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

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Can we please have a discussion about what is actually being presented?

If that's really what you want, then allow me.

You already noted that the ! in the title should be a ? So that one is settled. How about the "prehistoric civilization" part? Where is there any evidence for any "prehistoric civilization?"

How is any of the speculation on possible effects of a cometary impact "proving" anything?

As was stated, even if all the speculation was true re the impactor, how does this become a "global flood?" Obviously, to some guy in north america it might seem so. But why would it seem so to Gilagamesh?

Also, I have to say that the idea of a plate rising after water melted off is perfectly valid. But the problem there is that these things don't happen "right then." It would happen gradually over thousands of years. If it happened immediately, the energy release would basically melt that area of the plate back to magma, and certainly vaporize the section right on the edge.

Lastly, it's well known where the Himalayas are coming from and why. The Indian subcontinent is creating them as we sit here. The drift of the Indian plate is being watched and measured right now, as is the increase in height of the average ridge in the Himalayas.

Unless one wishes to claim that the plates used to move faster, there is absolutely no way some Indian would have been around when the area was "flat." And, again, faster moving plates leave evidence that they moved faster. A trail of magma like a red-hot snail out of hell.

And of course anyone can "imagine" an area is flat. Anyone that has seen a flat topography anyway. It's just silliness to think that some sherpa would be incapable of imagining flat land.

Harte




[edit on 9/15/2008 by Harte]

reply to post by Harte


It becomes a "global" flood by virtue of the impact. You know, i watched a special on Krakatoa on History a while back. They speculated that were it to blow again (and be somewhat like the last eruption) a large portion of life would die off (similar to its prior event). Why? The cloud it would throw up into the upper atmosphere. Then you would have quite a long spell of acid rain induced by the condensation of water vapor around the ash and other ejecta.

Consider now that we are talking about a cometary impact that was many, many times in magnitude greater than Krakatoa was or likely will be. An impact great enough to EMBED pieces of cometary debris in solid rock over a thousand miles away. Great enough to obliterate life over a greater portion of the NE US (evidenced by the mammoth tusks that were previously mentioned).

What affect does this have? How much water vapor is released into the upper atmosphere? That is a lot of ice with a lot of ocean nearby...how much condensation is there going to be, and how long will it rain?

Now, if we go off of experience only, it is our experience that comets break up into several smaller parts before impact, correct? This is what Shoemaker-Levy did....so the primary event likely was not the only event. There likely were several (possibly thousands, if you consider the Carolina Bays) impacts, each creating its own effect that is cumulative with the others.

You don't think this would effect the entire planet?

Regarding the Himalaya's...my point was that the sherpa's have no point of reference for a flat ground, and certainly had no understanding of plate tectonics. So, when you have never seen something how can you dream of it? That was all i was saying.

Originally posted by Harte
Also, I have to say that the idea of a plate rising after water melted off is perfectly valid. But the problem there is that these things don't happen "right then." It would happen gradually over thousands of years. If it happened immediately, the energy release would basically melt that area of the plate back to magma, and certainly vaporize the section right on the edge.

Sorry...need to chime in once more if you would indulge me.

Do we have evidence of this? Or is it speculation?

The reason i ask is because it would seem to be that there is evidence of something equally strange near Tihuanaco. The "steps" that go up the side of the mountain have long been considered for farming (as seen in other regions of the world). Except, there has been evidence brought forth that each terrace was farmed at a different time frame. All the way up the side of the mountain.

Of course, this would explain why you have a sea port on the inaccessible Lake Titicaca. But....how would one explain the sea level reaching the mountain peaks in South America but not the rest of the world?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Of course, this would explain why you have a sea port on the inaccessible Lake Titicaca. But....how would one explain the sea level reaching the mountain peaks in South America but not the rest of the world?

Sorry Tex, I'm about to leave so I don't have time for but only this piece.

If you think there's a seaport on Titicaca, you need to look a little further into it. That claim was debunked by geologists decades ago.

It'as still continuously repeated by pseudohistorians that need to sell books, but that's about it.

Harte

I understand. I am looking at it from the point of view of what i see. It looks much more like a seaport. I have had experience living on lakes....never seen much that looked like that here in Texas. Of course, now i live in the Western part of the state, so i got lots of beaches with no water.

Do you have any quick pieces of info on the debunking that you describe?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Howdy Texan

There is an old lake port there near Puma Punku, for the lake which is now many kilometers away. Is that the source for you claim of a seaport?

[edit on 15/9/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


No. You have the right spot, i believe. But that isn't my claim. I am reporting on the claims of others.

Of course, I have not had the priviledge to see the information that counters this claim. I did a perfunctory search on Google, but the Cowboys were playing...and it was a GREAT game (i am a Bears fan, myself, but am still Texan ). If you have any of that info in a place that you can easily locate, i would really enjoy reading it.

Harte said - How about the "prehistoric civilization" part? Where is there any evidence for any "prehistoric civilization?"

There are various references throughout this thread and the one that gave 'birth' to it.

UNDERWATER MEGALITHS, RUINS AND TRACKS/ROADS -- to make a point I am going to do what you linkless wonders do -- reference things as facts that are convenient to my positon without external data sources. Now you can go dig and refute me.

Harte - How is any of the speculation on possible effects of a cometary impact "proving" anything?

psst... dude... READ THE THREAD!



edit: bbcode correction

[edit on 15-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Hello again BFFT,

I don't know if your reference to mammoth tusks and impact debris was to this particular find or one similar, but either this wasn't a one time event, or the event you are talking about is well before the time frame of the impactor in question.

An excerpt from the following:

Several tusks have an average radiocarbon age of ~33 ka. This age coincides with sudden increases in global radiocarbon ~35 ka agoa and 10Be ~32 ka agob, the Mono Lake geomagnetic excursion ~34 ka agoc, and significant declines in Beringian bison, horse, brown bear, and mammoth populations and genetic diversity

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

Harte said - How about the "prehistoric civilization" part? Where is there any evidence for any "prehistoric civilization?"

There are various references throughout this thread and the one that gave 'birth' to it.


UNDERWATER MEGALITHS, RUINS AND TRACKS/ROADS -- to make a point I am going to do what you linkless wonders do -- reference things as facts that are convenient to my positon without external data sources. Now you can go dig and refute me.

Dude,

The Cuba thing never played out. What other underwater stuff are you referencing? Yonaguni? Don't make me laugh.

Finding patterns in the seafloor is the occupation of obsessives. Funny how nothing has ever been found that would indicate these patterns are anything but patterns. What, the big bad "mainstream conspiracy" boogyman keeping all this evidence a big secret so humans won't panic or something?

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

Harte - How is any of the speculation on possible effects of a cometary impact "proving" anything?

psst... dude... READ THE THREAD!

Psst...

I have read the thread, thus the questions you so conveniently dodged.

Again, how is an impact in North America like a flood in Sumeria?

The size of the impact could have some effect in Sumeria, but it would certainly not make it flood in Sumeria. Instead of flood stories, we'd have fire from the skies stories, the month the Sun never rose stories, and stories about how the stars disappeared for a year or what not.

This is not to dispute the comet theory, I believe Byrd has stated that it's been partially shot down already as far as causing the extinction of the large mammals in the American north. I've not looked into it myself because it seems reasonable.

It does not seem like a flood story to me, at least not for the Eastern Hemisphere.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte -

The Cuba thing never played out. What other underwater stuff are you referencing? Yonaguni? Don't make me laugh.

Finding patterns in the seafloor is the occupation of obsessives. Funny how nothing has ever been found that would indicate these patterns are anything but patterns. What, the big bad "mainstream conspiracy" boogyman keeping all this evidence a big secret so humans won't panic or something?

Okay, let's start with Cuba --

Our geologist, doctor Manuel Iturralde, an internationally recognized authority in this field, suggested that the recently discovered structures could belong to an island located between Cuba and Yucatan, which was sunk 10,000 or 12,000 years ago because of a seismic cataclysm.

An indication that this cataclysm did occur and collapsed the entire surface are the stones we extracted from the ocean which showed concentrations of fossilized animals, specifically of escaramujos, a crustacean that lives solely to two meters of depth. How do we explain its presence at 900 meters of depth?

Here's an image from one of the excursions -- all of which were plagued by visibility issues due to the geography -- see bathymetric maps in the proceeding Cuba 'Atlantis' thread



Go ahead, find one more example of a perfectly symmetrical line carved into a curved stone found at 3000 feet below sea-level and I will concede.

Until then then I forge on with your next narrow-minded-think-you-are-making-a-point-reference:

Yonguni --







I have to go, as time constraints call for me to go drinking right now, but I will be back. Until then, knock yourself out with your 'Yonaguni is proved to be naturally occurring' routine.

Do that right under these images; that way all the people who have eyes, to read this thread with? Well, those people can decide for themselves how likely it is that they are the result of naturally occurring sediment formations.

Now I must go, but after my drinking is done I will be back with a response to the rest of your post...

Anon!
TWISI


NOTE: I improperly loaded images and a kind Mod fixed it. Apologies for any confusion.

Edits: 90% due to Image loading issues



[edit on 16-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by Jbird]

[edit on 16-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 17-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

Just a question (and I couldn't see the image you linked to as they are on a page that no longer exists!??), but do they have to be the result of sedimentary deposits? Ingeous 'deposits' (using the term deposit loosely here) would be more feasible in that they can have very uniform and angular fracture patterns.

I tend towards there being some possibility somewhere of past 'civilisations' (here i use the term civilisation loosely) on inundated coastal plains as humans are wont to settle near plentiful food supplies and coastal areas. However, I have yet to see any 'hard' evidence (obvious rock pun there, +1 to all who got it. Sorry that really was schist. I'm a gneiss guy, really. It's not my fault).

TWISI RESPONSE PT. 2

Originally posted by Harte -

This is not to dispute the comet theory, I believe Byrd has stated that it's been partially shot down already as far as causing the extinction of the large mammals in the American north.

Once again you would believe wrong as Byrd only managed to get it together to illuminate us with the timeline of the Whale - see her one and only post on pg. 5 .

Originally posted by Harte -

I've not looked into it myself because it seems reasonable.

Uh-huh... yeah, well, that's clear. But if I may be so bold? You may want to start 'looking into things' for yourself before subjecting us to anymore shrill, condescending comments.

Cheers!
TWISI


edit: for BBcode ( sorry...be patient...still learning).


[edit on 17-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt


I have to go, as time constraints call for me to go drinking right now, but I will be back. Until then, knock yourself out with your 'Yonaguni is proved to be naturally occurring' routine.

Do that right under these images; that way all the people who have eyes, to read this thread with? Well, those people can decide for themselves how likely it is that they are the result of naturally occurring sediment formations.

Now I must go, but after my drinking is done I will be back with a response to the rest of your post...

Anon!
TWISI

Your "drinking?"

Well, that explains a lot!

The last pic you posted has been photoshopped.

I've seen the original.

The scientist that "studies" this site (a Dr. Kimura) now claims it sank only 2,000 years ago.

So yes, it makes me laugh. At you.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Once again you would believe wrong as Byrd only managed to get it together to illuminate us with the timeline of the Whale - see her one and only post on pg. 5 .

Byrd's response to the comet theory does not appear in this thread.

Run a search.

Like I said, she pointed out that it has been mostly shot down as a theory explaining the disappearance of large mammals in North America. Nothing to do with whether a comet struck or not.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

Originally posted by Harte -

I've not looked into it myself because it seems reasonable.

Uh-huh... yeah, well, that's clear. But if I may be so bold? You may want to start 'looking into things' for yourself before subjecting us to anymore shrill, condescending comments.

Please.

I haven't disputed that a comet may have impacted. The fact that comets and fragments hit the earth is reasonable, so to me it was reasonable that a comet or fragment may have hit the arctic in the time frame you and others here have posited.

Why should I "look into" this? I don't dispute it and I don't care if it happened or not.

Again, how is a comet impact in North America like a flood in Sumeria?

Is there a logical answer to this question that doesn't simply state "It isn't?'

Or would you even know or care?

Harte

Did i not explain how a comet in N America creates floods in Sumeria already? I thought that was the whole "how much water vapor is pushed into the atmosphere" during my "Krakatoa" post?

I think I also discussed how you end up with the water coming up from underground (as in "the firmament opened").

Now, you say that this would cause massive earthquakes and such, as the continental body rocked. It would be needless to say that the whole planet would "ring" from such an event. This would explain how you end up with a planet wide event.

Let me ask you: the big Tsunami in 2005....if we hadn't witnessed it, would we know it ever happened 10k years from now? Doubtful (yet still possible).

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Howdy Texan

On the strike, probably not unless the wood was somehow preserved. But of course it wasn't that big a strike- it had only limited effects on the outside world.

The events in NA will take another 15-20 years of research to get even a fair view of what happened. I suspect its effect was limited and not 'earth shaking'. The people who would become the Sumer were not in Mesopotamia at the time - nor were they probably even organized at that time.

The giant flood that may have triggered the flood myths are:

That an enormous Flood, at present dated by geologists to approximately 3500 BC, drowned the plain of Mesopotamia and swept away the pre-Sumerian Ubaid civilization seems now to have been clearly established by geological and geomorphological research performed in the 1960’s and 1970’s in Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf area. A summary of the evidence is presented by Theresa Howard-Carter in the article, “The Tangible Evidence for the Earliest Dilmun,” published in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 33, 1981, pp. 210-223.

The link-scroll down a bit

That a gap of over 6,000 years. Could there be a memory of a much earlier event? Possible but there is no evidence to support that idea.



[edit on 17/9/08 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by Harte -

Your "drinking?" Well, that explains a lot!

Yep, it explains my happy disposition in general and examples one of my abilities to enjoy my life without being fearful and guilty. I also eat meat, smoke and don't wear sunblock.

The last pic you posted has been photoshopped. I've seen the original.

Care to prove that? How about a link or evidence to back that up? Or are we, as usual, expected to take your word for it?

The scientist that "studies" this site (a Dr. Kimura) now claims it sank only 2,000 years ago. So yes, it makes me laugh. At you.

Glad bring some joy into your life. And you are the one who brought up Yonaguni, all I did was supply images that defy reasonable explanation as to how they are manmade. I know Schoch believes the are naturally occurring, and he went there, I believe in 2002. I also know that Kimura believes the city sank 2000 years ago, but in his 100 plus dives since Schoch was there Kimura has recovered actual artefacts and uncovered more of the site. He also states that since Schoch's dive ---

Kimura said he has identified ten structures off Yonaguni and a further five related structures off the main island of Okinawa. In total the ruins cover an area spanning 984 feet by 492 feet (300 meters by 150 meters).

The structures include the ruins of a castle, a triumphal arch, five temples, and at least one large stadium, all of which are connected by roads and water channels and are partly shielded by what could be huge retaining walls.

Kimura believes the ruins date back to at least 5,000 years, based on the dates of stalactites found inside underwater caves that he says sank with the city.

This is known as a LINK, you should try it sometime...

So based on Kimura's currrent dating this does not fit our timeline. What it does example is megalithic structures of unknown, possibly prehistoric, cultures that are buried benath in the ocean floor.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Once again you would believe wrong as Byrd only managed to get it together to illuminate us with the timeline of the Whale - see her one and only post on pg. 5 .

Harte says - Byrd's response to the comet theory does not appear in this thread. Run a search.

Then it has no place being referenced here. And "Run a search" ??! Why don't you go run a search? Have you no shame? Seriously, besides being, by far, the most unpleasant skeptic around here, you are also the laziest...

As for the last portion of your post, I believe BFFT has pointed out exactly how the kind of impact that been discovered to have occurred would have global consequences. He also pointed out that you wouldn't be innanely harping on that if you had actually read the thread!

edit: for BBcode



[edit on 17-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

reply to post by Hanslune


Here's some wood that was recently discovered that not only still exiits, but evidences a dramtaic and sudden rise in sea-levels 20 times faster than what has been estimated. And when did this occur? At end of YD era. Go figure...

There's such an abrupt change in core composition…from the modern to the ancient, that it indicates a large climate change happened," said Dan.

Scientists have long theorised that sea level rose very gradually over several thousand years. These remnant mangrove forests suggest another story.

"The fact that we found ancient mangroves in such pristine condition, with such a sharp boundary between them and the overlying modern mud, tells us the water rose quickly over a geologically short time span."

Dan estimates this time span to be from a few centuries to, even, decades. Research with fellow AIMS scientists will help to paint a more accurate picture of this timeframe, and investigate the concentration of radionuclides in the top sediment. These measurements will help pinpoint the period over which seas rose.

Read all about it!

Cheers!
TWISI

Okay, I'm sure I'll regret asking, but where in that article does it say the sea level rise was 20 times faster than estimated, or even how much it rose at that location. Also, how are the mangroves equated with the end of the Younger Dryas? YD is generally accepted as c. 10,800 BC to 9500 BC. The articles dates are 7000 BC, 6550 BC and 6740 BC.

cormac


[edit on 17-9-2008 by cormac mac airt]

[edit on 17-9-2008 by cormac mac airt]

That is a VERY interesting find, TWISI.

You know...just sitting here thinking....why would the sea level have to rise? Or, more exactly, why could the land mass not sink? Or a combination of the two?

I understand that we are being told by some that the ocean floor is a different kind of soil, and there is no way it could have been above water. How is this known? Where are the measurements taken?

Still...mangroves UNDER the Great Barrier Reef...that is amazing.