Khufu Cartouche in GP Dated - Centuries Old

Scott Creighton
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Hello Dragonridr,

You seem to be under the impression that I do not discuss the theories of Woelfli & Baltensperger with any other physicists/scientists. Your assumption is quite wrong. Paleomagnetic research is fine for determining the former poles of (slowly) rotating tectonic plates and the Earth’s magnetic pole. But the science of paleomagnetic research is not as straightforward as you seem to think. As with much of science, many different interpretations of the paleomagnetic data can be made. There are also problems with the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field over the ages as well as the rate at which magnetic reversals happen. Take this one small example:

Just north of a truck stop along Interstate 80 in Battle Mountain, Nevada, lies evidence that the Earth’s magnetic field once went haywire.

Magnetic minerals in 15-million-year-old rocks appear to preserve a moment when the magnetic north pole was rapidly on its way to becoming the south pole, and vice versa. Such “geomagnetic field reversals” occur every couple hundred thousand years, normally taking about 4,000 years to make the change. The Nevada rocks suggest that this particular switch happened at a remarkably fast clip.

Anyone carrying a compass would have seen its measurements skew by about a degree a week — a flash in geologic time. A paper describing the discovery is slated to appear in Geophysical Research Letters...

“We’re trying to make the case that [the new work] is another record of a superfast magnetic change,” says lead author Scott Bogue, a geologist at Occidental College in Los Angeles…

Bogue and his colleague, Jonathan Glen of the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, went to Nevada to study a series of well-preserved lava flows. As each flow cooled, it preserved the orientation of the magnetic field at the time, frozen like a tiny compass needle in the rock’s magnetic crystals.

One particular flow caught the scientists’ attention because it seemed to carry a complex magnetic history. This lava, Bogue says, initially started to cool and then was heated again within a year as a fresh lava flow buried it. The fresh lava re-magnetized the crystals within the rock below, causing them to reorient themselves a whopping 53 degrees. At the rate the lava would have cooled, says Bogue, that would mean the magnetic field was changing direction at approximately 1 degree per week.

The Steens Mountain rocks have been reported to preserve a change of 6 degrees per day...

The Nevada rocks bolster the idea that such changes could be happening, says Bogue — even if scientists still can’t explain why.

Source

New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal

So, whilst it is true that the relationship of the continents (tectonic plates) to the Earth’s rotational axis can in general terms be determined using paleomagnetic data, this allows only the testing of the dipolar nature of the paleomagnetic field in past epochs from paleomagnetic data. This cannot test the axial nature of the field which requires the use of paleoclimatic data. However, the problem is that the geomagnetic pole is often at considerable variance from the actual geographic pole--by as much as 23 degrees (and even more during a complete magnetic pole reversal). In 2001 the North Magnetic Pole was around 9 degrees from the geographic north pole, whilst in the southern hemisphere in 2004, the divergence between the two was around 23.5 degrees. Thus, simply measuring the past geomagnetic pole is hardly a clear or reliable guide as to the former position of the geographic pole given that such a large variance in the physical location between the two can occur and can do so over a very short period of time.

At the end of the day, the anomalous evidence has to be explained. The eye-witness testimonies written in numerous ancient texts that describe the stars moving from their normal course have to be accounted for. Whether you agree or not, RTPW is a means to explain all of this evidence.

Regards,

SC

edit on 22/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

You do realize were not talking about magnetic poles they can change alot. We are talking the spin axis of the earth. That doesnt change drastically and the reason is the moon. Magnetic pole at one point was in the middle of the pacific. So showing an article about magnetic pole shifts isnt what were talking about your confusing the two.

dragonridr

Scott Creighton
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Hello Dragonridr,

You seem to be under the impression that I do not discuss the theories of Woelfli & Baltensperger with any other physicists/scientists. Your assumption is quite wrong. Paleomagnetic research is fine for determining the former poles of (slowly) rotating tectonic plates and the Earth’s magnetic pole. But the science of paleomagnetic research is not as straightforward as you seem to think. As with much of science, many different interpretations of the paleomagnetic data can be made. There are also problems with the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field over the ages as well as the rate at which magnetic reversals happen. Take this one small example:

Just north of a truck stop along Interstate 80 in Battle Mountain, Nevada, lies evidence that the Earth’s magnetic field once went haywire.

Magnetic minerals in 15-million-year-old rocks appear to preserve a moment when the magnetic north pole was rapidly on its way to becoming the south pole, and vice versa. Such “geomagnetic field reversals” occur every couple hundred thousand years, normally taking about 4,000 years to make the change. The Nevada rocks suggest that this particular switch happened at a remarkably fast clip.

Anyone carrying a compass would have seen its measurements skew by about a degree a week — a flash in geologic time. A paper describing the discovery is slated to appear in Geophysical Research Letters...

“We’re trying to make the case that [the new work] is another record of a superfast magnetic change,” says lead author Scott Bogue, a geologist at Occidental College in Los Angeles…

Bogue and his colleague, Jonathan Glen of the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, went to Nevada to study a series of well-preserved lava flows. As each flow cooled, it preserved the orientation of the magnetic field at the time, frozen like a tiny compass needle in the rock’s magnetic crystals.

One particular flow caught the scientists’ attention because it seemed to carry a complex magnetic history. This lava, Bogue says, initially started to cool and then was heated again within a year as a fresh lava flow buried it. The fresh lava re-magnetized the crystals within the rock below, causing them to reorient themselves a whopping 53 degrees. At the rate the lava would have cooled, says Bogue, that would mean the magnetic field was changing direction at approximately 1 degree per week.

The Steens Mountain rocks have been reported to preserve a change of 6 degrees per day...

The Nevada rocks bolster the idea that such changes could be happening, says Bogue — even if scientists still can’t explain why.

Source

New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal

So, whilst it is true that the relationship of the continents (tectonic plates) to the Earth’s rotational axis can in general terms be determined using paleomagnetic data, this allows only the testing of the dipolar nature of the paleomagnetic field in past epochs from paleomagnetic data. This cannot test the axial nature of the field which requires the use of paleoclimatic data. However, the problem is that the geomagnetic pole is often at considerable variance from the actual geographic pole--by as much as 23 degrees (and even more during a complete magnetic pole reversal). In 2001 the North Magnetic Pole was around 9 degrees from the geographic north pole, whilst in the southern hemisphere in 2004, the divergence between the two was around 23.5 degrees. Thus, simply measuring the past geomagnetic pole is hardly a clear or reliable guide as to the former position of the geographic pole given that such a large variance in the physical location between the two can occur and can do so over a very short period of time.

At the end of the day, the anomalous evidence has to be explained. The eye-witness testimonies written in numerous ancient texts that describe the stars moving from their normal course have to be accounted for. Whether you agree or not, RTPW is a means to explain all of this evidence.

Regards,

SC

edit on 22/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

You do realize were not talking about magnetic poles they can change alot. We are talking the spin axis of the earth. That doesnt change drastically and the reason is the moon. Magnetic pole at one point was in the middle of the pacific. So showing an article about magnetic pole shifts isnt what were talking about your confusing the two.

SC: And yet the link you provided in your previous post links to an abstract of a paper that uses paleomagnetic data which (in theory) is useful in determining the magnetic pole, not the geographic pole. I rather suggest it is you who is confusing the two.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Ok im not sure if your doing this on purpose or not but read the paper. Its talking about using geomagnetic dadt to show there was very little true polar wander. When a volcanic substance cools not only does it tell us the magnetic north but also the direction of spin of the earth.By using these two factors we can determine true polar wander. Then you come up with magnetic pole shifts which have been known by scientists to be exreme even known to reverse if you choose to ignore science so be it. But the research is solid true polar north has moved about 5 degrees in 130 million years so either the pyramids or older then that or your wrong pick one.

reply to post by dragonridr


Hello Dragonridr,

D: Ok im not sure if your doing this on purpose or not but read the paper. Its talking about using geomagnetic dadt to show there was very little true polar wander.

SC: Paleo-geomagnetic data cannot directly determine the geographic pole; it is used only to determine the position of the magnetic pole and then infers the position of the geographic pole. Again--it cannot directly determine the position of the geographic pole. The abstract you cite speaks of TPW of the magnetic pole (it has to) as opposed to Apparent Pole Wander (APW) of the magnetic pole. APW is when it appears that the magnetic pole has moved but, in fact, it is a tectonic plate that has moved giving a greater or lesser distance to the magnetic pole, thus giving the impression that the magnetic pole has move. True Pole Wander (TPW) is when the actual magnetic pole itself moves to a different location. This is to say that there is TPW of the magnetic pole and TPW of the geographic pole.
The question of the abstract you cite is whether TPW or APW of the (magnetic) pole occurred.

Now, science asserts through the hypothesis of Geocentric Axial Dipole (GAD) that the magnetic pole and the geographic pole were pretty much in the same location. That is how the abstract you link to implies there was little geographic TPW by using geomagnetic data. But GAD is but a theoretical model beset by a number of problems and whilst you may like to think it, it is not supported by all geo-physicists. Why? Well, you only have to look at the wide divergence between the magnetic pole and geographic poles we observe today—as much as 23.5º —to see how very different the two poles actually can be. Inferring the two poles were in the same place in ancient times is but an assumption of paleomagneticists—it has never been definitively proven.

You also have to look at the anomalous evidence—which you consistently ignore—to see that the paleoclimatic data suggests a very different pole in ancient times. And you consistently ignore the ancient eye-witness accounts that write of such a change in the heavens. You ignore also the fact that paleomagnetic data shows rapid changes—6 degrees in a single day! In short, you ignore everything that doesn’t suit your own case and carry on regardless. That is not how good science works. Science is quite literally a graveyard of dead hypothesis and theories. Assuming the magnetic and geographic poles were in the same place is a scientific assumption. I will take the eye-witness accounts over a theoretical science any day of the week.

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Hello Dragonridr,

D: Ok im not sure if your doing this on purpose or not but read the paper. Its talking about using geomagnetic dadt to show there was very little true polar wander.

SC: Paleo-geomagnetic data cannot directly determine the geographic pole; it is used only to determine the position of the magnetic pole and then infers the position of the geographic pole. Again--it cannot directly determine the position of the geographic pole. The abstract you cite speaks of TPW of the magnetic pole (it has to) as opposed to Apparent Pole Wander (APW) of the magnetic pole. APW is when it appears that the magnetic pole has moved but, in fact, it is a tectonic plate that has moved giving a greater or lesser distance to the magnetic pole, thus giving the impression that the magnetic pole has move. True Pole Wander (TPW) is when the actual magnetic pole itself moves to a different location. This is to say that there is TPW of the magnetic pole and TPW of the geographic pole.
The question of the abstract you cite is whether TPW or APW of the (magnetic) pole occurred.

Now, science asserts through the hypothesis of Geocentric Axial Dipole (GAD) that the magnetic pole and the geographic pole were pretty much in the same location. That is how the abstract you link to implies there was little geographic TPW by using geomagnetic data. But GAD is but a theoretical model beset by a number of problems and whilst you may like to think it, it is not supported by all geo-physicists. Why? Well, you only have to look at the wide divergence between the magnetic pole and geographic poles we observe today—as much as 23.5º —to see how very different the two poles actually can be. Inferring the two poles were in the same place in ancient times is but an assumption of paleomagneticists—it has never been definitively proven.

You also have to look at the anomalous evidence—which you consistently ignore—to see that the paleoclimatic data suggests a very different pole in ancient times. And you consistently ignore the ancient eye-witness accounts that write of such a change in the heavens. You ignore also the fact that paleomagnetic data shows rapid changes—6 degrees in a single day! In short, you ignore everything that doesn’t suit your own case and carry on regardless. That is not how good science works. Science is quite literally a graveyard of dead hypothesis and theories. Assuming the magnetic and geographic poles were in the same place is a scientific assumption. I will take the eye-witness accounts over a theoretical science any day of the week.

Regards,

SC

edit on 23/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

What eye witness accounts are you talking about Joshua in the bible? Cinese records have no pole shift occurring though there is an obscure reference to being no moon. Now if there was a true pole wander we would see evidence of it for example Hawaiis volcano the volcanic hotspot we can trace the movement of the plate with geological data if there were a true pole shift this would be misaligned. Because the earths spin helps fuel plate techtonics. We would have had a major deviation in lunar orbit . And because the moon creating a bulge at the equator anything but a direct strike of earth wouldnt work.Do you realize the devastation an 18 degree pole shift would cause. If you want to see one look at mars it distorted thousands of miles of landsacpe. On earth it would even be more severe and cause a tidal wave miles high no ware would be safe. Then this would also change the momentum of the moon and make it likely to hit the earth!!!!

reply to post by dragonridr


Hello Dragonridr,

D: What eye witness accounts are you talking about….

SC: This is discussed in my forthcoming book but there is considerable information on the internet that you can research for yourself. You can perhaps begin by reading the other paper of Woelfli & Baltensperger : Traditions connected with the pole shift model of the Pleistocene.

But it is not merely eye-witness accounts in ancient texts that have been passed down to us; there is also the paleoclimatic evidence that needs to be considered and explained. And as for the effects of such a geographic pole shift—in the Woelfli & Baltensperger model, they have this to say:

”The global deformation is catastrophic, although compatible with the continuation of life on Earth.”

Once again, I will take the eye-witness accounts over theoretical science any day of the week.

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Hello Dragonridr,

D: What eye witness accounts are you talking about….

SC: This is discussed in my forthcoming book but there is considerable information on the internet that you can research for yourself. You can perhaps begin by reading the other paper of Woelfli & Baltensperger : Traditions connected with the pole shift model of the Pleistocene.

But it is not merely eye-witness accounts in ancient texts that have been passed down to us; there is also the paleoclimatic evidence that needs to be considered and explained. And as for the effects of such a geographic pole shift—in the Woelfli & Baltensperger model, they have this to say:

”The global deformation is catastrophic, although compatible with the continuation of life on Earth.”

Once again, I will take the eye-witness accounts over theoretical science any day of the week.

Regards,

SC

So if we take the ancient text in to account the earths axis switched for 1 day if you believein the bible and 2 days if you go by egyptian text. And then switched right back which would again require another major event. And you wonder why no one took them seriously? And when problems were pointed out with there theory they kept modifying it to the utter ridiculous. If we go by science they figure a shift occurred about 800 million years ago long before the pyramids or man was on the planet. This was based off sediments in norway. And it appears it was about 6 degrees from current position this is believed to be caused by an imbalance such as a super volcano causing the earth to have to rebalance.The idea of an outside body such as a planet zooming by causing the earth to have to rebalance is silly. There is no evidence this occurred there would be orbital disruptions of earth the moon and possibly other inner planets as well. This is why we know it didnt happen this theory was developed 150 years ago to explain siberia being a tundra. However the area continues to change and is now becoming a dessert so it isnt that mysterious after all.

reply to post by dragonridr


Hello Dragonridr,

D: So if we take the ancient text in to account the earths axis switched for 1 day if you believein the bible and 2 days if you go by egyptian text. And then switched right back which would again require another major event.

SC: I’m not sure of the specific celestial events you refer to but their paper provides a very good scientific explanation of the events they have identified from the Bible. There is also this paper which provides a mathematical solution to the Herodotus Paradox whereby the sun apparently changed its rising and setting places a number of times throughout AE history.

D: And you wonder why no one took them seriously?

SC: Who doesn’t take them seriously? Here is what the authors actually said:

”A frequent objection to this hypothesis is that the phenomena should be reported in old traditions. This paper quotes such traditions from passages of Platon, Herodotus, Ovid, papyrus Ipuwer, Gilgamesh, the Bible, American Indians and other civilizations. Far from being exhaustive the examples show that apparently strange traditions can report observed facts. This connection is of mutual benefit for science and humanities.” Source.

D: And when problems were pointed out with there theory they kept modifying it …

SC: They haven’t changed their theory—merely refined it. When evidence demands it that is what good scientists do.

D: …to the utter ridiculous.

SC: That is nothing but your opinion.

D: If we go by science they figure a shift occurred about 800 million years ago long before the pyramids or man was on the planet. This was based off sediments in norway. And it appears it was about 6 degrees from current position this is believed to be caused by an imbalance such as a super volcano causing the earth to have to rebalance.

SC: We’ve been through this. Science uses paleomagnetic data which assumes the magnetic pole in ancient times was more or less in the same place as the geographic pole. Our own modern experience tells us this assumption may be flawed as we observe today divergences of up to 23.5 degrees between the magnetic and geographic poles.

D: The idea of an outside body such as a planet zooming by causing the earth to have to rebalance is silly.

SC: “Silly” is not impossible. I remember, not so long ago, a massive asteroid fragmenting and smashing into Jupiter in a quite fantastic firework display. There have been numerous such impacts on Jupiter in recent years as there have been on the Earth (though, fortunately, smaller). Such is the nature of our solar system. It’s a shooting gallery out there. To dismiss such a possibility as “silly” is, well, silly.

D: There is no evidence this occurred there would be orbital disruptions of earth the moon and possibly other inner planets as well. This is why we know it didnt happen …

SC: The previous Ice Age terminated in a relatively abrupt manner which science, to this day, struggles to satisfactorily explain. That's a big piece of evidence right there. As a result ice sheets in North America and Europe went into (relatively) rapid meltdown, raising sea levels all over the globe by some 400 feet. That’s another big piece of evidence. How we explain this evidence is the question. RTPW can explain this event in a simple and logical manner and is supported by the celestial observations of many ancient peoples all over the world. The research of Australian astronomer, George F. Dodwell, proves fairly conclusively that the axial obliquity of the Earth ca.2,345 BCE was inclined at 26 degrees--a full 2 degrees beyond what is projected by modern science. Such are the facts.

D: …this theory was developed 150 years ago to explain siberia being a tundra. However the area continues to change and is now becoming a dessert so it isnt that mysterious after all.

SC: ‘Tundra’ is technically a desert—a cold desert. And the 'pole-shift' theory was never accepted to explain the anomalous data because science always believed that for such an event to occur would require a massive body almost as large as the Earth colliding with the Earth thereby extinguishing all life. They reasoned that since life still exists on Earth then such a collision induced pole shift could not have occurred. Well, we now know that such an extinction level event is not necessary to shift the Earth's poles; the poles can relocate relatively quickly and in such a way that remains compatible with life. This new information reopens the 150 year-old argument.

But your statement above seems to imply that climate change killed off the Siberian mammoths during the Holocene by dramatically affecting their feeding grounds. If that is so then I completely agree—climate change killed off the mammoths as well as many other large mammals during that time. But the question is—what caused such a fast and dramatic climate change? All of these large mammals survived (at least) two previous climate changes—why was the Holocene climate change so different? These are the questions that science has not yet found an answer to.

Regards,

SC

Deaf Alien

However his idea of dating the pyramids by a calendar the egyptians left in the layout.

reply to post by dragonridr

 

I don't understand this? Please explain?

The pyramids line up perfectly as he has shown you over and over again.

I don't claim to understand it but I have followed his work and Graham Hancock and other's work. I read and I follow the evidence, logic. possibilities, and understanding.

From what I read in your posts... you keep saying that Scott believes in AAT or some far fetched theories. Why? What does it have to do with it?

I stumbled upon graham hancock's facebook page and he is throwing around information that seems to jibe with Creighton's theory:

Graham Hancock wrote about the Gunung Padang site:

At those depths the carbon dates indicate that the megaliths were put in place more than 10,000 years ago and in some cases as far back as 24,000 years ago.

He cites a very confident cal tech grad Danny Natawidjaja, PhD, senior geologist with the Research Centre for Geotechnology at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences:

I can only conclude that we’re looking at the work of a lost civilization and a fairly advanced one.”

“The archaeologists won’t like that,” I point out.

“They don’t!” Natawidjaja agrees with a rueful smile. “I’ve already got myself into a lot of hot water with this. My case is a solid one, based on good scientific evidence, but it’s not an easy one. I’m up against deeply entrenched beliefs.”

civilization-ending natural disaster

Since 2007, however, masses of scientific evidence have come to light that have identified the smoking gun for me in the form of a comet that broke into multiple fragments now known to have hit the earth 12,980 years ago.

That date is just too close to Gobekli Tepe's age, I think.
This brought to mind dragonridr's post about a potential planet-sized body that Jupiter heaved in the direction of earth (actually, that also brought to mind nibiru and also mars dying ) that could bring about a sudden tilt of the earth's axis.

link

Don't you think this actually makes those far fetched theories closer to the realm of possibility?

Mr. Creighton, if that 6,500 year old ostrich egg with the depiction of the pyramids is really that old, it should be enough to prove that the pyramids are older than 5,000 years and almost two millennia older than Khufu, at least.


I can't believe I didn't give this a s&f earlier

reply to post by reject

Reject:
Mr. Creighton, if that 6,500 year old ostrich egg with the depiction of the pyramids is really that old, it should be enough to prove that the pyramids are older than 5,000 years and almost two millennia older than Khufu, at least.



Hello Reject,

Many thanks for your post and for the links. Very useful.

Yes, that 6,500 year-old ostrich egg depicting the Giza pyramids is evidence indeed that these structures existed thousands of years before orthodoxy claims Khufu & Co. built them. We are, as my good friend Graham Hancock has long stated, "a species with amnesia". We have lost and become detached from our true history and origins. However, slowly but surely archaeology will dig deep enough to uncover our true history and heritage; they will eventually explore areas that once were solid land but which are now deep under the sea. The history of our species is much, much older and more complex than mainstream science will presently accept. But as each year passes so the boundaries of modern man and civilisation are pushed further and further back into the remote mists of time.

Graham is just finalising Magicians of the Gods, the long-awaited sequel to his international best seller, Fingerprints of the Gods which I believe will be released in October 2015. I am fully confident that Magicians of the Gods will re-ignite the argument as to the true history and origins of humanity. If you can't wait that long then my own new book, The Secret Chamber of Osiris will be released later this year. In this new book I will present evidence that the Giza Pyramids are not merely 6,500 years old but, in fact, almost 20,000 years old. So yes--this date chimes very well with the research of Dr Natawidjaja and of Graham Hancock.

I am presently working on a special visual presentation for ATS readers of my new research and it will be posted in my forum here simultaneously with the release of my new book. I have little doubt that the coming year or so is going to be very, very illuminating for those interested in giving the alternative voice a fair hearing.

Watch this space.

Afternoon Scott... hope you're well sir?

Any further news/developments regarding this story? Any definitive news re: testing?

Any information you can offer would be greatly appreciated....

Regards.


PA

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Has this whole dating something to do with this incident Robert Bauval had with Zahi Hawass at the time..?

I can't get past halfway in that video for some reason. Can you summarize?

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Let me just say, I don't know where to start or how to put this all together:

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
Great post! Well researched and it makes good sense. The one thing that doesnt make sense is the size of the pyramids. Why so large? ....

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your post and apologies for not replying sooner.

If you are building a series of Recovery Vaults to facilitate the 'rebirth' of the Kingdom after an anticipated natural disaster, then one of your priorities is to make them very strong and highly visible - they need to be found quickly and sooner rather than later. That necessitates that they be seen for miles in all directions and, therefore, be built on the high plateaus of the land - and that is precisely where we find the pyramids.

Ironically, this is the precise antithesis of what you would do for the tomb of a king whose mortal remains needed to be protected at all costs. Such a highly visible tomb would only serve to attract robbers for miles around, placing the king's mortal remains at greater risk.

In short, high visibility would be essential for Recovery Vaults. Not so for tombs of Egyptian kings.

Regards,

SC

You do realize for them to be able to predict an astronomical event with enough certainty as to undertake a multi-decade project like the pyramids, they would need to be on about our technological level right now?

20,000 years ago?

Have you ever considered the possibility that Mars may have played a major role here?

I'm not saying there was no planet-sized body that wandered into our inner solar system because astronomers strongly suspect that the northern martian hemisphere was sandblasted by one.

Potato-Shaped Mars Moon Phobos May Be a Captured Asteroid

It is suspected it even knocked mars dangerously close to earth and that the situation only stabilized 701 BC which resulted in ancient calendars being adjusted from the 360 day earth year.

There is speculation that a flux tube used to form between mars and earth when they were periodically at their closest causing magnetic pole reversals; even altering the shape of earth itself. (sound familiar?)

It is said this past interaction stoked earth's geomagnetism.

What is weird is that there may have been a secret society privy to this knowledge as evidenced in Gulliver's Travels [(1726) by Jonathan Swift] referring to the two moons of Mars but with larger orbits 151 years before they were discovered in 1877.

There are also these:
wikipedia

Voltaire's 1750 short story "Micromégas", about an alien visitor to Earth, also refers to two moons of Mars. Voltaire was presumably influenced by Swift. In recognition of these 'predictions', two craters on Deimos are named Swift and Voltaire

In the 20th century, V. G. Perminov, a spacecraft designer of early Soviet Mars and Venus spacecraft, speculated Swift found and deciphered records that Martians left on Earth.

The larger mars moon & debris orbits actually helps account for the stronger effects felt on earth during bygone ages.

And this is borne out by the fact that, unless I'm mistaken, at least one of the moons' orbits is actually decaying and will eventually impact mars.

If you think about it, this scenario would explain why there is no significant crater that would evidence the trigger for the younger dryas.

It's probably nothing but I can't help but remember scientists theorize martian meteorite alh 84001 crashed to earth 13,000 years ago.

I hope I made some sense here

Good luck with your book, Mr. Creighton.

reply to post by reject


Gee, the ancients seem to have built a number of mysterious megalithic sites that evince advanced astronomical knowledge. I wonder how that happened?

Nice try.

PerfectAnomoly
Afternoon Scott... hope you're well sir?

Any further news/developments regarding this story? Any definitive news re: testing?

Any information you can offer would be greatly appreciated....

Regards.


PA

Hello PerfectAnomoly,

I contacted SGS (the German company analysing the cartouche sample) directly, asking them to clarify some issues around the sample that was taken. Alas, they point blank refuse to discuss anything about the sample, citing client confidentiality as the reason. A dead end here, I'm afraid... for the moment at least. I am confident, however, that the whole truth will eventually come out. It usually always does.

Regards,

SC

This is kinda interesting : LINK


I do not know if this was posted yet.

Scott,

Just finished reading the entire thread, going to go back through some of the thicker parts again.

I just wanted to say, well done, sir. Well done indeed.

Dear Scott,

my goodness, what an interesting find. I am almost through with the thread and am very impressed not only by your knowledge but also the way your are able to convey it - and, not the least, your patience. It even promped me to join the site - which I almost never do.

I have gone through some of the papers you listed and will do the same with the rest in time - but coming back to the original point of the whole thread I would like to add that I have seen an interview with the two German researchers somewhen in 2019 or so - and there has been - at least according to their rather comprehensive comment on the whole issue - quite a lot of misrepresentation and slander concerning their conduct.

I wanted to add one of their observations to this unfortunately long dead thread however: they claim to have found iron-oxide particles at the top end of the grand gallery, or better the ante-chamber/entry hall to the king's chamber. They found it on the walls close to the ceiling and they claim that it was actually only that which they scraped off a bit - and presumably within their research permit. They compared the residue in similarity to the exhaust of large electronic devices. Interesting side note, I think. Should you be interested, I would try to dig the interview up again and give more detail. The interview was conducted in German, however, so it might be difficult to understand (being German myself I could offer assistance ;-) ).

On a different note, however, I would like to ask some questions I have not yet come across regarding the ubiquitious discussions in the "fringe"-science-fora (concerning C14 dates given in the Bonani paper. As the older-age proponents (OAP) propose those mortar relicts could be simply signs of renovation done on the G1 pyramid. My questions, therefore, are as follows:

How could renovations on the Pyramid have been done on such a large scale (~45 specimens in the paper) without removing the casings stones first? Or is it assumed by the OAP that the casings stones - which apparently had been in place up until after 1303 AD - had been in a desolate state as well? Should there really have been great floods from the south, as the recent fledgling geological observations might hint at (glaciers of Mt. Kilmandjaro as a possible source?) at least there would be a feasible mechanism - assuming that G1 is that old, or older.

However, am very curious concerning the mortar, or to be more precise, their relevant points of origin. Where exactly were they found? Of course, the precise locations are given - but: are these specific locations as there is no mortar anywhere else - or is it possible to go any random joint in the blocks and do some scraping (up until the top, mind you)? If so, that might throw the renovation theory out of the window, I fear.

Yet if on the other hand mortar can only be found at a few or even many sites (now that's a question of percentage of the whole surface and some clever probability calculations), it would be a clear goal for the OAP.

Hey, it would even shove the red sea papyrus in the face of the current hypothesis. Why, of course Khufu (or Suphis) ordered the Tura limestone. And it might even have taken him 25 years to repair it. Amazing feat, three cheers to the Old Kingdom Egyptians. How could they possibly have done it. Isn't that enough praise even if they didn't build the whole thing?

Although I have been there myself I forgot to check - but I know quite a few megalithic constructions (not to mention VT in close vicinity) where plaster does not play a role at all (actually, most of them, I believe). Nevertheless, I am uncertain if the same can be said of the large Calcite Blocks of the VT, and of course the Pyramid.

You know any answers? Thanks in advance for a reply!

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Anyone with half a brain knew that. 🙄