Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Science Proving 'Global Flood Myth' true - Dating for Prehistoric Civilization Legitimized!

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


If you can find where they revised the comet from aerial to surface explosion, I'd like to see it.

Here's an interesting comparison between the Chicxulub and Ice Age impactors.

Chicxulub: 6 Mile diameter, 170 kilometer/106.25 mile diameter crater, 100,000,000 megatons on impact.

Ice Age Impactor: 2 ½ - 3 mile diameter, unknown crater, 10,000,000 megatons on impact.

I would think that something approaching 1/2 the size of the Dinosaur Killer would have more than 1/10th the explosive power. The megatonnage would appear to suggest something rather smaller in size.

cormac




posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


Hmm.... I'm not sure how to respond to that as I don't know how it is determined what the force of the blast was/is. Anybody?

What is your larger point with that, cormac? That the whole thing is wrong because of the discrepancy? I'm not trying to be snarky either, I'm genuinely curious about what you think that suggests.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


hmm...i am unsure. that is somewhat trivial in the overall picture, however one could reconcile it by accounting for varience in speed and mass.

We are not talking about a pound of feathers or a pound of lead. The reference to size would be very relative.

Things like density, breakup, velocity, trajectory, atmospheric density, magnetospheric activity....there are so many factors.

It might help if we had a better idea of how they reached their "megatonnage" conclusions. If we knew the playing field that was used, perhaps we could try to level it.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I AM IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH JAMES MARUSEK:

He sent me an extensive response to the few questions I posed. If I'd known he was going to be so forth coming I would have written him with more queries. Anyway, for now I will excerpt it as I am not sure if it is ethical to print it in its entireity w/o asking him and I would like to keep the line of communication open for pertinent questions. Here goes:

JAMES MARUSEK SAYS -


I came to this theory after an extensive study of impact events and developing an analysis of impact threats beginning in 2000. You can find this "Comet and Asteroid Threat Impact Analysis" in my website. Another similar effort was conducted by scientist at the University of Arizona and a link is provided within my website.
My analysis studied atmospheric impacts, surface impacts, underwater impacts, and large impacts that penetrated the Earth's crust. There was one category that I didn't look at which was impacts that penetrated the ice sheets. In 2003, when I turned my attention to that subject, the "Theory Supporting the Biblical Account of the Great Flood" was the result.
If a large comet entered Earth's atmosphere and broke up into thousands of comet fragments which then individually collided with the Earth in North America, the effect might be cataclysmic. In areas where the surface was not covered with ice, the impacts could produce small depressions, such as the Carolina Bays. But in areas where ice sheets covered the earth, the impactors could penetrate deep into the ice releasing extensive ground shock and thermal energy beneath the ice. When ice becomes steam, the expanding gas has the power to perform work, which means that it can cause ice sheets to break up and move towards the ocean producing a Great Flood.
Back to your specific questions:
"Do you think the 2 ½ - 3 mile comet that geophysicist Allen West is theorizing detonated/impacted over Canada at approx. 11, 600 B.C. supports your theory?" - Yes, but a 5 mile diameter comet might be closer.


TWISI SAYS - I'll be back with more of it in a bit.

(ex tags)

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


Could there have been a large impactor 12,900 years ago that hit or exploded over the North American ice sheet? Certainly. Was it as devastating as some would propose it to be? Could it have been responsible for global flood stories? Currently there is no tectonic or volcanic evidence to corroborate that. Also, as shown in the graph I posted earlier, there is no evidence that the sea level rise was sufficiently quick enough to wipe the slate clean, as it were.

The impactor may have hastened the end of the Ice Age, which was ending anyway, but I don't believe based on what information we currently have that it can be used as the answer to all the flood stories or Atlantis. No evidence for either currently exists.

In any case, the megafauna are losing ground by either the loss of grazing land or by change in climate, on top of being hunted.

cormac



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


MORE FROM MARUSEK

TWISI ASKS - His assessment of the damage it caused does not correspond to what you put forward. Do you agree with his assessment, or is it possible that his explanation of the after-effect is not taking enough into account in regards to various types of geological destruction and weather pattern disruptions?

NOTE: When using the word 'he' we are referring to Adam West who I reffered to as the author of the study. There were many authors, West being one of them.

Marusek said he had not studied West's assesment. Looked online and replies:

MARUSEK REPLIES:

An impact event involving thousands of impactors will produce a multitude of effects. The comet will generate a large blast and significant thermal energy if it detonated in the atmosphere. Analysis of the oval shapes of the Carolina Bays seems to indicate this breakup occurred over the ice sheets of Canada. This might destroy much of the life on the ice sheets. Individual impacts from smaller fragments that hit the Earth would generate very localized blast and thermal effects, in general out a few miles from the impact points. But because there appeared to be so many fragments, the actual affected area over land could be extensive (say Wisconsin to the Carolinas). If the larger fragments struck around Canada, they might produce blast debris. The level or thickness of this debris would taper off with distance and would primarily cover the Northern Hemisphere. But if these large impacts could rupture and push the large ice sheets into the ocean, they would raise water levels globally and flood much of the Earth.

One other point also comes into play. In a glacial period of an ice age, the mass of the ice sheets several miles thick puts significant weight on the crust of the Earth. The crust of the Earth deforms under this weight. The rest of the Earth readjusts. The bottom of the oceans are pushed upwards. When the ice melts or is displaced, the Earth will readjust back. But this takes time, several hundred years and many massive earthquakes later. What this means is that if the ice sheets are quickly pushed into the ocean, the level of water rise will be greater until the Earth can readjust. This amplifies the water level rise, the flooding.


TWISI SAYS - Hey BFFT! Check it out! He is kind of addressing the question you posed on the other thread that started us down this road, no?

I will be back with the rest momentarily. Cheers!

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.





[edit on 2-8-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


MORE FROM MARUSEK:

HE CONTINUES:

I could agree with most of Allen West assessment. I would probably disagree with the wildfires racing across grasslands in the southern North America, unless evidence turns up showing comet fragments struck that area. Although he refers to the Younger Dryas event, that event may not be all that concrete and appears to not be global in scope. The Younger Dryas might be just Earth's rebound to a Great Flood. The Earth might naturally try to slide back into the glacial period if it was abruptly altered by a large impact event.

A large impact event of this type would produce a variety of threats. It has the potential of creating a global cataclysm destroying much of the life on this earth. Also for this type of impact, the geological destruction might be minimal. Weather pattern disruptions focused on Northern Hemisphere and in comparison to all the other types of damage from this impact, the effects might be minimal.


(END OF FIRST CORRESPONDENCE)

If I am reading this correctly, he is saying that the flooding would have been quick in its surge and would have quickly subsided. And he is also putting forward why geological evidence could be minimal.

Questions/Comments Anyone? I will try to keep up a correspondence with him, but do not want to presume on his time too much.



[edit on 1-8-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
REALLY? It's been over an hour and over a couple of hundred of you have seen this and NO ONE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY?

Where have all of the debunkers gone? One would think they might have a few questions or comments.

Or should we, the proponents of Global Flood Myth being rooted in reality, take this silence as consent that we can now reference this Theory in future when we are getting get shut down with "there's not proof!" out of the gate?



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Ok,
I've fell into the whole comet camp a few years ago, but at that point other than the carolina bays there was no evidence, so I was wishy washy on the subject. But after reading the abstract of the paper published last year on the subject, I'm now convinced.

I think what trips up most people is that they get stuck on a definition of what a "comet" or what an "asteroid" is.





Chicxulub: 6 Mile diameter, 170 kilometer/106.25 mile diameter crater, 100,000,000 megatons on impact.
Ice Age Impactor: 2 ½ - 3 mile diameter, unknown crater, 10,000,000 megatons on impact.



The chicxulub impactor was six miles solid stone, maybe even a little nickle and iron, it was hard and dense and moving.
It was almost a glancing hit but even still it penetrated miles into the earths crust.
Now the body that blew up in the air was really just a big dirt clod, mostly ice and rubble.
Very soft and not very dense, for this body hitting the earths atmosphere was like hitting a brick wall, it went splat.
While the dinosaur killer didnt even slow down for the few seconds it took to plow through the atmosphere.

Its the diference between being hit by an egg sized snow ball or being hit by a baseball.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
OH, REALLY? I WORK ON MY OWN TIME SCHEDULE.

Sorry, but you did ask for it.

From your posts, Marusek appears to be equating the creation of the Carolina Bays with the Ice Age Impactor.

Read the following:

gsa.confex.com...

and

www.hallofmaat.com...

These would indicate that the Carolina Bays impactor/impactors occured long before and have nothing to do with the Ice Age Impactor.

Marusek said:




A large impact event of this type would produce a variety of threats. It has the potential of creating a global cataclysm destroying much of the life on this earth.


Considering Chicxulub is believed to have destroyed 85 to 90 percent of all life on earth, one would expect the Ice Age Impactor to have a similar, though reduced effect. However, evidence suggests that many species of megafauna didn't die out until a few thousand years after the impact and many species still exist today.

cormac



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 


Punkin - I am not versed in the distinction between what defines a comet from an asteriod, I'm pretty sure Marusek is. So can you give me a specific question to ask him that would reinforce your position? Keep in mind that he is not part of the group that is currently proving their theory in reagrds to the blast, put the expert in impacts who published his theory about Global Flooding five years ago, four years before the current theory of comet impact was evidenced.

And for the purposes of edification, can you post the link to the paper you read last year that has such an impact on you? The best part of these debates, to me, is what you learn/are exposed to while engaging in them.
Cheers!


EDIT TO REPLY TO CORMAC - Shoot! I was hoping my use of caps would close the issue once and for all!


I have not read your links yet, but will as I understand how annoying it is when you post a link to info for discussion and no one bothers to read it (I'd be looking at HANSLUNE if he was still around, but he had a fit, took his toys and went away when his argument about the semantics of the title went nowhere.)

(2ND EDIT: TO POINT OUT THAT HANSLUNE TOOK HIS SNIT-FIT POSTS DOWN after reading the above. Poor form there, Hans. Is this an example of your happy to dish it out but can't take it? )

Until then, I will say that it is my impression that there is great controversy surrounding the dating of the Carolina Bays. And the only thing I can find that any of the experts agree on is that there is trouble dating them. Does anyone understand why this is?

[edit on 1-8-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 2-8-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
LOL, its a Friday night. It is going to be slow (and if it isn't, it is often people doing "drunk posting". No value in that).

Me? I got a new Ipod for my wife, and i am trying to sync it for her before she goes to work (she is an overnight LVN in a psych hospital...need something to keep her awake in the med room!).

Then i am on to some XBox live. Been itching for some Need for Speed (burned out on GTA IV).

I will be back either later tonight or in the AM. I have found a few things i want to link in, but want it to be a decent presentation.

If you are on XBox live, look me up: bigfatfurrytexa



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Widespread global data of sea level rises over the past 20,000 years do not support the idea of a massive global flood associated with any possible impact event at the start of the YD, although MWP-1A may have originated from the North American ice sheet, as the impact hypothesis proposes


Source
A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1). Although the meltwater was previously believed to have come chiefly from Antarctica, a recent reconstruction by Tarasov and Peltier of ice sheet retreat using a glacial model calibrated by a variety of data points instead to a largely North American source. Furthermore, diatom fossils in sediments from fjords in East Antarctica show that ice melting there began perhaps 3000 years later, thus ruling out Antarctica as a likely source.

The rate of sea level rise slowed between 14,000 and 12,000 years ago during the Younger Dryas cold period and was succeeded by another surge, "meltwater pulse 1B", 11,500-11,000 years ago, when sea level may have jumped by 28 m according to Fairbanks, although subsequent studies indicate it may have been much less. Meltwater from glacial Lake Agassiz (southwest of Hudson Bay) draining catastrophically into the North Atlantic via Lake Superior and the St. Laurence seaway was once thought to have initiated ocean circulation changes leading to the Younger Dryas cold period. Regional removal of ice sheets, however, occurred nearly 1000 years later, and hence draining of Lake Agassiz could not likely have caused the Younger Dryas cold reversal. This cold spell may have instead been triggered by increased outflow into the Arctic Ocean, the Fram Strait east of Greenland, and ultimately the eastern North Atlantic, between 12,900 and 12,800 years before present, as suggested by the glacial model of Tarasov and Peltier. On the other hand, Leventer et al. indicate that the timing of deglaciation in eastern Antarctica roughly coincides with the onset of meltwater pulse 1B.



In answer to a previous question: yes I believe the impact idea is still a hypothesis and not a scientific theory; it has not yet been sufficiently tested nor can be said as yet to provide the most probable explanation based on available data.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Correct me if i am wrong...

...but sea level changes in the past are discerned based on a belief that it was much higher than I would propose to begin with.

The entire premise here is that there were settlements along the shoreline that existed further out on the continental shelf. If this possibility is not reconciled within the data presented, then we are likely comparing apples and oranges here.

Further, there are additional variables to consider. What effect do "disappearing islands" have on oceanic volume? I mean relative to water displacement? If a large landmass were to "sink" due to a geological stress, how does the ocean system adjust? Where does it go to seek equilibrium?

I need to do some research..but do we not have large amounts of black soot at the 12k years BP level? Consider: how did this soot form?

The incidence of iridium and other rare metals might support volcanic action (as previously stated). The subterranean water would play havoc with tectonic systems. When you say the sea level changed, don't you really mean "The level of the sea relative to the land changed"?

One other thing to consider: in times of volcanic activity carbon 14 dating can be severely skewed.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
TheWayISeeIt,





Punkin - I am not versed in the distinction between what defines a comet from an asteriod, I'm pretty sure Marusek is. So can you give me a specific question to ask him that would reinforce your position? Keep in mind that he is not part of the group that is currently proving their theory in reagrds to the blast, put the expert in impacts who published his theory about Global Flooding five years ago, four years before the current theory of comet impact was evidenced.


Technicaly, a comet has a coma and an asteroid does not.
But a comet also has an highly eliptical long period, orbit while an asteroid has a short period highly circular orbit.
Asteroids are usually mostly stone or metallic and comets were thought to be just snow balls.
But recent findings are pointing to a more complicated picture. Some comets are just balls of ice and dust, but some comets are ice and dust wrapped around a stoney or metallic core.
And I think that that some asteroids arent as solid as others, they are like dirt clods packed conglomerations of rocky rubble.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



BFFT said: I need to do some research..but do we not have large amounts of black soot at the 12k years BP level? Consider: how did this soot form?


One example that demonstarts impact is:

At one site called Murray Springs in Arizona, a well-known site for artifacts of the Clovis tool-making culture, the scientists found the remains of megafauna covered by comet debris. "This black mat [of wildfire ash] drapes over the bones of partially butchered mammoths as if somebody was in the process of working on these animals while they were actually killed," Firestone told LiveScience in a telephone interview. "And between this black mat and the bones of this mammoth, we find this ejecta layer. So it's as if the [impact] event occurred right on top of these mammoth bones, and then this black mat occurs on top of that."

Guys it's either very early here, or exceedingly late depending on your POV. Unfortunately my view is the latter, so I need to take some aspirin, get some skeep and then probably take some more aspirin
.

When I get up I will post the latest exchange from Marusek (and oddly, as a side-note, I also recevied a reponse from Iturralde-Vinet, that is more appropriate to the "Cuban "Atlantis" thread so any of you who were with us on that may have an interest in checking out his response and the new data he sent... which will also go up later)

edit: to add "which will also go up later"


[edit on 2-8-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 

Hey Essan - What do you think about BFFT's comments in regards to your post? And can you plese link to the paper tha you took that excerpt from, who actually authored it? I think it is implied that it is West, Firestones impact theory paper? Either way can you please link to it? I don't want to run off on an unecessary tangets today, as I am running on fumes...literally.

In regards to your insisting on calling it a hypothesis, you are alone there. Every geological science paper I have seen that discusses it -- after West got involved and put in his research and data -- calls it a THEORY in the scientific use of the term.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
2ND CORRESPONDENCE FROM MARUSEK:

MARUSEK SAYS - Those skeptical of the theory will always be skeptical of the theory. But (Where's the evidence?) is a legitimate question. Most of the evidence to support this theory was washed out into the ocean or buried under 350 feet of ocean water and silt. But on the other hand, scientist have been finding evidence to support this (Imapct/Global Flood) theory.

This evidence would fall under:

1. The Carolina Bays -- TWISI NOTE: I am going to ask his opinion on the reasons for the diffuculties and disagreement from many quarters about dating these.

2. Evidence of the ecological disaster exists in a thin layer of sediment that has been found from Alberta to New Mexico. The sediment layer contains high concentrations of iridium, fullerenes and other compounds associated with space rocks and impacts. The concentration of the iridium in the sediment layer dating back to 12,900 years is several times higher than normal. It also contains compounds called "fullerenes" with extraterrestrial gases in them, as well as glasslike carbons that require extraordinarily high temperatures to form. It is a very discrete, well-defined layer.

3. A group of US scientists that include West reported that they have found a layer of microscopic diamonds at 26 different sites in Europe, Canada and America.

4. Coincided with the last catastrophic animal extinction, more than three-fourths of the large Ice Age animals, including woolly mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed tigers and giant bears, died out.

5. Samples of diamonds, gold and silver that have been found in Hamilton and Clermont counties in Ohio and Brown County in Indiana have been conclusively sourced through X-ray diffractometry in the lab of UC Professor of Geology, Warren Huff back to the diamond fields region of Canada. You might think of this as chemical fingerprinting.

6. Evidence of ice age civilization in Gobekli Tepe in Turkey that ended very suddenly. The entire site was entombed under tons of earth.

7. Evidence by William Scott Anderson of ocean diatoms found directly under the boulders deposited when the ice sheets melted in Wisconsin.

8. Evidence of Lake Missoula, Altai and Agassiz megafloods.

END 2ND CORRESPONDENCE

TWISI SAYS - Have at it! And the offer stands for anyone to have any questions or queries asked of him. He seems genial enough at this point.

I think this is turning into an interesting thread and everyones contribution, even our skeptics are adding a lot to it.
Cheers!



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The Gobleki Tepe site is a very interesting site that i have never looked into before.

Here is an article from a few months back:

www.dispatch.com...



In the Jan. 18 issue of the journal Science, German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt is interviewed about his work at the 11,000-year-old site of Gobekli Tepe ("navel hill") in Turkey.

According to Andrew Curry, the author of the Science article, Gobekli Tepe is situated on the most prominent hilltop for miles around. It consists of at least 20 underground rooms that contain a number of T-shaped stone pillars that are 8 feet tall and weigh about 7 tons. The pillars are engraved with images of animals, including leopards, snakes and spiders.

This is not a place where people lived. It's as far away from water as you can get in this region. Instead, it's a place of ceremony. And, according to Schmidt, it's "the first manmade holy place."

To find such a large ceremonial center at such an early time period suggests that it was the need for communal rituals that first brought people together. Agriculture, pottery, domesticated animals and cities all came later.

Perhaps it was religion and not technology that fomented the Neolithic Revolution and led to the rise of civilization.

Archaeologist Steven Mithen, in his book After the Ice, writes that it was at Gobekli Tepe "that the history of the world had turned."



I find it amusing that this museum curator has been left scratching his head.


The thing a out this site that stands out to me is that it is an excellent example of the same type of construction as Stonehenge. As well, the layout is very similar to Tihuanaco:




But let me ask you your opinion. Does this look like the work of the Neolithic man that we know and are shown?








Mod Note: Forum Image Linking Policy – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by Essan
 

Hey Essan - What do you think about BFFT's comments in regards to your post?


Past sea levels are determined from a variety of sources, I'm not aware of any issue or presumption.


And can you plese link to the paper tha you took that excerpt from, who actually authored it?


The Source (GISS) is quoted in my post.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

The references are:

* Fairbanks, R.G. 1989. 17,000-year glacio-eustatic sea level record: influence of glacial melting rates on the Younger Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation. Nature, 342, 637-642.
* Gornitz, V., 2007. Sea level change, post-glacial. In Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments (V. Gornitz, Ed.). Springer. (in preparation).
* Leventer, A., et al. 2006. Marine sediment record from the East Antarctic margin reveals dynamics of ice sheet recession. GSA Today 16, no. 12, 4-10.
* Tarasov, L., and W.R. Peltier 2005. Arctic freshwater forcing of the Younger Dryas cold reversal. Nature 435, 662-665.




In regards to your insisting on calling it a hypothesis, you are alone there. Every geological science paper I have seen that discusses it -- after West got involved and put in his research and data -- calls it a THEORY in the scientific use of the term.


My mistake if that's the case - but I probably haven't seen the relevant papers. My understanding is that the issue is still subject to much debate.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join