Kerr Watch

Elapsed time since Richard Kerr failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 6 years, 3 months, and 4 days

3,732,468 viewers can’t be wrong

I came across the video below this morning on a 2012 site. As regular readers may guess, I don’t get too worked up about next year. But as the 2012 worry-warts research their subject, more and more are coming across the YDB group’s field research and incorporating it into their presentations and arguments regarding the pending Apocalypse.

This is good news – bad news. The good news is that the word is getting out about the research into the past. All publicity is good publicity. The bad news is that many of these folks speculating about the future toss in all sorts of outrageous predictions and assumptions.

I found the video below flattering and pretty middle-of-the-road (relative to other 2012 propaganda). It gave the Firestone paper top billing, and then takes the viewer on a wilder, speculative tour regarding the astral alignments of megaliths, the timing of Jesus’ birth, etc. All the while managing to stay just inside the white lines and off the exit to Kookytown, in my estimation.

(Yeah, he claims the pyramids are times times as old as Zahi Hawass claims.  But then again Zahi Hawass himself is three times older than Zahi Hawass claims).

The video has intriguing production values, not top-flight Hollywood CGI, but not basement video stuff either. The Apocalypse scenes seem to match the storyline, but where do they get all these kinda-special effects and crowd shots? I doubt they hired actors for a YouTube video of this nature, but it also doesn’t seem the material is lifted from another source, at least not from any “comet movie” I’ve ever seen.

In the end, here is what is surprising and, I suppose, encouraging. Nearly 4,000,000 people have viewed this video. Think about that. Think about that relative to the number of readers of the recent fit pitched by Vance Holliday over the Clovis Comet theory. I betcha (maybe) a thousand people or so have read Holliday’s essay on my site and his. For each of those readers there are 4000 viewers of the video below.

I would get a big broom if I wanted to sweep away the Clovis Comet theory.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Steve, Hermann –

    Too bad I never got to write “Man and Impact in Europe”, in which I would have straightened this all out for you.

    I am not going to try to cover it in a post here. The events ca. 3100 BCE I have written on before.

    The only thing I want to mention to you here today is that the population of the island of Malta suddenly disappeared from the face of the Earth in 2,360 BCE.

    Now please help me find the GSA October meeting sessions schedule and abstracts.

  • Herman Burchard

    As a personal favor to Steve, here is is latest post, reformatted.

    Steve Garcia August 15, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Ed – Again, thanks for the Timo Niroma reference. I am catching up on stuff of his (and others), thanks to you. From “The Third Millennium BC (3100-2100 BC)” at http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari2.htm#first there is this, and confirms my reasoning. Hats off to Timo and others. I think they got it dad nuts right on. Continuing with selections from “Rogue Asteroids and Doomsday Comets” by Duncan Steel “The outrageous suggestion that I am going to make is that the Taurid Complex was producing phenomenal meteor storms between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago, accompanied by multiple Tunguska-class atmospheric detonations, and that Stonehenge I was designed to allow the (awestruck, terrified) culture of southern England to make observations of the Phenomena and to perhaps predict their recurrence. Peter Lancaster Brown, in his book on megalithic sites, wrote that “Eclipses, comets and meteorites were astronomical phenomena widely observed by the ancients. But probably only eclipses were predictable.” (Steel means to imply that Stonehenge I was needed to make observations because meteorite falls are far more unpredictable, but and at the same time may be long-lasting and recurring. – TN.) Steel continues this theme in Peiser et al.: Natural Catastrophes (Oxford, 1998) by commenting that he sees no connection between the original Stonehenge I (built in 3100 BC) and the thousand year later Stonehenge II and Stonehenge III except the place. The original one was a scientific observatory, not for Sun, or Moon, or eclipses, but for watching dangerous meteorites, asteroids and comets. The later Stonehenges with their stones (the image of Stonehenge that we have of it today), was more that of a ritual and sanctuary than for any practical/scientific purpose. Of course it could be used for some trivial astronomical calculations (solstices, eclipses), but its original purpose was hardly known for the later builders. The world’s first scientific astronomical observatory changed to a ritual place, because it was not anymore needed for its original purpose when the Taurids did not at that moment bother mankind, in fact the Taurids lived only in legends. One thing I would add, from reading “Uriel’s Machine” by Chirstopher Knight and Robert Lomas, is the principle of the “gates” that those in “the utter north” showed Enoch. As I tried to describe to you, Ed, I believe that such gates could be used to determine if a comet was on a collision course or not. From sailing there is a principle that if a boat on a crossing course to yours keeps the same position on your gunwhale, then a collision will occur if no adjustments are made (and the boat on the starboard tack has the right of way). If this also applies to comets approaching Earth’s orbit, then an impact will occur. Since comets coming “out of the sun” will also be toward the sun, then sighting the object at dawn and/or sundown will show it to be in the same position relative to a point on the horizon (or a standing stone or gate) over several days. Since the path is not a straight line, however, but is an ellipse with the Sun at a focus, the position would not be the same – but I submit that the gates could be arranged such that a certain pattern of movement observed through the gates would be able to tell them an impact is going to happen. Since this can only be determined from previous experience, it would mean that they had previous impacts to go by. To that point, I would paste in this, from the same page (quoting Steele again): “Although we know that 5,000 years ago the Sun, the Moon, and the planets were behaving as they do now, we cannot be sure that there were not some additional celestial features that are no longer seen. Quite apart from Stonehenge, many other megalithic sites seem to have been constructed, starting around 3000 BC, by cultures spread across the globe, having no communication with each other, but watching a common sky. … For example, a Neolithic passage grave at Newgrange in Ireland has a gap in its roof through which the Sun illuminates its main chamber at sunrise on Midwinter Day, or at least it did so 5,000 years ago. … Why were the ancients suddenly so interested in the sky? Obviously, the special events happening in the sky must have been short-lived phenomena (because the megalith- building phase seems to have sprung up and then receded). … The precession of meteoroid streams leads to periods of activity only a few centuries long. This gives us a clue.”

    And (Timo): The Taurid complex is a comet/meteor swarm complex, whose main body is the periodic comet Encke with an unknown number of meteoroid swarms plus possibly some small body pieces. When the Taurid complex intersected Earth 5000 years ago, maybe around 3100 BC, it may have caused a 100 year long period of tunguskans and mini-tunguskans. The scenario then is that an impact occurred, which caused widespread damage and death. Then a second one hit, with it being 50-50 that it was the same time of year. After that one hit, everyone who had been affected had to figure out how to gauge if future comets were going to impact, also. The stone circle building craze took off, with people at the various sites coming up with somewhat different designs. Part of that reason might have been due to latitude differences, part from the local topography, and part from how smart or knowledgeable the people were. Certainly the designers became VERY important personages, since the survival of their cultures depended on how good their designs were at telling them when to take cover. This totally explains why so much effort was put into building these sites. Everyone’s lives depended on it. It also tells why people were freaking afraid of things moving around in the sky. Speculation: It is even conceivable that the better circles may have been able to predict WHERE and/or WHEN an impact would occur. It is doubtful, but at least slightly possible. This is falsifiable, I think – but maybeonly with actual impactors on their way. Certainly even a few days warningcould be the difference between survival and extinction, if caves were close enough. Outside of caves I can’t imagine what would have possibly been a refuge. Corollary: Does this in any way at all tell why other patterns were built,such as the long rows at Carnac in Brittany, with thousands of standing stones?

  • Steve T.

    Forgive my ignorance, because I’m fairly new to this issue and still playing a lot of catch-up, but has anyone considered to develop (or have they done) a robust stratified-random sampling effort, that samples soils throughout the region of N.A. thought to have been impacted by this event? I mean, not just at known 13K ybp Clovis sites, but ANYWHERE across the landscape. This ‘black mat’ layer, if it is what some are proposing it to be, should conceivably be present throughout the entire region affected — and NOT just at known Clovis sites.

    Certainly doing this won’t tell us that such a layer if present everywhere is at the same age level as found at Clovis sites, but the point of my suggestion is to determine if the black mat layer is ubiquitously occurring throughout the proposed affected region. And so, if it is, then these nano-diamonds, carbonized glass, microspicule spheres should all be fairly consistently present in association with such a black mat layer. One would think it to be a good test of its existence, by using a statistically robust sampling approach and not relying entirely on a systematically biased sampling where only known 13K ybp cultural sites occur.

    Right??

  • Steve Garcia

    Thanks, Hermann. I will take that under consideration.

    Money being a factor for me right now, would you be able to point me to any particular web pages? I know, that is not as good as reading their books and/or papers, but reality insists I be frugal.

  • Herman Burchard

    Steve, the Renfrew 1983 article mentions Mercer, the library made a copy for me. Julian Thomas’ book “Understanding the Neolithic” (279 pages) was a PDF download (Google) but I lost the URL. Here is a ling paragraph on astronomy which is fairly typical of his thought process:

    “The simultaneous emergence of ‘linear’ monuments and an enhanced interest in celestial phenomena is worthy of note. The ‘roof slots’ and aligned passages of the passage tombs have already been mentioned, but one could add the probable astronomical significance of certain cursus monuments. While Penny and Wood’s (1973) claims that the Dorset Cursus represented a complex observatory are probably overstated, the monument does incorporate a solar alignment. From the Bottlebush terminal, the midwinter sun sets directly over the Gussage Cow Down long barrow, set between the two banks of the cursus (Barrett et al. 1991, 50). Bradley (in Barrett et al. 1991) emphasises the way in which this phenomenon could only have been witnessed from within the cursus itself, indicating the exclusion of outsiders which the monument creates. Equally significant is the focal role taken on by the barrow itself, equivalent to that of the timber circles in other cursuses, so that movement within the structure becomes movement toward the dead. These alignments on the sun and moon are not to be ignored, but monuments are just as often oriented upon other monuments, or upon prominent features of the landscape. For instance, the henge monument at Old Yeavering is so oriented as to provideea view through its entrance of a notch in the hills around Kirknewton (Harding 1981, 129). This might easily be either a place of some spiritual or mythic significance, or a pass providing contact with an important group of strangers. What these orientations indicate is that astronomical phenomena were not privileged over ancestral monuments or landscape features. In the case of the Dorset Cursus, the experience of watching the sunset over Gussage Hill depended upon the momentary coincidence of chalk from the earth, the descending sun, the dead in their barrow and the surrounding forest. This does not indicate any scientific observation of the heavens, so much as a perceived unity of earth and sky, life and death, past and present, all being referenced to bring more and more emphasis on to particular spaces and places. This would tend to heighten the significance of whatever transactions and performances took place there. At the same time, it would also limit access to these spaces in terms both of direction and of timing, and would contribute to the way in which the space was experienced by promoting the impression that it stood at an axial point of an integrated cosmos.”

  • Hermann Burchard

    Steve, Renfrew mentions Mercer in his 1983 article which the library copied for me. Julian Thomas’ book “Understanding the Neolithic” (279 pages) was a PDF download (Google) but I lost the URL. Here is a long paragraph that is fairly typical of his thought process:

    “The simultaneous emergence of ‘linear’ monuments and an enhanced interest in celestial phenomena is worthy of note. The ‘roof slots’ and aligned passages of the passage tombs have already been mentioned, but one could add the probable astronomical significance of certain cursus monuments. While Penny and Wood’s (1973) claims that the Dorset Cursus represented a complex observatory are probably overstated, the monument does incorporate a solar alignment. From the Bottlebush terminal, the midwinter sun sets directly over the Gussage Cow Down long barrow, set between the two banks of the cursus (Barrett et al. 1991, 50). Bradley (in Barrett et al. 1991) emphasises the way in which this phenomenon could only have been witnessed from within the cursus itself, indicating the exclusion of outsiders which the monument creates. Equally significant is the focal role taken on by the barrow itself, equivalent to that of the timber circles in other cursuses, so that movement within the structure becomes movement toward the dead. These alignments on the sun and moon are not to be ignored, but monuments are just as often oriented upon other monuments, or upon prominent features of the landscape. For instance, the henge monument at Old Yeavering is so oriented as to provideea view through its entrance of a notch in the hills around Kirknewton (Harding 1981, 129). This might easily be either a place of some spiritual or mythic significance, or a pass providing contact with an important group of strangers. What these orientations indicate is that astronomical phenomena were not privileged over ancestral monuments or landscape features. In the case of the Dorset Cursus, the experience of watching the sunset over Gussage Hill depended upon the momentary coincidence of chalk from the earth, the descending sun, the dead in their barrow and the surrounding forest. This does not indicate any scientific observation of the heavens, so much as a perceived unity of earth and sky, life and death, past and present, all being referenced to bring more and more emphasis on to particular spaces and places. This would tend to heighten the significance of whatever transactions and performances took place there. At the same time, it would also limit access to these spaces in terms both of direction and of timing, and would contribute to the way in which the space was experienced by promoting the impression that it stood at an axial point of an integrated cosmos.”

  • Steve Garcia

    Hermann –

    Thanks for pasting that in. The latter part is quite disappointing, in that the author is projecting and interpreting motives from the same-old same-old archeological POV: They were all simple peoples with simple Earth-Sky-Nature religious purposes, and interpreting anything they can’t understand as ceremonial and mumbo-jumbo. It never occurs to them that anyone ancient can be anything but that. I argue that in no way did they place even ONE stone in ONE position without there being a solid reason for it being placed exactly there.

    No individual or group working with stones of several tens of tons at any time in history goers to all the massively huge effort to move a mega-stone unless someone has convinced them that there is a real and practical value to moving it to that specific place – and why in the heck it had to be a stone that big and not smaller.

    I am just approaching all this from an engineer’s perspective. We have a saying “Form follows function.” That goes for size. It goes for shape. And it also goes for location. Why did THAT stone need to be THAT size and in THAT location? NO PART of any building or observatory is extraneous, decorative facades being the only real exception. But 10 or 20-ton stones are not decorative facades. The fact that these sites have shown themselves to align with one movement in the sky tells us the site is an observatory, for certain. Therefore, the direction archeologists need to look is in that direction, in order to find a function.

    Though these sites have sometimes five or ten times the stones needed for solar observations, the rest of the stones are inexplicably fobbed off as something akin to decorative facades – as part of their nature-worshiping religion. But that religion may not have even existed. It is possibly only in the minds of the archeologists, and no where else.

    For example, that notch at such a long distance would give great precision to angular observations of objects in sky, on or near the horizon. But that is seen as impossible. So, it is, instead, we get, “…watching the sunset over Gussage Hill … the momentary coincidence of chalk from the earth, the descending sun, the dead in their barrow and the surrounding forest.” Mumbo-jumbo. People of the past were idiots, according to today’s archeologists. Those people didn’t have the sense to come in from the rain, since they would expend vast man-hours and millions of horsepower of human labor to set up sites – all for the aggrandizement of the priesthood, who would wow everyone once or twice a year in order to keep the populace in awe.

    Yoy.

    It is not a theory I ever embraced, even as a kid. SOMETHING motivated those people, and it wasn’t their journey through the afterlife. I completely and vociferously disagree with the POV of archeology. I am certain they are dead wrong, and as long as they keep these dead-end ideas in their heads, we will never know what happened. Whatever it was, it had a huge impact on these people, over a large portion of the globe. And it wasn’t a religious phenomenon; those are never so uniform over large areas – everyone has their own idols and local gods. It was something real. And it filled these people with a motivation.

    Whatever it was, it WAS associated with the sky. The author’s assertion that, “This does not indicate any scientific observation of the heavens,” is based on nothing but a belief in the ascent of homo sapiens to our lofty and self-congratulatory present time – that as one looks farther and farther back in time, humans were dumber and dumber. Certainly a suggestion such as “… a pass providing contact with an important group of strangers” does not argue very strongly about our current temporal superiority. Such speculative, pulled-out-of-their-arses concepts are unworthy of archeologists even calling themselves scientists.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Hermann, Steve –

    To sum up, besides astronomical functions, structures may also be constructed for a role within a tribal area and/or a role for those people as part of a larger political entity. (Wherein a “tribe” controls the resources of a geographic region.)

    Note the author’s assumption that the barrow only served the purpose of burial.

    The possibility of dual simultaneous use exists, as well as the possibility of an earlier structure re-used for burials later.

    Now can someone help me find the GSA meeting’s sessions schedule and abstracts?

  • Barry Weathersby
  • E.P. Grondine

    PS – I’m not masochistic, nor obsessed, nor do I have some kind of martyr complex. I’m not a “useful idiot” for Russia or China either.

    The facts are what they are. I just respond in a rational way, and report them.

    And I am just very very tired right now.

  • E.P. Grondine

    And there’s plenty of good people to staff that FENA office working with B612.

    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/b612-foundation-working-to-prevent-8216biggest-threat-possible-asteroids/18559

  • Barry Weathersby

    I always hear the comment, ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’… We (San Diego) are looking at spending that or more on a new stadium for the Chargers. Most movies cost a lot more than that… but that’s an idea. Use the idea to make a movie about real research! But then, a movie budget would pay for a Mars mission.

  • E.P. Grondine

    George, when are you going to post the news from INQUA?

  • George Howard

    Working on it. All good. Summer doldrums.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi George –

    There are also going to be major sessions on impact at the GSA annual meeting this year (8 October in Minneapolis).

  • E.P. Grondine
  • james

    I think these claims of structures aligning with the star formations is intriguing, as it causes issues with Pangaea. Maybe there is an Expanding Earth Theory which is more complementary.

    Didn’t know about the flash freeze. Interesting. Makes me wonder if all ice comets burst