Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Ancient carvings confirm deadly comet strike


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Fine back up that statement. Where is your proof that they have cheery picked the iconography and ignored the rest? Show me a quote and link it too.

I've already asked you several times to go to your own link and get the paper. 
 It's just there. Right there. In bold and highlighted. 

 I really, really don't see your difficulties here. 

But, here are the two tabels they use: 

iuwlxab.png

 

g3N7IIt.png

 

 You'll note that even here they include animals that do not match symbolism. And the symbolism they do use is by making a comparison between the reliefs and popular astrological symbols. Meaning they are putting that representation to them, that does not mean that is inherent. 

 Yet they don't include the many other other symbols that on the site as well, like snakes. They decide to associate them with comets and meteors, because they think they look like comets and meteors. 

 Snakes have a variety of mythological interpretations, from beneficial, to warding, to evil. They have chosen a symbology that supports their conclusion, which is not the way it should go. 

 They started with their conclusion, and then fit the statistics to it. Each of the symbols they have used are fit into their claims, not the other way around. 

 The ones that don't fit, like the boar for example, they have decided to fit to a sky quadrant, even while in their paper stating it doesn't really fit that place. 

 

 

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Ahh... the fringe wins. 

Patience, it takes time to do more than copy and paste links without reading them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

I've already asked you several times to go to your own link and get the paper. 
 It's just there. Right there. In bold and highlighted. 

 I really, really don't see your difficulties here. 

But, here are the two tabels they use: 

iuwlxab.png

 

g3N7IIt.png

 

 You'll note that even here they include animals that do not match symbolism. And the symbolism they do use is by making a comparison between the reliefs and popular astrological symbols. Meaning they are putting that representation to them, that does not mean that is inherent. 

 Yet they don't include the many other other symbols that on the site as well, like snakes. They decide to associate them with comets and meteors, because they think they look like comets and meteors. 

 Snakes have a variety of mythological interpretations, from beneficial, to warding, to evil. They have chosen a symbology that supports their conclusion, which is not the way it should go. 

 They started with their conclusion, and then fit the statistics to it. Each of the symbols they have used are fit into their claims, not the other way around. 

 The ones that don't fit, like the boar for example, they have decided to fit to a sky quadrant, even while in their paper stating it doesn't really fit that place. 

 

 

 

A ice core sample from Greenland pinpoints a comet strike in 10950 BC the researchers from Edinburgh University have linked the comet strike using the animal glyphs to the year 10950 BC. Is this not proof enough for you... So whats the problem? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Phys Org report ... LINK
     
Quote

 

~

New evidence that cosmic impact caused Younger Dryas extinctions

August 6, 2013 by Marcia Malory

Abstract
One explanation of the abrupt cooling episode known as the Younger Dryas (YD) is a cosmic impact or airburst at the YD boundary (YDB) that triggered cooling and resulted in other calamities, including the disappearance of the Clovis culture and the extinction of many large mammal species. We tested the YDB impact hypothesis by analyzing ice samples from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core across the Bølling-Allerød/YD boundary for major and trace elements. We found a large Pt anomaly at the YDB, not accompanied by a prominent Ir anomaly, with the Pt/Ir ratios at the Pt peak exceeding those in known terrestrial and extraterrestrial materials. Whereas the highly fractionated Pt/Ir ratio rules out mantle or chondritic sources of the Pt anomaly, it does not allow positive identification of the source. Circumstantial evidence such as very high, superchondritic Pt/Al ratios associated with the Pt anomaly and its timing, different from other major events recorded on the GISP2 ice core such as well-understood sulfate spikes caused by volcanic activity and the ammonium and nitrate spike due to the biomass destruction, hints for an extraterrestrial source of Pt. Such a source could have been a highly differentiated object like an Ir-poor iron meteorite that is unlikely to result in an airburst or trigger wide wildfires proposed by the YDB impact hypothesis.

~

 

-

New Scientist staff reports with pretty much the same vein ... LINK

 

Quote

 

By New Scientist staff and Press Association

Ancient symbols carved into stone at an archaeological site in Turkey tell the story of a devastating comet impact that triggered a mini ice age more than 13,000 years ago.

Evidence from the carvings, made on a pillar known as the Vulture Stone, suggests that a swarm of comet fragments hit the Earth in around 11000 BC.

One image of a headless man is thought to symbolise human disaster and extensive loss of life.

The site is at Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey, which experts now believe may have been an ancient observatory.

Computer software was used to match carvings of animals – interpreted as astronomical symbols – to patterns of stars and pinpoint the event to 10950 BC.

Other evidence for the impact from a Greenland ice core suggests roughly the same time frame.

The cataclysm ushered in a cold climate lasting 1,000 years and is likely to have resulted from the break-up of a giant comet in the inner solar system.

 

~

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, third_eye said:
  • Phys Org report ... LINK
     

-

New Scientist staff reports with pretty much the same vein ... LINK

 

~

Pretty much sums it all up. Thanks, third_eye.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Pretty much sums it all up. Thanks, third_eye.

No worries ... I was keeping the eye on the line with this one for quite some time ... now maybe some of these might brush off on Angkor and the Mesoamerica sites, one way or the other ...

~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

No worries ... I was keeping the eye on the line with this one for quite some time ... now maybe some of these might brush off on Angkor and the Mesoamerica sites, one way or the other ...

~

Well after this Gobleki Tepe thing all is possible, mate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

Well after this Gobleki Tepe thing all is possible, mate.

Early days yet old boy ... at least that little idea that got Robert Bauval on the road to redrawing the fringes of what is common as 'History' might pull out the rug under some but in the wider picture and the greater scheme of things, that's just the way the story goes I guess ...

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, third_eye said:

f Pt. Such a source could have been a highly differentiated object like an Ir-poor iron meteorite that is unlikely to result in an airburst or trigger wide wildfires proposed by the YDB impact hypothesis

Yes, thanks for the link, saves me from rebuilding my post from before the site went down. 

 The original submission in PNAS notes this as well, the impact would not have produced an airburst or wildfires as is needed for the claims made. Its rather weird that its been turned into support for tge YDE when its explicitly stated to counter those claims. 

 Yes, another article that reports the paper. 

 Great, so how does that answer any of the issues raised? Reposting another link to a repeat of the story doesn't support it. 

We get it, is reports what the paper says. And thats the extent. 

 The issues are woth the paper itself, which I've pulled from directly. Its in the oroginal link in this thread, but it seems no lne else wants to take it and read it. 

 Worth noting that the joirnal it was published in, looks for losts that garner attention specifically, not so much for quality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

The original submission in PNAS notes this as well, the impact would not have produced an airburst or wildfires as is needed for the claims made. Its rather weird that its been turned into support for tge YDE when its explicitly stated to counter those claims. 

 Yes, another article that reports the paper. 

Aww c'mon SS ... you know as well as anyone the speculatives goes both ways and more ... I don't understand why its such a big deal to nail it down as one or the other as of now when even those highly qualified people in the field can't say its any one way or the other ...

Is still a work in progress ... you yourself said as much just as any one else thus far, so far there is sufficient to show a clearer picture and that involves everything put forward from all parties, yes even Mr Hancock, as much as the turns some noses sideways that's the way things stands. You wanna make this a crusade against such 'Authors' that's your prerogative ... its a total waste of my time and interest in the subject bit you are welcome to it.

Far be it for me to spoil your fun ...

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Cry for help? 'Hansalune and Onimancer come help me' the Aussie has me on the ropes and there is only so much crap i can spew before even bte throws in the towel. 

Right now I'm debating whether to hold your hand or not because you're being either remarkably slow on the uptake or deliberately obstinate. It only took me a few minutes to find the name of the journal and the publishing body. ( And for the record, I haven' read the thread since last night when it was still only a couple pages long. Silence does not equal assent.)

If I'm reading correctly, Sweatman seems to be some sort of computational statistician in the field of chemical engineering, and you know what Mark Twain said about statistics.

Quote

You see he used a formula to pin point a known event. A formula that can easily be reviewed and critiqued by his peers. None have come forward. Its gospel.

The journal only came out on the 16th of last month. The general media didn't get hold of it until a couple days ago. Reviewing in full and composing a reasoned scientific response takes time and the initial data has to get to them first.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read the paper and it's very disappointing. It's written more like a popular essay rather than a scientific paper, and they even confess that their conclusions are all completely speculative. I don't really object against any such theories and speculations, I think there could be a comet somewhen around 10000 BC, but that exact date of 10950 BC completely facepalmed me and marred their reputation for me forever. Why they used sunrise and sunset times at equinoxes and not, say, midnight, or the times when it just starts dawning and the constellations are still visible? From that time till when the sun rises several hours pass and the sky turns considerably in the meanwhile. And why the equinoxes after all? Are they sure that was already some agricultural civilization, because equinoxes had meaning only for agricultural civilizations. Was the civilization already advanced enough to use astronomy to plan sowing and harvesting, instead of ritualistic actions?

From what I read about Göbekli Tepe in Wikipedia, I doubt it. The stones were erected before the agricultural period, and so could not have any connection to equinoxes or solstices. Moreover, being much into the cultures of Siberian hunter-gatherers, I can say that the stones are surely of religious meaning, and were created by the hunters. The animals depicted are the game which they appealed to the gods to send. Considering the high quality of the site, the situation with the game was really dire and the cult was strong. Eventually the inhabitants of the place adopted agriculture, the stones lost their meaning and were covered with ground.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chaldon said:

Just read the paper and it's very disappointing. It's written more like a popular essay rather than a scientific paper, and they even confess that their conclusions are all completely speculative. I don't really object against any such theories and speculations, I think there could be a comet somewhen around 10000 BC, but that exact date of 10950 BC completely facepalmed me and marred their reputation for me forever. Why they used sunrise and sunset times at equinoxes and not, say, midnight, or the times when it just starts dawning and the constellations are still visible? From that time till when the sun rises several hours pass and the sky turns considerably in the meanwhile. And why the equinoxes after all? Are they sure that was already some agricultural civilization, because equinoxes had meaning only for agricultural civilizations. Was the civilization already advanced enough to use astronomy to plan sowing and harvesting, instead of ritualistic actions?

From what I read about Göbekli Tepe in Wikipedia, I doubt it. The stones were erected before the agricultural period, and so could not have any connection to equinoxes or solstices. Moreover, being much into the cultures of Siberian hunter-gatherers, I can say that the stones are surely of religious meaning, and were created by the hunters. The animals depicted are the game which they appealed to the gods to send. Considering the high quality of the site, the situation with the game was really dire and the cult was strong. Eventually the inhabitants of the place adopted agriculture, the stones lost their meaning and were covered with ground.

Yeah its speculation by folks with no expertise in the area they are commending on. That not 'illegal' but it is usually a sign the person is out of their depth. GT is an interesting place but looking at one pillar among many and saying it refers to a date thousands of years ago and an event half a world away gets a bit odd. As I noted earlier it looks like some Hancock fans pushed out a paper to try and support him.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

I wonder if it was into the ocean causing a massive world (known world) flood?

Big floods leave big evidence of having occurred like these 10k old geological evidence of 600 foot tidal waves in Madagascar

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151221-ancient-megatsunami-madagascar-debate-science/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Yeah its speculation by folks with no expertise in the area they are commending on. That not 'illegal' but it is usually a sign the person is out of their depth. GT is an interesting place but looking at one pillar among many and saying it refers to a date thousands of years ago and an event half a world away gets a bit odd. As I noted earlier it looks like some Hancock fans pushed out a paper to try and support him.

 

 

I forgot to mention that the key point against the paper is that the proposed solution is not applied to all the pillars. So what do they mean? A cherry picked pillar out of many isn't a solution its like pulling out one stone tool of many finding it has mastodon blood on it then declaring the people who made it hunted only mastodon's you'd have to study the residue on all the the stone tools.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chaldon said:

Just read the paper and it's very disappointing. It's written more like a popular essay rather than a scientific paper, and they even confess that their conclusions are all completely speculative. I don't really object against any such theories and speculations, I think there could be a comet somewhen around 10000 BC, but that exact date of 10950 BC completely facepalmed me and marred their reputation for me forever. Why they used sunrise and sunset times at equinoxes and not, say, midnight, or the times when it just starts dawning and the constellations are still visible? From that time till when the sun rises several hours pass and the sky turns considerably in the meanwhile. And why the equinoxes after all? Are they sure that was already some agricultural civilization, because equinoxes had meaning only for agricultural civilizations. Was the civilization already advanced enough to use astronomy to plan sowing and harvesting, instead of ritualistic actions?

From what I read about Göbekli Tepe in Wikipedia, I doubt it. The stones were erected before the agricultural period, and so could not have any connection to equinoxes or solstices. Moreover, being much into the cultures of Siberian hunter-gatherers, I can say that the stones are surely of religious meaning, and were created by the hunters. The animals depicted are the game which they appealed to the gods to send. Considering the high quality of the site, the situation with the game was really dire and the cult was strong. Eventually the inhabitants of the place adopted agriculture, the stones lost their meaning and were covered with ground.

Bolded: Agriculture comes before building structures, especially those made of stone and carved. Its always been so and Gobekli Tepe is no different. You don't build and align a structure to make recordings of the sky and seasons if you are not undertaking agriculture. Gobekli Tepe was a civilisation, IMO.  

Red: Logic would dictate the reverse to be true. A comet strike caused a drop in temperature, crops failed, specialisation and banding together was replaced by making a living hunting and foraging for wild crops. The collective was replaced by smaller bands. Gobelki Tepe was abandoned.  

Edited by Captain Risky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Sounds like the author has read too much Hancock and is basically parroting him, while trying to force the "evidence" to fit his notion.

Bad science. Very, very bad.

There's a reason, after all, that Hancock's ideas, while possibly entertaining to read, are not taken seriously.

Other than being conjecture basedon cherry picked evidence while ignoring the majority of evidence gathered what possible reason would the orthoxy cabal have for ignoring Hancock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Cry for help? 'Hansalune and Onimancer come help me' the Aussie has me on the ropes and there is only so much crap i can spew before even bte throws in the towel. 

You ,    are  indeed an  .... wait up  ...

Your post content ,  is   idiotic !   

Its like talking to a drunk at a bar ....   wait !   Is that it ?    Are you drunk ?

(That would shore explain a lot !  )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Thats all gone. The sky burial might only be good for your argument at the moment. Its been proven with astronomy and math that its an observation platform for the night sky.  

Yet, after numerous requests to do so, you cannot show either the astronomy nor the math  !       :rolleyes:

Nothing at all has been proven,  like you claim. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

I've already asked you several times to go to your own link and get the paper. 
 It's just there. Right there. In bold and highlighted. 

 I really, really don't see your difficulties here. 

But, here are the two tabels they use: 

iuwlxab.png

 

g3N7IIt.png

 

 You'll note that even here they include animals that do not match symbolism. And the symbolism they do use is by making a comparison between the reliefs and popular astrological symbols. Meaning they are putting that representation to them, that does not mean that is inherent. 

 Yet they don't include the many other other symbols that on the site as well, like snakes. They decide to associate them with comets and meteors, because they think they look like comets and meteors. 

 Snakes have a variety of mythological interpretations, from beneficial, to warding, to evil. They have chosen a symbology that supports their conclusion, which is not the way it should go. 

 They started with their conclusion, and then fit the statistics to it. Each of the symbols they have used are fit into their claims, not the other way around. 

 The ones that don't fit, like the boar for example, they have decided to fit to a sky quadrant, even while in their paper stating it doesn't really fit that place. 

 

 

 

 

Ha!   You yourself put up the info I was asking Risky to produce that he refused to 

I can now see why .... as I thought it is wild conjecture and un matched rubbish ! 

Not surprised through , Risky would know very little about archaeo astronomy   (or for that matter, it appears archaeo anything ,,, or modern astonomy / astology ! 

 

Now , and Risky should know this , considering his nationality  ... for shame on him for not knowing ! ...  If one wants to prove such things like Risky claims, the match needs to be a lot clearer ... like this  (and not like the stuff above ) 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxgjJ1Kn3umHIlUoccVDi

Now, depending on time of year (season) and what big emu is 'doing'    .... in this case 'walking' 

 

17663707_1669356953371235_59295895434297

 

depends on what related activities are possible or allowed    ( eg, the first pic positions and alignment with the rock carving indicates a permissible time to collect emu eggs  ) . 

But Risky may not acknowledge this ... as he seems to have some aversion to  the knowledge of ancient peoples , especially the Australian Aboriginal ;   ' Cave dwellers and rock scrawlers '   .   :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

A ice core sample from Greenland pinpoints a comet strike in 10950 BC the researchers from Edinburgh University have linked the comet strike using the animal glyphs to the year 10950 BC. Is this not proof enough for you... So whats the problem? 

The problem lies with you ! 

You argue something , then evidence is put up to show you are wrong . You quote that evidence and then segway straight into a totally different point ... ignoring the logical progression of the discussion ... this is why you cannot learn anything .

 

Image result for fat guy on segway gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chaldon said:

Just read the paper and it's very disappointing. It's written more like a popular essay rather than a scientific paper, and they even confess that their conclusions are all completely speculative. I don't really object against any such theories and speculations, I think there could be a comet somewhen around 10000 BC, but that exact date of 10950 BC completely facepalmed me and marred their reputation for me forever. Why they used sunrise and sunset times at equinoxes and not, say, midnight, or the times when it just starts dawning and the constellations are still visible? From that time till when the sun rises several hours pass and the sky turns considerably in the meanwhile. And why the equinoxes after all? Are they sure that was already some agricultural civilization, because equinoxes had meaning only for agricultural civilizations. Was the civilization already advanced enough to use astronomy to plan sowing and harvesting, instead of ritualistic actions?

Now, here is someone that knows, at least a bit of the subject !   :)        These are things Risky and others cant even begin to comprehend as they have not studied them . 

The 'why the equinox  times' is a great point !    Your suggestion to use 'start of dawn' makes a LOT of sense in archaeoastronomy.  In more recent astrology ... and going back a long way (but not in modern astrology ) the Ascendant was all important, and this time of day also indicated the 'risings'  ( eg of Sirius )   ...  there are many reasons and indications for this and other things .... but they are beyond the comprehension and learning of many pop / modern people .

Some even quote this stuff  with no concept whatsoever of what they are talking about  ... they talk about 'alignments' but when asked to explain what they mean , they disappear or act all silly like Risky here .

And this info isnt just used for sowing and planting. It is needed for many things.   And as we know, each years seasons can be different from the rest , spring ' temp frost etc can vary year to year ,,,someone relying only o a solstice or equinox would be in big trubs ! 

Here the system is further regulated by a complex mental map that seems to resemble an orbital gear concept. The elder  who explained it to me said they only knew of 5 cycles within their 6 seasons , one cycle of variations in 6 seasons can cause great variety , 5 cycles is hard to comprehend mentally (although they can... some can also hold a vast amount of info mentally and orally ); she said though that she only knew a bit  - her 'old people' knew many more cycles and predict changes in weather over very long periods .  They have already survived 30,000 years of climate change, and a massive rise in sea levels,    tidal waves etc .  Much of it, supposedly, predicted .   I suppose, after observing the weather and examining its fluctuations, and needing to do that to survive, for 10s of 1000s of years ... one might learn ;a bit' ?  

4 hours ago, Chaldon said:

From what I read about Göbekli Tepe in Wikipedia, I doubt it. The stones were erected before the agricultural period, and so could not have any connection to equinoxes or solstices.

I think they could have  as the same dynamic has happened here with Aboriginals and they never had what we consider 'agriculture' ,  yet ;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-12/aboriginal-astronomy-provides-clues-to-ancient-life/7925024

I'll even buy the commet thing as a possability ... but the  connection with the stones and constellations as postulated by that link and Risky ... nope !   For many reasons ... complex, but SS's post outlined the main reasons why its a dude and wide speculation.

4 hours ago, Chaldon said:

Moreover, being much into the cultures of Siberian hunter-gatherers, I can say that the stones are surely of religious meaning, and were created by the hunters. The animals depicted are the game which they appealed to the gods to send. Considering the high quality of the site, the situation with the game was really dire and the cult was strong. Eventually the inhabitants of the place adopted agriculture, the stones lost their meaning and were covered with ground.

Maybe ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.