It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hapgood's theory could place the Sphinx at 30,000 yrs ago

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Hello Nygdan, Byrd, FatherLukeDuke, and all,

Both physics and engineering are about forces and energy, heat, and structures. Einstein would have been more than proficient in all these areas, and knowing that the mechanics of crustal displacement is a matter of physics more than it is geology .. what could Hapgood have offered Einstein that would have so impressed him?

The answer is in the wording of Einstein's forward which I'll post next .. for now - it was this: Hapgood named formative forces as the causal factor that brought on the Ice Ages .. NOT climate - NOT dust in the atmosphere - but a formative force! (reference: Earth's Shifting Crust, Pantheon Books, p. 314)


The prospect that unfolds before us, as we contemplate the possibility that total displacements of the earth's crust have been a feature of geological history since the formation of the crust itself, is nothing less than the discovery of the formative force, the shaping factor, that has been responsible not only for ice ages, not only for the mountain ranges, but possibly for the very history of the continents and for all the principle features of the face of the earth.


Hapgood was saying that the accumulation of glacial ice was the result of natural deposition at the poles. Hence the Ice Ages would not be a period of accumulation - but would be that period of melting back of the glacial ice under the warmer rays of the lower latitudes.

With some deliberation - glacial ice on the Ohio River during the last Ice Age becomes a far more palatable thought!

bc
.\




posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc

Hapgood was saying that the accumulation of glacial ice was the result of natural deposition at the poles. Hence the Ice Ages would not be a period of accumulation - but would be that period of melting back of the glacial ice under the warmer rays of the lower latitudes.


So why was the polar climate so much colder during the last Glacial than it is today?

And if, as Hapgood hypothesied, West Antarctic was further north than it is now, before the last crustal dispalcement, how come it had a greater expanse of ice covering it at the time than it has today? Surely there should have been less ice?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Hello all,

It's beyond doubt (witnessed by the terminology used in the forward) that Einstein associated [forces, the deposition of ice, and crustal shift] all within the framework of a single concept. It's also clear that he concurred with Hapgood's statement that the depositional phase of the Ice Ages occurred at the Poles: [ref. Earth's Shifting Crust, Pantheon Books, 1958, forward]

These are Einstein's words, from the forward:


In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth's rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth .. and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator.


bc] Momentum (as used by Einstein) is a term that includes mass and the rotational velocity of the earth, and it translates to forces in accordance with this general equation: F = momentum / (delta time); where F = force. And like all equations that define Hapgood's theory, this equation is strictly Newtonian.

What Einstein is concurring with here, is that the forces (i.e., centrifugal momentum) will cause a displacement of the glacial ice, and hence a displacement of the crust of the earth.

bc.
.\



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Whatever Einstein might have thought, he was wrong.

As anyone who has looked at just a fraction of the research and discoveries of the past 50 years will know



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Hello all,

Einstein, who's name was synonymous with intellectual strength and deductive genius, captured the imagination of the world.

And his praise of Hapgood was resolute, again from the forward of Earth's Shifting Crust


quote]I frequently receive communications from people who wish to consult me concerning their unpublished ideas. It goes without saying that these ideas are seldom possessed of scientific validity. The very first communication, however that I received from Mr. Hapgood electrified me. His idea is original, of great simplicity


Einstein, not only agreed with Hapgood's theory, but he spoke of him as a peer.

bc
.\

[edit on 5-5-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 5-5-2006 by beforebc]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello Nygdan, Byrd, FatherLukeDuke, and all,

Both physics and engineering are about forces and energy, heat, and structures. Einstein would have been more than proficient in all these areas,

No he wouldn't. He wasn't an engineer, he was a very pooor basic math's student. He was good at the abstract aspects.


what could Hapgood have offered Einstein that would have so impressed him?

I dunno, doesn't seem like there is anything impressive in his ideas so far.



The prospect that unfolds before us, as we contemplate the possibility that total displacements of the earth's crust have been a feature of geological history since the formation of the crust itself, is nothing less than the discovery of the formative force, the shaping factor, that has been responsible not only for ice ages, not only for the mountain ranges, but possibly for the very history of the continents and for all the principle features of the face of the earth.


Hapgood was saying that the accumulation of glacial ice was the result of natural deposition at the poles. Hence the Ice Ages would not be a period of accumulation - but would be that period of melting back of the glacial ice under the warmer rays of the lower latitudes.
The problem is that the ice volumes increase during ice ages, and the poles were in the high lattitudes.


and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator.

Except that it doesn't. The poles weren't displaced equatorwards.


What Einstein is concurring with here, is that the forces (i.e., centrifugal momentum) will cause a displacement of the glacial ice, and hence a displacement of the crust of the earth.

If the forces are great enough. What calculation shows that they are? What values for the ice mass are being used? What values for the counteracting forces are being used?


Einstein, not only agreed with Hapgood's theory, but he spoke of him as a peer.

Einstein also disagreed with the existence of anything like the god of the bible. Who cares who or what he agreed with. This is an arguement from authority. What evidence supports the theory?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Hello all,

With this discussion, we're attempting to establish that Crustal Shift (frightful as it may be) is workable. And using this as the background, we're unfolding the physics of it, one step at a time. The ultimate objective is to show that the Sphinx (built in another era) was a victim of circumstance, and it ended up at 31 N, and looking almost due east .. quite by accident.

bc
.\



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Uh nobody is explaining the obvious water errosion on the lower sections of the sphinx at all? Much of Egypt has been desert for modern history so when did this type of rainfall occur?

Also, we know the head of the Sphinx is not naturally mated to the body so that compounds finding the age of the original structure as well as its original manufacturer since we don't know what the original head looked like.

I find it tedious that modern science fights so hard to defend old outdated views that are not supported with enough knowledge to support them but they have lots of time to shut down anybody with differing views as though heretical.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,

With this discussion, we're attempting to establish that Crustal Shift (frightful as it may be) is workable. And using this as the background, we're unfolding the physics of it, one step at a time. The ultimate objective is to show that the Sphinx (built in another era) was a victim of circumstance, and it ended up at 31 N, and looking almost due east .. quite by accident.

bc
.\


Perhaps you could offer some physical evidence in support of your contention that a crustal displacement has occurred in recent geological times?



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Hello all,

Crustal Shift is a devastating event. It destroys everything in it's path and makes a shambles of the geological record. But like everything else in the world of Nature, Crustal Shift leaves a very unique set of fingerprints everywhere it goes.

What we have to do now is learn to identify them, and then demonstrate that no other event can account for them. That's what Hapgood did in Earth's Shifting Crust and that's what we're going to do in the posts that follow.

bc
.\



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
So what, you're claiming crustal shift is correct, but you don't know how to identify it yet? And your evidence is what, a claim that the Sphinx HAD to be built exactly facing East, and since it isn't, then crustal shift must be true?

That's like saying, the Earth doesn't only move away from the center of the universe, so Big Bang theory must be false.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Hello all,

There is no better test of a theory than the ability to answer the tough questions.

In Earth's Shifting Crust (p 244), Hapgood presented the most logical of all the theories ever presented regarding the Berezovka mammoth. If you're not familiar with the Berezovka mammoth this website presents a rather good overall view.

The two questions that a valid theory must answer, are these: a.] why was he found in the tundra where no self-respecting mammoth ever lived? And 2.] how did the mammoth get deep frozen?

Hapgood answered those questions in combination with Crustal Shift and Birds Eye food's method of deep freezing.

He gave a lengthy discussion, so I'll paraphrase it rather than quote it.

Crustal shift suggests that great amounts of hot gasses were released that powered towering plums into the far upper atmosphere. Once there, the gasses lost their heat, and now heavy with near outer space temperatures, they plummeted to earth and caught the hapless fauna freezing them instantly. As you'll recall, Birds Eye Foods, ref., Hapgood, and Frozen mammoth carcasses in Siberia discovered that unless quick frozen .. water inside the food cells would turn to ice, which (because water expands on turning to ice) breaks down the cell walls and makes the food mushy on thawing.

Hapgood pointed out that the cells of the Berezovka mammoth were intact (suggesting instant deep freezing). He also pointed out that the mammoth was not where we'd expect it to be, standing as it was in the permafrost ..

Here is simplicity itself, and it answers both questions within the basic framework of Hapgood's Crustal Shift theory!

bc
.\



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The frozen Mammoth thing is always put forth to explain this theory. It is an
example of a truth wrapped with untruths so tightly, that the original truth is
lost.

Fact: Not one Mammoth was found Standing up
Fact: There have only been a handful found (there were probably millions around)
Fact: Finding undigested food in an animals stomach is normal. Animals will eat
continuously until death. I have seen deer whacked by a car along side a
road bleeding to death but still trying to eat. It's instinct. This is especially
tru for a mammoth who would have to eat almost all the time to sustain its
mass.

www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 6-5-2006 by TheHorseChestnut]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
If you're not familiar with the Berezovka mammoth this website presents a rather good overall view.
The two questions that a valid theory must answer, are these: a.] why was he found in the tundra where no self-respecting mammoth ever lived? And 2.] how did the mammoth get deep frozen?

BC,
Siberia, even today, experiences 70 deg F summers. The Berezovka mammoth was carbon-dated to around 39,000 years ago. During the ice age that was prevalent at that time, there were warm periods as well as cool periods:
During the period between 120,000 and 90,000 years ago

the Laurentian ice sheet increased the earth’s albedo and lower sea levels. Increased (the amount of sunlight the Earth reflects back into space) meant the Earth was cooler.
...Globally it became drier (paradoxically ice sheets can grow even with reduced precipitation, so long as the rate of precipitation is greater than the speed at which the snow and ice melts or sublimes. However, in some places where precipitation rates became much lower than they are today, no ice sheet was able to develop, even though it was cold enough for one. Siberia – which even today sees its annual winter snowfall vanish completely in summer temperatures of 70°f – was one such place and became a cold, dry, desert known as steppe.)
...The waning of the ice sheet coincided with periods – interstadials – lasting from hundreds to a few thousand years, which saw temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere often as warm as today, maybe in some places even warmer than today.
The final advance of the Laurentian ice sheet – and consequently others around the world – occurred around 25,000 years ago. This is known as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and represented the greatest advance in ice sheets, lowest sea levels, and coolest temperatures of the last ice age. The LGM came to an end around 18,000 years ago.
emphasis mine.(My source: www.geocities.com...)
As you can see, there is a perfectly good explanation for Mammoths living in Siberia in the time frame in question.
from your source:

"...in the stomach of the Berezovka mammoth; little flowering buttercups, tender sedges and grasses were found exclusively. Buttercups will not even grow at forty degrees (4.4°C), and they cannot flower in the absence of sunlight. A detailed analysis of the contents of the Berezovka mammoth’s stomach brought to light a long list of plants, some of which still grow in the arctic, but are actually much more typical of Southern Siberia today. Therefore, the mammoths either made annual migrations north for the short summer, or the part of the earth where their corpses are found today was somewhere else in warmer latitudes at the time of their death, or both." - Sanderson, I. T. 1960: 82, 83).
my bolding
from my source:

The idea that mammoths have been found with undigested temperate (or, as some commentators have reported, tropical!) plants in their mouths and stomachs originates with one of the best known mammoth excavations, at Berezovka, carried out by E. W. Pfizenmayer in 1901. Studies by Professor B. A. Tikhomirov, Botanical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, in St. Petersburg revealed, found that, amongst other plant remains, there were tiny traces of the common buttercup, Ranunculus acris, in the mammoth’s stomach. Ranunculus acris today grows in places like………….Svalbard, well within the arctic circle. The Berezoyka mammoth also seems to have given rise to the myth that mammoth flesh, when defrosted, was still edible. It was. But only to half starved huskies and wolves. Carbon dating shows it died around 39,000 years ago.
my bolding
Hmm... an arctic buttercup in an animal found in the arctic? What an anomaly!!

from your other source:

Based on many reports, it appears that estimates of millions of woolly mammoths in the Siberian permafrost are correct. Lister and Bahn24 note that some scientists put the number at ten million mammoths in the Siberian deep freeze. This makes the question of how they could have possibly found enough food and water in such a cold area even more enigmatic.

An obvious attempt to make it seem as if all these animals died at the same time. But:

Unfortunately for the catastrophists, these remains were deposited over a period of at least 11ky and probably much longer.
on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean, north of Siberia, ...was inhabited by mammoths as recently as 3,730 years ago
(same source as above)
So, how does Hapgood explain the existence of mammoths north of Siberia 6,000 years after they died out on the mainland? He doesn't, because he didn't know about them!

You should update your sources, as was already suggested.

Harte



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Hello all, Three facts are indisputable:

1.] The Berezovka mammoth (shown replicated in the photo) had been quick frozen
2.] It was found in the permafrost of Siberia (far from a natural habitat)
3.] A theory MUST account for all the mammoth's found across the frozen wastes of N America - Hapgood's theory does just that, as there were no restrictions on where the freezing air fell.
.
of the Berezovka mammoth
.
By some estimates this article suggested that there are millions more mammoths entombed in the permafrost of Siberia. Others, it continued, would estimate them at around 50,000. More have been found in Canada and Alaska.

The article goes on to say:


Russian researcher Tolmachoff reported several upright mammoth carcasses in Siberia. One of the carcasses was found in 1839, on the Shangin River, a tributary to the Indigirka River, in an upright position and protruding from a cliff.31 Another upright mammoth was also discovered in a cliff on the New Siberian Islands


Hapgood's Crustal Shift theory - accounts for both the strange location, and the quick freeze method of their preservation

bc
.\

[edit on 6-5-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 6-5-2006 by beforebc]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Three facts are indisputable:
1.] The Berezovka mammoth (shown replicated in the photo) had been quick frozen
2.] It was found in the permafrost of Siberia (far from a natural habitat)
3.] A theory MUST account for all the mammoth's found across the frozen wastes of N America - Hapgood's theory does just that, as there were no restrictions on where the freezing air fell.

BC,
You are apparently posting this drivel just to read your own words. I come to this conclusion because in my previous post, I not only disputed the "undisputable" number 2 above, I completely debunked it!

The site I linked to in my previous post absolutely refutes all three of your so-called "indisputable facts."

Any more "indisputables" out there for us to chew up, swallow, digest and yet still be able to identify?

Harte



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc

Russian researcher Tolmachoff reported several upright mammoth carcasses in Siberia. One of the carcasses was found in 1839, on the Shangin River, a tributary to the Indigirka River, in an upright position and protruding from a cliff.31 Another upright mammoth was also discovered in a cliff on the New Siberian Islands


bc
.\

[edit on 6-5-2006 by beforebc]


Pure Poppycock...

Just because it was found in an upright position, does not mean it was standing up.

Anyway it has been proven time and time again, that this is just Urban legend with
no basis on reality. (See my previous post)



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Hello all,

If one were to take a Globe of the World and mark each of the prior polar locations that Hapgood identified, Greenland, Alaska, and Hudsons Bay, and then measure from those polar positions to Siberia. It would show that the mammoths now being found in the permafrost, had lived as far north as the 40th parallel in those times.

Years ago I purchased a world globe and drilled holes for the bow at Greenland, Alaska, and Hudsons Bay - and another set at their antipodal locations in the Southern Hemisphere. If you choose to do this mark each of the equators with (thread saturated with glue). It's an easy thing now to reconstruct the geography of those past eras by moving the bow from one spot to the other. The most interesting is the Alaskan Era (60 N :: 138 W) as the equator will go through Easter Island, Nasca, Giza, and the sacred Indus Valley, of Old India - now Pakistan.

Certainly some lands will have changed, and a different set of islands would have existed - but for the most part these relocations are fairly representative - as will become apparent - as the ancient architecture (from each respective period) will fall within the cardinal alignments that one would expect to find.

bc
.\



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,

If one were to take a Globe of the World and mark each of the prior polar locations that Hapgood identified, Greenland, Alaska, and Hudsons Bay, and then measure from those polar positions to Siberia. It would show that the mammoths now being found in the permafrost, had lived as far north as the 40th parallel in those times.


But how then do you explain why, at the height of the last Glacial, when according to Hapgood, Siberia was positioned much further south, it had a climate similar to that found today on Wrangel Island, in the Arctic Ocean?


Thus, the insect assemblages in the Mamontovy Khayata section demonstrate a significant variation with time, apparently related to changes in summer temperature and humidity. The studied part of the Middle Weichselian (MW I and MW II), despite some variations, reveals a clear trend from warmer to cooler summers, demonstrated by the gradual decrease of relatively thermophilic xerophiles and increase in the proportion of arctic tundra insects. The insect assemblages allow us to consider the MW I environment as a relatively "warm" variant of tundra-steppe, while the MW II one was "cool" tundra steppe. This cooling trend reached its maximum during LW I (LGM). The dominance of pollen of grass and various herbs, along with the high amount of Selaginella spores and the abundance of arctic willow weevil Isochnus arcticus, invite a parallel with the modern Wrangel Island environment. A very sharp increase in summer temperature took place around 15 ka, and the LW II environment can be labeled as the "warmest" tundra-steppe for this Arctic region. Permafrost studies and ground ice isotopic analyses show much colder winter temperatures than present during the deposition of the whole Bykovsky Ice Complex (Meyer et al., 2002). Thus, all kinds of proxy evidence indicate the retention of very high continentality of climate through most of the Weichselian succession.


(My emphasis)

Extract from Sher etal - Tundra-steppe environment in Arctic Siberia and the evolution of the woolly mammoth (paper presented at the 3rd International Mammoth Conferance)

You should read the whole paper


The evidence all suggests that a) Siberia was where it is now b) the climate did not suddenly turn cold - although it did turn warmer and wetter and c) that mammoths were perfectly happy living in the dry steppe and tundra-steppe environemnt that existed at that time, probably migrating north in summer and occasionally being swept away by a icey cold meltwater flood. However, they were less able to cope with the change to wetter, milder conditions and with the change in vegetation that this brought.


Mammoths don't offer support for the crustal dispalcement theory - if anything they disprove it.

But perhaps there is other evidence that has not been overturned by new and improved research over the past 50 years?



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
What we have to do now is learn to identify them, and then demonstrate that no other event can account for them. That's what Hapgood did in Earth's Shifting Crust and that's what we're going to do in the posts that follow.

If he's already done that, then why don't you just tell us what that evidence is?


why was he found in the tundra where no self-respecting mammoth ever lived?

They are cold adapted animals

how did the mammoth get deep frozen?

Its preserved in sediments, I beleive, that are indicative of being caught up in glacial melt water.


accounts for both the strange location,

How does it account for the location? This mammoth was eating food in the pleasant plains of non-glaciated north america, the crust loosens and slips around the earth, and this mammoth alone gets thrown from north america to siberia, where its promptly 'quick freezed'??


and the quick freeze method of their preservation

It froze quickly enough to preserve the flesh, that doesn't require blasts of icey gas from space.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join