This may be the most important aticle I have ever written.
Eric Stevens
Even if I can't discover them for myself, I enjoy watching other
people discovering things.
I am now reporting on what may be best described as the process of
discovery of a 'Theory of everything (in the fields of
archaeology/anthropology/human history).
This is one of those shell-shocked moments when nearly everything
suddenly falls into place.
In October 2007 I wrote an article titled "Evidence for an
extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago ...". Then in September 2007
I wrote another article titled "More on the possible 12,900 BCE
impact". This article continues on from those two.
I have now read the appallingly named book:
"The CYCLE of COSMIC CATASTROPHES,
Flood, Fire and Famine in the History of Civilization"
The authors are Richard Firestone, Allen West, and Simon
Warwick-Smith.
See
http://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Cosmic-Catastrophes-Stone-Age-Changed/dp/1591430615/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197619600&sr=1-1
or http://tinyurl.com/2w7yjg for the Amazon link.
I implore you to click on the link and read the reviews. This is NOT a
book from the lunatic fringe: quite the reverse, its from the cutting
edge of new discovery. Formal papers are being written, peer reviewed
and no doubt once they clear the log jam they will be published. In
the meantime this book brings you up to some time before 2006. The
book gives a web site for the latest updates but that site
www.cosmiccatastrophes.com seems not to work.
The general thesis is:
Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova exploded and briefly
bathed the earth with intense radiation. The supernova has not been
positively identified but most likely was what is now the pulsar
Geminga in the constellation Gemini.
The burst of radiation caused many fatalities but also many mutations,
including the mutations which gave rise to modern man with all his/her
mental capabilities. There already is evidence for the explosion of a
nearby supernova at that time.
34,000 years ago the shockwave from the super nova explosion arrived
at the solar system. There were numerous relatively low-key effects
nothing like the original blast of radiation. Nevertheless these led
to further extinctions and mutations. There is evidence for the
arrival of this shock wave.
Then 16,000 to 13,000 years ago the debris wave arrived. It was not
the tenuous cloud of gas in an expanding spherical shell which is how
the debris from a super nova is commonly pictured. It had lumps in it
and a cluster of lumps hit the solar system. The lumps were
low-density accumulations of dust but of very considerable size just
the same. There is unambiguous evidence that Mars, the Moon and Earth
were hit by substantial bodies of the same very unusual materials all
approaching from the same angle. So too possibly was Venus. The sun
may also have been affected.
It is commonly regarded that when objects strike the earth they will
cause craters. In fact it is known that when low-density objects
strike the earth they will cause very shallow craters and may even
leave a mound rather than a crater. The authors propose that the
Carolina Bays were created by the impact of low density fragments of
what would have appeared to anyone on the earth as a comet.
To simplify matters, the authors refer to all the multiple impacts and
what happened in consequence as 'the event'.
The authors went looking for evidence of more features like Carolina
Bays and found them all over North America and also in Europe.
The authors are now of the opinion that at least parts of Lake
Michigan and probably also the other Great Lakes are impact craters
left by cometary fragments striking the ground. The largest supposed
crater is Hudson Bay. (Don't start talking about 'shocked quartz'.
Apparently you don't get that with low density impacts).
I expect that at this stage people will start shaking their heads in
disbelief but apparently there is hard physical evidence for most of
this.
I don't know about yours but my mind boggles at the thought of what
happened at this time.
The impact in North America:
1. Precipitated the Younger-Dryas event.
2. Caused the sea to rise by 200' in 4000 years.
3. Precipitated an enormous submarine mudslide on the east coast of
North America. The resulting tsunami from this triggered an enormous
mudslide on the west coast of Europe and North Africa. The tsunami
from this triggered an enormous mudslide on the east coast of South
America. The combined tsunamis in the Atlantic stopped the Gulf Stream
and wiped out all life in very considerable coastal regions in both
the America's, Africa and Europe.
I think it is fair to say that we survivors are very lucky to be here.
We very nearly participated in a mass extinction.
There is much more to this but you will have to read the book to find
it out.
I will mention that there is a clear and unambiguous horizon at which
the Clovis layers stop. Usually it is marked by a band of black algae
but it can also be determined by means of a high-power magnet pulling
micro-spherules out of the soil. Clovis stops dead (probably
literally) at this point. There is a gap of several hundred years
before anything else comes along again.
No doubt you have all read those stories of frozen hairy mammoths
which died and froze so quickly that their food remained undigested in
their stomachs. I've always wondered how this could have happened but
this book provides an explanation.
Talking of mammoths, there are mammoths and giant bison whose tusks
and horns are impregnated by microscopic metallic spheroids.
Experiments have shown that this cannot be achieved by shot gun
velocities but it has been done in a cyclotron. How fast were those
metallic particles moving? Where did they come from?
This book also provides an explanation for the extinction of the
mega-fauna.
All I can say is 'read it' even if you have to steal it. :-)
Eric Stevens
Digger
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:jbi4m35vrbpdierp4...@4ax.com...
>
> Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova exploded and briefly
> bathed the earth with intense radiation. The supernova has not been
> positively identified but most likely was what is now the pulsar
> Geminga in the constellation Gemini.
>
> The burst of radiation caused many fatalities but also many mutations,
> including the mutations which gave rise to modern man with all his/her
> mental capabilities.
But modern man had evolved some considerable time BEFORE 41,000. I don't
think that particular part of the their argument holds any water.
David
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
Good point.
richard01
> I always enjoy discovering things.
>
> Even if I can't discover them for myself, I enjoy watching other
> people discovering things.
>
> I am now reporting on what may be best described as the process of
> discovery of a 'Theory of everything (in the fields of
> archaeology/anthropology/human history).
>
> This is one of those shell-shocked moments when nearly everything
> suddenly falls into place.
>
> In October 2007 I wrote an article titled "Evidence for an
> extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago ...". Then in September 2007
> I wrote another article titled "More on the possible 12,900 BCE
> impact". This article continues on from those two.
>
> I have now read the appallingly named book:
>
> "The CYCLE of COSMIC CATASTROPHES,
> Flood, Fire and Famine in the History of Civilization"
>
> The authors are Richard Firestone, Allen West, and Simon
> Warwick-Smith.
>
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/2w7yjgfor the Amazon link.
>
> I implore you to click on the link and read the reviews. This is NOT a
> book from the lunatic fringe: quite the reverse, its from the cutting
> edge of new discovery. Formal papers are being written, peer reviewed
> and no doubt once they clear the log jam they will be published. In
> the meantime this book brings you up to some time before 2006. The
Watermark: The Disaster That Changed the World and Humanity 12,000
Years Ago (Paperback)
by Joseph Christy-Vitale (Author)
From Publishers Weekly
The pyramids of Egypt and Central America; diluvial deposits high up
on mountain sides; strange collections of animal bones in North
American caves-- Christy-Vitale, amateur scientist and travel industry
consultant, believes these seemingly unconnected phenomena hint at a
cosmic catastrophe 12,000 years ago: a supernova 45 light-years from
Earth that shot a chunk of the star (which he calls Phaeton) into our
solar system, shattering a 10th planet between Mars and Jupiter into
what we know as the asteroid belt, killing off thousands of animal
species and almost extinguishing an advanced human civilization.
Memories of this event live on in stories of a golden age destroyed in
a worldwide flood. While Christy-Vitale seems never to have met a myth
he didn't like, he ignores some basic scientific facts. If a supernova
had exploded in our vicinity even in the last 100,000 years, its
glowing shell would still be visible. Also, supernovas don't shoot off
ministars--rather, these cosmic explosions tend to pepper the
surrounding cosmos with an iron isotope; scientists haven't found a
layer dating from this era. There is also no evidence of a genetic
"bottleneck" in humans dating back a mere 10,000 years. Christy-Vitale
believes that the chunk of star dust zooming past us caused Earth to
flip back and forth on its axis, resulting in, among other things, the
current configuration of the continents. So much for continental
drift. Christy-Vitale's scenario is an interesting one, but he seems
more a New Age Erik Von Daniken than someone advancing a revisionist
theory that will attract serious scientific attention.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743491904/ref=reg_hu-wl_list-recs
Uwe Müller
"Digger" <p.d...@hotmail.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:rss8j.15876$yZ4....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
Any event of that size would have hit all of life on earth, the mutations
would have been manifested in the bones and plant remains recovered from
that time. AFAIK there is no major common mutation horizon at the start of
the younger palaeolithic..
The only archaeological argument is made up from the lack of finds in
coastal areas, supposedly being evidence for a lack of habitation. Which is
weak at best.
I don't know about the astronomical and geological side of the argument, but
would like to know which European lakes or lake systems are supposed to have
been created by that impact.
So, as Velikovsky showed, it is very hard to refute a theory from astronomy
based on a singular event. It is easy to promote such a theory, if you only
take care to use arguments from history/archaeology with the natural
scientists, and vice versa.
This does not mean that the theory is wrong, but I see no way to back it up
with archaeologic evidence. And I see no way to prove it wrong either. What
escapes me, is why it should be important for archaeology. It's the old deus
ex machina theme, just the label has changed.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Doug Weller
wrote:
And, as I recall, scientists no longer believe that there was ever a
planet that exploded to be the asteroid belt.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
David Johnson
news:9235m35kau4fb5f1s...@4ax.com:
> And, as I recall, scientists no longer believe that there was ever a
> planet that exploded to be the asteroid belt.
Not since the 50s, at the latest. It's pretty much a given that the belt
formed as it looks now - a bunch of floating rocks.
Anywho, planets don't explode.
David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"Perhaps the whole Animal Rights movement is a vast plot by large
corporations to eliminate the cost/time 'wasted' by animal testing..."
Peter Alaca
> Doug Weller wrote in
>> And, as I recall, scientists no longer believe that there was ever a
>> planet that exploded to be the asteroid belt.
> Not since the 50s, at the latest. It's pretty much a given that the
> belt
> formed as it looks now - a bunch of floating rocks.
>
> Anywho, planets don't explode.
It was an accident when the aliens tried to
invent gunpowder.
--
p.a.
David B.
>> formed as it looks now - a bunch of floating rocks.
>>
>> Anywho, planets don't explode.
>
> It was an accident when the aliens tried to
> invent gunpowder.
Nah, gunpowder was invented as a stopgap by the ancient Swedes because
it took them a while to figure out how to stabilise nitroglycerin.
David B.
Doug Weller
>On Dec 14, 1:15 pm, "David B." <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> Peter Alaca wrote:
>> > "David Johnson" <trolleyfan_spamf...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> It's pretty much a given that the belt
>> >> formed as it looks now - a bunch of floating rocks.
>>
>> >> Anywho, planets don't explode.
>>
>> > It was an accident when the aliens tried to
>> > invent gunpowder.
>>
>> Nah, gunpowder was invented as a stopgap by the ancient Swedes because
>> it took them a while to figure out how to stabilise nitroglycerin.
>>
>> David B.
>
>This is sci.archaeology.
Pot, kettle, black. Stop posting on Thiering then.
Whiskers
> On Dec 14, 1:15 pm, "David B." <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> Peter Alaca wrote:
>> > "David Johnson" <trolleyfan_spamf...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> It's pretty much a given that the belt
>> >> formed as it looks now - a bunch of floating rocks.
>>
>> >> Anywho, planets don't explode.
>>
>> > It was an accident when the aliens tried to
>> > invent gunpowder.
>>
>> Nah, gunpowder was invented as a stopgap by the ancient Swedes because
>> it took them a while to figure out how to stabilise nitroglycerin.
>>
>> David B.
>
> This is sci.archaeology.
Perhaps the joke is very old?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Alaca
> "David B." wrote:
>> Peter Alaca wrote:
>> >> It's pretty much a given that the belt
>> >> formed as it looks now - a bunch of floating rocks.
>> >> Anywho, planets don't explode.
>> > It was an accident when the aliens tried to
>> > invent gunpowder.
>> Nah, gunpowder was invented as a stopgap by the ancient Swedes
>> because
>> it took them a while to figure out how to stabilise nitroglycerin.
> This is sci.archaeology.
Tell us Carl: why is it archaeology when such an impact
is a natural event, and not when it is caused by aliens?
Do you think it must be archaeology because your 'friend'
Eric posted it?
--
p.a.
David
wrote:
>...
> Pot, kettle, black. Stop posting on Thiering then.
To me it is incredible that you have yet to muster the curiosity
to study -
Dr. Barbara Thiering
"The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer using Fixed Lengths
of Hours", Dead Sea Discoveries, 9, 3, 2002, pp. 347-363.
OTOH, as I continue to post on Dr. Thiering, some sci.archer
may read one of her articles as listed in the Wikipedia article
on her and offer an honest opinion for discussion on topic
for sci.archaeology. Of course, soc.history.ancient should
be the main NG to get into DSS scholarship and Christian
Origins with Dr. Thiering as part of the mix.
David Christainsen
Doug Weller
Oh, you keep posting multiple threads on the alleged sundial, but that's
just more pushing your faith as there is never anything new in them.
Most of your Thiering stuff has nothing to do with archaeology, but you
don't care.
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
>"Digger" <p.d...@hotmail.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:rss8j.15876$yZ4....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:jbi4m35vrbpdierp4...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova exploded and briefly
>>> bathed the earth with intense radiation. The supernova has not been
>>> positively identified but most likely was what is now the pulsar
>>> Geminga in the constellation Gemini.
>>>
>>> The burst of radiation caused many fatalities but also many mutations,
>>> including the mutations which gave rise to modern man with all his/her
>>> mental capabilities.
>>
>> But modern man had evolved some considerable time BEFORE 41,000. I don't
>> think that particular part of the their argument holds any water.
>
>Any event of that size would have hit all of life on earth, the mutations
>would have been manifested in the bones and plant remains recovered from
>that time. AFAIK there is no major common mutation horizon at the start of
>the younger palaeolithic..
Good point. There should be one, even if only for the reason that the
Super Nova did occur.
>
>The only archaeological argument is made up from the lack of finds in
>coastal areas, supposedly being evidence for a lack of habitation. Which is
>weak at best.
I don't think the authors are claiming that. In fact they wrote"
"Unlike slides, tsunami leave much less evidence, and most of that
evidence is now deep under the ocean. The reason for this is that
the sea level has risen more than 400 feet since the end of the Ice
Age, but even the largest of the waves which hit the land were less
than 400 feet tall. At a maximum height of 100 feet, the waves
could not have reached any land which is now above sea level,
although they would have devastated some areas which are now
below it."
>
>I don't know about the astronomical and geological side of the argument, but
>would like to know which European lakes or lake systems are supposed to have
>been created by that impact.
They seem not to be claiming that any lake is a consequence of the
event. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/wetlands/projects.htm shows a Carolina
Bay which was sufficiently low to become a swamp. Apparently the vast
majority of Carolina Bay structures are dry and have been detected by
computer analysis creating Digital Elevation Models (DEM) from USGS
and NASA data. They have applied similar methods to Europe and found
many Carolina-Bay-like structures there also.
>
>So, as Velikovsky showed, it is very hard to refute a theory from astronomy
>based on a singular event. It is easy to promote such a theory, if you only
>take care to use arguments from history/archaeology with the natural
>scientists, and vice versa.
>
>This does not mean that the theory is wrong, but I see no way to back it up
>with archaeologic evidence. And I see no way to prove it wrong either. What
>escapes me, is why it should be important for archaeology. It's the old deus
>ex machina theme, just the label has changed.
If the theory is correct it has enormous implications for those
interpreting evidence as to the spread of man across the globe.
It certainly has vey specific relevance to those in North America
studying Clovis and their immediate successors.
>
>have fun
>
>Uwe Mueller
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
They seem to have now.
>There is also no evidence of a genetic
>"bottleneck" in humans dating back a mere 10,000 years. Christy-Vitale
>believes that the chunk of star dust zooming past us caused Earth to
>flip back and forth on its axis, resulting in, among other things, the
>current configuration of the continents. So much for continental
>drift. Christy-Vitale's scenario is an interesting one, but he seems
>more a New Age Erik Von Daniken than someone advancing a revisionist
>theory that will attract serious scientific attention.
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743491904/ref=reg_hu-wl_list-recs
Nevertheless he may have some elements of the truth.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>The
>book gives a web site for the latest updates but that site
>www.cosmiccatastrophes.com seems not to work.
I've now found http://www.perigeezero.org/treatise/index.html which
may be the site concerned.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:24:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>The
>>book gives a web site for the latest updates but that site
>>www.cosmiccatastrophes.com seems not to work.
>
>I've now found http://www.perigeezero.org/treatise/index.html which
>may be the site concerned.
On reading the site, its similar but not the same.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
Please tell us where is stated that these Carolina bays
are the result of an impact.
"Carolina Bays are oval depressions with sand rims"
So what?
Did you do any further reading on the subject
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bays ?
>> [...]
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
>"Digger" <p.d...@hotmail.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:rss8j.15876$yZ4....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:jbi4m35vrbpdierp4...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova exploded and briefly
>>> bathed the earth with intense radiation. The supernova has not been
>>> positively identified but most likely was what is now the pulsar
>>> Geminga in the constellation Gemini.
>>>
>>> The burst of radiation caused many fatalities but also many mutations,
>>> including the mutations which gave rise to modern man with all his/her
>>> mental capabilities.
>>
>> But modern man had evolved some considerable time BEFORE 41,000. I don't
>> think that particular part of the their argument holds any water.
>
>Any event of that size would have hit all of life on earth, the mutations
>would have been manifested in the bones and plant remains recovered from
>that time. AFAIK there is no major common mutation horizon at the start of
>the younger palaeolithic..
There is a major extinction in Australia currently dated ca 46,000
BPE. See http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_170.html
>
>The only archaeological argument is made up from the lack of finds in
>coastal areas, supposedly being evidence for a lack of habitation. Which is
>weak at best.
>
>I don't know about the astronomical and geological side of the argument, but
>would like to know which European lakes or lake systems are supposed to have
>been created by that impact.
>
>So, as Velikovsky showed, it is very hard to refute a theory from astronomy
>based on a singular event. It is easy to promote such a theory, if you only
>take care to use arguments from history/archaeology with the natural
>scientists, and vice versa.
>
>This does not mean that the theory is wrong, but I see no way to back it up
>with archaeologic evidence. And I see no way to prove it wrong either. What
>escapes me, is why it should be important for archaeology. It's the old deus
>ex machina theme, just the label has changed.
>
>have fun
>
>Uwe Mueller
>
Eric Stevens
David
wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:52:06 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, David wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 2:52 pm, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >>...
> >> Pot, kettle, black. Stop posting on Thiering then.
> >>...
>
> >To me it is incredible that you have yet to muster the curiosity
> >to study -
>
> >Dr. Barbara Thiering
> >"The Qumran Sundial as an Odometer using Fixed Lengths
> >of Hours", Dead Sea Discoveries, 9, 3, 2002, pp. 347-363.
>
> >OTOH, as I continue to post on Dr. Thiering, some sci.archer
> >may read one of her articles as listed in the Wikipedia article
> >on her and offer an honest opinion for discussion on topic
> >for sci.archaeology. Of course, soc.history.ancient should
> >be the main NG to get into DSS scholarship and Christian
> >Origins with Dr. Thiering as part of the mix.
>
> >David Christainsen
>
> Oh, you keep posting multiple threads on the alleged sundial, but that's
> just more pushing your faith as there is never anything new in them.
Ahem! You should disqualify yourself from comment lest you betray
your ignorance of De Vaux's "stone disc".
If you review carefully my sci.arch posts on the Qumran artefact, you
will
discover my treatment was scholarly, nothing like what you
charge against me.
> Most of your Thiering stuff has nothing to do with archaeology, but you
> don't care.
>...
> Doug
>...
For me it was impossible to justify Dr. Thiering's interpretation
of the Qumran roundel (sundial) without getting into Thiering pesher,
a deep, deep subject that hardly any scholars have mastered.
Dave
Eric Stevens
Very pure silica sand discoloured on the surface in a manner which is
said can only be the result of exposure to high temperatures. Some
years ago, someone (I forget who right now but I could probably find
it again if I tried hard) suggested that the vast deposits of clay
associated with Woolley's Flood in Mesopotamia could have been the
product of a meteorite or comet impact.
>
>Did you do any further reading on the subject
>eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bays ?
>
Fancy you citing Wikipedia!
On this occasion it seems to be reasonably reliable. The section
headed "Theories of Origin" comences with:
"Various theories have been proposed to account for them, including
action of sea currents when the area was under the ocean or the
upwelling of ground water at a later time. The current theory
within the earth sciences academic community is that a combination
of processes including climate change, the formation of
siliclastic karst by solution of subsurface material during
glacial sealevel lowstands and later modification of these
depresssions by periodic eolian and lacustrine processes created
the shapes and orientations of these ancient landforms."
Various proposals that they were either directly or indirectly
created by a meteorite shower or exploding comet are disputed by
many scientists for an apparent lack of extraterrestrial material,
absence of shocked quartz and "bedrock" deformation associated
with larger bays, and extremely low ratio of depth to diameter of
the larger bays. More information on these theories can be found
at: Carolina Bays. [Followed by a link]
In other words there have been lots of explanations, none of which
have yet come to dominate the others. One thing is apparent, there is
no evidence of the formation of new Carolina Bays so whatever formed
them in the first place has stopped.
If you follow the link from Wikipedia you arrive at
http://www.georgehoward.net/cbays.htm This has a number of
photographs and diagrams. See particularly Fig 2.
The link "Surf Carolina Bay photos yourself on the web!" takes you to
http://www.georgehoward.net/surf%20the%20carolina%20bays.htm which
graphically shows the alignment of the bays.
"The Carolina Bays and the Ice Age Catastrophe" takes you to
http://www.georgehoward.net/thecarolinabayevent.htm which sets out
some of the facts underlying the thesis of the book.
Eric Stevens
Melodious Thunk
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:29:40 +0100, "Peter Alaca"
>
>
>
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:fkt5m3prhslo22s61...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:40:28 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
>
> >>>"Digger" <p.du...@hotmail.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >>>news:rss8j.15876$yZ4....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> >>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
One thing you don't get from wiki is a sense of how they have been
interpreted over time.
Older encyclopedias identify the Carolina Bays as a set of impact
features, from circa 1920 up until about the 1970s. Since then they've
generally been interpreted as unusual, but natural, features.
> If you follow the link from Wikipedia you arrive athttp://www.georgehoward.net/cbays.htm This has a number of
> photographs and diagrams. See particularly Fig 2.
>
> The link "Surf Carolina Bay photos yourself on the web!" takes you tohttp://www.georgehoward.net/surf%20the%20carolina%20bays.htmwhich
> graphically shows the alignment of the bays.
>
> "The Carolina Bays and the Ice Age Catastrophe" takes you tohttp://www.georgehoward.net/thecarolinabayevent.htmwhich sets out
> some of the facts underlying the thesis of the book.
>
> Eric Stevens
If the authors of the book publish articles in peer-reviewed journals,
I'll be interested in reading them. There has long been speculation in
astronomical circles about the effects of relatively-close nova &
supernova events. In particular, a sufficiently strong source of
neutrons could easily destroy all complex life... and we wouldn't ever
see it coming.
Eric Stevens
I believe Harpers Monthly printed an article about 1933 which
attributed them to impacts - a giant comet. It created quite a stir.
>
>> If you follow the link from Wikipedia you arrive athttp://www.georgehoward.net/cbays.htm This has a number of
>> photographs and diagrams. See particularly Fig 2.
>>
>> The link "Surf Carolina Bay photos yourself on the web!" takes you tohttp://www.georgehoward.net/surf%20the%20carolina%20bays.htmwhich
>> graphically shows the alignment of the bays.
>>
>> "The Carolina Bays and the Ice Age Catastrophe" takes you tohttp://www.georgehoward.net/thecarolinabayevent.htmwhich sets out
>> some of the facts underlying the thesis of the book.
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
>If the authors of the book publish articles in peer-reviewed journals,
>I'll be interested in reading them. There has long been speculation in
>astronomical circles about the effects of relatively-close nova &
>supernova events. In particular, a sufficiently strong source of
>neutrons could easily destroy all complex life... and we wouldn't ever
>see it coming.
I understand peer-reviewed articles are on the way.
Eric Stevens
veritas
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:08:39 +1300, Eric Stevens
>
> >On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:24:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
> ><eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>The
> >>book gives a web site for the latest updates but that site
>
> >I've now foundhttp://www.perigeezero.org/treatise/index.htmlwhich
> >may be the site concerned.
>
> On reading the site, its similar but not the same.
>
> Eric Stevens
I have to add here that a number of Universities headed by Cambridge
Univerisity, among the others, Stanford released a DNA study on May
8th of this year (See Cambridge Univerisity news releases on their
website) The DNA evidence shows that we all, every living human on
this planet today came from a small group (approx. 10,000 Adult DNA
combinations) out of Africa 55-50,000 years ago. After Mt.Toba
erupted 74,000 years ago, there were only about 2,000-3,000
Neanderthals that survived. All the other so called Homo species
ceased to exist, apparently except these 10,000 and they were nothing
like the species before. They dominated wherever they went. There may
have been a super nova somewhere, but we came out of Africa long
before that and was in the process of becoming us.
--
Ken Hogan
"Truth does not give a damn what we perceive. We survive or perish
according to our ability to discern the truth correctly and act upon
it." - Ken www.veritasnovel.com
Tom McDonald
Go West!
Eric Stevens
There is no doubt that Toba erupted ca 70,000 years ago but that does
not mean that it was responsible for the bottle neck. It's just that
it happens to be the nearest handy explanation. :-)
I understand that the estimate of DNA age is based on the assumption
of a uniform rate of mutation. If there has been a period of
accelerated mutation due to, say, a nearby supernova, the bottle neck
may be nearer in time than is currently assumed.
Eric Stevens
veritas
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:36:21 -0800 (PST), veritas
>
>
>
>
>
> <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 4:29 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:08:39 +1300, Eric Stevens
>
> >> <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:24:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
> >> ><eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> >>The
> >> >>book gives a web site for the latest updates but that site
>
> >> >I've now foundhttp://www.perigeezero.org/treatise/index.htmlwhich
> >> >may be the site concerned.
>
> >> On reading the site, its similar but not the same.
>
> >> Eric Stevens
>
> >I have to add here that a number of Universities headed by Cambridge
> >Univerisity, among the others, Stanford released a DNA study on May
> >8th of this year (See Cambridge Univerisity news releases on their
> >website) The DNA evidence shows that we all, every living human on
> >this planet today came from a small group (approx. 10,000 Adult DNA
> >combinations) out of Africa 55-50,000 years ago. After Mt.Toba
> >erupted 74,000 years ago, there were only about 2,000-3,000
> >Neanderthals that survived. All the other so called Homo species
> >ceased to exist, apparently except these 10,000 and they were nothing
> >like the species before. They dominated wherever they went. There may
> >have been a super nova somewhere, but we came out of Africa long
> >before that and was in the process of becoming us.
>
> There is no doubt that Toba erupted ca 70,000 years ago but that does
> not mean that it was responsible for the bottle neck. It's just that
> it happens to be the nearest handy explanation. :-)
>
> I understand that the estimate of DNA age is based on the assumption
> of a uniform rate of mutation. If there has been a period of
> accelerated mutation due to, say, a nearby supernova, the bottle neck
> may be nearer in time than is currently assumed.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can't help you there, other then they were pretty positive about that
date. True or not? It's them saying so. As for Toba, if the 1815
eruption of Mt. Tambora which put out about 100 ckm of material and
caused the damage to the weather, think what 2,000 ckm of material put
out into the atmosphere would do to the weather. A killer. Ken
Doug Weller
I've posted on it before. There is nothing new to say about it and posting
here is not going to make any difference.
>
>If you review carefully my sci.arch posts on the Qumran artefact, you
>will
>discover my treatment was scholarly, nothing like what you
>charge against me.
>
>> Most of your Thiering stuff has nothing to do with archaeology, but you
>> don't care.
>>...
>> Doug
>>...
>
>For me it was impossible to justify Dr. Thiering's interpretation
>of the Qumran roundel (sundial) without getting into Thiering pesher,
>a deep, deep subject that hardly any scholars have mastered.
>
You mean that hardly any scholars take seriously and those scholars who
have studied it have rejected. It is *not* archaeology, and archaeologists
are not the people to discuss it. You post about the stone disc in order
to discuss Thiering pesher, and that's the only reason you post about it.
Which makes it off-topic in sci.archaeology, and yesterday you warned
someone else about posting off-topic stuff.
Peter Alaca
Why? Wikipedia contains many good articles.
This is one of them.
> On this occasion it seems to be reasonably reliable. The section
> headed "Theories of Origin" comences with:
>
> "Various theories have been proposed to account for them, including
> action of sea currents when the area was under the ocean or the
> upwelling of ground water at a later time. The current theory
> within the earth sciences academic community is that a combination
> of processes including climate change, the formation of
> siliclastic karst by solution of subsurface material during
> glacial sealevel lowstands and later modification of these
> depresssions by periodic eolian and lacustrine processes created
> the shapes and orientations of these ancient landforms."
>
> Various proposals that they were either directly or indirectly
> created by a meteorite shower or exploding comet are disputed by
> many scientists for an apparent lack of extraterrestrial material,
> absence of shocked quartz and "bedrock" deformation associated
> with larger bays, and extremely low ratio of depth to diameter of
> the larger bays. More information on these theories can be found
> at: Carolina Bays. [Followed by a link]
>
> In other words there have been lots of explanations, none of which
> have yet come to dominate the others. One thing is apparent, there is
> no evidence of the formation of new Carolina Bays so whatever formed
> them in the first place has stopped.
When there is a gelogical explanation, there is no need
to call in extraterestrial causes.
> If you follow the link from Wikipedia you arrive at
> http://www.georgehoward.net/cbays.htm This has a number of
> photographs and diagrams. See particularly Fig 2.
>
> The link "Surf Carolina Bay photos yourself on the web!" takes you to
> http://www.georgehoward.net/surf%20the%20carolina%20bays.htm which
> graphically shows the alignment of the bays.
>
> "The Carolina Bays and the Ice Age Catastrophe" takes you to
> http://www.georgehoward.net/thecarolinabayevent.htm which sets out
> some of the facts underlying the thesis of the book.
Question is why you didn'n include this information
in your first post. This is a sci-groep, you know.
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@purple.invalid> wrote:
I would be interested to know of a valid geological explanation which
might apply but which has ceased to produce 'Carolina Bays'.
>
>
>> If you follow the link from Wikipedia you arrive at
>> http://www.georgehoward.net/cbays.htm This has a number of
>> photographs and diagrams. See particularly Fig 2.
>>
>> The link "Surf Carolina Bay photos yourself on the web!" takes you to
>> http://www.georgehoward.net/surf%20the%20carolina%20bays.htm which
>> graphically shows the alignment of the bays.
>>
>> "The Carolina Bays and the Ice Age Catastrophe" takes you to
>> http://www.georgehoward.net/thecarolinabayevent.htm which sets out
>> some of the facts underlying the thesis of the book.
>
>Question is why you didn'n include this information
>in your first post. This is a sci-groep, you know.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
It's true that they are positive about that date. All kinds of people
are positive about all kinds of dates. My understanding is that the
date for Toba is generally placed ca 65,000~75,000 years BPE.
>It's them saying so. As for Toba, if the 1815
>eruption of Mt. Tambora which put out about 100 ckm of material and
>caused the damage to the weather, think what 2,000 ckm of material put
>out into the atmosphere would do to the weather. A killer. Ken
Eric Stevens
David
>
> - Show quoted text -
I enjoy what I have done and what I am doing for Dr. Thiering's case.
I give myself A+ for my role to present Thiering scholarly argument.
David
wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:46:11 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, David wrote:
> >Ahem! You should disqualify yourself from comment lest you betray
> >your ignorance of De Vaux's "stone disc".
>
> I've posted on it before. There is nothing new to say about it and posting
> here is not going to make any difference.
What you posted was way, way, way out of date.
>...
> >For me it was impossible to justify Dr. Thiering's interpretation
> >of the Qumran roundel (sundial) without getting into Thiering pesher,
> >a deep, deep subject that hardly any scholars have mastered.
>
> You mean that hardly any scholars take seriously and those scholars who
> have studied it have rejected. It is *not* archaeology, and archaeologists
> are not the people to discuss it. You post about the stone disc in order
> to discuss Thiering pesher, and that's the only reason you post about it.
Absolutely untrue. I posted on the stone disc to shed light on it.
> Which makes it off-topic in sci.archaeology, and yesterday you warned
> someone else about posting off-topic stuff.
>
> Doug
>...
Instead, it was a parody of Peter Alaca that still has me LOL.
Peter Alaca
news:785b4a54-0f71-4adf...@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 15, 2:10 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk>
>> Which makes it off-topic in sci.archaeology, and yesterday you
>> warned
>> someone else about posting off-topic stuff.
> Instead, it was a parody of Peter Alaca that still has me LOL.
Which says a lot about your intelligence and
sense of humor.
Copying a frase and citing it in the wrong place
(telling someone in sha that it is not archaeology)
Typical.
--
p.a.
David
> "David" <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It is a pleasure to cross swords with you.
This is sci.archaeology.
Peter Alaca
You have now sword, only a limp pesher
David
> "David" <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:87be799d-9f0c-4863...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 7:02 am, "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@purple.invalid> wrote:
> >> "David" <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:785b4a54-0f71-4adf...@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Dec 15, 2:10 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk>
> >> >> Which makes it off-topic in sci.archaeology, and yesterday you
> >> >> warned
> >> >> someone else about posting off-topic stuff.
> >> > Instead, it was a parody of Peter Alaca that still has me LOL.
>
> >> Which says a lot about your intelligence and
> >> sense of humor.
>
> >> Copying a frase and citing it in the wrong place
> >> (telling someone in sha that it is not archaeology)
> >> Typical.
>
> >> --
> >> p.a.
>
> > It is a pleasure to cross swords with you.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have a robust pesher.
Hal
Monkey Business.
Doug Weller
>On Dec 15, 2:10 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:46:11 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, David wrote:
>>...
>> >Ahem! You should disqualify yourself from comment lest you betray
>> >your ignorance of De Vaux's "stone disc".
>>
>> I've posted on it before. There is nothing new to say about it and posting
>> here is not going to make any difference.
>
>What you posted was way, way, way out of date.
Sorry, I was just following your precedent.
There is still nothing new to say about it and posting here is not going
to change that.
>
>>...
>> >For me it was impossible to justify Dr. Thiering's interpretation
>> >of the Qumran roundel (sundial) without getting into Thiering pesher,
>> >a deep, deep subject that hardly any scholars have mastered.
>>
>> You mean that hardly any scholars take seriously and those scholars who
>> have studied it have rejected. It is *not* archaeology, and archaeologists
>> are not the people to discuss it. You post about the stone disc in order
>> to discuss Thiering pesher, and that's the only reason you post about it.
>
>Absolutely untrue. I posted on the stone disc to shed light on it.
>
>> Which makes it off-topic in sci.archaeology, and yesterday you warned
>> someone else about posting off-topic stuff.
>>
>> Doug
>>...
>
>Instead, it was a parody of Peter Alaca that still has me LOL.
Ah, I should have known that you really don't care what sci.archaeology is
about, you just want to use it as a forum for your religious views and to
pat yourself on the back.
David
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scholarly business.
David
wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:54:49 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, David wrote:
> >On Dec 15, 2:10 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:46:11 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, David wrote:
> >>...
> >> >Ahem! You should disqualify yourself from comment lest you betray
> >> >your ignorance of De Vaux's "stone disc".
>
> >> I've posted on it before. There is nothing new to say about it and posting
> >> here is not going to make any difference.
>
> >What you posted was way, way, way out of date.
>
> Sorry, I was just following your precedent.
> There is still nothing new to say about it and posting here is not going
> to change that.
What you did you did on your own and you bear the responsibility
for it.
We have a disagreement. If you read her 2002 paper, you will get
the strongest possible scholarly argument that the object was
originally a sundial. If you are not interested, that's on you.
> >>...
> >> >For me it was impossible to justify Dr. Thiering's interpretation
> >> >of the Qumran roundel (sundial) without getting into Thiering pesher,
> >> >a deep, deep subject that hardly any scholars have mastered.
>
> >> You mean that hardly any scholars take seriously and those scholars who
> >> have studied it have rejected. It is *not* archaeology, and archaeologists
> >> are not the people to discuss it. You post about the stone disc in order
> >> to discuss Thiering pesher, and that's the only reason you post about it.
>
> >Absolutely untrue. I posted on the stone disc to shed light on it.
>
> >> Which makes it off-topic in sci.archaeology, and yesterday you warned
> >> someone else about posting off-topic stuff.
>
> >> Doug
> >>...
>
> >Instead, it was a parody of Peter Alaca that still has me LOL.
>
> Ah, I should have known that you really don't care what sci.archaeology is
> about, you just want to use it as a forum for your religious views and to
> pat yourself on the back.
>
> Doug
>...
But, you don't know that at all because you NEVER read her 2002 paper.
So, shedding light on De Vaux's "stone disc" is serious scholarly
business.
Dave
Doug Weller
Yep, let the experts deal with it. You pointed out before:
"
Dead Sea Discoveries is the top professional journal. Scholarly
reaction to the 2002 article -
George M Hollenback
"More on the Qumran Roundel as an Equatorial Sundial",
Dead Sea Discoveries, 11, 3, 2004, pp. 289-292."
Which I should have responded to I guess because I can't tell without
reading it if it really is a response to Theiring's 2002 article or more
of a sequel to Hollenback's own 2000 article.
As I said before, there is nothing new to add to this so far as I can see,
so please stop spamming about it.
Peter Alaca
news:nq08m3ti45m8vlimt...@4ax.com...
Only Carl's blahbla is freely online available
David
Drop it, Doug, or you risk looking ridiculous.
BTW, both Thiering and Hollenback are scholars and both say that
De Vaux's "stone disc" is a sundial. I invite you to read them both.
I read them both YEARS AGO.
Dave
Peter Alaca
news:360079c4-36ca-46d3-88fc-
> Drop it, Doug, or you risk looking ridiculous.
You seem to have no problems with looking
more than ridiculous, so why would Doug?
--
LloydB
wrote:
[snip]
>
> As I said before, there is nothing new to add to this so far as I can see,
> so please stop spamming about it.
>
> Doug
Odd that a posting about cosmic geophysical events should
devolve into yet another piss up with our obsessene.
Folks here have learned to ignore *so* many of this type ...
why do this one (and a couple of others) deserve our time?
Doug Weller
How can I look ridiculous for pointing out that there is nothing new about
this artefact? Do you know of something newer than Hollenback's 2004
article?
I certainly don't look ridiculous for pointing out that you keep posting
on this only to push Thiering.
>
>BTW, both Thiering and Hollenback are scholars and both say that
>De Vaux's "stone disc" is a sundial. I invite you to read them both.
>I read them both YEARS AGO.
>
3 years ago for Hollenback.
So what? There still isn't anything new. I don't care if it is a sundial
or a frisbee, although it would be more interesting if it was a Qumran
frisbee of course.
Drop it until there is something new, please, as otherwise you are indeed
just spamming.
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:46:21 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, David wrote:
>
>>On Dec 14, 1:15 pm, "David B." <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>> Peter Alaca wrote:
>>> > "David Johnson" <trolleyfan_spamf...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> >> It's pretty much a given that the belt
>>> >> formed as it looks now - a bunch of floating rocks.
>>>
>>> >> Anywho, planets don't explode.
>>>
>>> > It was an accident when the aliens tried to
>>> > invent gunpowder.
>>>
>>> Nah, gunpowder was invented as a stopgap by the ancient Swedes because
>>> it took them a while to figure out how to stabilise nitroglycerin.
>>>
>>> David B.
>>
>>This is sci.archaeology.
>
>Pot, kettle, black. Stop posting on Thiering then.
>
>Doug
Doug,
I hate to say this but you have opened up this thread to yet another
of David's interminable arguments about Barbara Thiering. Interested
as I am in her proposals, when one of thse threads starts I mark it
"Ignore Thread" and get on with what I am interested in. But now I
can't: it's embeded in a thread I am most interested in following.
David,
Would you mind taking this to another thread if you want to continue
with it?
Eric Stevens
David
>
> - Show quoted text -
As you can discern, I am not putting up with what Doug is dishing out
against me. Please discern that my advice for Doug is sound and in
his best interest.
Only because you ask me, I will cease and desist in your thread,
about which I do have a mild curiosity, after one, last, well-
considered
reply to Doug, which I hope he takes to heart.
Best,
David
David
Beside the point. Hollenback 2004 has a scheme that will not work.
> I certainly don't look ridiculous for pointing out that you keep posting
> on this only to push Thiering.
You point out a falsity. You get no points for misrepresentation.
> >BTW, both Thiering and Hollenback are scholars and both say that
> >De Vaux's "stone disc" is a sundial. I invite you to read them both.
> >I read them both YEARS AGO.
>
> 3 years ago for Hollenback.
>
> So what? There still isn't anything new. I don't care if it is a sundial
> or a frisbee, although it would be more interesting if it was a Qumran
> frisbee of course.
You can't judge the newness without a proper examination on your part.
I obviously believe there is newness.
> Drop it until there is something new, please, as otherwise you are indeed
> just spamming.
>
> Doug
> --
> Doug Weller --
> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
> Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
> Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was never spamming. You are as blind as a bat until you
open your eyes. Were you to open your eyes, we might
still disagree but that disagreement would be based on the latest
scholarly evidence.
Dave
Doug Weller
You aren't qualified to comment on it, and an assertion is not scholarly
evidence.
>> I certainly don't look ridiculous for pointing out that you keep posting
>> on this only to push Thiering.
>
>You point out a falsity. You get no points for misrepresentation.
Delusions of grandeur again I see. You don't get to reward points, and
Google's archives show that I'm right.
>
>> >BTW, both Thiering and Hollenback are scholars and both say that
>> >De Vaux's "stone disc" is a sundial. I invite you to read them both.
>> >I read them both YEARS AGO.
"Hollenback 2004 has a scheme that will not work."
>>
>> 3 years ago for Hollenback.
>>
>> So what? There still isn't anything new. I don't care if it is a sundial
>> or a frisbee, although it would be more interesting if it was a Qumran
>> frisbee of course.
>
>You can't judge the newness without a proper examination on your part.
I took a magnifying glass to my screen and it said 2004.
>
>I obviously believe there is newness.
>
>> Drop it until there is something new, please, as otherwise you are indeed
>> just spamming.
>>
>> Doug
>> --
>> Doug Weller --
>> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
>> Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>> Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I was never spamming. You are as blind as a bat until you
>open your eyes. Were you to open your eyes, we might
>still disagree but that disagreement would be based on the latest
>scholarly evidence.
>
More insults with absolutely no content.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug Weller
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:52:02 +0000, Doug Weller
><dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:46:21 -0800 (PST), in sci.archaeology, David wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 14, 1:15 pm, "David B." <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>>> Peter Alaca wrote:
>>>> > "David Johnson" <trolleyfan_spamf...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> >> It's pretty much a given that the belt
>>>> >> formed as it looks now - a bunch of floating rocks.
>>>>
>>>> >> Anywho, planets don't explode.
>>>>
>>>> > It was an accident when the aliens tried to
>>>> > invent gunpowder.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, gunpowder was invented as a stopgap by the ancient Swedes because
>>>> it took them a while to figure out how to stabilise nitroglycerin.
>>>>
>>>> David B.
>>>
>>>This is sci.archaeology.
>>
>>Pot, kettle, black. Stop posting on Thiering then.
>>
>>Doug
>
>Doug,
>
>I hate to say this but you have opened up this thread to yet another
>of David's interminable arguments about Barbara Thiering. Interested
>as I am in her proposals, when one of thse threads starts I mark it
>"Ignore Thread" and get on with what I am interested in. But now I
>can't: it's embeded in a thread I am most interested in following.
Well, I didn't open it, but I'll stop.
>
>David,
>
>Would you mind taking this to another thread if you want to continue
>with it?
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> I was never spamming.
You still are.
If you did this by email, I reported you to the autorities.
veritas
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:21:29 -0800 (PST), veritas
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 14, 9:57 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:36:21 -0800 (PST), veritas
>
> >> <khogan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 14, 4:29 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:08:39 +1300, Eric Stevens
>
> >> >> <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >> >On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:24:30 +1300, Eric Stevens
> >> >> ><eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>The
> >> >> >>book gives a web site for the latest updates but that site
We shouldn't discount anything, including these people's books. I
have never seen any article about Toba that didn't place it about
74,000 years ago, but then I have seen a lot of timelines adjusted
over the years. I guess what I am saying here is I agree with you
about Toba being handy. If you are saying we are trying to figure out
what the heck happened, and why, and we really still simply don't know
for sure, I agree as well. We'll just have to keep looking. Regards,
Ken
Doug Weller
wrote:
Louys, Julien. 2007. Limited effect of the Quaternary’s largest
super-eruption (Toba) on land mammals from Southeast Asia. Quaternary
Science Reviews
Abstract:
The effect of the Toba super-eruption at +/- 74 kyr on the mammals of
Southeast Asia is examined. Although few Late Pleistocene sites from
Southeast Asia have been described, an analysis of those which pre- and
post-date Toba reveals relatively few species became extinct following the
eruption. It is suggested that species survived in refugia immediately
following the eruption, and that they repopulated vast areas following a
probable short period (i.e. decades to century) of environmental
devastation. This study suggests that mammals are more robust at coping
with catastrophic events than previously acknowledged, and questions the
perceived human monopoly in overcoming ecological adversity.
Doug
Tom McDonald
> On Dec 15, 7:57 am, Hal <SpamTh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 6:44 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > > I give myself A+ for my role to present Thiering scholarly argument.
>
> > Monkey Business.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Scholarly business.
Aw, if we could find a little bungalow---eh? Oh, of course, I know
where we could find one, but maybe the people wouldn't get out. But if
we could find a nice little empty bungalow just for me and you, where
we could bill and cow, no I meant we could bull and cow.
Tom McDonald
> On Dec 15, 8:12 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk>
> wrote:
<snip>
> > Ah, I should have known that you really don't care what sci.archaeology is
> > about, you just want to use it as a forum for your religious views and to
> > pat yourself on the back.
>
> > Doug
> >...
>
> But, you don't know that at all because you NEVER read her 2002 paper.
>
> So, shedding light on De Vaux's "stone disc" is serious scholarly
> business.
Do you know what you are trying to say?
Tom McDonald
> On Dec 15, 11:45 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk>
> wrote:
<snip>
> > As I said before, there is nothing new to add to this so far as I can see,
> > so please stop spamming about it.
>
> > Doug
> >...
>
> Drop it, Doug, or you risk looking ridiculous.
>
> BTW, both Thiering and Hollenback are scholars and both say that
> De Vaux's "stone disc" is a sundial. I invite you to read them both.
> I read them both YEARS AGO.
Yes, it is not what I'm thinking of. What I meant was, if we had a
nice little bungalow and you was on the inside and I was on the
outside trying to get in and me inside trying to get out or, no you're
inside out and I was upside---I'll tell you, if you don't hear from me
by next Friday, the whole thing's off!
Tom McDonald
> On Dec 15, 3:26 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
<snip>
> > Doug,
>
> > I hate to say this but you have opened up this thread to yet another
> > of David's interminable arguments about Barbara Thiering. Interested
> > as I am in her proposals, when one of thse threads starts I mark it
> > "Ignore Thread" and get on with what I am interested in. But now I
> > can't: it's embeded in a thread I am most interested in following.
>
> > David,
>
> > Would you mind taking this to another thread if you want to continue
> > with it?
>
> > Eric Stevens- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As you can discern, I am not putting up with what Doug is dishing out
> against me. Please discern that my advice for Doug is sound and in
> his best interest.
>
> Only because you ask me, I will cease and desist in your thread,
> about which I do have a mild curiosity, after one, last, well-
> considered
> reply to Doug, which I hope he takes to heart.
I don't think I understand.
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> I was never spamming. You are as blind as a bat until you
> open your eyes. Were you to open your eyes, we might
> still disagree but that disagreement would be based on the latest
> scholarly evidence.
I mean---your eyes---your eyes, they shine like the pants of a blue
serge suit.
Eric Stevens
I think you've got my point. Toba happened about when you say it did
but this is not necessarily the date of the genetic bottleneck. If the
'Event' theory is correct the bottle neck occurred about 41,000 BPE
and the reason that it looks further distant is that there has been a
previously unrecognised burst of mutation.
Eric Stevens
Digger
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:kqk8m39vrcol9stj1...@4ax.com...
> I think you've got my point. Toba happened about when you say it did
> but this is not necessarily the date of the genetic bottleneck. If the
> 'Event' theory is correct the bottle neck occurred about 41,000 BPE
> and the reason that it looks further distant is that there has been a
> previously unrecognised burst of mutation.
>
I'm not totally up to speed on this but I'm sure I remember being told
during my studies that there had been several bottlenecks over the past
500,000 years or so.
veritas
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would believe that true. One of the reasons used for the "Out of
Africa" scene is that after leaving Africa, and following the
coastline around to Asia, it took only 2,000-3,000 years to reach Asia
and go north. There is some indications they started back across
Eurasia, (maybe they met in the middle) and met up with the modern
humans that had moved north around the Mediterranean to Europe. That
indicated that there were no other human like species to "stop" the
hunter-gathers from moving around the coastline that quickly. In
otherwords (to me), there was nobody there but us. Regards, Ken
veritas
You could be right, I have studied this, but do not do it as a
profession. I think their big question is why the 10,000 adults that
we came from are so different from the other similar species. We seem
much more violent, more intelligent, and have different hip joints,
(hence much quicker, and could run long distances). The others, such
as Neanderthal had hips that prevented them from being quick, or run
fast. Perhaps, they simply had not adapted to steppe climate, but the
difference is unusual. As well, we SEEMED so vastly superior to all
the other animals, especially in intelligence. I capped the seemed,
because I don't believe that enough study has been done on it. But,
what appears is that we went straight to the top of the food chain,
whenever the mutation was, and that only the 10,000 who we can't
account for as to their origin had what it took to dominate a world as
we have, for good, or bad. I love a mystery. Regads, Ken
veritas
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
I think you are correct, there may have been several. The theory is
that Toba was such a gobal disaster, that few species like us
survived, as hunter-gatherers would have a terrible time because they
needed carbs, as well as protein, and a world changing event like that
would have ruined them. The theory goes on that there were as the
19,000 year ice age we dropped into after a 5 or 6 years of gobal
winters were over left only 2-3,000 Neanderthals alive in Europe. The
one good trait Neanderthal had was, they needed no carbs to live.
They were meateaters. I found it a interesting sidenote that on the
Lewis and Clark Expedition they were consuming around 10,000 calories
of meat and starving to death. North America had a surprising lack of
carbs until South and Central American carbs were introduced. But
they had to be shown where to get roots and berries. Still, when they
got to the West Coast, they ate something they thought were carbs and
got sick. I think it was something really dumb like burnt bark.
Modern humans have to have carbs to live. No one knows how many of
Erectus was left anywhere else. But all of a sudden these modern
humans, so superior in everyway show up and Erectus is gone, not much,
if anything is found of them after Toba. I understand that some tools
of Erectus have been found above the ash in Asia, but it is still
being studied and argued over, but I would think at least a few would
have survive, but very few. But there is no doubt it did them in. Or
we finished them off, as we seemed to finish off everything that
stepped in our way. It's a mystery, and I would love to know the real
details, but I think everyone is still moving things around, and the
story changes, but the base seems to stay the same. We all came from
that same small group, and everything that was similar to us went
away. Regards, Ken
Eric Stevens
That is consistent with the 'Event' thesis that a blast of radiation
from a supernova played havoc with our genes about 41,000 BPE. All
kinds of mutations ocurred very rapidly and we are the descendants of
those with the most successful mutations.
>The others, such
>as Neanderthal had hips that prevented them from being quick, or run
>fast. Perhaps, they simply had not adapted to steppe climate, but the
>difference is unusual. As well, we SEEMED so vastly superior to all
>the other animals, especially in intelligence. I capped the seemed,
>because I don't believe that enough study has been done on it. But,
>what appears is that we went straight to the top of the food chain,
>whenever the mutation was, and that only the 10,000 who we can't
>account for as to their origin had what it took to dominate a world as
>we have, for good, or bad. I love a mystery.
In that case you should try and get hold of a copy of "The CYCLE of
COSMIC CATASTROPHES, Flood, Fire and Famine in the History of
Civilization"
Richard Firestone, Allen West, and Simon Warwick-Smith.
See
http://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Cosmic-Catastrophes-Stone-Age-Changed/dp/1591430615/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197619600&sr=1-1
or http://tinyurl.com/2w7yjg for the Amazon link.
If you do succeed I would be interested in your opinion.
Eric Stevens
veritas
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:29:12 -0800 (PST), veritas
>
>
>
>
>
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/2w7yjgfor the Amazon link.
>
> If you do succeed I would be interested in your opinion.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you very much Eric. I will give it a look, as this has always
been a big interest of mine. I can never find enough on the subject.
Regards, Ken
Uwe Müller
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fkt5m3prhslo22s61...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:40:28 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Digger" <p.d...@hotmail.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:rss8j.15876$yZ4....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...>>> news:jbi4m35vrbpdierp4...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova exploded and briefly
>>>> bathed the earth with intense radiation. The supernova has not been
>>>> positively identified but most likely was what is now the pulsar
>>>> Geminga in the constellation Gemini.
>>>>
>>>> The burst of radiation caused many fatalities but also many mutations,
>>>> including the mutations which gave rise to modern man with all his/her
>>>> mental capabilities.
>>>
>>> But modern man had evolved some considerable time BEFORE 41,000. I don't
>>> think that particular part of the their argument holds any water.
>>
>>Any event of that size would have hit all of life on earth, the mutations
>>would have been manifested in the bones and plant remains recovered from
>>that time. AFAIK there is no major common mutation horizon at the start of
>>the younger palaeolithic..
>
> Good point. There should be one, even if only for the reason that the
> Super Nova did occur.
If no effect can be witnessed on Earth, matter and energy reachiung this
planet from a nearby supernova must have been in much smaller quantities.
>>
>>The only archaeological argument is made up from the lack of finds in
>>coastal areas, supposedly being evidence for a lack of habitation. Which
>>is
>>weak at best.
>
> I don't think the authors are claiming that. In fact they wrote"
>
> "Unlike slides, tsunami leave much less evidence, and most of that
> evidence is now deep under the ocean. The reason for this is that
> the sea level has risen more than 400 feet since the end of the Ice
> Age, but even the largest of the waves which hit the land were less
> than 400 feet tall. At a maximum height of 100 feet, the waves
> could not have reached any land which is now above sea level,
> although they would have devastated some areas which are now
> below it."
Sealevel changes during the glaciation shifted the sea level above and below
the current values.
"The combined tsunamis in the Atlantic stopped the Gulf Stream
and wiped out all life in very considerable coastal regions in both
the America's, Africa and Europe."
Quite to the contrary fact based archaeology sees populated coastal regions
and and no or little humans in mountainous regions. If your scenario holds
true, shouldn't it be the other way round?
>>
>>I don't know about the astronomical and geological side of the argument,
>>but
>>would like to know which European lakes or lake systems are supposed to
>>have
>>been created by that impact.
>
> They seem not to be claiming that any lake is a consequence of the
> event. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/wetlands/projects.htm shows a Carolina
> Bay which was sufficiently low to become a swamp. Apparently the vast
> majority of Carolina Bay structures are dry and have been detected by
> computer analysis creating Digital Elevation Models (DEM) from USGS
> and NASA data. They have applied similar methods to Europe and found
> many Carolina-Bay-like structures there also.
You are playing word games again. "The authors went looking for evidence of
more features like Carolina Bays and found them all over North America and
also in Europe." So where are the impact derived lakes of Europe?
>>
>>So, as Velikovsky showed, it is very hard to refute a theory from
>>astronomy
>>based on a singular event. It is easy to promote such a theory, if you
>>only
>>take care to use arguments from history/archaeology with the natural
>>scientists, and vice versa.
>>
>>This does not mean that the theory is wrong, but I see no way to back it
>>up
>>with archaeologic evidence. And I see no way to prove it wrong either.
>>What
>>escapes me, is why it should be important for archaeology. It's the old
>>deus
>>ex machina theme, just the label has changed.
>
> If the theory is correct it has enormous implications for those
> interpreting evidence as to the spread of man across the globe.
Since it is not backed up by evidence and does not explain the recognisable
patterns of cultural evolution, in archaeology I would not call it a theory.
If the specualation is correct, than man is suspectible to influences, that
leave no mark on other biological entities, individuals, species or whole
ecosystems, nor on the climate and geology. That would indeed put man apart
from all other beings and could be counted a big step towards the acceptance
of creationism.
>
> It certainly has vey specific relevance to those in North America
> studying Clovis and their immediate successors.
Because the floods following the impact would have scattered clovis points
across the country, so that most are found without datable context?
Since the high radiation ("Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova
exploded and briefly
bathed the earth with intense radiation") would have screwed up every dating
technic based on radioactive substances, is'nt the suggested parallelism
between astronomic and historic events a sure sign, that they are not
connected? There could only be a connection if they were not parallel, the
emergence of modern man has been dated earlier than 41.000 by fact based
archaeology. Would that mean the emergence of modern man has tripped a
nearby star into becoming a super-nova? How would you go about to negate
that speculation?
I do not see any evidence for a connection between the supernova and human
development beyond coincidence. You see merit in odd speculations, what
about my one?
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Peter Alaca
news:fk3gk8$rcf$1...@online.de...
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> It certainly has vey specific relevance to those in North America
>> studying Clovis and their immediate successors.
>
> Because the floods following the impact would have scattered clovis
> points across the country, so that most are found without datable
> context?
:-)
The orientation of Clovis points is the subject of Erics
next most importand article he has never written.
--
p.a.
Melodious Thunk
<snipped to isolate a point>
> I found it a interesting sidenote that on the
> Lewis and Clark Expedition they were consuming around 10,000 calories
> of meat and starving to death. North America had a surprising lack of
> carbs until South and Central American carbs were introduced.
What is your evidence for this?
> But
> they had to be shown where to get roots and berries. Still, when they
> got to the West Coast, they ate something they thought were carbs and
> got sick. I think it was something really dumb like burnt bark.
The 'expedition' was given large quantities of dried candlefish for
fuel. They chose to eat it. Not surprisingly, they got very sick.
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
Unfortunately, pursuing that line of argument requires major revisions
of parts of the field of astrophysics. :-)
I think one of the factors is that only one side of the earth would
have been severely exposed. The authors seem to think it was Australia
and east asia.
One of the problems with this kind of argument is establishing
chronological synchronism. Two events held to have occurred at 40,000
and 50,000 years BPE may in fact have occurred at the same time. Also,
two events which were in fact simultaneous may now appear to us to be
separated in time by many thousands of years.
It is known that there was a massive increase in the 14C level in the
atmosphere about 41,000 BPE and that this is at about the time that
the super nova Geminga exploded. The radiation does seem to have
arrived and had a detectable effect. There are two other similar 14C
peaks: one at ca 19,000 BPE and the other ca 13,000 BPE.
>
>>>
>>>The only archaeological argument is made up from the lack of finds in
>>>coastal areas, supposedly being evidence for a lack of habitation. Which
>>>is
>>>weak at best.
>>
>> I don't think the authors are claiming that. In fact they wrote"
>>
>> "Unlike slides, tsunami leave much less evidence, and most of that
>> evidence is now deep under the ocean. The reason for this is that
>> the sea level has risen more than 400 feet since the end of the Ice
>> Age, but even the largest of the waves which hit the land were less
>> than 400 feet tall. At a maximum height of 100 feet, the waves
>> could not have reached any land which is now above sea level,
>> although they would have devastated some areas which are now
>> below it."
>
>Sealevel changes during the glaciation shifted the sea level above and below
>the current values.
I don't think the sea levels have been much above the present levels
in the period under consideration. Generally they have been much
lower.
>
>"The combined tsunamis in the Atlantic stopped the Gulf Stream
>and wiped out all life in very considerable coastal regions in both
>the America's, Africa and Europe."
>
>Quite to the contrary fact based archaeology sees populated coastal regions
>and and no or little humans in mountainous regions. If your scenario holds
>true, shouldn't it be the other way round?
First, it's not my scenario.
Second, yes it would, and the evidence of the movements of Maori
population in New Zealand after similar but lesser events of the 15th
and 16th century reflect the same behaviour.
But don't forget we are considering events some 13,000 years ago when
the sea levels were about 100m lower. How long would the desire to
live above the sea persist with any further behavioral stimulus?
>
>>>
>>>I don't know about the astronomical and geological side of the argument,
>>>but
>>>would like to know which European lakes or lake systems are supposed to
>>>have
>>>been created by that impact.
>>
>> They seem not to be claiming that any lake is a consequence of the
>> event. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/wetlands/projects.htm shows a Carolina
>> Bay which was sufficiently low to become a swamp. Apparently the vast
>> majority of Carolina Bay structures are dry and have been detected by
>> computer analysis creating Digital Elevation Models (DEM) from USGS
>> and NASA data. They have applied similar methods to Europe and found
>> many Carolina-Bay-like structures there also.
>
>You are playing word games again. "The authors went looking for evidence of
>more features like Carolina Bays and found them all over North America and
>also in Europe." So where are the impact derived lakes of Europe?
I'm sorry Uwe. It is you who are playing word games if you insist that
I wrote about water filled lakes. The vast majority of the so-called
Carolina Bay formations appear to be dry. Others are swamps and only a
small number are actual lakes.
The authors claim that 150 mile long structure surrounding Lake Saimaa
in Finland is an impact crater similar to those in North America and
was created at about the same time. They have also carried out an
analysis meteor-fall patterns across Europe and North Africa and claim
their conclusions are consistent with their overall theory.
That Europe was affected is confirmed by the abstract at
http://cgrg.geog.uvic.ca/abstracts/WolbachIsRecent.html
>
>>>
>>>So, as Velikovsky showed, it is very hard to refute a theory from
>>>astronomy
>>>based on a singular event. It is easy to promote such a theory, if you
>>>only
>>>take care to use arguments from history/archaeology with the natural
>>>scientists, and vice versa.
>>>
>>>This does not mean that the theory is wrong, but I see no way to back it
>>>up
>>>with archaeologic evidence. And I see no way to prove it wrong either.
>>>What
>>>escapes me, is why it should be important for archaeology. It's the old
>>>deus
>>>ex machina theme, just the label has changed.
>>
>> If the theory is correct it has enormous implications for those
>> interpreting evidence as to the spread of man across the globe.
>
>Since it is not backed up by evidence ...
I don't think that is at all correct. There seems to be an enormous
amount of evidence which is now falling into place. It's just that it
has not been previously recognised.
> ... and does not explain the recognisable
>patterns of cultural evolution, in archaeology I would not call it a theory.
>If the specualation is correct, than man is suspectible to influences, that
>leave no mark on other biological entities, individuals, species or whole
>ecosystems, nor on the climate and geology.
A rather high proportion of the mega-fauna dissappeared at about that
time. I would hardly cause that 'leaving no mark'. As for climate,
what about the Younger Dryas event which dates from the same time?
Geology? How about the formation of Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes?
>That would indeed put man apart
>from all other beings and could be counted a big step towards the acceptance
>of creationism.
It might, if that were the case, but it does not appear to be.
>
>>
>> It certainly has vey specific relevance to those in North America
>> studying Clovis and their immediate successors.
>
>Because the floods following the impact would have scattered clovis points
>across the country, so that most are found without datable context?
The Clovis people stopped - sharply - at a layer which is clearly
identified with the impact. The nature of some sites suggest that the
recovered artifacts were in the process of being used when everything
stopped.
>
>Since the high radiation ("Approximately 41,000 years ago a nearby supernova
>exploded and briefly
>bathed the earth with intense radiation") would have screwed up every dating
>technic based on radioactive substances, is'nt the suggested parallelism
>between astronomic and historic events a sure sign, that they are not
>connected?
Aah, as I have already written above it is known that there was a
massive increase in the 14C level in the atmosphere about 41,000 BPE
and that this is at about the time that the super nova Geminga
exploded. The radiation does seem to have arrived and had a detectable
effect. There are two other similar 14C peaks: one at ca 19,000 BPE
and the other ca 13,000 BPE. That dating techniques based on
radioactive substances are indeed 'screwed up' for that era is
suggested by
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/upper/radiocarbon_calibration_mellars_2006.w
>There could only be a connection if they were not parallel, the
>emergence of modern man has been dated earlier than 41.000 by fact based
>archaeology.
I'm not the one pushing 'the emergence of modern man'. But in any
case, the dating of the 'fact based archaeology' still relies heavily
on the 'screwed up' dating.
Here is one of the statements by the authors about the emergence of
modern man:
--------------------------------------
The light from the initial supernova explosion included a massive
burst of gamma rays, high-energy photons that produced nuclear
reactions in the atmosphere, creating HC, 10Be, and other cosmogenic
isotopes. At sea level, living things were exposed to 300 rems, a
measure of radiation exposure that is seven times the worst exposure
of people living near Chernobyl. It was a lethal dose for some plants,
animals, and people. All living things underwent radiation stress and
injury, often leading to DNA damage, decreased fertility, mutations,
and death. The ozone layer suffered widespread damage, exposing
everything to dangerous ultraviolet radiation for many years. Nudged
from their orbits, comets and asteroids rained down on the solar
system, causing great destruction for years. Before long,
hypervelocity particles from the explosion reached Earth, peppering
our atmosphere with tiny projectiles. We saw this in the impact
particles in the mammoth tusks. Cosmic rays increased cloud formation,
causing climate changes. We found such a change in the sudden drop in
ocean temperatures that took us to the coldest climate in 150,000
years.
About this time, major extinctions of large animals, the megafauna,
occurred in Australia, Southeast Asia, and possibly Africa. These
included every mammal in Australia larger than about 200 pounds (>100
kg), including the giant wombat, the marsupial lion, and many others.
This occurred shortly after the arrival of humans in Australia, and
some scientists blame their hunting practices and early use of fire to
clear the land. Other researchers, such as Price (2005), believe that
climate change did in the animals; they found that forty-four species
disappeared, including land snails, frogs, lizards, small mammals,
giant wombats, and kangaroos. Their theory is more plausible than
overhunting, since it is hard to imagine primitive people killing and
eating enough of all those creatures to wipe them out. A well-placed
supernova could have achieved this same effect overnight, however,
directly through irradiation, by suddenly altering the climate, and by
setting the fires that destroyed the animals.
The era around 40,000 years ago was a period of major change in the
evolution of humankind. Neanderthals began to decline, and Cro-Magnon
people mysteriously evolved into modern humans. They expanded into
Australia, and very possibly into the Americas. Around the same time,
people may have domesticated the first dogs from wolves in East Asia.
In addition, a mutation in human brain size appeared at that time that
coincided with the emergence of traits such as art and music,
religious practices, and sophisticated toolmaking techniques.
It happens indirectly, through mutation. Major changes in species,
including humans, occur through mutations, and the high cosmic-ray
rate from the supernova would have accelerated the mutation rate
dramatically. One example that appears to bear this out is the
evolution of blood types in modern humans. Our early ancestors had
only type O blood. Around the time of the supernova, mutations most
likely occurred, creating blood types A and B. Types A and B blood are
from dominant genes, so they spread through the population and became
more common.
--------------------------------------------
>Would that mean the emergence of modern man has tripped a
>nearby star into becoming a super-nova? How would you go about to negate
>that speculation?
>
>I do not see any evidence for a connection between the supernova and human
>development beyond coincidence. You see merit in odd speculations, what
>about my one?
In one respect, powers like that would be great but in another I would
want to destroy people with powers like that. :-)
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
I'm surprised you have not produced a link to a site which discusses
this theory. The Internet is full of them and they are not generally
kooks either. There many papers coming out of this lot:
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=sm07&part=PP43A&maxhits=400
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
Kloosterman J.B.(2007)
Correlation of the Late Pleistocene Usselo Horizon (Europe)
and the Clovis Layer (North America),
Abstract of presentation to the Joint Assembly of the American
Geophysical Union 2007, http://tinyurl.com/37lehf
Firestone et al (2007)
Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that
contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger
Dryas cooling
PNAS 104 (41) http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/41/16016
The Earth Impact Database
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/europe.html
> [...]
Lisbeth Andersson
<....>
> One example that appears to bear this out is the
> evolution of blood types in modern humans. Our early ancestors
> had only type O blood. Around the time of the supernova,
> mutations most likely occurred, creating blood types A and B.
> Types A and B blood are from dominant genes, so they spread
> through the population and became more common.
<....>
Where do they get the idea that our early ancestors had only type O
blood? When you compare human blood groups to apes' and monkeys' it
seems somewhat strange. However, weirder things have happened, so cite
please.
And genes spreading because they are domeinant! Is the rest of the
writing that sloppy?
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
>news:d62bm35ofr2394mna...@4ax.com:
>
><....>
>> One example that appears to bear this out is the
>> evolution of blood types in modern humans. Our early ancestors
>> had only type O blood. Around the time of the supernova,
>> mutations most likely occurred, creating blood types A and B.
>> Types A and B blood are from dominant genes, so they spread
>> through the population and became more common.
><....>
>
>
>Where do they get the idea that our early ancestors had only type O
>blood? When you compare human blood groups to apes' and monkeys' it
>seems somewhat strange. However, weirder things have happened, so cite
>please.
They didn't give one. I wondered at that too.
>
>And genes spreading because they are domeinant! Is the rest of the
>writing that sloppy?
>
>
>Lisbeth.
>
>----
>The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
>
>*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
Eric Stevens