Chevrons in Madagascar

Hey I am listening to Randall Carlson talk about the chevrons from a cosmic event and possible theories about ancient cultures.

source

The 2.6 million year Quaternary period terrestrial physical record lacks definitive crater evidence for major regional catastrophic impacts by asteroids and comets other than the 10.5-km diameter Botsumtwi structure in Ghana and the 14.0-km diameter Zhamanshin structure in Kazakhstan [1] dating between about 900 and 1100 kya. Current cosmic impact rate models suggest that an average of between 3-6 globally catastrophic impacts should have occurred on the Earth during the Quaternary, along with several additional significant regional impacts in addition to Zhamanshin and Botsumtwi. These models and data indicate that the great majority of the "missing" major impact locations would likely have occurred in poorly studied oceanic settings. Only recently have Late Quaternary and Holocene period coastal paleo-megatsunami chevron deposits been defined in the Caribbean and along the western coasts of Australia, along with the suggestion that some may have been created by oceanic cosmic impacts in distinction to those caused by landslips, eruptions, and seismic events. We investigate the possibility that many or most megatsunami chevrons occurring along the southern coast of Madagascar were caused by two or more major Holocene Indian Ocean cosmic impacts.

What do you guys think?

a reply to: onequestion
Here is a link to the group of researchers that authored you linked paper.

tsun.sscc.ru...


While the chevrons in Madagascar and Australia are viewed as contentious, they are hard to dismiss.

Look up the work of Marie Agnes-Courty, she has worked for decades on sites in Mesopotamia, that show signs of having experienced a cosmic catastrophe.
Also look up Dallas Abbott's work as well.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: onequestion
Here is a link to the group of researchers that authored you linked paper.

tsun.sscc.ru...


While the chevrons in Madagascar and Australia are viewed as contentious, they are hard to dismiss.

Look up the work of Marie Agnes-Courty, she has worked for decades on sites in Mesopotamia, that show signs of having experienced a cosmic catastrophe.
Also look up Dallas Abbott's work as well.

Awesome thanks. This is seriously one of the most interesting topic in the conspiracy world imo

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: onequestion
Here is a link to the group of researchers that authored you linked paper.

tsun.sscc.ru...


While the chevrons in Madagascar and Australia are viewed as contentious, they are hard to dismiss.

Look up the work of Marie Agnes-Courty, she has worked for decades on sites in Mesopotamia, that show signs of having experienced a cosmic catastrophe.
Also look up Dallas Abbott's work as well.

Awesome thanks. This is seriously one of the most interesting topic in the conspiracy world imo

Also check out this site
knowledgeminer.eu...

Pay close ateention to the first two papers mostly the second one

a reply to: onequestion
The bronze age experienced several major episodes of climate change, all of which have some facet of extra terrestrial impact.

a reply to: onequestion

Why do you see this as a conspiracy topic?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ancient cataclysms are a fascinating conspiracy topic. Randal Carlson advocates past technologically advanced civilizations and the ancient flood theory.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: onequestion

Why do you see this as a conspiracy topic?

The science world preaches evolution. That 500,000 years ago mankind lived in caves as neanderthals. This would render all that incorrect. 500,000 years ago the earth could have been as technically advanced as it is now, or more.

a reply to: onequestion

Rereading, my question comes across as terse.

Sometimes when I don't have time to post, i shouldn't try. LOL

This evening Ill be back with a couple of things to add to you (and jjkenobi's) assertions on that point.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

After reading many of your posts over the years I assumed you weren't trying to be a "prick".

But I can't wait!

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: onequestion

Why do you see this as a conspiracy topic?

The science world preaches evolution. That 500,000 years ago mankind lived in caves as neanderthals. This would render all that incorrect. 500,000 years ago the earth could have been as technically advanced as it is now, or more.

No based on evidence found in nature the theory of evolution was developed to explain what was seen and how nature acts, so far the theory has not been falsified.

a reply to: Hanslune

Misunderstood, however.

The slow march of evolution was a flawed idea that likely has held back studies to some degree. Catastrophism seems to be the direction that evolution needs to move towards.

While the acadmics have discssused it from that perspective for quite some time....it just hasn't trickled down very well to the public at large.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I would say that gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are the two ways in which the evolution of species occurs, both work.

We have lots of evidence for both.

I couldn't make much sense of Randall's speech. I went to his website (for 111.11 dollars of month you can get his newsletter adn Ruthenium membership) Anything that explains what he is about is well hidden behind very steep pay walls.

a reply to: Hanslune

Well apparently it's not necessarily evolution its species adapting to the new enviornment after the cataclysm. Thinner atmosphere smaller animals. Is that evolution or is that correction?

a reply to: onequestion

Evolution - any time a species begins to change, ie has more success with new mutations in a new environment that is E.

a reply to: Hanslune

But this doesn't fit within in the modern idea of evolution. What were describing fits more into the idea of adaptation.

a reply to: onequestion

Which is part of evolution - if I understand your use of the term

In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. Adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation. Adaptations contribute to the fitness and survival of individuals

Do you mean this or something else? If you are referring to the creationist version of 'adaptation' then that is a whole different kettle of fish.

a reply to: Hanslune

Right but evolution excludes this idea or way of thinking, this essentially changes the modern paradigm of evolution.

Fundamentally I get what your saying, but it doesn't explain complete species changes.

What we have is a species adapting to it's enviornment not one species completely evolving into another.

Maybe I'm wrong I don't know.

a reply to: onequestion

What do you mean by 'complete species change'?

As I understand it: In humans we are classified as Homo Sapien Sapien and at some point in the past we evolved sufficiently enough to be come another species. The direct line of linnage is not clear but say that Australopithecus afarensis was our ancestor, we consider them a different species and at some arbitarily assigned point they evolved into another speces, etc until us.

Is that what you are referring too?

I should note that I usually avoid evolution discussions on this forum, can you explain how our present subject is germane?

a reply to: Hanslune

Yeah but that's a theory not conclusive.

Show me evidence for an "emerging" species.

There's a clear difference between adaptation and evolution right?

I'm not trying to disagree with you I just want to understand