Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11638 replies to this topic

#1321    Alewyn

Alewyn

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2010

Posted 14 October 2010 - 07:43 AM

View PostTheSearcher, on 14 October 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

Could it be a combination of a Bond event and an event in the Milanovitch cycles? It would explain  a lot if it were the case.
I do not know too much about either. In fact, I know nothing about Milanovitch Cycles.
As I recall, Bond events have been proven and accepted. However, the cause of these events are still unclear. You have remarked earlier on the cyclical nature of Bond events and, to my mind, cosmic movements are very cyclical.
Is it not possible that Bond events are caused by cosmic impacts or earth's orbit crossing meteorite/asteroid clouds or swarms? The actual impacts may be of less importance than multiple "Tunguska-type" explosions in earth's atmosphere that could blot out the sun for extended periods. The drop in temperatures and larger snow cover would further deflect the sun's rays and thus trigger ice ages.
Your views?


#1322    Essan

Essan

    Recruitment Agent for the 'B' Ark

  • Member
  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined:18 Mar 2005

Posted 14 October 2010 - 10:08 AM

View PostAlewyn, on 13 October 2010 - 04:18 PM, said:

Please see post #1296 on page 87 (also http://www.sis-group.org.uk/) as well as the 4.2ka B.P Bond Event.

Oops.  My mistake  :innocent:  I'd forgotten about that (bit too recent for me to be honest :D )   However this was a short term event only affecting only some parts of the world.  Not a global shift in climate zones as would have occurred had there been a geographical polar shift or change in axial tilt.

This is a good site to look at regional climate changes over the past few thousand years.

http://www.esd.ornl....s/qen/nerc.html

Whilst there have been a number periods when it has turned colder or drier in one region or another(likely due to changes in oceanic circulation), these have not been sudden long term shifts in climate.  Climate has changed throughout the Holocene, but only slowly.  There is no evidence for a sudden, permanent change caused by a single catastrophic event.

As for the book of Enoch - maybe he felt an earthquake?  Only when no other possible interpretation exists should we use ancient texts as primary evidence (though it my provide supportive evidence if other more direct evidence exists - like a big impact crater or volcanic eruption that is indisputably dated to the same time period, for example)

Andy

Weather & Earth Science News
The independent climate blog

#1323    Essan

Essan

    Recruitment Agent for the 'B' Ark

  • Member
  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined:18 Mar 2005

Posted 14 October 2010 - 10:20 AM

View PostAlewyn, on 14 October 2010 - 07:43 AM, said:

I do not know too much about either. In fact, I know nothing about Milanovitch Cycles.
As I recall, Bond events have been proven and accepted. However, the cause of these events are still unclear.

The thing is, Bond Events, like D/O Events during the last Glacial, are North Atlantic Events - specifically affecting that region, though with some knock-on effects elsewhere.  But they are not entirely global.  This strongly suggests they are connected with changes in the Thermohaline Conveyor, though as you say their cause remains unclear.

Impacts would have different consequences according to whether they hit land or sea and which hemisphere they occurred in. And the number of impacts (or tunguska type air explosions) would vary.  Each occasion ought, I think, be different and affect different places in different ways.  I don't see them as a likely cause.  

It's possible that a Bond Event may be more or less severe according to where we are in the Milankovitch Cycles - and, indeed, whether or not there is extensive ice cover in the N Hemisphere.

Andy

Weather & Earth Science News
The independent climate blog

#1324    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 14 October 2010 - 03:49 PM

View PostOtharus, on 13 October 2010 - 08:54 AM, said:

Jensma about his thesis on OLB in Volkrant interview 23-12-2004 by Jan Blokker:

"Hier is inderdaad geen juridisch bewijs geleverd, maar -hopelijk op een voor de lezer en de toekomstige onderzoeker bevredigende manier- een hypothese getoetst."

-> He admitted that his thesis did not prove anything, that it´s only a tested hypothesis.
Goffe Th. Jensma wrote a thesis about the OLB and is generally accepted to be the 'official authority' on the subject.
He is now professor of Frisian language and literature at the University of Groningen.
http://www.rug.nl/staff/g.t.jensma

I studied all of his publications without prejudice, but while reading I came to the conclusion that he must be wrong.
I promise to prove this in good time, but for now here are some interesting facts.

1. With his research he did not confer a doctor's degree on history or old language, but in theology.
2. Of the 11 theses that he defended to get his promotion, only 3 are related to the subject of OLB (and they are weak). (see below)
3. Whether the OLB is (partly) a genuine source or not was not one of his research questions, the focus was on who could have made it up and why.
4. At a public discussion on the occasion of his promotion, none of the speakers agreed with his conclusion that François Haverschmidt must have been the genius behind OLB. (see below)

ad 2 (original see attached scan)Attached File  theses Jensma.JPG   88.45K   6 downloads
Three theses from Jensma's doctorate, related to OLB (translated by me):
2) François Haverschmidt was the genius behind OLB.
3) It is remarkable, incredible and a scientific omission that even in the most scientific literature on the OLB the literary structure of the book was only sideways addressed.
4) It is not unthinkable that Verwijs and Haverschmidt have corrected Ottema's edition and translation of the OLB.

ad 4
Source: Leeuwarder Courant, friday 10 december 2004
Dutch title of article: "Van het Oera Linda-boek, de Friese kip en de zeespiegel"
Translation of relevant fragment (by me):
"Although the speakers without exception praised Jensma's work, he had not been able to convince any of them of his truth that François Haverschmidt is the main author of the OLB."
Original fragment in Dutch:
"Hoewel de sprekers zonder uitzondering vol lof waren over het werk van Jensma, had hij niemand kunnen overtuigen van zijn waarheid dat François Haverschmidt de belangrijkste auteur van het Oera Linda-boek is."


#1325    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 15 October 2010 - 08:29 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 21 August 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

a critical review (in 1876) of the OLB by a  J. Beckering Vinckers completely burnt the OLB down to sinders.
Some quotes from J. Beckering Vinckers' (1876) 'critical review' (my translation).

Title:
"The falseness of the Oera Linda-Bôk, as proven by the the gibberish in which it was written"

"Gibberish, no better than Negro-English; gibberish, that makes the OLB a mark of infamy in the collection of most illustrous remains of old-frisian language."

"Another example of a clownish anachronism. But why do I say 'another anachronism', - the whole OLB is one single colossal anachronism from beginning to end, which for example is revealed in its long train of words, that only slowly emerged in the French and Dutch language in the Middle ages as degenerated Latin. Behold a mess, susceptible for expansion."

"I have reached my goal; I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB."

"But that some Frisian scholars in the year of our Lord 1876 ... are still so ignorant of the grammar of precious literary remains of Frisian antiquity, that they accept a repulsive linguistic botch job like the OLB, after long term study, to be a true remains of overold Frisian, that they indeed, declare the barbaric gibberish in which it was written to be more old and pure than the flawless language of the Oldfrisian certificates, that is indeed an utterly deplorable phenomenon."

DISCUSSION
One of the worst misconceptions about the OLB is, that the language should be studied as being old-Frisian, for it is as much old-Swedish, old-German, old-English and old-Dutch (which is actually old-Westfrisian...).

Original quotes in Dutch:

"De onechtheid van het Oera Linda-Bôk, aangetoond uit de wartaal waarin het geschreven is"

"een wartaal, geen haar beter dan Neger-Engelsch; een wartaal, die het O.-L.-B. maakt tot een schandvlek in de rij der hoogst gewigtige overblijfselen van O.friesche taal."

"Dit is dus weer een potsierlijk anachronisme. Doch wat praat ik van ‘weer een anachronisme,’ - het geheele O.-L.-B. is van 't begin tot het einde één enkel kolossaal anachronisme, dat zich onder anderen ook openbaart in dien langen sleep van woorden, welken we eerst in de middeleeuwen langzamerhand door verbastering van 't Latijn in den mond van Franschman of Nederlander in de wereld zien komen. Zie hier een zootje, dat voor veel vermeerdering vatbaar is."

"Het doel dat ik mij voorstelde is bereikt; ik heb de taal van het Oera-Linda-Boek belagchelijk willen maken."

"Maar dat Friesche geleerden in den jare onzes Heeren 1876 ... nog zulke vreemdelingen in de grammatica van de kostbare letterkundige overblijfsels der Friesche oudheid zijn, dat zij een afschuwelijk taalkundig knoeiwerk als het Oera-Linda-boek, na langdurige studie, voor een echt gedenkstuk van overoud Friesch hebben aangezien, ja, de barbaarsche wartaal waarin het is geschreven voor ouder en zuiverder verklaren dan de zoo zuivere taal der Oudfriesche oorkonden, dat is inderdaad een zeer betreurenswaardig verschijnsel."

Edited by Otharus, 15 October 2010 - 08:31 AM.


#1326    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 15 October 2010 - 09:41 AM

View PostAlewyn, on 26 August 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

Did Ottema leave a note or told somebody that he was disillutioned because he wasted years on a hoax or is this just another groundless theory?
Indeed this theory is based on quicksand and it illustrates the way in which Jensma produces pseudohistory out of gossip, as can be concluded from the two fragments below.

Logically, if it was known at that time that Ottema had changed his mind about OLB before he died (in 1879!), this would have been big news, but there are no sources to confirm this. Therefore it remains a speculation, based on gossip.

The first source in which it is mentioned, 125 years later, is "De Gemaskerde God" (2004), Jensma's thesis that earned him the doctor's title:

"According to some, Ottema eventually had to admit that he had been wrong and that he had lost his honour as a classical scholar. He could no longer live with that truth and hanged himself.
FOOTNOTE: Information from both A. Lysen, Santpoort, and from retired professor P. Gerbenzon, who were both -in different ways- well informed in the circles of notables in Leeuwarden."


In the second source "Het Oera Linda-boek" (2006), Jensma presents this gossip as if it were a fact:

"When Ottema, abandoned by all, in 1879 finally accepted that he was wrong and that he had considered something to be ancient that was actually modern, he decided that it made no sense to live on, and hung himself."

Original sources, Dutch:

"De Gemaskerde God":
Blz. 214 "Volgens sommigen heeft Ottema uiteindelijk toch ingezien, dat hij had gedwaald en dat hij zijn eer als classicus had verspeeld. Met die waarheid heeft hij niet verder willen leven. Hij hing zich op."
VOETNOOT (blz. 411) "Mededeling zowel van de kant van A. Lysen te Santpoort, als van P. Gerbenzon, die beiden op verschillende wijze goed ingevoerd waren in de kringen van Leeuwarder notabelen."

"Het Oera Linda-boek"
Blz. 50 "Toen Ottema, door iedereen in de steek gelaten, in 1879 uiteindelijk inzag dat hij ongelijk had gehad en dat hij voor oud had versleten wat eigentijds was, besloot hij dat het geen zin had om nog verder te leven en verhing hij zich."


#1327    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 15 October 2010 - 10:04 AM

View PostAlewyn, on 26 August 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

Why don't they do a forensic analysis on the paper and ink? That would settle the matter for once and for all; or is somebody afraid of the truth?
Yesterday I asked Dr Jacob van Sluis, specialist at Tresoar, the library that houses OLB:

"Is there a survey of the scientific research that was done to establish the age of the paper and are reports of this research available?"

His answer:
"Recently a thorough examination was done of paper, ink etc. of OLB. The results have been collected, but are not published yet. That is ment to happen, but Tresoar is only sideways involved. So I cannot promise anything. I only know that the publication is 'in the pipeline'."

Original in dutch:
vraag 14-10-2010: "Is er een overzicht beschikbaar van het wetenschappelijk onderzoek dat is verricht naar de ouderdom van het papier en zijn hiervan verslagen beschikbaar?"
antwoord 14-10-2010: "Er is recentelijk grondig onderzoek gedaan naar het papier, inkt e.d. van het OLB. De resultaten daarvan zijn verzameld, maar nog niet gepubliceerd. Dat is wel de bedoeling, maar Tresoar is daar slechts zijdelings bij betrokken. Ik kan u dus niets beloven. Ik weet alleen dat de beoogde bundel "in de pijplijn" zit."


#1328    Alewyn

Alewyn

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2010

Posted 15 October 2010 - 11:23 AM

View PostEssan, on 14 October 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

Oops.  My mistake  :innocent:  I'd forgotten about that (bit too recent for me to be honest :D )   However this was a short term event only affecting only some parts of the world.  Not a global shift in climate zones as would have occurred had there been a geographical polar shift or change in axial tilt.

As for the book of Enoch - maybe he felt an earthquake?  Only when no other possible interpretation exists should we use ancient texts as primary evidence (though it my provide supportive evidence if other more direct evidence exists - like a big impact crater or volcanic eruption that is indisputably dated to the same time period, for example)
Thanks for that.
Yes, I realise I am taking a long shot at the "axial tilt" or "crustal movement" but, as I said, I am giving the old scribes the benefit of the doubt and am looking for a possible explanation for their apparent description of an impact and what I interpret as a change in latitudes.

We are really looking at three aspects of the "2200 BC event":
1. Do we have evidence of global disaster in c.2200 BC? (at least in the Northern Hemisphere),
2. Was there a cosmic impact? and
3. If so, did such an impact cause crustal movement?
Most of the following have been debated on this forum before, but let me repeat my arguments again:

1. The 2200 BC Disaster:
I think it is fairly safe to say from geological, archaeological and historical (old scribes) evidence, something catastrophic happened in ca. 2200 BC. The accepted facts are:
   (a) The event happened suddenly, b. The old Egyptian Kingdom came to an end in 2200 BC, c) Tell Leilan was destroyed suddenly in 2193 BC (Harvey Weiss et al), (d) The salt content at Tell Leilan points to possible sea floods at the time, (e) There is no evidence of earthworm activities (topsoil washed away?) (f) the area was covered by a thin layer of volcanic ash and (g) evidence of widespread earthquakes (Claude FA Schaeffer -1948). Points (d), (e), (f) and (g) tell us that the event could not have been confined to a single city i.e. with no effect on the surrounding area.
   (h) Now we find that the Harappan Civilization (and others) also suffered some catastrophe in ca. 2200 BC (±200). The evidence appears to be the same (eg it happened suddenly) but the time window is bigger (400 to 500 years).
Is it realistic to accept that the same fate had befallen all the civilizations in the Middle East but each one independently from the others and at different times? I think not. To me this points to a single event.
   (i) The current popular theory is that the whole of the Northern Hemisphere suffered a (up to) 300 year drought. However, as I stated before, the onset was very sudden and the evidence shows that mass migrations happened very suddenly. To me this points to a singular event that triggered the mass migrations and the subsequent drought and famine.
  (j)  We have evidence of such an event from Scandinavia, Iberia, the Aegean right up to China – all around 2200 BC, give or take 250 years. Again, a catastrophic event in the Middle East with the same evidence further afield and within the same time window points to a single event.

2. Do we have evidence of a cosmic impact?
In my book I identified the Burckle impact as a likely cause. Now  I realise that scientists have not dated the impact yet and are guessing that it could have happened between 2800 BC (Bruce Massey) and 2500 BC (Dallas Abbott). The chevron dunes on Madagascar and on the West Coast of Australia, which was used to identify the impact site, indicate that the impact created massive tsunamis that would have destroyed anything in their way.
Is it realistic to assume that the impact happened 300 to 600 years before the 2200 BC event, destroyed everything in it’s path, civilizations then recovered, attained high levels of development in this relatively short period of time and was destroyed again in 2200 BC?  Again, I think not.
We apparently have evidence of only one global (or rather Northern Hemisphere) disaster that destroyed all these ancient civilizations simultaneously. It is for this reason that I proposed that the Burckle impact was one of the causes of the 2200 BC event.
Some scientists are trying to make out a case that the chevron dunes are of aeolian (wind) origins. How do they then explain the cosmic impact debris in the dunes, the deep ocean sediments, the high temperature fused particles and the fact that these dunes were used to triangulate the position of the Burckle asteroid 1500 km from Madagascar at a depth of 3.5 km? Also, an Aeolian cause would indicate a process that is still ongoing; the dunes must still be growing to this day.
We also have evidence of other cosmic impacts in South America (Rio Cuarto and Campo del Cielo) during the same period.
Lastly we come to the theories around the converging trajectories of the remains of  the comet Proto-Encke and the Hale-Bopp and the Oljato comets that intersected earth’s orbit around the same time. (This is not in my book and was pointed out to me by Abramelin).
Although we cannot point to these as “smoking guns”  it nevertheless gives some possible explanations of cosmic impacts being the cause of the 2200 BC disaster.

3. “Apparent Axial Tilt” or Crustal Movement.
In my book I incorrectly stated that the asteroid impact could have caused earth’s axis to tilt. Cormac convincingly pointed out that this was not possible and I accepted that. To put it quite bluntly, I was shooting off the hip and did not do my homework.
I based my theory on the following two quotes:

A. Oera Linda Book: The book of Adela’s followers, ch. XXI:
“This stands inscribed upon all burghs –
     1. Before the bad time came our land was the most beautiful in the World. The sun rose higher, and there was seldom frost. The trees and shrubs produced various fruits, which are now lost. In the fields we had not only barley, oats, and rye, but wheat which shone like gold, and which could be baked in the sun's rays.”

B. Book of Enoch(Translated from the Ge'ez language (Ethiopic) by Richard Laurence, London, 1883):
Chapter 55
“(4) And when that agitation took place; the saints out of heaven perceived it; the pillar of the earth shook from its foundation; and the sound was heard from the extremities of the earth unto the extremities of heaven at the same time”

Chapter 64
“(1) In those days Noah saw that the earth became inclined, and that destruction approached.(2) Then he lifted up his feet, and went to the ends of the earth, to the dwelling of his great-grandfather Enoch. (3) And Noah cried with a bitter voice, Hear me; hear me; hear me: three times. And he said, Tell me what is transacting upon the earth; for the earth labours, and is violently shaken. Surely I shall perish with it. (4) After this there was a great perturbation on earth, and a voice was heard from heaven. I fell down on my face, when my great-grandfather Enoch came and stood by me.”

To my reasoning, both these old chronicle describe cosmic impacts and the above quotes describe very precisely a change in latitude (at least). How would this have been possible if they had not experienced it first hand?

If there had been a substantial pole shift, one would expect to find it in the Greenland ice. In other words, the ice should have been only 4000 years old. Yet, we find that the ice layers is at least 120 000 years old. This tells me that, if a polar shift did occur, Greenland must have been within the “old” arctic circle as well. I therefore placed the old North Pole more or less within  the Northern Canada / the Hudson Bay area. In this case the whole of Greenland would have been above the old 60th  Parallel as is still the case today and at least two-thirds of Greenland would have fallen within the old arctic circle, which could then explain why the ice is as old as it is. (This would, however, not be in sinc with the Great Pyramid of Giza’s N-S orientation)
I must also point out that this would still have been in the area of the current magnetic pole wander. Could this then explain why we do not note obvious changes in the earth’s magnetic field from the time? (A lot of questions and speculation!)
The effect on Western Europe (The Netherlands), however, would have been a 12 to 15 degree shift in latitude. In other words, the climate would have been more like that of the Mediterranean today. Towards the Middle East and Asia, the change could have been as much as 20 degrees.
Would this have created a major shift in global climate zones as you stated? I don’t know. I think you are much better qualified to answer the question. Obviously one would also have to consider the influence of, inter alia, ocean currents.
If the effect would only have been moderate and localised temperature and climatic changes, it would  then support my theory.
As to the “resonance cause” of such crustal movement, I would hope that it merits further investigation

Edited by Alewyn, 15 October 2010 - 11:28 AM.


#1329    TheSearcher

TheSearcher

    Coffee expert extraordinair

  • Member
  • 3,845 posts
  • Joined:16 Jun 2009

Posted 15 October 2010 - 12:00 PM

View PostAlewyn, on 14 October 2010 - 07:43 AM, said:

I do not know too much about either. In fact, I know nothing about Milanovitch Cycles.
As I recall, Bond events have been proven and accepted. However, the cause of these events are still unclear. You have remarked earlier on the cyclical nature of Bond events and, to my mind, cosmic movements are very cyclical.
Is it not possible that Bond events are caused by cosmic impacts or earth's orbit crossing meteorite/asteroid clouds or swarms? The actual impacts may be of less importance than multiple "Tunguska-type" explosions in earth's atmosphere that could blot out the sun for extended periods. The drop in temperatures and larger snow cover would further deflect the sun's rays and thus trigger ice ages.
Your views?

The possibility exists, that's undeniable, but I'm unaware of such a swarm of meteorites or asteroids, especially since these things are quite closely monitored these days. I'll have to look into it.
This said, Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations only, that might influence a greater area, but are still quite localized. What are the odds that a cyclic 1500 years swarm of meteorites or asteroids always hits in the same geographic area? I would say quite small to none existent, hence I tend to rule the meteorite or asteroid impact out as a cause anyway.

Now there is a theory that might actually fit the bill, but it is only in the theory stage only, so also open to debate. It's the 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle. The theory behind it can be found here. I find it a quite fitting theory as to a mechanism that triggers the Bond events.

Of course I might be completely wrong, but I find that most meteorological events can be explained through other mechanisms, than the impact of a celestial body into the earth atmosphere or crust.

It is only the ignorant who despise education.
Publilius Syrus.

So god made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?!

#1330    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,200 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008

Posted 15 October 2010 - 04:11 PM

View PostAlewyn, on 15 October 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

A. Oera Linda Book: The book of Adela’s followers, ch. XXI:
“This stands inscribed upon all burghs –
     1. Before the bad time came our land was the most beautiful in the World. The sun rose higher, and there was seldom frost. The trees and shrubs produced various fruits, which are now lost. In the fields we had not only barley, oats, and rye, but wheat which shone like gold, and which could be baked in the sun's rays.”
This right here should be taken as a sign something is horribly wrong here. You can air dry grain anywhere the sun shines but to be able to literally bake it in the sun at that latitude, the place would be a hellish inferno and anything much south of that would be completely uninhabitable.

Furthermore, while we can only speculate on what strange fruits once dwelt in freisland, the Netherlands today are directly west and south of some of the largest modern areas of production for all the grains listed.

Quote

B. Book of Enoch(Translated from the Ge'ez language (Ethiopic) by Richard Laurence, London, 1883):
Chapter 55
“(4) And when that agitation took place; the saints out of heaven perceived it; the pillar of the earth shook from its foundation; and the sound was heard from the extremities of the earth unto the extremities of heaven at the same time”

The loudest sound ever recorded on earth was the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883, noted almost 3000 miles away. The Eruption of Thera
was estimated at least four times that and over 2000 miles closer.

Chapter 64

Quote

“(1) In those days Noah saw that the earth became inclined, and that destruction approached.(2) Then he lifted up his feet, and went to the ends of the earth, to the dwelling of his great-grandfather Enoch. (3) And Noah cried with a bitter voice, Hear me; hear me; hear me: three times. And he said, Tell me what is transacting upon the earth; for the earth labours, and is violently shaken. Surely I shall perish with it. (4) After this there was a great perturbation on earth, and a voice was heard from heaven. I fell down on my face, when my great-grandfather Enoch came and stood by me.”

Another problematic statement. By the time he saw the earth incline, given the fact that tsunamis travel at nearly the speed of sound, wouldn't it have been a little too late to bother building an ark and gathering up critters? Unless what he actually saw was the ground tilting.

Edited by Oniomancer, 15 October 2010 - 04:12 PM.

"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#1331    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 15 October 2010 - 06:39 PM

This thing about a tilt of the earth's axis could have been settled months ago.

If Northern Europe or the area around the North Sea would have been nearer the equator before 2193 BC, paleo-botanists would have found traces of plants like olive trees, orange trees, grapes, shrubs and herbs that live in a much warmer climate.

They never did.


#1332    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,386 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008

Posted 15 October 2010 - 07:08 PM

Quote

To my reasoning, both these old chronicle describe cosmic impacts and the above quotes describe very precisely a change in latitude (at least). How would this have been possible if they had not experienced it first hand?

I see you've since removed your estimation of an impactor size, but being interested in finding out what size one would have to have been to equal the Chilean Earthquakes 2.7 millisecond change in length in time, I came across the Earth Impact Effects Program. While this cannot be seen as 100% accurate, it should still give a general idea of what it would take to duplicate the Chilean time change results. Here are my results. Key points, to my mind, are in bold.

Quote

Your Inputs:
Distance from Impact: 1000.00 meters ( = 3280.00 feet )
Projectile diameter: 592.00 km ( = 368.00 miles )
Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 30.00 km per second ( = 18.60 miles per second )
Impact Angle: 90 degrees
Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

Energy:
Energy before atmospheric entry: 3.92 x 1029 Joules = 9.35 x 1013 MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size is longer than the Earth's age.
Such impacts could only occur during the accumulation of the Earth, between 4.5 and 4 billion years ago.

Major Global Changes:
The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundreths of a degree).
Depending on the direction and location of impact, the collision may cause a change in the length of the day of up to 2.71 milliseconds.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.


Crater Dimensions:
What does this mean?

Transient Crater Diameter: 3070 km ( = 1910 miles )
Transient Crater Depth: 1090 km ( = 675 miles )


Final Crater Diameter: 8780 km ( = 5450 miles )
Final Crater Depth: 4.55 km ( = 2.83 miles )

The crater formed is a complex crater.
The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 3.48e+09 km3 = 8.36e+08 miles3
Roughly half the melt remains in the crater, where its average thickness is 469 km ( = 292 miles ).

Ejecta:
What does this mean?

Your position was inside the transient crater and ejected upon impact

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 15 October 2010 - 07:09 PM.

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#1333    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,386 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008

Posted 15 October 2010 - 08:14 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 15 October 2010 - 07:08 PM, said:

I see you've since removed your estimation of an impactor size, but being interested in finding out what size one would have to have been to equal the Chilean Earthquakes 2.7 millisecond change in length in time, I came across the Earth Impact Effects Program. While this cannot be seen as 100% accurate, it should still give a general idea of what it would take to duplicate the Chilean time change results. Here are my results. Key points, to my mind, are in bold.



cormac

Too late to edit, but if anyone wants to check this for themselves the program can be found at the following:

Earth Impact Effects Program

It should be noted that this only matches the time effects of the Chilean earthquake which only moved the axis 8 cm/3 inches, yet notice the devastation.

Anyone care to show where there is a 5450 Mile wide crater anywhere on the Earth?

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 15 October 2010 - 08:15 PM.

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#1334    Alewyn

Alewyn

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2010

Posted 16 October 2010 - 05:59 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 15 October 2010 - 06:39 PM, said:

This thing about a tilt of the earth's axis could have been settled months ago.

If Northern Europe or the area around the North Sea would have been nearer the equator before 2193 BC, paleo-botanists would have found traces of plants like olive trees, orange trees, grapes, shrubs and herbs that live in a much warmer climate.

They never did.
You, Oniomancer and Cormac have all very valid arguments and all adressing my third point viz. "Could there have been an axial tilt or crustal movement". As I said before, my interpretation and speculation on this point (and your responses) revolve around the utterances of these old scribes.
Can I take it then that you all agree that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there was a single global (or at least Northern Hemisphere) disaster in ca 2200 BC? (my first point). This is also something "that could have been settled months ago".
Remember the date of 2193 BC is the only specific fact stated by the OLB in this regard. Both my points two and three are my own interpretation and ideas in searching for possible explanations. These are not that of the OLB.


#1335    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,386 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008

Posted 16 October 2010 - 06:26 AM

Quote

Can I take it then that you all agree that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there was a single global (or at least Northern Hemisphere) disaster in ca 2200 BC?

No, as there is no evidence for a single global event. The possibility of a Bond Event aside for a moment the only available evidence suggests the likelihood of one or more volcanic eruptions. Although it hasn't been determined which one/ones of several may have been responsible for such an event and none of them can be tied to either 2193 BC or 2200 BC. Anything of any note spans the possibility of 300 to 500 years. The 2193 BC date is meaningless. I've even said, back a few pages, that it was likely something significant happened in the 3rd millenium BC to greatly affect human history. This should, in no way, be misconstrued as validating a specific date as put forth by the OP and yourself.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus