What took place between 15000 and 5000 years ago?
Ancient History. fact or Fiction
Recent Messages
All Messages by Topic:
| anomalies record in the ice | Posted by Sguongy on 2009-03-01 (message id=4041 ) |
|
This may be lengthy and I wonder how often this site is checked. Maybe no one is home anymore. I can see much of what you are saying and agree. First, one concern we have today from a nuclear war is a nuclear winter. the debris that would be strewn into the atmosphere would likely darken the sky and reduce surface temperatures dramatically. Now, let's say the Veda is correct and a nuclear war took place. Afterward, as is usually the case man goes, nuts, we all lost. Then again if we blow the ice cap and create a lot of precipitation and it pulls the dust from the air and we can afford to move our civilization as opposed to losing it we could come back a winner. So, they prepare and with methodic intention blow sections of the ice caps,existing then and it almost works. one small side affect you already described. they know the possibility of a mass shift could reset the land mass of the planet but hoping for the best, they take a chance. It's live and die no matter what anyhow. So earth starts her little wobble as the rain/snow falls back to surface with much sediment, redistributing land mass and water as ice and snow. This could in ways explain anamolous ice samples containing soil and debris not consistent with the area taken from as well as a shift in poles which is almost already a given and leave us other anamolies that only make sense in a short nuclear winter as opposed to an era long ice age. Helps explain mammoths found in areas of the north with fresh greens in their mouths as an almost instantaneous amount of cold precipitaion fell from the sky. Literally freezing on contact in the already near global nuclear winter. The aftermath of warming and floods and likely volcanic activity then restructering the very terra and the geological table goes out the window. Another reason all era of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals are found in the same strata and near each other in large groups. See the web on Mt.St. Helens, USA and the results now 20 years later and the formation of geological layers in a matter or hours and days. WE did it in physics class.
Anyhow, I was thinking on these lines looking for the thread that binds it all together. I also feel that an asteroid strike could have caused the same nuclear winter conditions. Problem is where did it hit? Lastly, a super volcanic explosion. SO why did the ancients blow the cap. Any one is a good call, but the real question of the hour is this. Where did they get the technology? Maybe we didn't come from stupid apes. Well at least not all of us See more of this discussion:anomalies record in the ice
|
| Our Universe's Likely Structure | Posted by James Kibera on 2009-01-19 (message id=3955 ) |
|
Our Universe's Likely Structure
Does Negative Gravity Matter Exist? Suppose at 5:30am our sun became a negative gravity sun of equal but opposite magnitude with the earth held to it's orbit around it. As it sets to rise the stars will start to disappear from sight as their radiation begins to be, NOT overshadowed, BUT overpowered by the NEGATIVE ENERGY radiation from it according to -E=-MC2. At daybreak, it would be totally dark as its very chilly cold radiation overpowers even the brightest sportlite, dropping their temperature towards the negative Zero Kelvin range and on toward the negative gravity matter temperatures! The sun would be the most black sport you've ever seen. Meaning? If there are negative gravity galaxies, they would have reported their presence to us through their radiation! We would be seeing both bright stars and dark stars in the sky, say, using parabolic lens telescopes. But to date no such a phenomenon has been noted. Hence, we could safely conclude that (-) gravity matter could be a fable An Etheristic Space or An Empty Void Universe? According to Faraday's law a changing magnetic field produces CLOSED LOOPS of electric fields around it. Also, according to Ampere law with Maxwell's displacement-current modification, not only does an electric current, but ALSO a changing electric field through a surface bounded by a closed loop, will produce magnetic fields which are closed loops around it. But radiation has been proved to be transverse plane polarized waves in their direction of motion. This could ONLY be possible if isolated charges are an inherent part of a photon! And since radiation has been shown to have momentum, e.g, laser beams have been shown to blow away pieces of plastic, and since radiation in a uniform medium travels in a straight line, then both the +ve and -ve POINT CHARGES that make up its electric fields are of equal mass/charge ratio. Hence both Faraday and the modified Ampere laws do prove Einstein wrong that photons are free of electrical charges when in free space. (Another phenomenon that I had read about some over 25yrs ago that seems to further advocate that the electromagnetic fields that make up photons even when in free space consist of charged matter is the observation that Gamma rays have been seen to change into electron-positron pairs and vice versa. This could ONLY mean that photons consist of separable charges, unlike Einstein's deduction that photons are free of electrical charges when in free space!) Since POINT CHARGES thus seem to be an inherent part of radiation, then it follows that a photon is a transverse-longitudinal hybrid wave due to the curved mobility of this point charges in a photon's magnetic fields. Now, according to the inverse square law, each of this point charges in a photon has an effect throughout the universe. Hence, due to its longitudinal aspect, each photon would move along with its SHARE of SPACE ETHER. And this is one of what Einstein failed to notice! The Packet Nature of Energy Energy, whether radiation or particle form, seems to exist as packets, unlike sound waves or water waves. How could this phenomenon be explained? In part 2, I clarified that since a time varying magnetic field produces CLOSED LOOPS of electric fields (i.e, of Maxwell's displacement current) and vice versa, and since there is NO WAY you may integrate LOOPs to form independent poles, then charged matter is an integral part of a photon since radiation is polarized! This also means that radiation is a hybrid of longitudinal and transverse waves due to the curved path taken by this charged matter moving through the magnetic field of a photon. In other words, a photon's magnetic field defines its size, lenghth, shape and the path taken by its radiation energy. Hence, electromagnetic energy will bundle itself up into packets rather than spread about like in sound or water waves. Moreover, the parallel mobility of like charges in a photon would result in a powerful force of attraction between them that counteracts the electrostatic force of repulsion between them. This would further enhance the wave packet to hold tight together as if it were a packet. Hence, it has been shown that each wave packet energy, E=hv, where v is its frequency and h is Plunk constant. We call the rectiliner wave photons as radiation. We would then expect that a particle to be a confided, stationary electromagnetic wave pattern of this longitudinal-transverse hybrid wave of either cylindrical or spherical coordinates. Since, c=lv where l=2(3.14)r, then from E=mc2=hv, the mathematical estimate of the size of a proton is 2.53*10^(-16)m, which slightly deviates from experimental values. Hence, both radiation and confined photons, that is particles, seem to be packets of electromagnetic energy. Then you would expect an electron to be about 1840 times larger than a proton in diameter! In part 4, I'll show Einstein's loophole in relativity. A Loophole In The Special Theory Of Relativity The Special Theory of Relativity postulated by Einstein states that: 1). Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected, and 2). The speed of light is independent of the motion of its source. The consequence of his postulates is that: Every observer measures the same speed of light independent of the relative motion of the sources and observers. An Etheristic space does bring us to the same postulates and postulate's consequence. Consider one thing taken for grated in considering Michelson-Moleys experiment for measuring the speed of light. It is ASSUMED that if space is Etheristic, then a body in it could have a relative motion with the ether in ANALOGY to a boat on a flowing river. In parts 2 and 3 it was shown that the electromagnetic fields of photons consist of charged matter. Now the electromagnetic fields of each point charge obey the inverse square law and fill the whole universe. Hence, a moving Electomagnetic field results in a respective motion of the ether in which they are in. Hence, each photon or particle moves along with its SHARE of space ether. It's like a boat moving along with the river it's in. Therefore, on a big planet like the earth, despite the orientation or earth's mobility, you would measure the same speed of light. Hence , 1). Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected, 2). The speed of light is independent of the motion of its source. Consequence: Every observer measures the same speed of light independent of the relative motion of the sources and observers. >From there, how time dilates and length contracts follows the same argument as for special relativity. What could fundamental forces be? This is what I try clarify in the next part. Fundamental Forces - What Could They Be? Let's consider the probable structure of other basic force fields other than electrostatic charge, namely; magnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces. To be able to explain both magnetism and gravity, I postulate that point charges that make up the electric and magnetic fields, those of photons inclusive to be CHARGE CLOUDS of a thermodynamic ether of fundamental particles I'v termed as KIBIONs, of both +ve and -ve kind of extremely high charge/mass ratio. Being thermodynamic, the Kibions that make up each charge cloud are at different energy levels with a single Kibion occupying its centre resulting in the charge cloud being electrically charged. Each of these charge clouds I'v termed as a GRAVITON. Consider a moving point charge. It's electric flux part that results in a magnetic field is that normal to its motion and NOT that tangential to its motion. But it is this normal component that would result in gravitons to SPIN! This spinning effect of gravitons is what I consider to be magnetism. In other words, magnetism is the GRAVITONs' SPIN VECTOR. This explains how magnetic poles always occur in pairs. Just as a moving ball which spins normal to it's motion exerts a normal force to its motion and spin axis, so would a mobile graviton that spins normal to its motion induce an electric field just as does a mobile magnetic field normal to its velocity. Now consider a changing electric current in one wire with another parallel to it. The spinning gravitons would induce an electric current whose magnetic field opposes the change producing it, thus clarifying mutual induction. Moreover, due to their inertia by having some mass, gravitons would resist a change in their spin vector thus explaining self induction. What about gravity, what could be its nature? Consider the nature of a graviton as I'v proposed it. It's a charge cloud that consists of Kibions at various continuous energy levels from its centre. Since it consists of charged Kibions, it's a charge cloud of electric dipoles. Hence each energy level acts like a skin, though gaseous, with a kind of SURFACE TENSION due to Kibion dipoles. Hence, apart from the electrostatic force between a +ve and a -ve graviton, they would experience a pull towards each other due to the contraction of their various merging pseudo-surfaces of their various energy levels, despite putting them together in electrically neutral pairs. The resulting force is what I term as GRAVITY. What about the strong and weak nuclear forces, how does this Etheristic space explain them? In it, a fundamental particle is just a standing wave pattern of a hybrid longitudinal-transverse wave or a combination of them. At various instants, it's electrostatic and magnetic fields have various magnitudes and orientations in space. Hence, they would experience corresponding instanteneous forces from other particles, analogous to Van De Waals forces between molecules. According to mc2=hv where v=c/l, these forces between a proton and a neutron would be extremely strong due to their small size and quasi-similar frequencies, thus clarifying the strong nuclear forces that bind nucleons together. But between an electron and a neutrino (if they do exist,) according to the inverse square law, such kind of forces would be relatively very very weak, thus explaining the weak nuclear forces. Such forces between a positron, or an electron, or a neutrino with a nucleon would be very weak due to the vast difference both in size and frequency, about 1840 times according to v=E/h=c/l. Hence, it would be very difficult for a proton and an electron to get bond together as nucleons do, hence forming very stable hydrogen atoms which mainly react chemically to form molecules unless at extreme temperatures such as in the sun. In part 6 other natural phenomenons would be considered. Final Comments & The Origin Of The Universe. All through this article, it has been shown how the basic laws of nature declare strongly that we live in an etheristis universe. Faraday's law and the modified Ampere law with Maxwell's displacement current's demand that a changing magnetic field produce CLOSED LOOPS of a changing electric field, and vice versa. And since radiation is polarised, then these laws demand that space to be etheristic, that both electric and magnetic fields consist of ELECTRICALLY CHARGED MATTER! Hence Einstein's non-etheristic space seems very unlikely though arriving at the correct mathematical equations. And since there are many proposed structures of the universe based on his non-etheristic Special Theory of Relativity of which I have proved to be wanting, then ALL these structural proposals of space, by being based on a FAULTY FOUNDATION, are wanting too! Now what about the origin of the universe! Could it have eternally existed? Now the first law of thermodynamics states that the total energy of the universe is a constant, while the second states that entropy (i.e, in lay man's terms, the USELESS ENERGY) of the universe is increasing. Hence, there was a time when there was NO entropy! Meaning? The universe had a beginning for it hasn't existed eternally. The sun hasn't burnt itself out nor has ALL the uranium in the earth decayed into the metal lead! But what kind of beginning did it have. Uranium dating reveals that the earth could be billions of years old, while the polonium rings in granite rocks, due to it's about 10^(-4)seconds half-life, reveal that the earth was formed instanteneously as a solid mass, otherwise, if liquid from The Big Bang, then the rings would be absent! Moreover, since the earth's magnetic field decays with a half-life of about 1,500yrs, then NO life would have been possible some 20,000yrs ago, thus, doing away with any possibility of evolution being the origin of our universe. This then leaves it to the only other option for its origin: SPECIAL CREATION by some Supreme Eternal Intelligence, whose faultless works, when mankind touches, eg, the ecosystem, man usually destroys for lack of knowing all the parameters involved, or even lack of power to handle them! May all His creation bring glory to Him throughout all ages. AMEN See more of this discussion:Our Universe's Likely Structure
|
| Hot house earth or crustal shift | Posted by Peter on 2008-07-30 (message id=3584 ) |
|
One recent study by Bornemann's team suggests that for a 200,000-year period around 91 million years ago, there were ice sheets at least half the size of the ones that blanket Antarctica today. The evidence comes from oxygen isotope ratios in shells from the Atlantic seabed (Science, vol 319, p 189).
However, a similar study by Wilson's team found no evidence of glaciation (Geology, vol 35, p 615), so this issue is far from settled. But if ice sheets can grow suddenly even during hothouse periods, Wilson point out, it means the climate can change more suddenly and dramatically than anyone thought. "That really demands being understood." Yet more evidence for crustal shift!See more of this discussion:Hot house earth or crustal shift
|
| Hot house earth or crustal shift | Posted by Peter on 2008-07-30 (message id=3583 ) |
|
In rocks from the late Cretaceous in Siberia, Robert Spicer of the Open University in Milton Keynes in the UK and his colleagues have found plenty of evidence for ferns and flowering plants, and even possibly the pollen of palm trees (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol 267, p 228). Their analysis suggests that at that time Siberia's mean annual temperature was about 13 °C, rarely touching freezing even in the winter months. "All the climate models give you very, very cold continental interiors [at high latitudes] in the winter time, so cold that you would certainly freeze palm trees and kill them off," Pierrehumbert says.
How about concluding that the land mass may not have been so near the pole at this time?See more of this discussion:Hot house earth or crustal shift
|
| Hot house earth or crustal shift | Posted by Peter on 2008-07-30 (message id=3582 ) |
|
on the Antarctic Peninsula, a finger of land that juts north towards South America, enough rock is exposed to give explorers a glimpse not just of Antarctica's ancient flora and fauna, but of the nature of the seas around it.
About 150 to 100 million years ago, the peninsula was a mountain range similar to the Andes, and its rivers drained into a massive basin, now called the James Ross basin. Over millions of years, the basin filled up with sediment and later the rocks it formed were uplifted. Today these rocks lie exposed on islands off the Antarctic Peninsula and contain a treasure trove of fossils from the Cretaceous, including silvery slivers of shells of ocean-dwelling ammonites and gastropods. In the late Antarctic summer, these fragments glint as they catch the sun which barely rises above the horizon. "It looks like the surface is covered in jewels," says palaeoclimatologist Jane Francis of the University of Leeds, UK, a veteran of 12 expeditions to the poles. Besides ammonites and gastropods, Francis and her colleagues have found abundant fossils of sea urchins and lobsters that lived on the sea floor, shark teeth, and even massive marine reptiles with rib bones about half a metre long. Oxygen isotopes in the shell fragments show that the waters around Antarctica 100 million years ago were a balmy 15 °C, compared with -2 to 0 °C today. Dinosaur bones, which must have been washed down off the peninsula into the sea, have also been found in the marine sediments (see "Dinosaurs at the poles"). Plant fossils unearthed by Francis and her students show that 100 million years ago the peninsula was lush with ferns and cycads, along with conifers resembling the monkey puzzle tree. Analysis of the shape and size of fossil leaves has led Francis to conclude that the peninsula was very warm during the mid-Cretaceous, with a mean annual temperature of about 17 to 19 °C, similar to that of South Africa today. "That's almost sub-tropical," says Francis. Sweltering greenhouse Growth rings in one fossil tree trunk suggest trees thrived despite complete darkness in mid-winter. "In tree-ring terms, the tree was very happy, it wasn't growing in any kind of stress, there's no sign of frost rings and there's no sign of drought," Francis says. New Scientist 21st June 2008 Surely the evidence is suggesting this land mass wasn't near the pole when these trees were growing!! Thriving trees in complete darkness?? How much evidence so you need before it hits you in the face?? These trees were not growing near the poles. They were growing in a tropical jungle near the equator!!See more of this discussion:Hot house earth or crustal shift
|
| Hot house earth or crustal shift | Posted by Peter on 2008-07-30 (message id=3581 ) |
|
In 2004 a team collected a core of sediment that had been deposited over tens of millions of years on the Lomonosov ridge, just 250 kilometres from the North Pole. One study of the core revealed that a freshwater fern called Azolla grew abundantly in the Arctic Ocean for 800,000 years about 50 million years ago (Nature, vol 441, p 606). At the time the Arctic Ocean was largely isolated from other oceans, and fresh water from rivers would have floated on top of denser salt water. "It might have been, at least in the surface waters, one of the biggest lakes on the planet," says Moran.
The waters of this mega-lake were a surprisingly warm 10 °C, but that's nothing to the temperatures reached a few million years earlier during the hottest part of the Eocene, when the ocean was salty. According to another study of the core the surface water 55 million years ago was around 18 °C, peaking at an incredible 23 °C - more than warm enough for a pleasant swim at the North Pole! New Scientist 21st June 2008 Yet more evidence for a crustal shift See more of this discussion:Hot house earth or crustal shift
|
| Hot house earth or crustal shift | Posted by Peter on 2008-07-30 (message id=3580 ) |
|
The most evocative image of a warm Arctic has emerged from the work of John Tarduno of the University of Rochester, New York. For more than a decade, Tarduno has been hunting for fossils on Axel Heiberg Island in the Canadian Arctic, just west of Greenland. The island was already well within the Arctic Circle 90 million years ago.
His team has found bones and even partial skeletons of a crocodile-like creature called a champsosaur from this period. The champsosaur was a fish-eating reptile up to 2.4 metres long that probably looked much like the gharials of India. Because these reptiles would have relied on their environment to stay warm, conditions in the far north must have been far hotter than today. "These fossils speak volumes," says palaeoclimatologist Paul Wilson of the University of Southampton in the UK. Last year, Tarduno's team reported that most champsosaur remains are of juveniles, meaning the animals not only lived but bred in the Arctic. As hatchlings and juveniles could not have survived if winter temperatures came anywhere close to freezing, this means it was not only warm, but warm all year round. Modern crocodiles are found no further north than the lower Yangtze and North Carolina. If the champsosaurs' temperature requirements were similar, the Axel Heiberg locality must have had mean annual temperatures of at least 14 °C, and the average temperature during the coldest month could not have fallen below 5.5 °C. The region would not even have had ice in winter. New Scientist 21st June 2008 Yet more evidence for crustal shift See more of this discussion:Hot house earth or crustal shift
|
| Hot house earth or crustal shift | Posted by Peter on 2008-07-30 (message id=3579 ) |
|
One of the earliest signs that the poles were ice-free and warm 100 million years ago was the discovery at the turn of the 20th century of fossil breadfruit trees from the Cretaceous in Greenland; today such trees are at home in places like Hawaii. Since then, even more extraordinary finds have been made.
Yet more evidence for crustal shift See more of this discussion:Hot house earth or crustal shift
|
| BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fossils date Dry Valleys' origin | Posted by Peter on 2008-07-30 (message id=3578 ) |
|
Once the north pole was infested with crocodiles while Antarctica was covered by lush forests. But if the poles were so balmy, what on earth were the tropics like?
WHEN Ernest Shackleton and his men marched towards the South Pole in December 1908, they came across something entirely unexpected. After scaling the vast Beardmore glacier on the edge of the polar plateau, they found seams of coal amid the snow and ice. They also found impressions of leaves in sandstone boulders nearby and even fossilised wood from a coniferous tree. The conclusion was extraordinary but inescapable: Antarctica was once warm and forested, conditions that could hardly be more different to the far-below-freezing midsummer weather that forced Shackleton's team to turn back before reaching the pole. How was this possible? Four years later, Alfred Wegener put forward his theory of continental drift which, it was later realised, could explain the balmy climate: Antarctica had been warmer because it was once much closer to the equator. Even today, some schoolchildren are taught that continental drift accounts for all the evidence for a warmer Antarctica. However, the fossil trees Shackleton's team discovered grew around 250 million years ago, when Antarctica was barely closer to the equator than it is today. What's more, the continent reached its current position roughly 100 million years ago, and an ever-growing list of fossil finds date from 100 to 40 million years ago. During this time, when dinosaurs roamed the almost subtropical forests of an ice-free Antarctic, conditions on the other side of the planet were even more remarkable: the Arctic Ocean was a gigantic freshwater lake infested with crocodile-like reptiles. New Scientist 21st June 2008 Crustal shift is a much better hypothesis to account for these observations See more of this discussion:BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fossils date Dry Valleys' origin
|
| BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fossils date Dry Valleys' origin | Posted by on 2008-07-23 (message id=3571 ) |
|
Notwithstanding the significance of the fossil preservation, the presence of lake ostracods at this latitude, 77 degrees South, is also of great note. With modern ostracod distribution, the most southerly ones are at about 60 degrees South."
McMurdo Dry Valleys (BBC) The team says the fossils therefore represent a precise marker, indicating the switch from conditions which one might see in Northern Canada and Iceland today, where summer warmth brings a melt, liquid water and a flourish of life - to the more severe, arid conditions we recognise in the Antarctic today. "This also helps us understand the whole evolution of Earth's climate system because you've got this huge climate jump that takes place about 14 million years ago when the oceans reorganise, Antarctica freezes over - a whole host of things change right at that point. "What we're doing with these ostracods is to say: 'that's it, that's the point'." The fossil research is detailed in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7519614.stm See more of this discussion:BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fossils date Dry Valleys' origin
|
| Re: another paper on nuclear event in N.A | Posted by Sanka Chandima Abayawardena on 2007-09-14 (message id=775 ) |
|
Hey im Guy from Sri-Lanka who is coming from a family of Yak tribe (great king Ravana IS ALSO FROM OUR TRIB) .
These things you are discussing here are our folk tails. The story is about our lost Hela Asura Empire and our attempt to unify the huge empire around the capital Lanka Pura (today this lanka pura is known as Seegiriya the 8th wonder of the world.) If you come to Sri-Lanka and go to places where still the old inherit ants live in remote places of the country you may here some unbelievable stories. And one of the Vimana had survived the thought time till 1800's till some stupid British ruler destroyed it in its hideout. I recon you should contact Dr. Suriya Gunasekara who is scholar who knows many secrets. ejournalists -at- sltne.lk or +94-112861949 See more of this discussion:Re: another paper on nuclear event in N.A
|
| Re: another paper on nuclear event in N.A | Posted by Peter on 2007-05-27 (message id=774 ) |
|
Interesting that this work has resurfaced again at the American Geophysical Union meeting in Acupulco, Mexico (reported in New Scientist Magazine. 26th May 2007)
Further analysis of the carbon layer in the sediment gives a date of 12900 years ago. The carbon layer includes nano diamonds, and an excess of helium 3. there is no excess of iridium or nickel suggesting it was not an asteroid impact. I find it difficult to accept that any airburst could deliver enough heat to melt two miles thick ice sheets - radiant energy would simply be reflected back off the surface, and a dust layer would be buried by the next winters snowfall. The craters of the Carolina bays do not contain any extra terrestrial material, and ice blocks would give the right profile. The helium 3 and nano diamonds would also support a nuclear explosion under the ice. Wild fires following the nuclear explosion could be responsible for wiping out the Clovis people and the 35 genera of the continents animals that went extinct. See more of this discussion:Re: another paper on nuclear event in N.A
|
| Re: another paper on nuclear event in N.A | Posted by on 2007-05-27 (message id=773 ) |
|
TERRESTRIAL EVIDENCE OF A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE IN PALEOINDIAN TIMES
[PDF version includes tables, figures, etc.] [updated response to post publication questions][.doc version] by Richard B. Firestone, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and William Topping, Consultant, Baldwin, Michigan THE PALEOINDIAN OCCUPATION of North America, theoretically the point of entry of the first people to the Americas, is traditionally assumed to have occurred within a short time span beginning at about 12,000 yr B.P. This is inconsistent with much older South American dates of around 32,000 yr B.P.1 and the similarity of the Paleoindian toolkit to Mousterian traditions that disappeared about 30,000 years ago.2 A pattern of unusually young radiocarbon dates in the Northeast has been noted by Bonnichsen and Will.3,4 Our research indicates that the entire Great Lakes region (and beyond) was subjected to particle bombardment and a catastrophic nuclear irradiation that produced secondary thermal neutrons from cosmic ray interactions. The neutrons produced unusually large quantities of 239 Pu and substantially altered the natural uranium abundance ratios ( 235 U/238 U) in artifacts and in other exposed materials including cherts, sediments, and the entire landscape. These neutrons necessarily transmuted residual nitrogen ( 14 N) in the dated charcoals to radiocarbon, thus explaining anomalous dates. The evidence from dated materials We investigated a cluster of especially young radiocarbon dates concentrated in the north-central area of North America. For example, at the Gainey site in Michigan a 2880 yr B.P. radio-carbon date was reported, while the thermoluminescence date for that site is 12,400 yr B.P.5 Other anomalous dates found at Leavitt in Michigan, 6 Zander and Thedford in Ontario,7 Potts in New York,8 Alton in Indiana, 9 and Grant Lake in Nunavut 10 are summarized in Table 1. The Grant Lake Paleoindian site is most remarkable because its 160 [rc] yr B.P. age is nearly contemporary, while adjacent and deeper samples give ages of 1480–3620 [rc] yr B.P. Stratigraphic associations place Paleoindian occupations at depth on the pre-historic North American landscape on sediments that form the old C horizon composed of parent material, Wisconsinan deposits that predate Holocene sediment buildup.11,12,13 The young Paleoindian dates cannot be correct, particularly since there are no patterned anomalies noted in later-period prehistoric assem-blages relating to higher stratigraphic positions. In a pioneering study of the Paleoindian site at Barnes, Michigan, Wright and Roosa observed that Paleoindian artifacts were deposited before the formation of spodosols ceased in this area about 10,000 yr B.P.14 This conclusion was based on observing that cemented sediments on artifacts, found outside their original context, defines their original stratigraphic position. The evidence from particle bombardment Sediment profiles were taken at Paleoindian sites and at numerous widely separated control locations in Michigan. The C sediment horizon is clearly recognized by its transitional color and confirmed by elevated concentrations of potassium and other isotopes. Color and chemistry are key indicators of this very old soil 11,12,13 derived from parent materials and associated postglacial runoff.15 At Gainey, large quantities of micrometeorite-like particles appear to be concentrated near the boundary between the B and C sediment horizons. They can be separated with a magnet and are identified by the presence of chondrules and by visual evidence of sintering and partial melting. These particles, dissimilar to common magnetites, are found in association with a high frequency of "spherules." The depth profiles for potassium and particles at the Gainey site are compared in Fig. 1. Minor vertical sorting of particles is apparent, with a shallow spike of particles near the surface probably resulting from modern agricultural or industrial activity. Total gamma-ray counting of sediment profiles in the various locations invariably showed increased radioactivity at the B-C boundary consistent with enhanced potassium ( 40 K) and possibly other activities. Microscopic examination of chert artifacts from several widely separated Paleoindian locations in North America revealed a high density of entrance wounds and particles at depths that are evidence of high-velocity particle bombardment. Chondrules were identified visually; their presence necessarily indicates heating during high-speed entry into the atmosphere. The depth of penetration into the artifacts implies that the particles entered with substantial energy.16 Field simulations with control cherts for large particles (100–200 microns) suggest an entrance velocity greater than 0.4 km/s, and experiments at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory indicate that the smaller particles left tracks comparable to about 526 MeV iron ions ( 56 Fe) in Gainey artifacts. Similar features are not observed in later-period prehistoric artifacts or in bedrock chert sources. Track angles were estimated visually; track densities were measured with a stage micrometer; track depths were found by adjusting the microscope focus through the track. These data are summarized in Table 1. Track and particle data in Table 1 suggest that the total track volume (density times depth) is highest at the Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana sites and decreases in all directions from this region, consistent with a widespread catastrophe concentrated over the Great Lakes region. The nearly vertical direction of the tracks left by particle impacts at most sites suggests they came from a distant source. The evidence from uranium and plutonium Natural uranium, which is ubiquitous in cherts, has a 235 U/238 U isotopic ratio of 0.72 percent, which varies by less than 0.1 percent in natural sources.17 Significant variations in the isotopic ratio do not occur because of chemical processes; however, a thermal neutron bombardment depletes 235 U and thus alters the ratio. Solar or galactic cosmic rays interacting with matter produce fast secondary neutrons that become thermalized by scattering from surrounding materials. Thermal neutrons see a target of large cross section (681 barns)A for destroying 235 U, compared with a target of only 2.68 barns for neutron capture on 238 U. Therefore, despite the low abundance of 235 U, about 1.8 times as many 235 U atoms are destroyed as 238 U atoms by thermal neutrons. If a large cosmic-ray bombardment impacted the earth and irradiated the prehistoric landscape with thermal neutrons, the 235 U/238 U ratio would be changed; 239 Pu would be produced from neutron capture on 238 U, followed by the decay of 239 U. Neutrons colliding with nitrogen (1.83 barns) would create 14 C in exactly the same way 14 C is normally produced in the upper atmosphere, necessarily resetting the radiocarbon dates of any organic materials lying near the surface on the North American prehistoric landscape—including charcoals at Paleoindian sites—to younger values. 239 Pu produced during the bombardment will also be partly destroyed by thermal neutrons with 1017 barn cross section. Assuming 239 Pu doesn’t mobilize, it will decay back to 235 U (half-life 24,110 yr), partially restoring the normal abundance. Paleoindian artifacts from Gainey, Leavitt, and Butler, and two later-period artifacts from the same geographic area of Michigan were analyzed for 235 U content by gamma-ray counting at the Phoenix Memorial Laboratory, University of Michigan. They were compared with identical chert types representative of the source materials for the artifacts. Control samples were extracted from the inner core of the purest chert known to be utilized by prehistoric people. The Paleoindian artifacts contained about 78 percent as much 235 U as the controls and later-period artifacts, suggesting substantial depletion. Depletion of 235 U necessarily indicates that thermal neutrons impacted these artifacts and the surrounding prehistoric landscape. Various artifacts, cherts, sediments, and a control sample containing about 0.2 percent uranium obtained from uraninite were sent to the McMaster University Centre for Neutron Activation Analysis to determine 235 U concentration by delayed neutron counting and 238 U concentration by activation analysis. These results are shown in Table 2. The 235 U/238 U ratios for all samples except the control deviated substantially from the expected ratio. McMaster ran additional calibration standards and has considerable expertise analyzing low-level uranium. This analysis was sensitive to a few ppb for 235 U and 0.1–0.3 ppm for 238 U, more than sufficient to precisely analyze the uranium-rich chert samples (0.7–163.5 ppm). Most samples were depleted in 235 U, depletion increasing geographically from the southwest (Baker, Chuska chert, 17 percent) to the northeast (Upper Mercer, 77 percent), as shown in Table 2. This is consistent with cosmic rays focused towards northern latitudes by Earth’s magnetic field. Only a very large thermal neutron flux, greater than 10^20 n/cm 2 , could have depleted 235 U at all locations. Samples of unaltered flakes from Taylor and sediment originally adjacent to Gainey artifacts showed 235 U enriched by 30 percent. Both samples were closely associated with the particles described above. The position of these samples appears to be related to the enrichment, which cannot be explained by thermal neutrons from the bombardment. To test this, we bathed another Taylor flake in 48-percent HF at 60°F for ten minutes to remove the outer 70 percent of the sample and the attached particles. Analysis showed the "inner" flake depleted in 235 U by 20 percent, consistent with the other depleted cherts. Samples of Gainey sediment and Taylor flakes were analyzed for plutonium by Nuclear Technology Services, Inc., of Roswell, Georgia, which specializes in radiochemistry using standard methodology. The plutonium, with an aliquot of NIST-traceable 242 Pu added, was chemically separated on an anion exchange resin column and counted on an alpha-particle spectrometer. The 239 Pu/238 U ratios in both samples were approximately 10 ppb, vastly exceeding the expected ratio of 0.003 ppb.18 The results of this analysis are shown in Table 2. Chert is a glass-like material highly impervious to penetration by any nuclear fallout that might also contribute 239 Pu. We analyzed a long-exposed piece of Bayport chert by gamma-ray counting at the LBNL low-background facility for the presence of cesium-137 ( 137 Cs), a key indicator of fallout (from nuclear testing), and found none. The B-C interface typically lies sufficiently deep that contamination by fallout is improbable. It is important to note that fallout cannot explain the depletion of 235 U. Since the depletion of 235 U must have resulted from bombardment by thermal neutrons, the presence of 239 Pu from irradiation of 238 U is expected. The total thermal neutron flux required to produce the observed 239 Pu concentration can be cal-culated from the relative concentrations of 239 Pu (corrected for the decay) and 238 U, and the thermal neutron–capture cross section for 238 U. This neutron flux can then be used to estimate the amount of additional 14 C that would have been produced in charcoal by neutrons colliding with 14 N ( 14 N cross section = 1.83 barns). The corrected radiocarbon age can then be estimated by comparing the current amount of 14 C in the dated char-coals, determined from their measured radiocarbon age, with the amount of 14 C that would have been produced by the bombardment. For these calculations we assume that charcoal contains 0.05 per-cent residual nitrogen 19 and that initial 14 C concentrations were the same as to-day (one 14 C atom for 10^12 12 C atoms). We derive a thermal neutron flux of c. 10^17 n/cm 2 at Gainey, which corresponds to an approximate date of 39,000 yr B.P. No radiocarbon date is available for the more southerly Taylor site, but for the conventional range of accepted Paleoindian dates the neutron flux would be c. 10^16 n/cm 2 , giving a date of about 40,000 yr B.P. These calculations necessarily neglect differences in the neutron flux experienced by the dated charcoal and the artifacts, the effects of residual 239 Pu from previous bombardments, and loss of 239 Pu due to leaching from chert over time. The neutron flux calculated from the 235 U/238 U ratio is more than 1000 times that implied by the level of 239 Pu. Since 239 Pu decays to 235 U, partly restoring the natural abundance, it appears that substantial quantities of 239 Pu have migrated out of the chert. This mobility is demonstrated at the Nevada Test Site, where plutonium, produced in nuclear tests con-ducted by the U.S. between 1956 and 1992, migrated 1.3 km.20 It has also been shown that atoms produced by radioactive decay or nuclear reaction become weakly bound to the parent material and pass more readily into solution than isotopes not affected.21 Both 239 Pu and 235 U are thus expected to be mobile, complicating any analysis. This is consistent with the enrichment of 235 U in the two external samples where migrating 239 Pu or 235 U may have been trapped, thus enriching the relatively uranium-poor outer regions. Alternatively, excess 235 U may have been carried in by the particles. Radiocarbon produced in situ by irradiation should also be mobile. If 14 C is more mobile than 239 Pu, then the dates calculated above should be decreased accordingly. Redating North American sites The 39,000 yr B.P. date proposed for the Gainey site is consistent with the prevailing opinion among many archaeologists about when the Americas were populated. It is also commensurate with dates for South American sites and with a Mousterian toolkit tradition that many see as the Paleoindian precursor. The proposed date for the Gainey site also falls closer in line with the radiocarbon date for a Lewisville, Texas, Paleoindian site of 26,610 ± 300 yr B.P.22,23 and radio-carbon dates as early as c. 20,000 yr B.P. for Meadowcroft Rockshelter.24 Since the Lewisville and Meadowcroft sites were likely exposed at the same time to ther-mal neutrons, we estimate that their dates should be reset to c. 55,000 yr B.P. and c. 45,000 yr B.P., respectively. It is likely that Paleoindians occupied low latitudes during the full glacial and migrated to more northerly areas as the ice front retreated. Therefore the pat-tern of dates makes sense from the archaeologist’s point of view. Dates for North American sites should generally be reset by up to 40,000 years, depending on latitude and overburden. Geologists believe that before c. 15,000 yr B.P. the Wisconsinan glaciation covered the more northerly locations where Paleoindian sites have been found.25 The ice sheet would have shielded the landscape and any artifacts from an irradiation. (The Gainey thermoluminescence date of 12,400 yr B.P. is probably a result of the heat generated by the nuclear bombardment at that time, which would have reset the TL index to zero.) The modified dates for Paleoindian settlements suggest that the timetable for glacial advance sequences, strongly driven by conventional radiocarbon dates, should be revisited in light of the evidence presented here of much older occupations than previously thought." The evidence from tree rings and marine sediments A large nuclear bombardment should have left evidence elsewhere in the radio- carbon record. It is well known that radiocarbon dates are increasingly too young as we go back in time. The global Carbon Cycle suggests that 14 C produced by cosmic rays would be rapidly dispersed in the large carbon reservoirs in the atmosphere, land, and oceans.26 We would expect to see a sudden increase in radiocarbon in the atmosphere that would be incorporated into plants and animals soon after the irradiation; after only a few years, most of the radiocarbon would move into the ocean reservoirs. The 14 C level in the fossil record would reset to a higher value. The excess global radiocarbon would then decay with a half-life of 5730 years, which should be seen in the radiocarbon analysis of varved systems. Fig. 2 plots 14 C from the INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration data of Stuiver et al. for 15,000–0 yr B.P.27 and Icelandic marine sediment 14 C data measured by Voelker et al. for 50,000–11,000 yr B.P.28 Excess 14 C is indicated by the difference between the reported radiocarbon dates and actual dates. Sharp increases in 14 C are apparent in the marine data at 40,000–43,000, 32,000–34,000 and c. 12,000 yr B.P These increases are coincident with geomagnetic excursions B that occurred at about 12,000 (Gothenburg), 32,000 (Mono Lake), and 43,000 yr B.P. (Laschamp),29 when the reduced magnetic field would have made Earth especially vulnerable to cosmic ray bombardment. The interstitial radiocarbon data following the three excursions were numerically fit, assuming exponential decay plus a constant cosmic ray–produced component. The fitted half-lives of 5750 yr (37,000–34,000 yr B.P.), 6020 yr (32,000–16,000 yr B.P.), and 6120 yr (12,000–0 yr B.P.) are in good agreement with the expected value. We also determined that contemporary radiocarbon contains about 7 percent residual 14 C left over from the catastrophe. The constant cosmic ray production rate was about 34 percent higher for the Icelandic sediment than the INTCAL98 samples, perhaps implying higher cosmic ray rates farther north. Disregarding fluctuations in the data from variations in ocean temperatures and currents, the results are clearly consistent with the decay of radiocarbon following the three geomagnetic excursions. In Fig. 2, the sharp drop in 14 C activity before 41,000 yr B.P. suggests that global radiocarbon increased by about 45 percent at that time and by about 20 percent at 33,000 and 12,000 yr B.P The results are remarkably consistent with Vogel’s comparison of 14 C and U-Th dates of a stalagmite that indicates global radiocarbon increased about 75 percent from 30,000 to 40,000 yr B.P. and about 30 percent around 18,000 yr B.P.30 McHargue et al. found high levels of 10 Be in Gulf of California marine sediments at 32,000 and 43,000 yr B.P.C that could not be explained by magnetic reversal alone and were attributed to cosmic rays, possibly from a supernova.29 The geomagnetic excursion at 12,500 yr B.P. coincides with the thermoluminescence date from Gainey, and additional evidence for a cosmic ray bombardment at that time is found in the increases of 10 Be,31 Ca,32 and Mg 32 in Greenland ice cores around 12,500 yr B.P. Similar increases are also seen in the data for NO 3 – , SO 4 – , Mg + , Cl – , K + , and Na + ions in Greenland ice cores.33 This occurrence can be dated precisely to 12,500 ± 500 yr B.P., an average of the remarkably consistent concentration peak centroids in the Greenland ice core data. Significant increases at that time are not found in comparable data for the Antarctic, which indicates that the cosmic ray irradiation was centered in the Northern Hemisphere. Weak evidence of an occurrence at 12,500 yr B.P. is seen in the radiocarbon record for marine sediments near Venezuela,34 confirming that the cosmic ray bombardment was most severe in northern latitudes. Lunar cosmogenic data also show evidence of increased solar cosmic ray activity at or before 20,000 yr B.P.35,36 although these data are not sensitive to earlier irradiation. The effect of a supernova on Earth Sonett suggests that a single supernova would produce two or three shock waves, an initial forward shock and a pair of reverse shocks from the initial expansion and a reflected wave from the shell boundary of a more ancient supernova.39,40 Fig. 2 shows that each episode in a series produced a similar amount of atmospheric radiocarbon. The sun lies almost exactly in the center 41 of the Local Bubble, believed to be the result of a past nearby supernova event. A candidate for the reverse shock wave is the supernova remnant North Polar Spur, with an estimated age of 75,000 years and a distance of 130 ± 75 parsecs (424 light years),42 conveniently located in the north sky from where it would have preferentially irradiated the Northern Hemisphere. Assuming the Taylor flux is average and 1,000 neutrons are produced per erg of gamma-ray energy,43 the catastrophe would have released about 10^16 erg/cm 2 (2 x 10^8 cal/cm 2 ), corresponding to a solar flare of 10^43 ergs or a gamma-flash of 10^54 ergs from a supernova about 1 parsec away. The geographical distribution of particle tracks, 235 U depletion, and 239 Pu concentration shown in Fig. 3 are quite consistent, although the particle tracks seem to be confined to a smaller geographic area. They indicate energy released over the northeastern sector of the U.S., with maximum energy at about 43° N, 85° W, the Michigan area of the Great Lakes region. A history of suspected cosmic cataclysms over the ages Wdowczyk and Wolfendale 44 and Zook 36 propose, based on the existing record of solar flare intensities, that solar flares as large as 3 x 10^38 ergs should be expected every 100,000 years. Clark et al. estimate that supernovas release 10^47 –10^50 ergs within 10 parsecs of Earth every 100 million years.45 Brackenridge suggests that a supernova impacted the earth in Paleoindian times.46 Damon et al. report evidence from the 14 C tree ring record that SN1006, which occurred at a distance of 1300 par-secs, produced a neutron shower of 2 x 10^8 n/cm 2 . 47 Castagnoli et al. report evidence of the past six nearby supernovae from the thermoluminescence record of Tyrrhenian sea sediments.48 Dar et al. suggest that a cosmic ray jet within 1000 parsec would produce 10^12 muons/cm 2 (greater than 3 x 10^9 eV) and 10^10 protons and neutrons/cm 2 (greater than 10^6 eV) and deposit over 10^12 erg/cm 2 in the atmosphere every 100 million years.49 A cosmic ray jet is also predicted to produce heavy elements via the r-process and could be a source of 235 U enriched up to 60 percent in uranium. The Paleoindian catastrophe was large by standards of all suspected cosmic occurrences. Normal geomagnetic conditions would focus cosmic rays towards the magnetic poles, concentrating their severity in those regions. However, low magnetic field intensity during a geomagnetic excursion may have allowed excessive cosmic rays to strike northeastern North America. (Whether the geomagnetic excursion admitted cosmic radiation, or the radiation caused the excursion, is uncertain. Given our present state of knowledge, cause and effect in this instance are unclear.) The presence of a nearby small and dense interstellar cloud may explain the origin of the particle bombardment.50 The size of the initial catastrophe may be too large for a solar flare, but a sufficiently powerful nearby supernova or cosmic ray jet could account for it. It appears that the catastrophe initiated a sequence of events that may have included solar flares, impacts, and secondary cosmic ray bombardments. A devastating effect on Earth The enormous energy released by the catastrophe at 12,500 yr B.P. could have heated the atmosphere to over 1000°C over Michigan, and the neutron flux at more northern locations would have melted considerable glacial ice. Radiation effects on plants and animals exposed to the cosmic rays would have been lethal, comparable to being irradiated in a 5-megawatt reactor more than 100 seconds. The overall pattern of the catastrophe matches the pattern of mass extinction before Holocene times. The Western Hemisphere was more affected than the Eastern, North America more than South America, and eastern North America more than western North America.51,52,53 Extinction in the Great Lakes area was more rapid and pronounced than elsewhere. Larger animals were more affected than smaller ones, a pattern that conforms to the expectation that radiation exposure affects large bodies more than smaller ones.54,55 Sharp fluctuations of 14 C in the Icelandic marine sediments at each geomagnetic excursion are interesting; because global carbon deposits in the ocean sediments at a rate of only about 0.0005 percent a year, a sudden increase in sediment 14 C may reflect the rapid die-off of organisms that incorporated radiocarbon shortly after bombardment. Massive radiation would be expected to cause major mutations in plant life. Maize probably evolved by macro-mutation at that time,55,56 and plant domestication of possibly mutated forms appears worldwide after the Late Glacial period. For example, there was a rapid transition from wild to domesticated grains in the Near East after the catastrophe.57 Implications for future study Much of what we assume about the Paleoindian period and the peopling of the Americas has been inferred from conventional radiocarbon chronology, which often conflicts with archaeological evidence. This work mandates that conventional radio-carbon dates be reinterpreted in light of hard terrestrial evidence of exposure of the radiocarbon samples to a cosmological catastrophe that affected vast areas of North America and beyond. A nuclear catastrophe can reset a group of unrelated artifacts to a common younger date, creating gaps and false episodes in the fossil record. Geographical variation and complicated overburdens may further confuse the interpretation. Scrutiny of Paleoindian artifacts and the North American paleolandscape, associated stratigraphic sediments, coupled with continued radiological investigations, may provide more evidence for the cosmic catastrophe and new clues to the origin of Paleoindians. How to contact the principals in this article: Richard B. Firestone e-mail: rbf@lbl.gov William H. Topping P.O. Box 62 Baldwin, MI. 49304 USA Acknowledgments This paper results from dissertation research that began in 1990, most recently funded by a National Science Foundation Physics Division, by William Topping. Support of Richard Firestone by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Division of Nuclear Physics, of the Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy is greatly appreciated. The contributions of particular individuals over the years have been invaluable. Tony Baker, Kurt Carr, Chris Ellis, Mima Kapches, Ronald Lesher, Donald B. Simons, James Taylor, Curtis Tomak, John Tomenchuk, and Henry Wright in particular should be thanked for their contributions of artifacts which provided essential information. Alan Smith contributed important experimental data for this paper. We particularly acknowledge the participation of the Royal Ontario Museum and the Smithsonian Institution. In addition, there have been many invaluable contributions of time, analysis, and commentary by physicists, archaeologists, and geologists from the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University, Phoenix Memorial Laboratory and the Department of Physics at the University of Michigan, Departments of Anthropology and Geology at Wayne State University, Department of Physics at Washington University in St. Louis, Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan, Department of Physics at the University of Arizona, Harvard Cyclotron at Harvard University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, the State University of Pennsylvania, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. References 1 Gruhn, R., in Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, R. Bonnichsen, K. L. Turnmire, eds. (Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 1991), pp. 283–286. 2 Muller-Beck, H., Science 152, 1191 (1985). 3 Bonnichsen, R., in Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, R. Bonnichsen, K. L. Turnmire, eds. (Oregon State University Press, Corvallis , 1991), pp. 309–329. 4 Bonnichsen, R., F. Will, in Ice Age Peoples of North America, R. Bonnichsen, K. L. Turnmire, eds. (Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 1999), pp. 395–415. 5 Simons, D. B., M. J. Shott, H. T. Wright, Arch. East. Nor. Amer. 12, 266 (1984). 6 Shott, M.J., The Leavitt Site (Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor, 1993). 7 Stewart, A., Ontario Arch. 41, 45 (1984). 8 Gramly, R. M., J. Lothrop, Arch. East. Nor. Amer. 12, 1222 (1984). 9 Tomak, C. H., Dancey Ohio Arch. Coun., Columbus, 117 (1994). 10 Wright, J. V., Borden Number Kkln-2, Lab No. S-833. Canadian Archaeology Associa-tion C14 Database Search, http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/localc14/c14search.htm . 11 S. Boggs, S., Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (MacMillan, New York, 1987). 12 Easterbrook, D. J., Surface Processes and Landforms (MacMillan, New York, 1993). 13 Birkeland, P. W., Soils and Geomorphology (Oxford University Press, New York, 1984). 14 Wright, H. T., W. B. Roosa, American Antiquity 31, 850 (1966). 15 Turner, M. D., E. J. Zeller, G. A. Dreschoff, J. C. Turner, in Ice Age Peoples of North America, R. Bonnichsen, K. L. Turnmire, eds. (Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 1999), pp. 42–77. 16 Firestone, R. B., W. Topping, Paleoindian Nuclear Event, http://ie.lbl.gov/Paleo/paleo.html . 17 Kuroda, P. K., The Origin of the Chemical Elements, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1982). 18 Seaborg, G. T., W. D. Loveland, The Elements beyond Uranium, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1990). 19 Ostrom, N., analysis at Michigan State University of charcoal and wood dated at 2800 and 42,000 yr B.P. respectively, private communication. 20 Kersting, A. B., et al., Nature 397, 56 (1999). 21 Cherdyntsev, V. V., Abundance of Chemical Elements. (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, translated by W. Nichiporuk, 1961). 22 Wormington, H. M., Ancient Man in North America, (The Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, 1957). 23 Shirley, R. H., et al., Environmental Geology Notes 109, 1985. 24 Adovasio, J. M., R. C. Carlisle, Science 239, 713 (1988). 25 Farrand, W. R., The Glacial Lakes around Michigan, Bulletin 4. (Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1988). http://www.deq.state.mi.us/gsd/Gltext.html . 26 Schimel, D. S., et al., in Climate Change 1994. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios, J. T. Houghton, L. G. M. Filho, J. Bruce, H. Lee, B. A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris, and K. Maskell, eds. (IPCC Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994). 27 Stuiver, M., et al., Radiocarbon 40, 1041 (1998). 28 Voelker, A. H. L., et al., Radiocarbon 40, 517 (1998). 29 McHargue, L. R., P. E. Damon, D. J. Donahue, Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 659 (1995). 30 Vogel, J. C., Radiocarbon 25, 213 (1983). 31 Finkel, R. C., K. Nishiizumi, J. Geophys. Res. 102, 26699 (1997). 32 De Angelis, M., J. P. Steffensen, M. R. Legrand, H. B. Clausen, C. U. Hammer, Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 26681 (1997). 33 Mayewski, P. A., et al., Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 26345 (1997). 34 Hughen, K. A., et al., Radiocarbon 39, 483 (1998). 35 Jull, A. T., et al., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 62, 3025 (1998). 36 Zook, H. A., Proc. Conf. Ancient Sun, J. A. Eddy, R. Merrill, eds., 245 (1980). 37 Prouty, W. F., Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 63, 167 (1952). 38 Eyton, J. R., J. L. Parkhurst, A Re-Evaluation of the Extraterrestrial Origin of the Carolina Bays, http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cbayint.html (1975). 39 Sonett, C. P., G. E. Morfill, J. R. Jokipii, Nature 330, 458 (1987). 40 Sonett, C. P., Radiocarbon 34, 239 (1992). 41 Davelaar, J., J. A. M. Bleeker, A. J. M. Deerenberg, Astron. Astrophys. 92, 231 (1980). 42 Lingenfelter, R. E., R. Ramaty, in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, I. U. Olson, ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1970), pp. 513–537. 43 Wdowczyk, J., A.W. Wolfendale, Nature 268, 510 (1977). 44 Clark, D. H., W. H. McCrea, F. R. Stephenson, Nature 265, 318 (1977). 45 Brackenridge, G. R., Icarus 46, 81 (1981). 46 Damon, P. E., D., Kaimei, G. E. Kocharov, J. B. Mikheeva, A. N. Peristykh, Radiocarbon 37, 599 (1995). 47 Castagnoli, G. C., G. Bonino, and S. Miono, Nuovo Cimento 5C, 488 (1982). 48 Dar, A., A. Laor, N. J. Shaviv, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5813 (1998). 49 Frisch, P. C., American Scientist 88 (2000). 50 Guilday, J. E., P. S. Martin, Pleistocene Extinctions, the Search for a Cause, P. S. Martin, H. E. Wright, eds. (Yale University Press, New Haven,1967) pp. 5–120. 51 Meltzer, D. J., T. I. Mead, Quat. Res. 19, 130 (1983). 52 Robinson, A., Earth Shock (Thames and Hudson, Ltd, London, 1993). 53 Farrand, W. R., Science 133, 729 (1961). 54 Sanderson, I. T., Sat. Evening Post 232, 82 (1960). 55 Iltis, H. H., Science 222, 886 (1983). 56 Benz, F. F., H.H. Iltis, Amer. Antiq. 55, 500 (1990). 57 Murray, J., The First European Agriculture (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, (1970). See more of this discussion:Re: another paper on nuclear event in N.A
|
| Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains | Posted by Peter on 2007-05-13 (message id=790 ) |
|
A range of mountains have been detected under the ice of Antarctica where no range of mountains was expected. Conventional geological theory cannot explain their existence. Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains
I predict that when these mountains are mapped in detail they will not show a surface eroded by a moving ice sheet, but will show a jumbled mass of sharp edged rock blocks kilometers wide with sharp cliffs, deep fissures and rock thrust over ice. These features should be preserved where there is little flow of the ice. This would be evidence of rapid fissuring and thrusting of the crust during an overturn. See more of this discussion:Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains
|
| Re: Magnitude of shift over-estimated | Posted by Peter on 2007-05-13 (message id=789 ) |
|
There are two mechanisms for maintaining the balance of the crust as the ice melts.
The crust can rise as the ice melts. For example the crust under scotland is thought to be still rising after losing the ice of the last ice age - which suggests that this can only compensate for slow melting taking tens of thousands of years. The only other mechanism is movement of the crust itself. This need to redistribute crustal mass is what I think drives continental drift. The big question is how much pressure to move the continental plates will result in only sporadic earthquakes - the huge Indonesian earthquake that caused the big tsunami moved a large chunk of crust and was enough to re-align the axis of the rotation very slightly - and how much pressure is needed before an earthquake like that triggers a cascade of earthquakes that results in overturn. My guess is that serious rapid melting of Greenland or Antarctica taking less than a thousand years could trigger overturn. See more of this discussion:Re: Magnitude of shift over-estimated
|
| Time involved | Posted by Peter on 2007-05-13 (message id=788 ) |
|
Hi Peter,
You say that the rapid melting of the polar ice will throw the earths axis off ballance, how fast will the ice caps need to melt for a overturn to occur, and how fast can the crust reshift to correct the im-ballance? Thanks Peter See more of this discussion:Time involved
|
| Posted by on 2006-11-18 (message id=825 ) |
p
|
| Posted by on 2006-11-18 (message id=824 ) |
p
|
| Posted by on 2006-11-18 (message id=822 ) |
p
|
| Posted by on 2006-11-18 (message id=821 ) |
p
|
| Posted by on 2006-11-18 (message id=820 ) |
p
|
| Offer accepted | Posted by marie on 2006-06-01 (message id=771 ) |
|
how they were made ? when was the first pyramid made
and who was the first man to make them See more of this discussion:Offer accepted
|
| Re rotational axis shift | Posted by s offer as the source of the radiation a supernova 424 light on 2006-05-16 (message id=804 ) |
|
See "Another paper on nuclear event in N A .htm"
That URL appears to be the source of Peter Thomson's information on the prehistoric nuclear event. The My first exposure to ancient technological civilizations was the Mu books of James Churchward. I don't recall whether they included a polar shift, but possibly. If not, them my first exposure to polar shift theory was Hugh A. Brown's "Cataclysms of the Earth". According to Brown, the north pole was previously located in Chad, North Africa, and Hudson Bay, Canada, the era before that. Thomson places the previous south pole in Hudson Bay. Where the poles used to be is probably not as important as where they will be next, and when. Some prophesies say that December 21, 2012 is the date of the next polar shift. Antarctica and Greenland will rotate to the equator on a live with Greenland. The 'safe' rotation point will be near the highlands of East Africa, near Mt. Kenya. Rio de Janiero, Brazil will be near the south pole. Here in Michigan, we will probably still be in a temperate zone. Our biggest concern will the the Great Lakes sloshing out of their basins when the 'pendulum' stops and swings back to the equator. I hope I have given you something to keep your search engines busy. See more of this discussion:Re rotational axis shift
|
| Re Poles moving | Posted by Jolly Roger ;-)X on 2006-05-16 (message id=785 ) |
|
According to Hugh A. Brown in "Cataclysms of the Earth" the oceans and atmosphere will travel along with the crust until it reaches the far end of its swing. Then the crust will return part of the way it came, but the oceans and air will keep going, sloshing out of their basins and creating all kinds of nasty weather. The crust will settle down in a few days, the oceans in a few weeks. Better give the atmosphere a few months to settle down into a new pattern.
Remember that Noah was in the ark for a year! Jolly Roger ;-)X See more of this discussion:Re Poles moving
|
| Re Your pivot point | Posted by Jolly Roger ;-)X on 2006-05-16 (message id=778 ) |
|
Peter,
I put the line of rotation down the centerline of Greenland, with a pivot point off the east coast of Africa, near Kenya. In either case, east Africa or west Africa, the refugee safe point will be the highlands of central Africa. Jolly Roger ;-)X See more of this discussion:Re Your pivot point
|
| testing board | Posted by David Bullock on 2006-02-08 (message id=819 ) |
|
Coral castle. Grew up there. Was taught things on an island in the everglades. But have this. "walking sticks" Those cranes. But just east of the castle was a little run down looking shed. Actually, it was two windlasses, made from phone poles, that rotated in opposite directions. The "stanchion" was the front axle of a model T ford. But that's only a part. I can tell you more about the place than the tour guides. Your call. David
See more of this discussion:testing board
|
| 3600 year pattern | Posted by ity who flourished between 939 and 1038, in his Responses re on 2005-12-29 (message id=803 ) |
|
Pliny's Natural History, reads
"A terrible comet was seen by the people of Ethiopia and Egypt, to which Typhon, the king of that period, gave his name; it had a fiery appearance and was twisted like a coil, and it was very grim to behold; it was not really a star so much as what it might be called a ball of fire." A time no more distant perhaps than 3,500 years ago. Caius Julius Solinus, a Latin was found a poem dedicated to the planet-goddess Anat, who 'massacred the population of the Levant,' and who 'exchanged the two dawns and the positions of the stars.' The Eskimos of Greenland told missionaries that in an ancient time the earth turned over and the people who lived then became antipodes. [Worlds in Collision, p.126] Hai Gaon, the rabbinical 'I mean the change in the rising and the setting of the sun and the other heavenly bodies, how in those times they used to set in the quarter where they now rise, and they used to rise where they now set..' Quote from Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, 1980, page 91 The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that his hypotheses were wrong or in contradiction to firmly established facts, but that some who called themselves scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky?s work. Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science. We do not know in advance who will discover fundamental new insights. Whales in the Mountains, Bones of whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal- Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level. Although the Humphrey whale and beluga occasionally enter the mouth of the St. Lawrence, they do not climb hills. Times and Dates, Careful investigation by W.A. Johnston of the Niagara River bed disclosed that the present channel was cut by the falls less than 4,000 years ago. And equally careful investigation of the Bear River delta by Hanson showed that the age of this delta was 3,600 years. The study by Claude Jones of the lakes of the Great Basin showed that these lakes, remnants of larger glacial lakes, have existed only about 3,500 years. Gales obtained the same result on Owen Lake in California and also Van Winkle on Abert and Summer lakes in Oregon. Radiocarbon analysis by Libby also indicates that plants associated with extinct animals (mastodons) in Mexico are probably only 3,500 years old. Similar conclusions concerning the late survival of the Pleistocene fauna were drawn by various field workers in many parts of the American continent. Suess and Rubin found with the help of radiocarbon analysis that in the mountains of the western United States ice advanced only 3000 years ago. The Florida fossil beds at Vero and Melbourne proved - by the artifacts found there together with human bones and the remains of animals, many of which are extinct - that these fossil beds were deposited between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago. From observations on beaches in numerous places all over the world, Daly concluded that there was a change in the ocean level, which dropped sixteen to twenty feet 3,500 years ago. Kuenen and others confirmed Daly's findings with evidence derived from Europe. Dropped Ocean Level, R.A. Daly observed that in a great many places all around the world there is a uniform emergence of the shore line of 18 to 20 feet. In the southwest Pacific, on the islands belonging to the Samoan group but spread over two hundred miles, the same emergence is evident. Nearly halfway around the world, at St. Helena in the South Atlantic, the lava is punctuated by dry sea caves, the floors of which are covered with water-worn pebbles, now dusty because untouched by the surf. The emergence there is also 20 feet. At the Cape of Good Hope caves and beaches also prove recent and sensibly uniform emergence to the extent of about 20 feet. Marine terraces, indicating similar emergence, are found along the Atlantic coast from New York to the Gulf of Mexico; for at least 1,000 miles along the coast of eastern Australia; along the coasts of Brazil, southwest Africa, and many islands in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. The emergence is recent as well as of the same order of magnitude, (20 feet). Judging from the condition of beaches, terraces, and caves, the emergence seems to have been simultaneous on every shore. In (Daly's) opinion the cause lies in the sinking of the level of all seas on the globe. Alternatively, Daly thinks it could have resulted from a deepening of the oceans or from an increase in their areas. Of special interest is the time of the change. Daly estimated the sudden drop of oceanic level to (have occurred) some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. The Ivory Islands, In 1797 the body of a mammoth, with flesh, skin, and hair, was found in northeastern Siberia. The flesh had the appearance of freshly frozen beef; it was edible, and wolves and sled dogs fed on it without harm. The ground must have been frozen ever since the day of their entombment; had it not been frozen, the bodies of the mammoths would have putrefied in a single summer, but they remained unspoiled for some thousands of years. In some mammoths, when discovered, even the eyeballs were still preserved. (All) this shows that the cold became suddenly extreme .. and knew no relenting afterward. In the stomachs and between the teeth of the mammoths were found plants and grasses that do not grow now in northern Siberia .. (but are) .. now found in southern Siberia. Microscopic examination of the skin showed red blood corpuscles, which was proof not only of a sudden death, but that the death was due to suffocation either by gases or water. 'Nothing' perhaps but the few survivors who were able to carry the tradition of this cataclysm to us today. Myths relating to the falling sky may be found amongst not only the Celts, but the Lapps of Finland, Eskimos of Greenland, the ancient peoples of Mexico, China, Tibet, the tribes of Samoa, and those of eastern and western Africa. Obviously not all life that was left on earth perished during this series of cataclysms, but accounts of those who did are plentiful. See more of this discussion:3600 year pattern
|
| 3600 year pattern | Posted by ity who flourished between 939 and 1038, in his Responses re on 2005-12-29 (message id=802 ) |
|
Pliny's Natural History, reads
"A terrible comet was seen by the people of Ethiopia and Egypt, to which Typhon, the king of that period, gave his name; it had a fiery appearance and was twisted like a coil, and it was very grim to behold; it was not really a star so much as what it might be called a ball of fire." A time no more distant perhaps than 3,500 years ago. Caius Julius Solinus, a Latin was found a poem dedicated to the planet-goddess Anat, who 'massacred the population of the Levant,' and who 'exchanged the two dawns and the positions of the stars.' The Eskimos of Greenland told missionaries that in an ancient time the earth turned over and the people who lived then became antipodes. [Worlds in Collision, p.126] Hai Gaon, the rabbinical 'I mean the change in the rising and the setting of the sun and the other heavenly bodies, how in those times they used to set in the quarter where they now rise, and they used to rise where they now set..' Quote from Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, 1980, page 91 The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that his hypotheses were wrong or in contradiction to firmly established facts, but that some who called themselves scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky?s work. Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science. We do not know in advance who will discover fundamental new insights. Whales in the Mountains, Bones of whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal- Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level. Although the Humphrey whale and beluga occasionally enter the mouth of the St. Lawrence, they do not climb hills. Times and Dates, Careful investigation by W.A. Johnston of the Niagara River bed disclosed that the present channel was cut by the falls less than 4,000 years ago. And equally careful investigation of the Bear River delta by Hanson showed that the age of this delta was 3,600 years. The study by Claude Jones of the lakes of the Great Basin showed that these lakes, remnants of larger glacial lakes, have existed only about 3,500 years. Gales obtained the same result on Owen Lake in California and also Van Winkle on Abert and Summer lakes in Oregon. Radiocarbon analysis by Libby also indicates that plants associated with extinct animals (mastodons) in Mexico are probably only 3,500 years old. Similar conclusions concerning the late survival of the Pleistocene fauna were drawn by various field workers in many parts of the American continent. Suess and Rubin found with the help of radiocarbon analysis that in the mountains of the western United States ice advanced only 3000 years ago. The Florida fossil beds at Vero and Melbourne proved - by the artifacts found there together with human bones and the remains of animals, many of which are extinct - that these fossil beds were deposited between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago. From observations on beaches in numerous places all over the world, Daly concluded that there was a change in the ocean level, which dropped sixteen to twenty feet 3,500 years ago. Kuenen and others confirmed Daly's findings with evidence derived from Europe. Dropped Ocean Level, R.A. Daly observed that in a great many places all around the world there is a uniform emergence of the shore line of 18 to 20 feet. In the southwest Pacific, on the islands belonging to the Samoan group but spread over two hundred miles, the same emergence is evident. Nearly halfway around the world, at St. Helena in the South Atlantic, the lava is punctuated by dry sea caves, the floors of which are covered with water-worn pebbles, now dusty because untouched by the surf. The emergence there is also 20 feet. At the Cape of Good Hope caves and beaches also prove recent and sensibly uniform emergence to the extent of about 20 feet. Marine terraces, indicating similar emergence, are found along the Atlantic coast from New York to the Gulf of Mexico; for at least 1,000 miles along the coast of eastern Australia; along the coasts of Brazil, southwest Africa, and many islands in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. The emergence is recent as well as of the same order of magnitude, (20 feet). Judging from the condition of beaches, terraces, and caves, the emergence seems to have been simultaneous on every shore. In (Daly's) opinion the cause lies in the sinking of the level of all seas on the globe. Alternatively, Daly thinks it could have resulted from a deepening of the oceans or from an increase in their areas. Of special interest is the time of the change. Daly estimated the sudden drop of oceanic level to (have occurred) some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. The Ivory Islands, In 1797 the body of a mammoth, with flesh, skin, and hair, was found in northeastern Siberia. The flesh had the appearance of freshly frozen beef; it was edible, and wolves and sled dogs fed on it without harm. The ground must have been frozen ever since the day of their entombment; had it not been frozen, the bodies of the mammoths would have putrefied in a single summer, but they remained unspoiled for some thousands of years. In some mammoths, when discovered, even the eyeballs were still preserved. (All) this shows that the cold became suddenly extreme .. and knew no relenting afterward. In the stomachs and between the teeth of the mammoths were found plants and grasses that do not grow now in northern Siberia .. (but are) .. now found in southern Siberia. Microscopic examination of the skin showed red blood corpuscles, which was proof not only of a sudden death, but that the death was due to suffocation either by gases or water. 'Nothing' perhaps but the few survivors who were able to carry the tradition of this cataclysm to us today. Myths relating to the falling sky may be found amongst not only the Celts, but the Lapps of Finland, Eskimos of Greenland, the ancient peoples of Mexico, China, Tibet, the tribes of Samoa, and those of eastern and western Africa. Obviously not all life that was left on earth perished during this series of cataclysms, but accounts of those who did are plentiful. See more of this discussion:3600 year pattern
|
| Re I all fits | Posted by Mark Klapheke on 2005-11-07 (message id=809 ) |
|
I have been independently researching all that Peter has been talking about. It all fits. The years that it takes to complete a cycle of the Zodiac, 6120 and the changes that come with it. All of the ancient writings of the ‘Bearded Men’ who brought civilization to the world as we know it “Old man of the sea” both in the old world and the new world.--- math pi, Phi, phi. The teachings of the freemasons, the “priesthoods’ of knowledge of the cycles, long and short and math such as trig algebra and calc. All of the cults of ancient knowledge. The period of darkness some where between 16,000 and 7,000 BC of which only verbal stories were handed down. The temples of the new world and old, with the hydraulics and rooms made with mica (dielectric) materials and precious metals, gas producing cathode and anodes ( capacitors and Masers) It all fits that there was an advanced civilization at one time and abruptly none. Even map making leads us to clues.
I could not agree more. Mark A. Klapheke See more of this discussion:Re I all fits
|
| ice age 6000 years ago | Posted by on 2005-10-24 (message id=816 ) |
|
p
See more of this discussion:ice age 6000 years ago
|
| ice age 6000 years ago | Posted by David on 2005-10-24 (message id=815 ) |
|
Hi,
I have read your theory and I would like to add a couple of things. Firstly, the ice flow of Antarctica does not grow evenly over the caps. It also grows at about 52 billion tons of ice everyday, unfortunately only about 80\% - 90\% of this ice melts every year. It is my understanding that the ice age happens about every 6000 years, however, what I have also heard is the same as what you have said, in as much as only certain areas at different times experience an ice age. Every year between 10\% & 20\% of the ice flow adds onto the ice glacier of Antarctica. This does create a wobble in the spin of the planet and eventually creates a catostrophic event. Moving the plates around and putting areas that were normal into the pole positions. However, at the same time I would like to point out that the poles have reversed a few times in our history. In addition to this, I would like to point out that over the last ten years Global Warming has melted a considerable amount of Glacial Ice and this time around may have given us a reprieve. As far as Electromagnetic Energy is concerned, I would like to refer a website to you called theuniversalcodeofliving.com On this site you will find a complete understanding of The Second Theory of Everything which gives an indepth look at the innermost workings of Electromagnetic Energy. cheers David See more of this discussion:ice age 6000 years ago
|
| Offer accepted | Posted by Ostinat on 2005-07-11 (message id=770 ) |
|
It is unclear that this message is posted in the proper place,
but I believe you will find it of interest wherever it is posted. Dear Mr. Thomson (and phorum readers), I visited your home page where I encountered, "The theories in this site are based entirely on conventional physics. There are no claims of magic or strange forces. The laws of nature are not bent or twisted to support some weird theories. If you can show that the hypotheses set out below are false, then let me, and everyone else know exactly why but you must argue from the basic principles of science." That is a generous offer that suggests you are supremely confident of your position or that you care more about the truth than that you might have made a mistake. I hope it is the latter as I accept your offer. I claim that one of your hypotheses is false and that your view about magic also is false. The intent of this is to be enlightening, yet it is impossible to make the point without criticizing mistakes. It should not be embarrassing as the mistakes are subtle and common to 50 of every 51. Your theory about Coral Castle construction must be false as it contains two primary flaws. The first flaw is that you have not met all requirements of building Coral Castle. When doing engineering, it is common practice to observe the goal (The Complete Coral Castle), survey what is available for use, divide the whole into parts, choose a theory, add whatever is needed along the way, solve one part, move to the next part, solve it, and repeat until the entire problem is solved. Unfortunately, you did not solve all the parts. Your theory only addresses lifting and transporting. You have not explained how Ed drilled a perfect-round eight-foot hole through the exact center of gravity of the nine-ton gate nor how he mounted the gate such that it would close to within a quarter inch on both sides nor how he raised an obelisk that is taller than his tallest tripod and weighs three times the capacity of his strongest hoist. Your theory does not address these requirements for building Coral Castle. Thus, you do not have a compelling theory. The second flaw is that you claim there is no magic. I say there must be magic. Ancient man had vastly less education than Ed Leedskalnin who had vastly less education than modern scientists, but it is the least educated who proved they could lift huge stones without using machines. There are only two ways to explain this. One is that education has nought to do with solving the problem as something is preventing it being solved. Those who choose aliens, Merlin the Magician, and time travelers are choosing this position. Merlin is a good guess because magic is involved as will soon be shown. The other way to explain it is to claim that modern scientists do not have enough education. Those who choose anti-gravity devices and forces are choosing this position. They claim that ancient men located in different parts of the globe living in different centuries and Ed Leedskalnin all knew more about physics than every scientist who has ever given attention to the problem of zero point energy. As it has already been established that modern scientists have vastly more education that Ed and ancient man, it is a violation of elementary reasoning to choose this position. The logical choice is the former. Something is preventing us from solving the problem. If you are to maintain an orderly timeline which is what you are attempting to do by claiming that conventional physics was used, then you must claim that something is preventing us from solving the problem because scientists know everything there is to know about conventional laws of physics. If there were no magic, scientists would have solved these problems long ago. Only magic gives a layperson who has less education than modern scientists the right to work on, solve, and prevent others from solving these problems. Magic is the only tool available for a layperson to use that allows established scientific calculations to be discarded. Magic gives equality to all, scientists and laypersons alike. You have seen magicians perform feats that you know are impossible, yet you also know that it is easy for them, and you know that they employ deception. There lies magic. It is deception, a natural form of magic that obeys conventional laws of physics. As it is already documented that Ed would let no one see him work, deception is an established fact at Coral Castle. I claim not only that I have solved the mystery but that many before me also have and that virtually all who can navigate the Internet to this site are capable of the same. It is not that we are more brilliant than the scientists. It is that we are as brilliant as ancient man. If my claim is true, then why does the world not know the solution? Ed Leedskalnin answered that when he said, "The world can't handle the truth." The reason the world does not know is that the world does not want to know. These are the riddles everyone wants to solve, but no one wants the answer. Most who learn the solution will simply keep silent as that is the easiest course. Governments don't want these mysteries solved as they worry about their economy and tourism. They know the solution and have taken subtle action to ensure that the ancient megaliths can not be proved. Most laypersons don't want these mysteries solved as it is far too exciting to think about and read about aliens building pyramids. How boring it would be if a proof was accepted that did not include aliens nor anti-gravity but only conventional physics. Most scientists don't want these mysteries solved. What an enormous embarrassment it would be to science and scientists to learn that long ago the correct theory was presented by a scientist then tossed into the tip by his colleagues even in the face of proof of its correctness. Nevertheless, the solution is part of the heritage of man, and some will value that regardless how boring it might be. Accordingly, I hope to keep the embers of truth glowing, however faintly. Soon all among you who are interested enough to solve the mystery will become keepers of the flame and have a story to tell your grandchildren. Following is the organization needed to solve the mystery with the greatest efficiency. With a good understanding of the method, you will realize that the theory you acquire will be the correct theory. I do not give it directly because some will not want to know, and others would feel robbed of the opportunity to solve the problem for themselves. Thus, I only present the method to be acted upon or ignored at your pleasure. For Ed, Coral Castle was an engineering problem. For us, it is a reverse engineering problem. Reverse engineering is detective work. Whereas engineering typically solves a piece of a complex problem at any given time, reverse engineering does the opposite and examines the whole problem all at once. This means that we begin with no theory and no preconceptions, a blank mind so to speak. The theory is the ultimate goal therefore the last thing derived. First, all evidence from the whole problem must be gathered and studied. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment."---"A Study in Scarlet" ---Sir Arthur Conan Doyle The Input, Process, Output model that is familiar to software engineers is useful as a generalized model. To begin, divide an edit screen or sheet of paper into two columns. The left column is labeled Potential Inputs and the right is labeled Potential Outputs. They are potential because deception is involved. We can not be certain of anything in the beginning. The Potential Outputs column contains a list of every requirement Ed needed to meet in order to build Coral Castle. The requirements are tasks such that if Ed can't do that task, then he can't build Coral Castle. Examples are celestial alignments, quarrying, lifting, transporting, balancing a gate, etc. As celestial alignments is related to layout that is determined prior to actual construction, it may be deemed a separate problem apart from construction and can be ignored. The Potential Inputs column is a list of everything Ed might have used in construction. These are his construction skills, limit of his physical capabilities, hand tools, building materials, hoists, and anything else found on the grounds of Coral Castle that might have been used in construction. One rule that is very important is that you may add nothing that you do not see. If it is not already there, then it can not be added. Thus, no shear legs. Shear legs are speculative. Only facts are acceptable. If motors are needed and seem to be present, then evidence of adequate infrastructure to support the motor must also be found. This includes wiring, generators, a means to turn the generators, batteries, controls, and the amount of power needed to operate the motor to lift the heaviest weight anticipated, the weight of the motor, and the means Ed must use to mount it at the top of the tripod. The timeline must be kept intact. If Ed acquired items you believe he might have used, then you must determine when he acquired them. Before, during, or after Coral Castle was constructed. If after, then obviously they could not have been used. When doing reverse engineering, things that are absent can be equally as important as things that are present. Because deception is present you must be suspicious. Trust nothing. Verify everything. That simply means to learn how everything works (How do hoists work? What is needed to balance a gate?) and test what you learn against the stories you have heard. Do not guess, and do not accept opinions of others without verifying them. Trust only your own work. As you learn new details about Potential Inputs and Potential Outputs, these should be entered into the appropriate column. Once you have determined what is deception and what is not, then you can eliminate the deceptive items. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."---"The Sign of the Four"---Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Next, compare all of the Potential Inputs that have proved acceptable, which are now the true Inputs that Ed used, with all of the correct requirements, which are now the true Outputs, needed for Ed to build Coral Castle. This is how you examine the whole problem all at once. The Inputs and Outputs are seen side by side. Now, it is time to conceive a theory. The theory you want is the simplest process that converts the inputs into the outputs. The reason you want the simplest is because no one does things the hard way if there is an easy way to do them. Change the theory as necessary to find the best fit with all the facts. When you have the theory that satisfies you, you're done. The theory you conceive must be deceptive if it is to explain why no one can solve the mystery (not counting those who already have and you, of course). Since you are reverse engineering instead of engineering, and as I have no doubt you will do it correctly, your theory will be the same as mine and all others who have correctly reverse engineered Coral Castle. This link will help save you time as the article contains a list of Ed's hand tools and one additional requirement that he must be able to do in order to build Coral Castle. [http//www.parascope.com/en/articles/coralCastle.htm]. Ed's construction skills, limit of his physical capability, and the Potential Outputs are all found on the Coral Castle home page, the "Who's Ed?" page, and both pages of the gallery of photographs. The Coral Castle website is found at [http//www.coralcastle.com]. I leave you to find suitable links for coral stone as you may have to visit several. You will discover that coral stone is rich in a chemical compound that is used to manufacture many things such as pharmaceutical calcium found in health stores on the vitamin and minerals shelves, but the only concern is its uses in construction and only as it could be applied to Coral Castle. For example, you will discover that it can be used in glass and steel manufacturing. Though glass and steel are used in construction, there is no glass nor steel at Coral Castle, thus this is irrelevant. Notice that aliens, energy grids, singing to the rocks, power from the Bermuda Triangle, and virtually every theory ever conceived are attempts to engineer megaliths rather than to reverse engineer them. They are not based upon examination of all of the evidence, and that is why they are incorrect. Regarding another topic, "How many people needed to build a pyramid." I think your estimates are totally correct, but I am basing the calculations on an entirely different schedule and only on the work of Edward Leedskalnin, thus I only have a crude estimate. It is documented that Coral Castle weighs 1100 tons. It is rumored that Ed carried his carvings that weigh 100 tons with him when he moved from Florida City to Homestead, but the move should be ignored when you reverse engineer Coral Castle construction because reverse engineering construction does not reverse engineer the move nor versa vice. They are separate problems. If the rumor is true, then Ed only needed to rebuild the walls and tower which comprise rectangular blocks of stone that require no special carving. It is said that Ed took something less than four years before he reopened Coral Castle, and some say just over three years. If we claim that Ed worked hard and only needed 1000 work days (less than 3 years) to reconstruct 1000 tons of Coral Castle, then he was averaging one ton per day. Therefore, his methods were extremely inefficient by modern standards and worthless to modern industry, yet this same rate is extremely efficient when compared to most existing theories for construction of the pyramids. If Ed was able to move one ton per day from his quarry to the completed construction, the computed numbers of people needed for building a pyramid using Ed's methods are not much different from the numbers you claim. They may be off by 100 percent from your number, but whether it is 2000 or 4000, this is far less than the vast armies you mentioned that most theories claim. Considering that Ed weighed 100 pounds and was unhealthy, your claim seems entirely reasonable. I thought you might appreciate having this alternate source of support. Good Hunting to All, Ostinat See more of this discussion:Offer accepted
|
| Re Poles moving | Posted by Peter on 2005-05-26 (message id=784 ) |
|
I think this is a very important question - I have added a new page that I hope answers it. http//www.peter-thomson.co.uk/ice-ages/Ice_age_living_through_an_overturn.html Peter See more of this discussion:Re Poles moving
|
| Re Poles moving | Posted by osric on 2005-04-18 (message id=783 ) |
|
So Im curious as to what effect that might have on life forms (and structures for that matter) on the surface at that time. Obviously this would be an apparent event to anyone experiencing it, but i wonder if it would amount to the equivelant of a severe earthquake as far as vibration and just HOW severe it might be. I'd have to imagine there would be a lot of vibrating taking place, possibly causing liquification of surface soils. Im also curious as to how the inertial effects would be manifest to the observer. If the poles were to switch in less than two days the speed would have to be fairly high. Obviously we are allready in motion, but this shift will change the direction of that motion at least for a time. Is this the kind of thing that would rip down mountains and send water bodies flying out of their basins thousands of miles? Is this the kind of thing that would even be survivable just from an inertial standpoint, or would our brains be smooshed into the backs of our skulls as we accelerate with the plates at breakneck (literally) speeds? Thirdly, I imagine the atmosphere, being fluid would not move with the plates as such. this I assume would generate intense wind conditions on the plate surfaces. Just some thoughts. thank you, Peter for responding so promptly. This is a truly facinating subject. osric See more of this discussion:Re Poles moving
|
| Re violence of the event | Posted by Peter on 2005-04-18 (message id=782 ) |
|
We can work out an aproximation of the time taken using simple physics. If we assume that once a shift has started, the crustal movement is relatively frictionless on the core below as it moves over a hot liquid layer. As was first discovered by Galileo and Huygens, the period of a pendulum depends on its length and is independent of its mass. T=2*pi* root(length/32) m If we consider the length to be half the diameter of the earth, length=6378160 m length/32 = 199317.5 root= 446 T=2803 seconds = 46 minutes http//hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pend.html#c1 This will be slowed down by inertia, friction, but the end result is a process that is unlikely to take more than a couple of days when started. See more of this discussion:Re violence of the event
|
| violence of the event | Posted by osric on 2005-04-17 (message id=781 ) |
|
Be it a shift of 30 degrees or 150, im very curious as to the level of violence that might be experienced during such a shift. Discussions refer to this as a "sudden" shift but what does that really mean? Even if such a change took several years it could be called "sudden" from a geological perspective. Are we talking about a matter of years, months, days, hours or Minutes? Thanks, osric P.s. I have many, many more questions, but I'll go easy for now. See more of this discussion:violence of the event
|
| Re: Reasons to end ice age | Posted by on 2004-12-25 (message id=814 ) |
|
Vic, your post didn't address any of the theories Peter presented on this site. Proving that you may be right, doesn't prove your opponets wrong. If you come here again, since you disagree, could you provide your opinions on the following: 1. The (im)possibility of the Earth's crust shifting as a whole. 2. Why what is now Russia was warmer. 3. The possible accuracy of the vedas See more of this discussion:Re: Reasons to end ice age
|
| Tornados-decending winds | Posted by on 2004-12-04 (message id=805 ) |
|
hello peter, because my english is not well, i did not understand much about the theories described on your web-site. my question, do these theories fit to the descriptions on these pages http://www.newatlantis.de/ , ore is it contradictory? whould be nice if you can reply to the statemends on this web-site. warm regards, manuel See more of this discussion:Tornados-decending winds
|
| Re: Reasons to end ice age | Posted by on 2004-10-25 (message id=813 ) |
|
i think that the ice age ended was that there was a gaint metorite hit and that when it did the volcanos went off and caused the ice age to end and thats my reason
See more of this discussion:Re: Reasons to end ice age
|
| Re: Reasons to end ice age | Posted by vic on 2004-07-27 (message id=812 ) |
|
Reflectivity (called albedo) of the Earth is high when it is icy. This means that the colder Earth gets, the less sunlight it absorbs (an unending cycle, since colder means shinier and shinier means colder). This is why there was an ice age. The ice age ended when vocanos spewed black carbon dust onto the ice. That dark dust absorbed sunlight and heated the earth. We are in a natural Global Warming trend now, highly accelerated by mankind's burning of fossil fuels (carbon dioxide produced by the burning is a greenhouse gas that allows high frequency light from the sun to enter the atmosphere, but does not allow the low frequency reflected light to exit). Ice ages don't seem to create pole shifts, historically--we can compare charts of ice ages and pole shifts and verify that. The physical poles of the earth (about which the earth spins) can move. In fact, it has a wobble. The orientation of the magnetic field of the earth (indicated by a compass needle) can independently move (and it is in constant motion). Movement of the magnetic field is not well understood, but it appears to have something to do with large mass movements and currents in the liquid portion of the core and at the core/mantle boundary. The center of the core, though more than hot enough to melt iron, is solid due to extreme pressures. It is not a smooth solid object, it has grooves. These grooves direct the flow of molton metal. The flow of molten metal creates the magnetic field. Planets and moons without a molten core don't have magnetic fields. The moon is not now molten, and it does not have a magnetic field See more of this discussion:Re: Reasons to end ice age
|
| Re: Magnitude of shift over-estimated | Posted by Peter on 2004-05-31 (message id=787 ) |
|
Think of the rest position for the imbalance as being on the equator, and the maximum imbalance beining intially polar. (Like a pendulum swinging) I am suggesting that the imbalance has enough impetus to swing through the equator slowing to stop about 30 degrees short of the opposite pole. It can now swing back through the equator again oscillating until it comes to rest on the equator, or stick at the maximum swing of the pendulum. peter See more of this discussion:Re: Magnitude of shift over-estimated
|
| Magnitude of shift over-estimated | Posted by on 2004-05-17 (message id=786 ) |
|
Hi Peter, I find the crustal displacement hypothesis to be very realistic with one exception: the scale of the shift being described. The concept of a sudden thaw of land-based icesheets causing a mass imbalance is perfectly viable but I cannot see how this could operate with a shift of > 90 degrees. (i.e., could account for pole shifts of up to 90 degrees but not near-total polar inversions). If a balanced orb is spinning then becomes unbalanced by a loss/movement of mass, the realignment required will never exceed the distance from the equator to the nearest pole as otherwise it would have moved through (and beyond) the first position of stability. Could you please explain this? Frank See more of this discussion:Magnitude of shift over-estimated
|
| Re: Question | Posted by Peter on 2004-04-11 (message id=808 ) |
|
The 'official' version of a lightning discharge from a thunderstorm has electricity travelling in opposite directions. This cannot be so. Electrons will always accelerate many times faster than a proton. The 'official view' of cosmology insists that gravity is the only force that can cause particles in a dust cloud to clump together. Many theories from the big bang to black holes are based on this assumption. Now rub a plastic comb on a dry day and hold it close to dust, or switch on an ioniser in a dusty room. Electrostatic attraction of dipoles causes clumping in both cases, and scaled up can cause aggregation of dust in dust clouds in space. Peter See more of this discussion:Re: Question
|
| Question | Posted by on 2004-04-10 (message id=807 ) |
|
Your site is wild, brilliant and thought-provoking. A ,question re your Introduction. You wrote: "Even today there are areas of basic science that you can demonstrate for yourself, but you will not find in any text book. Because this science is missing there are fundamental flaws in many areas, from our theories of climate, to the Grand Theories of the Universe." Can you give some examples of some of these areas of basic science that one could demonstrate for oneself, but which are not dealt with comprehensively in traditional theory? Thanks Peter, Martin See more of this discussion:Question
|
| Re: Your pivot point | Posted by Peter on 2004-01-02 (message id=777 ) |
|
If the last position of the pole (south) was, for example, Devon Island in the Canadian North, and the movement ended with the pole in its present location, the axis of rotation that will produce that movement will be on the equator at 90 degrees to the line of latitude that joins these position of the poles. If you have a globe, you can put your fingers on these two axis points and see how the crust would rotate. Peter See more of this discussion:Re: Your pivot point
|
| Your pivot point | Posted by on 2004-01-02 (message id=776 ) |
|
Hi Peter. Why do you hypothesize a pivot point off the coast of West Africa? Thanks, NQ See more of this discussion:Your pivot point
|
| Re: Signing in | Posted by on 2003-12-13 (message id=801 ) |
|
As there appears not to be the appropriate forum yet establishhed, then I hope none shall be offended if I moot this as appropriate (Anon): that the internet also makes it possible to spread such conspiracies rapidly - GHMB is a great site, but so is this! For 120,000 years, Homo sapiens sapiens must have done something more than wait for the last 10,000yrs to start on pyramids>religious dark ages >renaissance >industrial revolution >e message boards; than sit around hunting and gathering with his/her digits inserted up her/his proboscus. p.s. peter - your plug on GHMB did it for me See more of this discussion:Re: Signing in
|
| Flying objects | Posted by on 2003-09-01 (message id=806 ) |
|
Many years ago, on a farm in Virginia USA, Len used to go out each night about 11p.m. and have a smoke and look at the sky. Many times he saw the satellites go over, and would call me out to see...While watching the satellite one night, we were astounded to see 'stars' shooting from left to right, from right to left, to north and south, and so on, from stationary positions. No shooting stars, those 'stars'. We were entranced. Nothing that we knew of could shoot from one area to another up in space like that, from a dead stop. Just a year ago, while watching the TV programs on anomalies in space, they showed these very same type 'stars', photographed from a manned space station, shooting in straight lines, from all directions..like missiles... and noone seemed able to provide an explanation as to what exactly they were....Were they space ships (UFOs), or were they missiles being fired from space at other objects in space from UFOs?. Very interesting to have seen them 20 years prior to seeing them shown on TV from actual space stations. Has anyone any up-to-date information on these sightings See more of this discussion:Flying objects
|
| Re: ancient warfare | Posted by Peter on 2003-05-23 (message id=800 ) |
|
I am still trying to find a reputable modern translation into English. There has been a lot of rubbish written, but some of the information is so tantalising! look at http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Vimanas.htm for a list of references. Peter See more of this discussion:Re: ancient warfare
|
| Re: ancient warfare | Posted by on 2003-05-18 (message id=799 ) |
|
Peter How would get a copy of Samarangana Sutradhara See more of this discussion:Re: ancient warfare
|
| Re: ancient warfare | Posted by Peter on 2003-05-17 (message id=798 ) |
|
If the theory of the charge sheath is correct, then the sanskrit texts describe real events and technology. Peter See more of this discussion:Re: ancient warfare
|
| Re: Signing in | Posted by on 2003-05-08 (message id=797 ) |
|
I have just read your theories on ancient atomic war, this is what i've been looking into for the last couple of months. I dont know if your looking into this any more, I dont have any proof for an ancient atomic civilisation but if you look at the evidence for atomic war in the cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro where they discovered skeletons scattered about the cities, many holding hands and sprawling in the streets as if some instant, horrible doom had taken place. People were just lying, unburied, in the streets of the city. And these skeletons are thousands of years old, even by traditional archaeological standards. What could cause such a thing? Why did the bodies not decay or get eaten by wild animals? Furthermore, there is no apparent cause of a physically violent death. Huge masses of walls and foundations of the ancient city are fused together, literally vitrified! And since there is no indication of a volcanic eruption at Mohenjo-Daro or at the other cities, the intense heat to melt clay vessels can only be explained by an atomic blast or some other unknown weapon. These skeletons are among the most radioactive ever found, on par with those at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At one site, Soviet scholars found a skeleton which had a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal This is a discription from Mahabharata (Sanskrit texts) ...(it was) a single projectile Charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame As bright as the thousand suns Rose in all its splendour... ..it was an unknown weapon, An iron thunderbolt, A gigantic messenger of death, Which reduced to ashes The entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas. ..The corpses were so burned As to be unrecognisable. The hair and nails fell out; Pottery broke without apparent cause, And the birds turned white. After a few hours All foodstuffs were infected... ...to escape from this fire The soldiers threw themselves in streams To wash themselves and their equipment. can anyone explain this as anything else other than a nuclear holocaust See more of this discussion:Re: Signing in
|
| Re: Poles moving | Posted by Peter on 2003-02-20 (message id=780 ) |
|
The evidence of glaciation on the earths surface shows periods of glaciation that are either not centred on the poles, or else the earths crust has moved far more rapidly than the process of plate tectonics would suggest. Glaciations in the last 100 000 years show distinctly different centers. There is also evidence of glaciation in surface rocks in the sahara in africa. Crustal shift exists, but cannot account for these glaciations. Rapid crustal movement relocating the pole and glaciation always centred round the pole seems a much more plausible hypothesis. Hapgood produced a lot of theories about this crustal shift, but was later dissuaded of his theory of rapid crustal movement. There is now far more evidence available that supports very rapid crustal shift ( and magnetic reversals ) but this is a theory out of fashion and won't be supported by mainstream journals. Peter See more of this discussion:Re: Poles moving
|
| Poles moving | Posted by on 2003-02-20 (message id=779 ) |
|
Just wonderd,would the Poles not remaining in place be explained by plate tectonics and movements in the Earths crust? or have I missed the point
See more of this discussion:Poles moving
|
| another paper on nuclear event in N.A | Posted by Peter on 2002-10-28 (message id=772 ) |
|
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nuclear.html
See more of this discussion:another paper on nuclear event in N.A
|
| Re: Signing in | Posted by Peter on 2002-10-12 (message id=796 ) |
|
The large scale organisation of the universe has a number of leading scientists who consider that electrical phenomena play a leading role. Dr Peratt's work is certainly worth looking at. I was slightly suprised by the reaction from the GH message board, but what I am trying to do is gather a group of people who are willing to consider these theories from the fundamentals of science and not jump in half way by announcing it cannot possibly be true. By its very nature the GH board accumulates many without the skills to evaluate new ideas. There does seem to me to be a large body of science ( and history) that has been overlooked - or deliberately suppressed. The Internet makes it possible to spread such ideas rapidly and safely - I hope. Peter See more of this discussion:Re: Signing in
|
| Re: Reasons to end ice age | Posted by on 2002-10-03 (message id=811 ) |
|
Hi Peter, I have approached this question from a very simple deductive process of elimination. What is clear is that an enormous amount of energy was needed to reduce the amount of ice that had accumulated at the old polar regions and beyond, and that the speed of the thaw must have indicated some considerable source. That leaves two serious options. Heat energy from within the Earth's core, or some external source. The extent of the potential from within the core is virtually unlimited, as far as we know, but a mechanism by which such a massive efflux of such heat could be initiated isn't really known to us, is it ? A massive bout of vulcanism, perhaps triggered by earthquakes is obviously possible, but is there sufficient evidence of this on the surface of the planet ? It would have to be pretty obvious I would have thought. The external possible sources are cosmic body collisions with the planet, asteroid, meteor, comet, and so on. There is some evidence of these, and this option cannot, in my view, be discounted. The Carolina Bays are one such example that many have tried to use as evidence of a cometary strike, albeit one which broke up into several particles and hit at various points around the surface. Another possible source is the actual displacement of the entire earth's crust leading to a re-positioning of the poles. I think that such a phenomenom is possible, but for some reason I have the sneaking feeling that this, if true, might have been consequential rather than causal. Some other factor or factors may have triggered a series of events, one of which may have been an ECD. The last possibility is the mis-application of some mega-potent technology. This has been mooted in many different ways by many different people. Again, I have read a great deal of different people's opinions on this and I have to resort to my 'gut-feeling', and that is that I have had this 'intuitive' sense that we humans have been on a different track than that described by orthodox historians ever since I was a schoolboy, several decades ago. The classic graph is a long slow upward linear ascent from the caves to where we are now. My feeling is that we have a graph line more like a V-shape, or possibly even an extended W-shape. When I first read of the Vedas, and the idea that humankind had been cycling through civilisation and primitive conditions for a vastness of 'time' that we can barely imagine, it just struck some 'chord' within me. The more I have read, and the more that I have experienced the more firm I become in this belief. I think that we have had great, and highly technological societies in our ancient past, and that we may well have destroyed them all by a foolish misuse of those technologies. For what it is worth I think that we came pretty close to doing the same again in the last few decades, but that this time we managed to 'pull back' at the very brink, and not go into the 'Abyss' yet again. But there again, I've always been a great optimist ! ;-) Well, those are just some opening thoughts. I hope that your site attracts some more attention, Peter, and that your work continues to bear fruit. All the very best, David See more of this discussion:Re: Reasons to end ice age
|
| Signing in | Posted by on 2002-10-03 (message id=795 ) |
|
Hi Peter, I'm sorry that I didn't drop by here before. I got involved in an altercation with the 'powers' that be on the GHMB, and then I had a bit of of an upset with my computer. No matter. I did my best to support your excellent work on that board, and I am still mystified as to why no less than three of their people swooped on your post and questioned it's validity on GH's Mystery Forum. That's a 'mystery' to me, but then again I had a similar problem with a thread I made a little later than yours. I don't know if you are aware of this but I looked back at your original thread opening post just now and it looks as if someone has edited the link to your site off the post. This gets weirder and weirder. As far as I am concerned, and I have made this point very strongly with various people the GHMB could do with a 'Science' forum being established so that subjects like your work can be discussed without getting jumped on, and without getting bogged down in all of the political stuff that goes on on the GV board. I discussed this with Richard ( Fuzzy ) yesterday and he is going to raise it again. With regard to your work, as I said, I think that it is fascinating, and am very interested to see where it leads. Funnily enough the post I made and then had difficulty with was based on a classic picture of Hurricane Lili, I made note of the similarity between the form of a hurricane and the form of the classic spiral galaxy. It seems to me that the physical forces at work in the Universe have a way of leaving a similar 'signature' whether it is in the macro, or the micro manifested sense. I have held the view that the appearance of 'solidity' in material manifestation may be one of our worst barriers to understanding how things really work, and I suspect that this work of yours is pointing in that direction. With regard to the amount of evidence around the world of ancient nuclear events, has anyone actually ever put together a sort of compendium of all of these sites. I know the Libyan Desert, Northern India, Tibet, the Gobi, Western Australia amongst others are all said to show such signs, but I have never seen all of this data put together in one piece. Any thoughts ? David See more of this discussion:Signing in
|
| Reasons to end ice age | Posted by Peter on 2002-10-02 (message id=810 ) |
|
I cannot see any other explanation for the glaciation of one area with another ice free, except that like today, cold regions are centred round the poles, and at increasing altitudes as one goes further from the pole. If glaciation is not centred on the present day pole, then the pole must have moved q.e.d. I think the most plausible explanation of pole shift is that demonstrated by Antarctica today. As the ice cap builds up the tectonic heat from inside the earth starts to warm and then melt the lowest ice layers. Lakes of water build up and the ice sheet may collapse catastrophically. The sudden removal of 2 miles depth of ice is far faster than isostatic forces can compensate for. I would suggest that the earth must rotate round its centre of mass. If that centre of mass suddenly moves then the pole is forced to move immediately. If the collapse of the ice sheet is onto low lying land, rather than ocean, then the effect is doubled because the redistributed mass is not immediately compensated for by movement of water. You discuss the information for the last 100 000 years for the north pole and for the equator - but do you have information for the corresponding south pole for each of these glaciations? My arguments suggest that the poles will stay in their present locations until the main antarctic ice sheets over land collapses, when an eccentric collapse would move the pole again. Two interesting sites: ON THE POSSIBILITY OF VERY RAPID SHIFTS OF THE POLES by Flavio Barbiero http://wwwesterni.unibg.it/siti_esterni/dmsia/dynamics/poles.html http://www.poleshift.org An interesting site but not complete Peter See more of this discussion:Reasons to end ice age
|
| Re: rotational axis shift | Posted by on 2001-08-17 (message id=794 ) |
|
So far, no one has provided any explanation of how a nuclear event signature could be produced by natural means. Before the ending of the ice age the most pleasant regions to live would have been the temperate coastal fringes. Now submerged by the sea. The northern continental interiors would have had a much harsher climate than today. Any evidence of ancient technology seems to be discarded as modern day contamination. Peter See more of this discussion:Re: rotational axis shift
|
| Re: rotational axis shift | Posted by on 2001-08-03 (message id=793 ) |
|
Well a technological society might be around who knows ? Zechariah Sitchen has noted several nuclear events by the Annunaki, and presents an actual decision by their leader to cleanse this planet through a flood. Few escaped but relativly little longer term harm was done to the earths ecosystem. Then there are the dropa disks which state that its dropa writers crashlanded somewhere in tibetan plateau region 10,000 BC and to this date a peoples calling themselves Dropa live there, measuring on average 3.5/4 feet. Now the 'educated survivors" might not have been that many or even ever been planning to interfere or there can be a number of other reasons why guided development was impossible or held back See more of this discussion:Re: rotational axis shift
|
| rotational axis shift | Posted by on 2001-08-02 (message id=792 ) |
|
Like your theory about the anomalies in the Ice Age . Had no clue of discovery of signature of nuclear event . However , is there not a possible natural cause for this ? And if a technological advanced society existed , why are there no traces to be found and why did humanity had a fall back to the Stone Age
See more of this discussion:rotational axis shift
|
| Welcome | Posted by on 2001-07-28 (message id=791 ) |
|
HTML>This site is for a scientific assessment of the anomalies present for the period 15 000 to 5 000 years ago. Peter |