8
   

Pyramid found underwater in region of Portuguese Azores

 
 
neologist
 
  3  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2014 10:50 am
A Google search of 'underwater pyramids' turns up some fascinating images.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2014 10:51 am
@gungasnake,
Nothing like the underwater city that probably isn't a city...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070919-sunken-city.html
Quote:
"I'm not convinced that any of the major features or structures are manmade steps or terraces, but that they're all natural," said Robert Schoch, a professor of science and mathematics at Boston University who has dived at the site.

"It's basic geology and classic stratigraphy for sandstones, which tend to break along planes and give you these very straight edges, particularly in an area with lots of faults and tectonic activity."
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2014 10:58 am
@parados,
Your Boston prof's basic problem...

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRySalE_7si6-74WxhOGPHbkfjHuT4ltkDugAL6ErbwOoTe1EFxQ
raprap
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2014 11:09 am
@gungasnake,
Ganja, now that's funny---Harry Anslinger, Richard Nixon and Nancy Reagan are knee slapping this one!!!

But everybody else is just going to laugh at you.

Rap
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2014 08:49 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
cmon, sometimes he posts stuff that is actually interesting food for speculation.

I agree. Sometimes he does post interesting stuff. Other times he posts complete hair-brained nonsense.

This particular item is little more than a sonar echo interpreted by an amateur yachtsman, massaged by the lunatic fringe media to seem like something more interesting. That area near the azores is full of volcanic mounds, any one of which could look like a mound or pyramid on an average sonar setup. And the photo provided along with the story is a complete fabrication. I'm just sayin.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Mar, 2014 04:44 pm
This is so obviously a hoax...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Mar, 2014 04:58 pm
@rosborne979,
I suppose, but I want to see some real pix of the area. There are NO sedimentary units with those kinds of laminations as shown in the first pic. There are some (very few) basaltic tors where these "pipestone" columns appear lying sideways. VERY FEW. I don't think these are one of them. Id like to see some more pics but maybe gunga is just hiding cause hes shot his entire wad on the silly news article.

WHATEVER happened to responsible science journalism? Are we now just doomed to pull in these blog witers as if they have any credibility?
Im pissed at guys like Nicholas Wade and David Quammen for minor infractions of science but most of these reports from the Free Republic vein are just horrible.

Looks like gunga wont be trying to underpin the story.

Sadness.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Mar, 2014 05:02 pm
GUNGA, Id like to hear more about how you conclude what you do about a "Worldwide Flood".

gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Mar, 2014 07:52 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
GUNGA, Id like to hear more about how you conclude what you do about a "Worldwide Flood".


The flood was one part of a series of calamities which attended the recent transition of our solar system into its present configuration.

In real life, gravity is by some 40 orders of magnitude the weakest force in nature. Asking gravity to hold galaxies together or to form up solar systems from swirling bands of solar material along the equatorial planes of new stars, is like asking the littlest kid in the school to do the powerlifting event.

In real life, some 99.9% of the mass of the universe is in plasma form. Separation of charge occurs over vast expanses of space and twisted pairs of currents (Birkeland currents) arc through such plasmas because of the charge separation.

Those twisted ropes of current have electro-magnetic pinch points which have more than enough power to agglomerate plasma into solid objects.

On the largest possible scale these currents and the solid objects produced at their pinch points amount to strings of galaxies, which are inexplicable in a gravity-only cosmology. On a somewhat smaller scale, they amount to what are called Herbig/Haro objects or object strings. These have the appearance of beads on a string. But HH strings are relatively short lived; they devolve into the sort of solar system we live in now.

If our system actually had formed as is taught in schools, the spin axes of the planets would all be nearly perpendicular to the plane of the system. Our sun, Jupiter, and Mercury actually look like that and you assume they amounted to an original system.

Venus and Uranus have oddball tilts, each with it's own special story. But the four other main planets, Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth all have the same roughly 26 degree axis tilt. That is inexplicable via standard theories.

What actually happened was that at some very recent point, Neptune, Saturn, Mars, and Earth were still in the form of an HH object string and flew into the plane of the sun's orbital system from the South at a ~26 degree angle; as the individual bodies broke off and began to orbit as they do now, they simply kept the ~26 degree axis tilt.

Venus orbits retrograde/upside-down, i.e. its axis tilt is roughly 180 degrees. Bob Bass once noted that that could not possibly be primordial and must have arisen via interaction with some other body in the system, and that the curious phase lock between Venus and Earth indicates that the other body had to have been Earth, i.e. that if Immanuel Velikovsky didn't exist, we'd need to invent him.

To my knowledge, the tale of the flood at the time of Noah is sufficiently real, but it was likely not the worst of the series of catastrophes I mentioned. Whatever created the Grand Canyon was probably worse, and whatever created the muck deposits in the North was probably worse. See Vine Deloria's "Red Earth, White Lies" for a good analysis of the muck deposits.

The Grand Canyon is a case of both evolutionites and creationists being wrong. Both attribute it to the action of water, the only difference between the two views being the question of time. But real super rivers (Volga, Amazon) are shallow in that you need to wade out quite a ways before needing to swim. In the case of the canyon, you walk up to the edge and notice a straight 2000' drop.

Water also wears rocks smooth. The rocks of the canyon are all sharp and pristine.

There should also be a gigantic pile of rock and debris where the Colorado used to empty into the Pacific; it isn't there.

Likewise real rivers have finite numbers of tributaries, and not the sort of fractal topography of the canyon with its infinite myriad of sinuous rilles.

The canyon is basically an electrical scar, a vastly scaled up version of what you see when lightning strikes rocky ground. The material which should be in the Pacific is missing because it was vaporized and/or blasted into space. It was caused by an electrical arc discharge between Earth and some other very large body.




farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2014 07:08 am
@gungasnake,
whew. Theres a lot of stuff there. Can you point to any evidence of flood deposits that seem to be worldwide in origin?
I can give you an example of the post Plistocene /Holocene boundary sedimenst that all seem to link the last 2 glacial retreats. but the Plesitocene advance caused great retreats of seas all around so we actually had occupiable land in areas that are now inland seas and continental margins. THEN, when the post glacial meltwater occurred , we are able see the edges of alluvial depositions and that still left a majority of land of each continent that was "unflooded"

Id like to see some of the evidence that convinces you. I don't pick up on tales told around a campfire.
What Ive told you I can show you in the field and in photos of geomorphology books and papers.

W can "save" your plasma lecture for sometime when its actually part of the discussion

Quote:
Whatever created the Grand Canyon was probably worse,
So youre basically saying that all of geology and tectonics is fucked up? Wow, that's harsh . I suppose you can evidence this also?

gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2014 05:51 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
whew. Theres a lot of stuff there. Can you point to any evidence of flood deposits that seem to be worldwide in origin?...


Sorry to be slow here, I've been pretty much wrapped around axles the past couple of days.

I'm not the world's best expert on flood evidence. I'll see if I can point you to at least a couple of takes on the subject but you have to be aware that there may have been more than one flood which was global or close to being global and there have been at least a couple of other calamities which have produced some of the same kinds of evidence which somebody might attribute to a global or near global flood.

The single largest compilation of such evidence to my knowledge is the one which Charles Ginenthal has put together:

http://bearfabrique.org/History/floods/mfloods.html

Ginenthal notes that it is impossible to say which flood any one piece of such evidence represents.

Ignatius Donnelly in the 1880s described till, drift, and loess as fallout from a recent and major encounter with a comet ("Ragnarok, the Age of Fire and Gravel").

http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/rag/

Al DeGrazia mentions this:

http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_04/lately_tortured_earth_03.htm

Quote:
....Ignatius Donnelly, in Ragnarok (1882), was already ascribing till, drift and loess to fall-out from a great comet, going no far auto deny the very existence of past ice ages, to which most scientists then and still today ascribe these materials. He read many distinct legendary sources and intercepted many sedimentary strata as stories of great winds that picked up the detritus of Earth, whirling it around wildly and depositing it in "intercalated :beds." [21] Donnelly's denial of the ice ages in favor of exoterrestrial deposits by comet does not appear so outrageous today. As we shall see, ice age theory has been used (and abused) to the point of exhaustion of the subject and of the geologists working in the field; it has been made responsible for many geological forms and events that might more readily be assigned to other forces. Velikovsky, in a note of the 1940's, before he had himself been subjected to ridicule, commented that Donnelly had been called "the Prince of Cranks" for his books on several difficult and controversial subjects (22]. Donnelly was in fact a superior writer and lecturer, an intense student with a sensuous affinity for the palpability of the ground, a political and social hero, and a precursor in fundamental ways of later writers such as Velikovsky.

Fifty years after Donnelly, Penniston was advocating the thesis of an exoterrestrial origin for loess (23]. Citing Shapley (later a violent critic of Velikovsky) andl3elot for having proposed a solar nova as the cause of the ice ages, he reasoned upon this as a possible source of the material, which, experiencing high temperatures for a period of time, had its silicates metamorphosed in part to quartz, thus arriving at the loess. That stony meteorites have differed in composition from loess has stood against his theory. The source of meteorites has probably been mainly from the asteroid belt in contemporary times, however, and catmot be well compared with either the solar or the cometary origins hypothesized. Not unnaturally, geologists faced with a choice of wind or exoterrestrial fall, would prefer the wind. Wherever possible, as in middle America, they introduce "glacial sluiceways." Yet we would prefer to discuss the matter once again when it comes time to ask what can and does fall to Earth from outer space.

Let us rest content here if we have but established several points: The force of wind rises with the square of its velocity, with correspondingly large effects upon the landscape. Hurricanes must be associated with every abrupt and intensive geological event. Cyclones convey major electrical and fire phenomena. In large-scale catastrophic events, a great many typhoons could originate to accommodate changed atmospheric and lithospheric motions or multiple meteoroidal instrusions. Finally, if the sediments of the world.do not reflect adequately cyclonic effects, the reason may rest in their continuous.erasure by more forceful events which themselves require identification. Furthermore, assigned geological times may be too long; maybe not enough events have happened to flesh out the skeletal ages.....


I mentioned Herbig/Haro object strings and the curious fact that four of our planets have the same roughly 26 degree axis tilt, and that I take that to mean that those planets were captured by our sun as a group, i.e. that they flew into the plane of the sun's system at a roughly 26 degree angle from the South and that the invidual bodies simply kept the ~26 degree angle as they peeled off and began to orbit the sun as they do now.

You can check axis tilts on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt

and note that the article gives a range of 23.4 - 28.3 degrees for the four planets I mention. Visually it's the same. You can also look up Strings of galaxies and herbig/haro object and Google images searches are usually more productive. You'll note that some of the images for strings of galaxies show the characteristic spiral shape of the Birkeland currents which create the things:

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/pfrancis/string/
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQl-e1Tk8gLpvshdrDVY3nnxXmRMQDwqKH7rrjUktp8n3evOWzJA

At least some of the HH string images show things which look like beads on a taut string:

http://www.eso.org/public/images/hh-111/ (HHH 111)
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKBA9dPFhBpy4bP33olMCQBmLwnLriZTfLDZ088NexszJgky3WeQ

Now, to a person living on a planet which was part of something like that or part of the remains of something like that, there might appear to be some sort of a gigantic vortex anchored at the north pole of that planet... Somebody who thrived on excitement might try to live near the North pole; those who had less of a taste for excitement might prefer to live closer to the equator:

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/images/standard/WebMedium/WebImg_000256/190741_3056035.jpg

So long as the fricking thing STAYED anchored in one place, life might go on unmolested for a while. If, however, that vortex should LOSE its anchor and start moving around, it might suck up major parts of the living world of that planet, grind them up like a blender, and ultimately spew the mix back out over the North side of the planet.

THAT is basically the way the muck deposits found in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia are typically described.

Vine Deloria described that in "Red Earth, White Lies":

http://books.google.com/books/about/Red_Earth_White_Lies.html?id=Pz78tSwRAaUC

Quote:
....In even the most prejudiced murder trial there is one essential element: there has to have been a killing. Fancy legal terminology generally requires a body the corpus delictus as the TV detec- tive shows are fond of telling us. It would seem reasonable, if one was to promulgate a theory of blitzkrieg slaughter as have Martin and Diamond, to identiiy where the bodies are buried and then take the reader on a gut-wrenching tour through a graveyard of waste and butchery. We are deprived of this vicarious thrill because the evidence of the destruction of the megafiuna suggests a scenario well outside the orthodox interpretation of benign natural processes. Therefore mere mention of the reality of the situation is anathema to most scholars. So let us see what the actual situation is.

The first explorers of the northern shores of Siberia and its offshore northern islands and of the interior of Alaska, and some of its northern islands, were stunned to discover an astro- nomical number of bones of prehistoric animals piled indis- criminately in hills and buried in the ground. The graveyards of these animals were classified as "antediluvian" (prior to Noah's flood) by the majority of scientists and laypeople alike who still believed the stories of the Old Testament. Near these grave- yards, incidentally, but located in riverbanks on the northern shore of Siberia, are found the famous Siberian mammoths whose flesh was supposedly edible when thawed.

Reading an extensive set of quotations is always tedious to readers but I hope you will bear with me in this chapter be- cause it is only in the repetition of the reports of the discoveries of these areas that the entire picture of the demise of the mam- moths and other creatures really becomes clear. These Siberian remains are not the thousands of mammoth bones which Jared Diamond thinks are searched frantically by archaeologists seek- ing signs of human butchering. It is doubtful that any archaeol- ogists or paleontologists have made extensive studies of the skeletons in these locations or we would certainly have a far different view of megafauna extinction than is presently ac- ceptable to orthodox scholars.

Russian expeditions to Siberia and the northern islands of the Arctic Ocean began in the latter half of the eighteenth cen- tury, and with the discovery of these large mounds of animal bones, most prominently the tusks of mammoths and other herbivores, franchises were given to enterprising people who could harvest the ivory for the world market. Liakoff seems to have been the first iniportant ivory trader and explorer in the late eighteenth century. After his death the Russian govern- ment gave a monopo~ to a businessman in Yakutsk who sent his agent, Sannikofi, to explore the islands and locate additional sources of ivory. Sannikoff's discoveries of more islands and his reports on the animal remains found there are the best firsthand accounts of the Siberian animal graveyards.

Hedenstrom explored the area in 1809 and reported back on the richness of the ivory tusks. Sannikoff discovered the island of Kotelnoi, which is apparently the richest single location, in 1811. Finally, the czar decided to send an official expedition and from 1820 to 1823, Admiral Ferdinand Wrangell, then a young naval lieutenant, did a reasonably complete survey of the area. Since these expeditions and explorations were inspired by commercial interests and not scientific curiosity; the reports are entirely objective with no ideological or doctrinal bias to slant the interpretation of the finds.

Around the turn of the century interest in the Siberian is- lands seems to have increased, whether as a result of the few Christian fundamentalists who were not reconciled to evolu- tion frantically searching for tangible proof of Noah's flood, or as part of the leisure activities of the English gendemen of the time, we can't be sure. The definitive article on the Siberian prehistoric animal remains was written by the Reverend D. Gath Whitley and published by the Philosophical Society of Great Britain under the title "The Ivory Islands in the Arctic Ocean." It drew on older sources, primarily reports of expedi- tions of the ivory traders, and captured the spectacular nature of the discoveries well.

Liakoff discovered, on an island that now bears his name, rather substantial cliffs composed primarily of frozen sand and hundreds of elephant tusks. Later, when the Russian govern- ment sent a surveyor, Chwoinoff, to the island he reported that, with the exception of son~e high mountains, the island seemed to be composed of ice and sand and bones and tusks of ele- phants (or mammoths) which were simply cemented together by the cold.Whitley reported:

Quote:
Sannikoff explored Kotelnoi, and found that this large
island was full of the bones and teeth of elephants, rhi-
noceroses, and musk-oxen. Having explored the coasts,
Sannikoff determined, as there was nothing but bar-
renness along the shore, to cross the island. He drove in
reindeer sledges up the Czarina River, over the hills,
and down the Sannikoff River, and completed the cir-
cuit of the island.All over the hills in the interior of the
island Sannikoff found the bones and tusks of ele-
phants, rhinoceroses, buffaloes, and horses in such vast
numbers, that he concluded that these animals must
have lived in the island in enormous herds, when the
climate was milder.5


Hedenstrom explored Liakoff's island in 1809 and discov- ered that". .. the quantity of fossil ivory . . . was so enormous, that, although the ivory diggers had been engaged in collecting ivory from it for forty years, the supply seemed to be quite undiminished. On an expanse of sand little more than half a mile in extent, Hedenstrom saw ten tusks of mammoths stick- ing up, and as the ivory hunters had left these tusks because there were still other places where the remains of mammoths were still more abundant, the enormous quantities of elephants' tusks and bones in the island may be imagined?' Indeed, a number of explorers reported that after each ocean storm the beaches were littered with bones and tusks which had been ly- ing on the sea bottom and brought to shore by wave action.

The elephant or mammoth bones and tusks were the most spectacular finds primarily because they were so plentiful and consequently they attracted public attention the most. The is- lands contained an incredible mixture of bones of many extinct and some living species of mammals. Mixed with the animal bones were trees in all kinds of conditions. Whitley quoted some of the Russian explorers as reporting "it is only in the lower strata of the New Siberian wood-hills that the trunks have that position which they would assume in swimming or sinking undisturbed. On the summit of the hills they lie flung upon another in the wildest disorder, forced upright in spite of gravitation, and with their tops broken off or crushed, as if they had been thrown with great violence from the south on a bank, and there heaped up?'7

A few conclusions can be drawn from the reports of the Russian ivory traders. First, it appeared that several reasonably large islands were built primarily of animal bones, heaped in massive hills and held together by frozen sand. To indicate the scope of the debris, we should note that all of these islands are found on modern maps of the area, indicating that we are not talking about little tracts of land of limited area. Second, the sea floor north of Siberia and surrounding the islands was covered with so many additional bones that it was worthwhile for the ivory traders to check the beaches after every storm to gather up tusks and other bones.

Third, and very important for estimating the scope of the disaster, the ivory was of outstanding quality, so much so that the area provided most of the world's ivory for over a century. Estimates of the number of tusks taken from the islands range in the neighborhood of 100,000 pairs taken between the 1770s and the 1900s. Whitley noted that Sannikoff himself had brought away 10,000 pounds of fossil ivory from New Siberia Island alone in 1809.9- In reality; however, only about a quarter of the ivory was of commercial grade, so the true figure must approach half a million pairs of tusks.

Fourth, an amazing variety of animals, many extinct, were mixed with the mammoth and rhinoceros bones, although these two animals have become symbolic of the whole menagerie. Fifth, trees, plants, and other floral materials were in- discriminately mixed with the animal remains, sometimes lead- ing the Russians to suppose that the islands represented a sunken isthmus or broad stretch of land where these animals and the companion plants lived in a warmer climate. The chaotic na- ture of stratification of the remains soon abused that notion.

Finally, it is important to note that none of the bones of any of the species had carving or butchering marks made by human beings. N. K.Vereshchagin wrote: "The accumulations of mam- moth bones and carcasses of mammoth, rhinoceros, and bison found in frozen ground in Indigirka, Kolyma, and Novosibirsk lands bear no trace of hunting or activity of primitive man. Here large herbivorous animals perished and became extinct because of climatic and geomorphic changes, especially changes in the regime of winter snow and increase in depth of snow cover."9 The "climatic and geomorphic changes" must have been very sudden indeed and exceedingly violent, consid- ering the fact that these bones are always described as "heaps" of material deposited as if they had been thrown into a pile by an incredibly strong force.

The testimony regarding the richness of the animal remains in the Arctic north of the continental masses is not restricted to Russian sources. Stephen Taber, writing in his report "Perenni- ally Frozen Ground in Alaska: Its Origins and History," had this to say about the Siberian islands:

Pfizenmayer [citation omittedj states that in the New Siberia island collectors have "found inexhaustible sup- plies of mammoth bones and tusks as well as bones and horns of rhinoceros and other diluvial mammals"; and Dr. Bunge, during expeditions in the summers of 1882-1884, "gathered almost two thousand five hun- dred first class mammoth tusks on the new Siberian is- lands of Lyakhov; Kotelnyi, and Fadeyev;" although many collectors had previously obtained ivory from the islands since their discovery in 1770 by Lyakhov.~~

It would seem obvious to anyone seriously pursuing the question of the demise of the mammoth and the other mega- herbivores that a good place to locate the bodies to determine the cause of their demise would be the islands north of the Siberian peninsula. Yet we hear not a word about them in sci- entific articles and books concerning the overkill hypothesis.

When we inquire if the Alaskan area has similar deposits, we learn that the situation is the same. Early gold miners in Alaska discovered that in many cases they had to strip off a strange de- posit popularly called "muck" in order to get to the gold-bearing gravels.The muck was simply a frozen conglomerate of trees and plants, sand and gravels, some volcanic ash, and thousands if not milhons of bits of broken bones representing a wide variety of late Pleistocene and modern animals and plants.

Two scholars describe the scenes of destruction and chaos which the muck represents. Frank Hibben, in an article survey- ing the evidence of early man in Alaska, said that while the for- mation of muck was not clear,". . . there is ample evidence that at least portions of this material were deposited under cata- strophic conditions. Mammal remains are for the most part dis- membered and disarticulated, even though some fragments yet retain in this frozen state, portions of llgaments, skin, hair, and flesh. Twisted and torn trees are piled in splintered masses con- centrated in what must be regarded as ephemeral canyons or arroyo cuts."'1

Stephen Taber's report echoes the same conditions. He says: "Fossil bones are astonishingly abundant in frozen ground of Alaska, but articulated bones are scarce, and complete skeletons, except for rodents that died in their burrows, are almost un- known."'2 Many laypeople will be confused by this technical language and fail to grasp what Taber is saying, allowing him to imply a benign orthodox interpretation when the situation re- quires that a clearer picture be drawn.

When a scholar says "articulation" of bones he means an arrangement of bones that a person observing them would identify as a complete skeleton and from which an experienced observer could identify the species.To say that articulated bones are scarce, then, means that the bones are scattered and mixed so badly that expert examination is needed to idemify even the bone itself, let alone the species from which it comes. Remem- ber this problem of articulation, for we shall meet it again in another context. Taber concludes with the observation that "the dispersal of the bones is as striking as their abundance and indicates general destruction of soft parts prior to burial."13 In other words,Alaskan muck is a gigantic pile of bones represent- ing a bewildering number of species, a good number of them the megafauna I have been discussing.

We find the missing megafauna of the late Pleistocene in the Siberian islands, in the islands north ofAlaska, and in the muck in the Alaskan interior. Obviously we have here victims of an immense catastrophe which swept continents and left the de- bris in the far northern latitudes piled in jumbled masses that now form decent-sized islands. Most anthropologists and ar- chaeologists avoid discussing these deposits because the ortho- dox uniformitarian interpretation of the natural processes precludes sudden unpredictable actions.......









gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2014 05:59 pm
I mentioned that the Grand Canyon is basically an electrical scar and that Evolutionists and creationists were BOTH wrong in viewing it as an artifact of hydraulic activity.

It turns out that Mars has an entirely similar electrical scar, although the one on Mars is very much larger, so large in fact that attempting to describe it as having anything to do with water would be obviously idiotic. That feature is called Valles Marineris:

http://cronodon.com/images/Valles_Marineris.jpg
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 12:11 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
I'm not the world's best expert on flood evidence.
neither is ginenthal and Velakovsky.

Quote:
Ginenthal notes that it is impossible to say which flood any one piece of such evidence represents
That's what we call a "copout" in the trade. Correlating sediments is important to establishing regional stratigraphy and geologic structure. Environmental reconstruction is a regional -wide task, not an at-a-point assertion. SCIENCE just does not work this way

So Well,
Ill make some comments about this stuff you've posted. Most of it is just garbage without displaying any scientific knowledge from the authors. At best, much of it is wanna -be science and at worst, being a defender of Velekovskian stratigraphy isn't something to be proud of. (I have no idea how you've gotten to be so easily convinced of this kind of crap without even questioning its validity.)

First, your post of this "Comet Ragnarok" seems to be written by some non-English speaker who is presenting really bogus science
Till, loess, drift, alluvium, eskers, drumlins etc etc are ALL demonstrably glacial terminus features. ALL such deposits have been mapped carefully and , associated with "scratches"(pressure striations) that were left by these massive ice deposits AND by the continuing rebound of the post glacial crust, as well as specific peri glacial and mid glacial soils (called fragipans ), The evidence that PROVES the past paths of glaciers, as well as the sediments surrounding them and the tectonics associated with continental ice sheets, is undisputable world wide. There are so many features associated with a series of 4 worldwide Pleistocene glacial epochs, that Im surprised that this kind of gibberish even still exists in the "gray literature" (gray literature is a body of pseudo-scientific work that is usually self published and disseminated via the internet).
The continental glaciers have associated deposits both internally and externally as well as evidence of marine recessions and interglacial transgressions that can work their way inland several tens of miles.
In Maine, for example , there are these large "Presumpscott deposits" which are periglacial marine sediments that represent low sea stands during glacial epochs. These deposits have subsequently been rebounding upward as the glaciers retreated. They, as well as internal sedimentary glacil deposits have been successfully dated using alpha tracking, Spin resonance for relict magnetics AND C14.
SO, Im afraid that, whatever your first offerings presume to be, I find them kind of "short of science and facts"

The assertions that loesses are associated with some extra terrestrial happenings is just not borne out by facts. ALL loess deposits are rooted in prevailing wind deposit morphology worldwide.
Im gonna have to break this off, Ive got barn duty and Ill read some more of this tomorrow.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 08:56 am
@farmerman,
youre entire posting is hrdly ny evidence of a worldwide flood. In fact, its just the opposite. Geologically we have very strong evidence that the entire glacial subartctic and North sea were pretty much land masses (Remember Doggerland?) well, periodic submersion n rebound of the area called Kotelnyy in the "NovoSIbiersk" area are in concert with the "Land Bridges of the High Arctic of which evidence abounds.

Same thing with E Africa. In the late Jurassic through EarlycRetaceous the EAstern portion of Africa was a shallow sea that uplifted and , as Africa left S America behind, the est Cost of Africa (qbout 20% of it) was the ";eading edge" as Africa plowed through the Tethys sea.
Having fossil mixes of land as well as marine is common where land is raised and lowered wrt sea level. What your experts fail to discuss is "correlation" again. To the west , 80% f Africa was high and dry, no flood evidence at the time of continental drift.
Correlation is a very important tool for us to make sure our deposits were all of the same genesis and close ages. We often have to spend lots f money to find a specific deposit that is stratigraphically bound and,(Like Uranium sandstones called "Carnotite") if we screw up the regional geology and stratigraphy , we may miss a rich deposit of the stuff by ignoring all regional correlation clues.

Just because one area in space and at a time is submerged , does NOT mean that every place is similarly made wet.

I find all that stuff you posted as very non compelling and more "science fiction"



gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 10:01 am
@farmerman,
As I mentioned, the question of physical evidence for global floods is outside my area of expertise and so I tried to answer your question by erring on the side of inclusivity. Given that, Donnelly's claims would be the ones I'd be least certain of. There is also the question of it being difficult to tell which piece of evidence corresponds to which catastrophe and I mentioned the fact that there appear to have been more than one gigantic flood, as well as other kinds of catastrophes which are totally outside of the range of anything which has occurred in historical times.

Things I'd be most certain about are:

  • The axis tilts of the planets I mentioned. Those you can check on any number of sources including Wikipedia. They imply the capture of four of the planets after the sun, Jupiter, and Mercury were already in the form of a solar system, and that implies gigantic catastrophic events.
  • The Grand Canyon and the Valles Marineris on Mars. A very strong argument can be made that both are electrical scars, possibly from the same event. That also implies a catastrophe well outside the range of anything within recorded history.
  • The muck deposits which Deloria describes. As he notes, those also demand an explanation involving a catastrophe well outside of anything within recorded history.


There is also Ginenthal's compendium of evidence which most would have a more difficult time pooh-poohing than you do.

Aside from physical evidence, there is strong evidence in ancient literature to indicate that the flood at the time of Noah was part and parcel of some solar-system-wide event. This includes the Biblical claim of seven days of intense light prior to the flood (Isaiah 30:26) as well as Plato's mention ("Statesman") of changes in the courses of the stars and sun at the time of the flood.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 01:31 pm
@gungasnake,
while parts of the planets dry land had been inundated in various geological times. There is NO evidence of any inundation being planetary wide or temporally overlapping other than retreats of basins and bays.
Its hard as hell to hide evidence of water borne sediment as it deposits or erodes an area.

Deloria os unconvincing since his entire game is perpetuating myths of the origins of Amerinds. His son is a REAL anthropologist whose written for the archeological record about AMerinds and civilizations of the Americas.
As far as the Grand Canyon being caused by "lightning", No big fulgurite deposits are reported for that area of the Colo plateau. (I
actually looked in the USGS records of fulgurite deposits an specimens)
When lightning hits and discharges to the ground, in areas of rocks and sediments like the Kaibab, strikes would actually form these long deposits of fulgurites. Here is a picture of one from a moderate lightning hit near the mountain of Thera.

   http://www.geulogy.com/images/lines/bingemma-fort-malta-fulgurites.jpg

The Colo Plateau was uplifted several timesstarting about 75 million years ago and before the formation of the Canyon, and , while the exact reason for the Grand Canyon is still debated, it involves uplift, water, and erosion. Any look from space or above can convince one that the Colorado River, whose delta does exist, was the cause of the Canyons formation

Heres such a view. See the mature meanders of a trellis drainage
   http://blogs.airspacemag.com/pettit/files/2012/01/grandcanyon3.jpg
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 01:37 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The axis tilts of the planets I mentioned. Those you can check on any number of sources including Wikipedia. They imply the capture of four of the planets after the sun, Jupiter, and Mercury were already in the form of a solar system, and that implies gigantic catastrophic events.

Axial tilts are common and occur to varying degrees in all planets. Axial tilt absolutely does not indicate a "capture" of any type. Axial tilts occur for a number of reasons including tidal resonance, core flow rotation and impacts from other bodies (to name just a few).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 01:39 pm
Then there's Uranus (no personal insult intended). It's just lazy, it's laying down on the job.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2014 01:49 pm
@farmerman,
By the way, my sat picture has been reversed ao that what you see as a "high" is actually the river channel of the Colorado.

The lightning storm that caused this puppy hadda be a doozy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/20/2019 at 07:42:14