In Velikovsky's book, we have a theory which IMO is to be considered closely, because it may be a real problem in the next years :
A huge and thick slice of ice (more than 3,000 meters) was covering North America.
When the ice began to melt, the ice converted to water, creating a great sea in the middle of the glacier.
As this sea was getting bigger and bigger, the borders retaining the sea became thiner and thiner.
And one day, one of these borders broke, probably where we have now the Saint Laurent estuary.
This provoked an enormous, gigantic and instantaneous rush of water which consequences were felt all around the world.
The remains of this sea are nowadays what are called the "great lakes" of North America.
The same scenario is maybe occuring nowadays in Antartica.
Hard Evidence of Sudden Rise of Ocean Levels in Antiquity, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 02:34 AM by orkson
In Himalaya also :
Himalaya melting glacial lakes
Velikovsky was right ! ...
Himalaya melting glacial lakes
The rapid melting and recession of the Imja Glacier, and the simultaneous growth of Imja Tsho, have alarmed national park staff and the Sherpas who grow potatoes and run trekking lodges in scattered villages down valley. Glaciologists are concerned too, for they are seeing glacial lakes forming and filling faster than they can identify and catalog them. Ultimately, they fear, many will simply grow too large and burst through their moraines of unstable ice and rubble--as happened in northern Bhutan in 1994. That year, a mile-long glacial lake named Luggye Tsho, near Bhutan's border with Tibet, ruptured catastrophically. Over a period of several hours, the entire lake--more than a billion cubic feet of water--emptied out, sending a rampaging torrent down valley that swept away an artisans' colony near the town of Punakha, killing 23 people. Along Bhutan's border with India, 125 miles away, a hydrograph that measures the level of the nearby Sankosh River broke when the water rose to eight feet above normal. Now two nearby lakes, Thorthormi and Raphstreng, are also poised to overflow.
Velikovsky was right ! ...
reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 06:05 AM by Indigo_Child
reply to post by orkson
It has happend before in the past too. There is a lot of strong evidence supporting the cyclic cataclysmic theory: civilisations arise, then they are destroyed, then they arise again, and they are destroyed again. I strongly doubt given this evidence that we are the first. More likely, one of many.
It has happend before in the past too. There is a lot of strong evidence supporting the cyclic cataclysmic theory: civilisations arise, then they are destroyed, then they arise again, and they are destroyed again. I strongly doubt given this evidence that we are the first. More likely, one of many.
reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 07:07 AM by Kandinsky
Originally posted by ANNED
Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by infolurker
Hallelujah, hosanna and amen! What is more interesting is how hard it is for current geologists and archaeologists to accept that things are not how they were 'taught'. Data like thus has tendency to get conveniently ignored, because it challenges everything they think they know.
This data was published in 2005, it was a rigourous study done by a reputable Marine biologist who works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He stumbled on this suddenly buried forest in 2002 while taking core samples around the Great Barrier Reef. He was astonished with what the samples were showing, and went back with a larger team in 2005.
This is peer reviewed data and no one is challenging what he found or his conclusions.... Just ignoring the implcations.
They never challenge data like his.
They just never acknowledge it at all and hope no one else will read it. (IE the public)
If they challenged this there would be other researchers that would check to get there own findings and then 'out' the critics that challenged the original research.
That would be a story that would draw more research on the data and make it a bigger story.
The full account is available as a .pdf download at Science Direct I don't understand what 'data like this' you are referring to? The discovery of the mangrove trees beneath the Barrier Reef and it's dating to between
8,550 and 8,740 years of age is not being challenged or denied. It's been accepted. Core samples taken and evidence accepted. No panic at all.
The article is more a commentary on the causes and outcomes of global warming. Again, this is an area very much caught in a debate. 'They' have myriad interpretations of what the causes may be and what the outcomes are likely to be. There is no consensus regarding global warming, no establishment view to protect.
Sudden sea rises or sudden submersion of land can be caused by localized floods, tsunamis, earthquakes etc. The existence of these mangrove trees needn't mean that OMG! the seas will rise and cover us. Sudden cataclysms in certain areas are not denied by scientists. Pompeii? Bad ideas are dismissed by science, the rest are discussed and the best are accepted under conditions.
Plesantries aside, please note that neither I, nor BFFT in our previous thread, have ever speculated about Atlantis. I
know you guys like to use that foot-stool to get on you high-horse and then (to mix metaphors) wave your smear brush around, but would appreciate it
if you would refrain doing so here as it is not appropriate or germane. reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 10:11 AM by Harte
Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by infolurker
Hallelujah, hosanna and amen! What is more interesting is how hard it is for current geologists and archaeologists to accept that things are not how they were 'taught'. Data like thus has tendency to get conveniently ignored, because it challenges everything they think they know.
What a load of bull.
It was geologists that pointed this out.
The Indo-Australian plate goes up and down throughout the last several million years. The Australian portion is right now passing over an old subduction zone.
The wild fluctuations in this part of that plate have been known for scores of years.
The "astonishing" thing to a biologist is that coral could form so quickly over buried plant matter.
No one is "ignoring" any "implications." There are no implications.
A meter every ten years?
Good lord! Run for your life! Hurry up or drown. The water will reach your hut in another two years, better start packing!
Harte
reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 12:14 PM by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by Harte
You guys and 'slow inundation and your run for your lives routine'
Perhaps you amuse yourselves, but it does get old for the rest of the
audience.
Hello Harte, it was NOT geologists that discovered this, but Marine Biologists. It is unclear, by dint of the fact that it is not implied, that this rise was due to landmass distirubution. You are welcome to -- awww, its like old times -- USE THE LINK and inform yourself though.
Is your position that you do not believe there is any possibility of sudden and massive coastal floodings and leading to sudden loss of landmass at the end of the last ice age? That the flooding can only have been so gradual that everyone should have been able to just 'walk away from it'?
@HANS - Thanks for the links to the on going research that is proving mine and BFFT's cometary impact theory/thread out. I have learned that when you say 'we will know for sure in 10-15 years', it means you realize you may have been wrong and, in this instance, it looks like that makes BFFT and I right!
You guys and 'slow inundation and your run for your lives routine'
Perhaps you amuse yourselves, but it does get old for the rest of the
audience. Hello Harte, it was NOT geologists that discovered this, but Marine Biologists. It is unclear, by dint of the fact that it is not implied, that this rise was due to landmass distirubution. You are welcome to -- awww, its like old times -- USE THE LINK and inform yourself though.
Is your position that you do not believe there is any possibility of sudden and massive coastal floodings and leading to sudden loss of landmass at the end of the last ice age? That the flooding can only have been so gradual that everyone should have been able to just 'walk away from it'?
@HANS - Thanks for the links to the on going research that is proving mine and BFFT's cometary impact theory/thread out. I have learned that when you say 'we will know for sure in 10-15 years', it means you realize you may have been wrong and, in this instance, it looks like that makes BFFT and I right!
reply posted on 6-4-2009 @ 04:17 PM by orkson
reply to post by Harte
I don't agree with you.
If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...
It's NOT the chunk of ice which causes the catastrophy.
It's the fact that BEHIND this ice barrier, there was a SEA : a glacial sea, resulting from the melting of the glacier.
Just figure this out, and you will understand that the end of the glacial age was accompanied with tremendous and striking floods which swept out quite ALL the costal civilizations, which means quite ALL the civilizations at that time.
Please, read my upper links which are talking of such events occuring NOWADAYS, at a smaller scale, near the Himalaya.
No question that ice dams were breaking occasionally. Large chunks of glacial ice falling into the sea could cause localized tsunami-like effects as well. Both emphaisze the local effect, and neither result in any lasting massive increase in sea level.
I don't agree with you.
If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...
It's NOT the chunk of ice which causes the catastrophy.
It's the fact that BEHIND this ice barrier, there was a SEA : a glacial sea, resulting from the melting of the glacier.
Just figure this out, and you will understand that the end of the glacial age was accompanied with tremendous and striking floods which swept out quite ALL the costal civilizations, which means quite ALL the civilizations at that time.
Please, read my upper links which are talking of such events occuring NOWADAYS, at a smaller scale, near the Himalaya.
reply posted on 7-4-2009 @ 02:45 PM by Harte
Originally posted by orkson
If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...
Here you have created a fantasy lake the size of North America, all of it melting, except the very edge and then all of it released at once.
It is your fantasy, not reality.
Here's reality, and I think you might be referring to the Missoula floods (I know I am, anyway), which are well known and documented and none of which resulted in a volume of 36 million cubic kilometers of water in a single flood.
In fact, I don't think the ice sheet these floods came from contained as much water as you're claiming was released all at once, and the sheet, by the way, is still there (part of it.)
So.
Please provide evidence of any overnight 94 meter increse in sea level world wide in any epoch in the entire history of the Earth.
Harte
reply posted on 7-4-2009 @ 04:27 PM by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by Kandinsky
There is serious and mounting evidence of an ET impact in exactly the time period the 'global flood fans' prefer. Here you go. There is also a link to the full PDF on mine and BFFT's "Science Proving 'Global' Flood Myth True..." thread.
The nanodiamonds that are showing up all over NA, and now in Greenland, evidence that there was indeed were massive cometary impacts/implosions which occurred at 10,800 BCE which could tie very neatly with the type of event that orkson is putting forth, and certainly give creedence to cometary impact specialst James Marusek's 'global' flood theory.
It is important when considering the 'global' flood to take into consideration where the world's most habitable areas would have been during the last ice age and that whatever civilizations were in those regions would have been coastal. I know Hans thinks everyone lived on rivers ( ) and
to that I say to each his own, but we are finding evermore evidence that was not the case by seeing mega-structures underwater off various coasts that
are extant today and are now considered the 'earliest' known civs (i.e. Malta).
The ramifications of this ET impact event cannot be understated nor, to my mind, fully comprehended in terms of the kind of environmental devastation that would have occurred until certain segments of the academic community accepts that everything they thought they knew was wrong about the onset of the YD era and NA extinctions.
When that happens we are going to see more physicists/geologists/biologists etc. getting serious about modeling the environemntal impacts of this catastrophe that occurred in our very recent past. From there it will be like pennies dropping, and so many anomolous 'mysteries' (Gobekli Tepi, Mammoth extinctions, etc.) are going to start making a lot of sense.
Regional flood events like in India have been demonstrated to occur. Global flood events aren't evidenced in the geological record. An ET impact has been discussed for some years, but again there's no evidence for the time period preferred by Flood fans. That an impact event IS being discussed shows that science is the way to go.
There is serious and mounting evidence of an ET impact in exactly the time period the 'global flood fans' prefer. Here you go. There is also a link to the full PDF on mine and BFFT's "Science Proving 'Global' Flood Myth True..." thread.
The nanodiamonds that are showing up all over NA, and now in Greenland, evidence that there was indeed were massive cometary impacts/implosions which occurred at 10,800 BCE which could tie very neatly with the type of event that orkson is putting forth, and certainly give creedence to cometary impact specialst James Marusek's 'global' flood theory.
It is important when considering the 'global' flood to take into consideration where the world's most habitable areas would have been during the last ice age and that whatever civilizations were in those regions would have been coastal. I know Hans thinks everyone lived on rivers (
) and
to that I say to each his own, but we are finding evermore evidence that was not the case by seeing mega-structures underwater off various coasts that
are extant today and are now considered the 'earliest' known civs (i.e. Malta). The ramifications of this ET impact event cannot be understated nor, to my mind, fully comprehended in terms of the kind of environmental devastation that would have occurred until certain segments of the academic community accepts that everything they thought they knew was wrong about the onset of the YD era and NA extinctions.
When that happens we are going to see more physicists/geologists/biologists etc. getting serious about modeling the environemntal impacts of this catastrophe that occurred in our very recent past. From there it will be like pennies dropping, and so many anomolous 'mysteries' (Gobekli Tepi, Mammoth extinctions, etc.) are going to start making a lot of sense.
reply posted on 7-4-2009 @ 04:39 PM by orkson
Missoula : 18,500 years ago ...
Come closer :
Agassiz Lake
You've got a point : the entire glacial sheet of North America didn't slip into the sea overnight.
But two things :
- The phenomenon I describe has occured several times in the history, and is NOWADAYS occuring in some places. This phenomenon explains why the melting of the ice sheet doesn't result in a slow uprising of the sea level, but in the contrary, in sudden and striking floods.
- The glacial ice sheet didn't exist only on North America, but covered also quite all Europe and South Africa. You must realize that the water volume of the glacial ice sheet is tremendous and results in changes of the sea level which exeed 300 meters.
What has to be admitted by the current "scientific" establishment ( and not only- by some "exotic" but courageous researchers ), is that catastrophic events changing the map of the world occured in very recent times ( 9,000 years ago ). You must imagine what would be the fate of our actual world if such events occured to-day?
Notice that I haven't spoken of OTHER catastrophic events occuring (may be in the mean time), such as volcanism roaring worldwide, earthquakes striping continents, asteroids hiting oceans and cities, etc ...
One thing is evident : so far, no one has an answer to these questions :
- WHY did the glacial age end ?
- WHY did he end so quickly (relatively to geological phenomenons).
[edit on 7-4-2009 by orkson]
Come closer :
Agassiz Lake
Lake Agassiz was the largest glacial lake in North America. It was formed 11 500 years ago in front of the northeastwardly retreating Laurentide Ice Sheet, which acted as a dam. The lake covered much of Manitoba, northwestern Ontario, parts of eastern Saskatchewan and North Dakota, and northwestern Minnesota. At its largest, Lake Agassiz was about 1500 km long, over 1100 km wide and about 210 m deep
You've got a point : the entire glacial sheet of North America didn't slip into the sea overnight.
But two things :
- The phenomenon I describe has occured several times in the history, and is NOWADAYS occuring in some places. This phenomenon explains why the melting of the ice sheet doesn't result in a slow uprising of the sea level, but in the contrary, in sudden and striking floods.
- The glacial ice sheet didn't exist only on North America, but covered also quite all Europe and South Africa. You must realize that the water volume of the glacial ice sheet is tremendous and results in changes of the sea level which exeed 300 meters.
What has to be admitted by the current "scientific" establishment ( and not only- by some "exotic" but courageous researchers ), is that catastrophic events changing the map of the world occured in very recent times ( 9,000 years ago ). You must imagine what would be the fate of our actual world if such events occured to-day?
Notice that I haven't spoken of OTHER catastrophic events occuring (may be in the mean time), such as volcanism roaring worldwide, earthquakes striping continents, asteroids hiting oceans and cities, etc ...
One thing is evident : so far, no one has an answer to these questions :
- WHY did the glacial age end ?
- WHY did he end so quickly (relatively to geological phenomenons).
[edit on 7-4-2009 by orkson]
reply posted on 7-4-2009 @ 04:45 PM by cormac mac airt
reply to post by orkson
Your math is still off. Leaving aside the depth for a minute, the dimensions you give, 3000 km X 4000 km only equal 12,000,000 sq. km. The combined surface of all 5 oceans together is @ 383,539,000 km2. Your original dimensions, therefore, are only 0.031% of that, making your 93 (not 94) meter calculation only applicable to the 12 million figure.
It should be asked how one floods 12 million sq. km. to a depth of 93 meters, separating it from the other 99.969% of the ocean?
cormac
Harte : I have some mathematical knowledge ...
3,000 km x 4,000 km x 3,000 m of water makes
36,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water.
So, which is the height of this quantity of water on 75% of the surface of a sphere of 6,380 km of radius ?
The answer is : 94 meters.
Figure this out ! ( Not mentioning the tsunami effect, before the equlibrium at the new level of the sea ...)
You estimation ( thus, your theory ) was false.
And this is an understatement.
Your math is still off. Leaving aside the depth for a minute, the dimensions you give, 3000 km X 4000 km only equal 12,000,000 sq. km. The combined surface of all 5 oceans together is @ 383,539,000 km2. Your original dimensions, therefore, are only 0.031% of that, making your 93 (not 94) meter calculation only applicable to the 12 million figure.
It should be asked how one floods 12 million sq. km. to a depth of 93 meters, separating it from the other 99.969% of the ocean?
cormac
reply posted on 7-4-2009 @ 05:01 PM by orkson
reply to post by cormac mac airt
Sorry to bore the thread with maths ...
We're speaking of VOLUMES.
A volume of 3000Km x 4000Kmx x 3000 meters makes 36 quadrillions cubic METERS. (36.000.000.000.000.000 cubic meters)
The formula in order to find the VOLUME of a sphera is 4/3*PI*R^3
If the RADIUS changes by H meters (which is the upheaval of the sea level), you have R which becomes R+H.
So you may calculate the VOLUME corresponding to H (sea rise) by making the difference :
(4/3*PI*(R+H)^3) - (4/3*PI*R^3)
If you know the value of this difference (36.000.000.000.000.000 cubic meters) it's easy to find H ( with a correction : sea surfaces are 3/4 of the Earth surface)
I confirm : H is 94 meters.
[edit on 7-4-2009 by orkson]
[edit on 7-4-2009 by orkson]
Sorry to bore the thread with maths ...
We're speaking of VOLUMES.
A volume of 3000Km x 4000Kmx x 3000 meters makes 36 quadrillions cubic METERS. (36.000.000.000.000.000 cubic meters)
The formula in order to find the VOLUME of a sphera is 4/3*PI*R^3
If the RADIUS changes by H meters (which is the upheaval of the sea level), you have R which becomes R+H.
So you may calculate the VOLUME corresponding to H (sea rise) by making the difference :
(4/3*PI*(R+H)^3) - (4/3*PI*R^3)
If you know the value of this difference (36.000.000.000.000.000 cubic meters) it's easy to find H ( with a correction : sea surfaces are 3/4 of the Earth surface)
I confirm : H is 94 meters.
[edit on 7-4-2009 by orkson]
[edit on 7-4-2009 by orkson]
Ancient Walled City, Older than Egypt\'s Pyramids, Unearthed off US Georgia Coast
Posted 12 days ago with 101 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 101 member flags
42,000-year-old paintings : \'The oldest work of art ever\' discovered
Posted 3 days ago with 26 member flags
Posted 3 days ago with 26 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
The Scale of the Universe- Amazing, Controllable Flash Animation!
Fragile Earth, Posted 48 seconds ago
Fragile Earth, Posted 48 seconds ago
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 1 hours ago
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Google accidentally released Maine election results early!
2012 US Elections, Posted 10 hours ago, 42 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 10 hours ago, 42 flags
Threatened by a Ron Paul victory in Maine, GOP (insider spills beans) adds last minute caucuses.
2012 US Elections, Posted 14 hours ago, 35 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 14 hours ago, 35 flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
Space Exploration, Posted 17 hours ago, 23 flags
Space Exploration, Posted 17 hours ago, 23 flags
Greek police union wants to arrest EU/IMF officials
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
The CIA in Australia: America's Foreign Watergate
Political Conspiracies, Posted 8 hours ago, 13 flags
Political Conspiracies, Posted 8 hours ago, 13 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Google accidentally released Maine election results early!
2012 US Elections, Posted 10 hours ago, 68 replies
2012 US Elections, Posted 10 hours ago, 68 replies
Massive Obama Conspiracy to Kill the Second Amendment
US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 64 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 64 replies
Actor Nicolas Cage finally comes out to talk about his doppelgänger in a civil war era photo.
General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 53 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 53 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.343 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.343 seconds
