) dismisses the entire thing by basically saying, "if this was real, then why doesn't it happen more often then, hm?" They pull this shit out of thin air!

Nowadays, what's non-physical, what's mysterious, or what's difficult to describe is not merely "unknown," but "ridiculous," "impossible," and able to be dismissed out of hand by the extremist ideologue of materialism.

You ever watch that bizarre dinosaur sitcom, with the evil logging company? It was called WE SAY SO and that captures so much of the authoritarian machine that instructs us on what to believe -- or at least, why we're supposed to believe it.

 

[KorbenDallas]

You ever watch that bizarre dinosaur sitcom, with the evil logging company? It was called WE SAY SO and that captures so much of the authoritarian machine that instructs us on what to believe -- or at least, why we're supposed to believe it.

Pretty sure I watched quite a few of those. Logging company part rings a bell but I can't put a finger on it specifically. You are absolutely right. It's like what they say is beyond contestation. And it is being accepted as such by the masses. Later it's so much harder for those people to accept that the reality could be anything but what they learned from those "scientific" fantasy shows.

 

[Falkes]

Especially when you realize that the wealthy elites took over the entire education systems and univesrities of almost every Western country by the start of the 20th century. As well as all industry & banking. Then the world was plunged into two World-Wars that destroyed everything, it really is becoming clearer that the people who rule over us now have replace a previous system and descended the whole world into constant war to erase all evidence of it now. I have met many veterans from the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan that are really big into conspiracy and alternate history type stuff now because they said, "We weren't there looking for WMDs." Scowering over caves and universities. The American air-force bombed almost all the universities in Iraq and stole all the books also. So it really does seem like history has been rewritten and replaced with a new system.

 

[in cahoots]

Then the world was plunged into two World-Wars that destroyed everything, it really is becoming clearer that the people who rule over us now have replace a previous system and descended the whole world into constant war to erase all evidence of it now. I have met many veterans from the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan that are really big into conspiracy and alternate history type stuff now because they said, "We weren't there looking for WMDs." Scowering over caves and universities. The American air-force bombed almost all the universities in Iraq and stole all the books also. So it really does seem like history has been rewritten and replaced with a new system.

Some alternative history buffs might take offense to you referring to the elites as "people"

The Iraq thing -- yes, antiquity and relic looting was extremely common, though, of course, it's "hard to tell" who's been stealing what!

 

[KorbenDallas]

The destruction of historical objects was definitely a trend throughout various ages. ISIS in Palmyra did their part as well. I wonder if they were asked to do it. Seems they were supposed to have some more important things to worry about other than hammering on some statues.

​

Of course some sharp individuals pointed out that there was some rebar sticking out of one of the destroyed objects. The object was dated to 870 BC. Bizarre is the word of the year.

​

 

[humanoidlord]

hmm comet or ancient nuke?

 

[KorbenDallas]

hmm comet or ancient nuke?

A comet would have left a crater, I think. Some sort of weapon comparable in power is possible I think, but where did all the sand come from?

 

[humanoidlord]

A comet would have left a crater, I think. Some sort of weapon comparable in power is possible I think, but where did all the sand come from?

hint: it starts with mud

 

[CyborgNinja]

I've recently come to understand it that the region of North Africa was scorched by the sun. The greek legend of Phaethon tells all...

Phaethon and the Sun Chariot. According to the ancient myths, the Sun was put in a chariot and everydayGod Helios would drive the chariot all along the sky. That is how the Sun would rise and set. Phaethon was the son the god Helios who secretely took the chariot one day to drive it. Phaethon lost control of the horse drawn sun chariot while passing over north africa and the sun dipped down too close to the earth scorching bear a huge portion of land. He then pulled back on the reins over correcting and causing the sun to ascend to high plunging the next area into a deep freeze before the horses of the sun chariot returned to their normal altitude and continued on their route.

Obviously this would be an ancient account of some kind of orbital hiccup. A slight bump in the motion of the earth or sun for that matter would spell disaster for the earth.

In an instant north africa was vaporized.

 

[KorbenDallas]

400 year old maps do not really have deserts anywhere in the world. I’m inclined to think that african transformation is a humanoid caused cataclysm. Close examination of the surface via Google earth shows multiple circular craters. The shape somewhat eliminates an idea of an asteroid type damages.

The other part is where the mountains of fine sand came from. Scientific explanation is pretty funny if you look it up.

And as far as archeological discoveries go. Sahara has multiple cities buried under these mountains of sand. A simple overlay of the older maps over current ones will show where thry are at. Do archeologists look for those cities? Clearly they are not. They do not need any star shaped fortifications dug out from underneath a “million year old” mountain of sand.

 

[gregory5564]

I personally find this to be the most pivotal thread in the entire forum.

 

[KorbenDallas]

I personally find this to be the most pivotal thread in the entire forum.

May I ask you why, out of curiosity...

 

[gregory5564]

May I ask you why, out of curiosity...

First, because this is some of the hardest evidence (in my view) for historians to refute or to conjure excuses for. But also, Northern Africa played such an important role throughout classical history, and was the site of the Egyptian and Carthaginian Empires. It was also home to several saints such as St Augustine of Hippo and St Clement of Alexandria. Egypt was the most important agricultural area during Roman times. It just makes more sense that the place was lush and fertile rather than desiccated.