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
"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
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
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mention but all long superceded by new research and discoveries.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 …