It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dragnet53
Originally posted by spinalremain
The best debate the believers can come up with is that non believers are either disinfo agents or jealous of Lucas?
I think you just want to pick and choose what you want us believers to think and say. If that is your opinion on some of our "best" debates. Then sadly I think your reading comprehension skills are limited.
What is clear is that whatever comes at 3600 year intervals as shown by the ice cores, is capable of setting off prolonged periods of earth changes that are above the levels of ordinary uniformitarian geologic and climatalogical changes. But the evidence suggests that it is a shower of asteroids or coments that are NOT seen until it is TOO LATE.
Their depth profiles of microparticle concentration, electrical conductivity and Oxygen 18 at circa 1600 BC indicates a spike in readings for all of these elements. The evidence shows that this disturbance covered this designated period, but with a "huge spike" at c. 1600 BC
Originally posted by Antoniastar
So sorry, right now I'm slammed for time but do want to post this info about the alleged 3,600 cycle that some say is caused by Planet X. All I had time for at the moment is to quickly scan the articles. Will get deeper into it soon. The following quote was borrowed from the "part two" at www.cassiopaea.org...
What is clear is that whatever comes at 3600 year intervals as shown by the ice cores, is capable of setting off prolonged periods of earth changes that are above the levels of ordinary uniformitarian geologic and climatalogical changes. But the evidence suggests that it is a shower of asteroids or coments that are NOT seen until it is TOO LATE.
Here is the 1st part of the article...
"Has Nibiru/Planet X Been Sighted?"
www.cassiopaea.org...
It's interesting that something that has been evidenced as happening on such a regular cycle isn't clearly documented or maybe it is and it's top secret? Therefore, the average Joe might find it difficult to connect physical evidence like, ice cores and tree rings, to Planet X type catastrophes. Even though it may be "too late", you'd think subsequent civilizations (and possibly survivors) would have put it all together by now.
Toni
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Antoniastar
That's funny. The study referred to makes no mention of a 3,600 year cycle and the data presented certainly doesn't show one.
www.igsoc.org...
All it really shows is that there was a major change in Earth's climate about 10,000 years ago. We know that. It's called the change from the last glacial period to the holocene (the current period).
[edit on 8/19/2010 by Phage]
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Antoniastar
The site you link to begins with Velikovsky. His claims were shown to be wrong decades and decades ago. It also makes the following claim.
Their depth profiles of microparticle concentration, electrical conductivity and Oxygen 18 at circa 1600 BC indicates a spike in readings for all of these elements. The evidence shows that this disturbance covered this designated period, but with a "huge spike" at c. 1600 BC
I took the time to look at the article that was referenced and what I saw was that this claim appears to be a phony claim. Check it out yourselves.
Fujii and Watanabe
Says McCanney:
“NASA scientists have been repeating…for 25 years that ‘Velikovsky has been proven wrong.’ It is time to set the record straight. It was NASA that was [and is still] wrong. Velikovsky single-handedly did more for the advancement of true science than all of the NASA scientists in the last 3 decades combined.”