Maps tell a story.
According Australia’s official History, first landfall by Europeans was in the year 1606.
It’s therefore strange that there are maps of Australia from before that time.
Image 1: Nicholas Vallard, 1547
The map is called “Java la Grande”. It shows the Australian coastline with tribes and dozens of towns already mapped out.
Historians claim this can’t be Australia “because Australia wasn’t discovered until 1606”, which is just your usual circular reasoning.
But it sure isn’t Java (which is the old name for the Indonesian Islands). The only landmass near Java of this size, is Australia.
Some researchers say it must be western Australia, but Nicholas Vallard’s maps were flipped – south is north and north is south. I believe this to either be northern Australia (the pointed area looks like northern Australia today) or eastern Australia with the southern part frozen.
As shown in an earlier article, Australia used to be part of the frozen Antarctic before the continent broke off in an unknown cataclysmic event.
Image 2: 1572 map in which Australia is still part of the Antarctic.
Image 3: 1572 map in which Australia is still mostly submerged.
I don’t believe both of these maps represent the world in 1572. Maybe they were published then, but they show two different stages. In the first stage, Australia is part of the Antarctic. Post cataclysm, it’s flooded. After the water recedes, modern Australia appears, separate from the antarctic.
Image 4: Another pre-cataclysm map of Australia and the world, published 1547. We see why Vallard might have mistaken Australia for Java, seeing how both were in tight proximity to each other.
Image 5 shows a 1606 map in which Australia is called India Meridonalis. If Australia was only just discovered in 1606, why was it already on maps? Wouldn’t the sailors have to first take the long journey back, report of their discoveries and then maps are redrawn?
We see Australia on many pre-1606 maps. The mainstream narrative that it was discovered in 1606 is just flat-out wrong. Fake History (not to mention that the Aborigines were there for thousands of years).
Image 6 shows a map of the “southern Hemisphere” in which Antarctica is called “Australis Incognita” (unknown Australia). We see South America and Africa clearly delineated but the cartographer seems unclear on whether Australia is part of or separate from the Antarctic.
The same insecurity is shown on a 1659 map (Image 7).
People went from being sure about Australia in the 1500s to being uncertain in the 1600s and then again sure in the 1700s.
This reveals something interesting about our real History. The same pattern can be seen on maps in Africa, America and other places. In Africa, for example, places are named and kingdoms delineated in the 1500s. Then in the 1600s the land shows up as “unknown territory” before returning to the known in the 1700s.
I believe it’s because of a cataclysmic event, possibly in the i400s (1400s) that spawned the “age of discovery” – actually an age of re-discovery.
Image 8: Another map from 1566 showing antarctic Australia. Historians say “that’s because they didn’t know what was there, so they just made something up”.
Why would you “make something up” on otherwise accurate maps? This entire line of reasoning doesn’t make sense. In those days mapmakers tried to get their drawings as accurate as possible for their own reputation and as not to get shot.
Image 9: A map from 1589 showing Antarctic Australia and the sunken Kingdom of Lemuria mis-labeled “New Guinea” here. Lemuria is clearly seen on many old maps. Historians tell us that all of these mapmakers are liars because “as we know, Lemuria is just a myth”.
I stopped listening to Historians at around the time they told me that no human being had crossed the ocean in tens of thousands of years.
By 1753 (Image 10) we see that the separation from the Antarctic is complete but Tasmania and the mainland are still connected (just like the Aborigine “myths” said they were).
Image 11: James Cook, in 1770, still sees Tasmania connected.
Image 12: This 1780 map labels the country as Ulimaroa which is the Maori (indigenous of New Zealand) name for the country.
Image 13: In 1802, post-reset, Tasmania is finally separate from the mainland.
Image 14: In this 1806 map, the place is called Notasia (not Asia?). This shows us that there were disagreements on what the place was called in the early 1800s.
Image 15: It’s 1838 and there’s still confusion on what to call places. This is because the early 1800s were a time of great worldwide upheaval and chaos – a fact omitted from our History books. But maps tell the story!
Image 16: This map from 1856 shows that modern Australia was defined in the mid 1800s – like so many other places in the world.
A screenshot from the “timeline of Australian History” Wikipedia page.
They teach “1606 is the first recorded landfall by a European on Australian soil, through the Dutch East India company” which was the most powerful multi-national organization in recent History (and probably still is, but in a hidden manner).
Maps tell a different story.
More info on Australia can be found in my articles
“The Fake History of Melbourne” and
“Australia is not what it seems to be”