In the biblical flood account it mentions that the mantel and the fountains of the deep were broken. Considering that this refers too high altitude water and underground water, having a comet / astroid impact causing the flood is my belief. To include a possible bombardment accompanying the main impact. Though I was under the impression the impact point was what we now call the Yucatan Peninsula.

On impact, it fractured the crust and forcing water high into the atmosphere. Some falling in torrents as rain and some a ice giving us flash frozen mammoths, plants and other items. Uplifting of the crust and in some cases folding it over upon itself. Global earthquakes, volcanos, massive storms etc. all forming an almost total ELE at around 10,000 to 11,000 BC.

Ya I know not very scientific but the best I can do at the moment from memory.

If a glacial sheet on N. America is hit by a meteor or comet, obviously the heat and impact will melt large amounts of ice, half possible would be steam, another half of effected ice would be water, but certainly the effected area couldn't change water globally, the meteor necessary to do that would also certainly destroy part of the earth as well, also is there evidence of the exact size and thickness of the ice/water before this supposed event? Certainly the flood myths are in multiple religious books, Indian, christian, native American, so on, so there probably is something there, but the force necessary to do this would have destroyed part of earth itself, and not just a crater, could there be a different event to describe this happening worldwide? A continent sized Meteor would have the velocity and mass build up that would destroy the earth itself, and i believe they recently found a very old Egyptian port, that isn't very far from being on dry land as it is, not enough for a change to the oceans that a global flood would bring about?

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Sometime over ten years ago I read a book which did a great job of pinpointing the date and cause most likely for the 9500BC ELE. This is the title.
"Cataclysm : Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B. C."
By D S Allan and J B Delair.

Possibly the worst book on the subject every written. Sitchin is miles better!

I started to do a critical appraisal of the book a few years back but quickly gave up .... here's a bit of it though:

1) On page 15 we read that:

Studies have shown that at 10,178BC, or over 12,000 years ago, the celestial pole was inclined at an angle of 30° from its present position. This in turn strongly suggests that the terrestrial axis was then orientated differently from today

Ref: Noel, M and DH Tarling 1975 “The Laschamp Geomagnetic Event” Nature Vol 253 pp705-706

Problem is, the Laschamp Geomagnetic Event, as the name suggests, was a geomagnetic excursion – the position of the magnetic N Pole changed, as it sometimes does. There is no evidence whatsoever that the celestial or terrestrial pole was inclined differently to today (allowing for precessional changes)

2) Page 26

Reference to the Gobi basin being occupied by a sea called the Great Han Sai within human memory, and that the entire basin lat 2-3,000 ft lower. No reference given

Assertions that elevation of Tibetan plateau occurred at end of Pleistocene, in association with uplift in other ranges – only reference Flint R F 1947 GlacialGeology and the Pleistocene Epoch

Subsequent assertions of post ice age uplift of mountain ranges based of interpretation of reference to such events occurring ‘recently’ – without apparent understanding of geological significance of this terminology – or based on early 20th century texts. Lack of late 20th century studies is telling.

3) On page 28 is it reported that the Atlas mountains formerly extended into the present Atlantic Ocean at least as far as the Canary Islands, with subsidence of this occurring in late Pleistocene or early Holocene times – reference Gentil, L 1914 La Geologie du Maroc.

Numerous other ‘evidence’ of orogenic uplift in late or post glacial times based entirely on similar early 20th century texts, too numerous to mention but all long superceded by new research and discoveries.

It seems incredible that apparently intelligent people such as Allan and Delair should based their theories on the opinions of writers from 60 years ago – whilst comprehensively dismissing or ignoring all subsequent research and opinion.

4) Reference to the sudden end of the YD as evidence of a sudden end to the last ice age is disingenuous – the YD occurred several thousand years after the LGM and glacial retreat was well underway before the brief re-advance postulated during the YD. Further disingenuity is shown by use of outdated maps of the extent of northern hemisphere glaciation – it’s now commonly known not to extended over Siberia. This in turn throws into question comments about the lack of glaciation in the currently coldest part of the N Hemisphere. The lack of a map showing current N hemisphere glaciation is noticeable in every single book purporting to offer an alternative explanation for the ice age. The fact that current N hemisphere glaciation is ‘lop sided’, centred around the Atlantic and extends south of the Arctic Circle in some region, yet is entirely absent for all landmass within the arctic circle in Alaska/Siberia is an inconvenience authors of such books choose to conveniently ignore.

5) On page 43 that appear to think that the YD and Allerod are one and the same, and offer evidence of “a pronounced cooling of surface waters during Younger Dryas times” in the Sulu sea as proof that, contrary to expectations, temps fell at the end of the YD …. !

6) Page 52/53

As an expert on glaciology they use H H Howorth. Amazingly they could find no better expert in the 90 years since Howorth wrote Ice or Water? In 1905 ….

7) On page 58, after the inevitable quotations of Hibben (one would think he was the only person ever to look at or opiniate on the Alaskan Muck!) we read, incredibly, in reference to John Tyndall in 1883, that his remarks respecting great heat being required for the formation of widespread ice-sheets are still correct and have been upheld by nearly all later geophysicists. Well, not far out - none would actually be more accurate. I can only assume Allan and Delair have not read any book or paper on the ice ages published in the past 50 years….

8) Page 59

Quoting Nilsson, H 1953 Synthetische Artbildung: Grundlinen einer exakten Biologie they claim that lignite deposits at Geiseltal in Germany contain the bones of giant constrictor snakes, East African salamanders, crocodiles, South American condor, an Indo-Australian bird, marsupial mammals, apes as well as fungi and algae impressed on leaves that are only today found on plants in Brazil, the Cameroons and Java. Intriguing indeed, though this doesn’t sound like lignite to me. This at least requires clarification. Allen and Delair conclude that only hurricanes and tidal waves could have reduced such a collection of disparate animals (but fail to explain how such events pick up different animals from all over the world to drop in one small spot). They make similar claims regarding the range of bird species found at La Brea (ignoring, of course, any possibility that such birds may just possibly have not all be interred there at the same time)


9) One fundamental problem with their theory which does not seem to be addressed is, if such a cataclysmic event occurred, how do so many species in so many places survive? Bearing in mind that they assert than much of the pre 9,500BC land masses of the world are now deep ocean, major mountain ranges did not exist (where did mountain adapted species live?) and much of what is now land was previously the seabed. Entire bioclimes shifted thousands of miles. Overnight. And yet there was no genetic bottleneck amongst currently known species; whilst a few became extinct, the vast majority suffered no trauma whatsoever. Massive hurricanes and monster tidal waves swept the earth. And left almost all species happily living on where they were beforehand, as if nothing had ever happened. And whilst one might argue over the reliability of dating techniques, the fact remains that there is no evidence whatsoever that any species became extinct specifically at this time and nearly all the recovered ‘flash frozen’ fauna of N America and Alaska dates to before this date – often by several tens of thousands of years. Are all the dates wrong? And how credible is an argument that the dates must be wrong because we know that they actually died 9,500 years ago and the reason we know that is because, well, er, um …… that’s when our conjecture says they must have died. Such circular reasoning does not go down well outside of certain conspiracy forums …

Originally posted by Ruggeder
If a glacial sheet on N. America is hit by a meteor or comet, obviously the heat and impact will melt large amounts of ice, half possible would be steam, another half of effected ice would be water, but certainly the effected area couldn't change water globally, the meteor necessary to do that would also certainly destroy part of the earth as well, also is there evidence of the exact size and thickness of the ice/water before this supposed event? Certainly the flood myths are in multiple religious books, Indian, christian, native American, so on, so there probably is something there, but the force necessary to do this would have destroyed part of earth itself, and not just a crater, could there be a different event to describe this happening worldwide? A continent sized Meteor would have the velocity and mass build up that would destroy the earth itself, and i believe they recently found a very old Egyptian port, that isn't very far from being on dry land as it is, not enough for a change to the oceans that a global flood would bring about?

it seems you may not fully understand.

The supposition here is that it is a comet ranging from 1-4 miles (i would suppose its original size to be in the magnitude of 4+ miles). This comet begins to break apart. Remember, we are talking about a comet, travelling 200k mph (vs a meteor at 25k mph).

As this comet begins to break up due to the stresses of its approach to Earth and the inner solar system, it rains down a firestorm of destruction across the globe. Not 1 single impact. Hundreds of thousands of impacts, with 1 posibly being left in the 2 mile range. The dust particles traling this loose amalgamation of former cometary material rains down on earth for thousands of years to follow (possibly being seen as an annual meteor shower, a la Leonid, terrifying the remaining humans).

The primary impacter (aforementioned 2 mile cometary fragment) either strikes the northern glacial sheet, or explodes directly above it. The resulting energy blasts vaporized water high into the atmosphere, as well as breaking of huge, island sized pieces of ice which results in a tsunami.

The cometary impacts may well have been localized across the N. Atlantic and N. America. This is evidenced (Carolina Bays, etc mentioned above). And this single event could bring into focus the majority of ancient mythos, as well as explaining the damaged collective psyche that humanity seems to have.

Knowing how thick the ice shelf was at that time is difficult. I would remind all readers, however, that if we are talking about an ice age civilization, it is only logical that the civilization would be well out on the continental shelf.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Nevertheless in the course of that debate the topic expanded and I began to find very recent mainstream research papers which when considered together makes for some v. compelling evidence that the Ice Age ended in sudden catastrophe that created conditions very much like those that are described in the Great Flood of not only the bible, but almost every other civilization known to man.

Wasn't that already proven years ago?

[edit on 1/8/08 by Hanslune]

[edit on 1/8/08 by Hanslune]

[edit on 1/8/08 by Hanslune]

I'd like to add a few things here. TWISI said:

The 2007-2008 theory that it being proved out right now (see previous links) contends that the comet was 2 1/2 - 3 miles in diameter at time of detonation at Earths surface.

The article actually says:

two and a half to three miles in diameter, that detonated 30 to 60 miles above the earth

Emphases mine. That's a rather large gap.

From the "Final Thoughts:

Remnants of the Ice Age civilizations exist but they are buried under many feet of silt and sand, four hundred feet below sea level, far too deep for most divers. I predict that some of the greatest archeological discoveries in the 21st century will be uncovered off the coastlines, buried hundreds of feet underwater.

It should be noted that the four hundred foot increase in sea level is the peak increase starting from a point around 16,000 BC. At the time of the possible impact we're talking about, 11,000 - 9,000 BC, the sea level was around 80 meters lower. Remains should be easier to find than what the above quote suggests.

cormac

Hey cormac -- glad you are here! It is true they inititally stated what they call an impact at 30-60 miles above in 2007, but I think they moved away from that assesment as certain to their theory in the last year. The language they used to describe the event changed from explosion to impact in reagrds to the Earth's surface, although there is no doubt we are talking about a detonation. I am digging around right now and will let you know if I can find any reference pro or con to the distance.

I would like to point out, again, one thing that doesn't change is that they estimate the force at 10,000,000 Megatons. Once you get your head around, I don't mean you per se, the size of that force it seems that there are a lot of variables of destruction that could occur.

Since Marusek's forte is specifically comet impact, as you can see from my previous post, I think it merits the conversation we are having here. -- looking at the recently accepted theory of comet impact in N.A. and what Marusek says the geological implications of that would be and seeing what we can find in line of possible corroborating data or theories in support of his position. (see: many of BFFT's posts)

It's fun, it's interesting and, I think, most of us are all learning things along the way. It's also exciting to think that there may be unconsidered geological implications in support of the Global Flood Myth -- which I think even the most hard core debunker must find somewhat anamolous i.e. virtually every known culture having one, and most of which talk about the destruction of civilizations.

ESSAN - Welcome and I will read your link.
Cheers!



[edit on 1-8-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]