folder Filed in Random Tusks
Guest Blog: A Catastrophist Manifesto from Han Kloosterman
event February 20, 2010 comment 256 Comments

Image:Johan-kloosterman.jpg

Photo Jessica Kloosterman, Paris, 2009

Han B. Kloosterman — Amsterdam, The Netherlands

A CATASTROPHIST MANIFESTO

Originally Distributed at the Joint Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Acapulco, Mexico, May, 2007


Gottfriend Wilhelm Leibniz

Leibniz’ Slogan

Uniformitarianism, the gradualist doctrine in geology, finds its origin in the slogan Natura Non Facit Saltus, launched around 1700 by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz who was a mathematical genius – and a lousy philosopher. The Lutheran Leibniz believed that the Great God of the Universe had created planet Earth, with its fauna and flora, not just for our benefit but more specifically for our comfort.

Leibniz’ slogan took hold, and developed into the bourgeois doctrine par excellence, a custom-made Biedermeier faith. And as it combines well with materialism and reductionism, most of the intellectual left adopted it without a hitch. It was to have disastrous consequences for philosophy and for the pursuit of knowledge. During more than a century, 1860-1980, academic geologists of diverse political colouring gave the best of their energies to practicing Biedermeier geology.

Particularly omissive during that long century were the philosophers of science, who are supposed to critically analyse the scientists’ procedures, and to distinguish between premisses and empirical data.

Out of three common ways of dying inherent in the biosphere of the Earth – from old age because of the sexual reproduction system, as prey because of the organisation of the biosphere along food-chains, and through episodic worldwide catastrophes – ,  Leibniz managed to eliminate the third way from Western thinking. Linnaeus and Darwin quoted his slogan verbatim, and James Hutton and Charles Lyell were imbued with the spirit of it. The latter two weren’t brilliant innovators of geological thinking, as academic hagiography would have it, but well-conditioned followers of Leibniz.

James Hutton, painted by Abner Lowe.

James Hutton

Hutton’s Adage

James Hutton’s 1795 adage on the immensity of time, with “no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end”, quoted ad nauseam in the handbooks of geology, was formulated similarly 150 years earlier by Isaac de La Peyrère (‘Praeadamitae’), a Calvinist nobleman who  probably developed his ideas from the Jewish tradition of repeated destructions and new creations – a tradition which can be followed backwards in time to the medieval Rabbis Isaac of Akko and Rashi of Troyes, and to Rabbi Abahu of Caesarea, of Talmudic times. Hutton, of the Scottish Enlightenment, knew his Voltaire, and Voltaire was the first to mention La Peyrère favourably.

I am not accusing Hutton of plagiarism. In a period when educated Europeans knew Latin and French and were well-read, authors were not required to refer to their sources with any rigour. La Peyrère’s and Hutton’s pronunciations on the eternity of the world equally hark back to the Pythagorean Ocellus Lucanus, who used similar wording, `αναρχος και `ατελευτητος – without a beginning or an end.

The centuries-old opposition of Catholic and Protestant fundamentalists against the geological timescale is based upon their literal interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, whereas the Jewish tradition, with a much broader base, has no problem with that time-scale. And neither have the Hindu, Maya or Maori traditions, and so on.

For the connection of a billion-year timescale with uniformitarianism there is no basis in intellectual history. The short “biblical” (read christian) timescale began to be abandoned in Europe during the 18th century, by uniformitarians and catastrophists alike.

And then, statements about the eternity of the world cannot be verified, so they belong to the realm of metaphysics rather than to that of science. They are at variance with the Big Bang hypothesis of cosmic origin, and with the very old but finite age of the Earth, as inferred from radioactive decay extrapolations and measurements.

George Cuvier

The Lystrosaurus Syndrome

Since the end of Romanticism the doctrine (in geology) of repeated destructions followed by new creations is being attributed to George Cuvier, over and over again. But Cuvier has never said anything of the kind. That doctrine is from his contemporaries Jean Deluc and Alcide d’Orbigny. Geology teachers and handbook writers stress the importance of going back to the primary sources when others do bibliographic research, but clearly deem themselves exempt from that golden rule. They parrot and copy and summarise from secondary sources.

Please note that our view of Earth history begins to resemble that of Deluc and D’Orbigny, with the difference that we don’t think of complete destructions followed by new creations, but of partial destructions followed by rapid evolution and diversification of the surviving species. This process, in the period between extinction event and diversification, is characterised first by paucity of species and of individuals, followed by paucity of species with an abundance of individuals – a population explosion.

Like the post P-T Lystrosaurus explosion.

Like the post K-T Protoungulatum explosion.

Like the post-Pleistocene human explosion.

Instead of an evolutionary success, we might be a mere post-catastrophe pioneer species. [emphasis CT]

Bill Napier

Rapprochement

The 2005 Richard Firestone/Allen West breakthrough in impact geology is more far-ranging in its consequences than the 1980 K-T breakthrough, because the damage done to the biosphere in the Late Pleistocene also affected humanity. It brings together the North American school of catastrophism (repeated blows during Earth history) and the British school of Victor Clube and William Napier (repeated blows during human prehistory and history), researchers who situate themselves within the Halley-Whiston tradition that began, like uniformitarianism, around 1700. What was lacking in the Clube-Napier school, based on extrapolation of space-age data,  is now provided by the Firestone-West findings, to wit, geological field- and laboratory data.

Today’s breakthrough will also begin making a rapprochement in a schism that exists since the end of Romanticism, about 1860 – the greatest Kultursturz in the West since Christianity brutally suppressed intellectual and religious freedom in the Roman and  Hellenistic worlds. This schism pitted against each other, sometimes violently, academic geology (and biology, archaeology, history, mythology) and the so-called lunatic fringe, marginalised by the uniformitarian establishment – Atlantologists, pole-shifters, Velikovskians, Theosophists, etc.

Perhaps the 2005 discoveries will induce the “lunatic fringe” to start thinking more critically. And perhaps they will induce the academic geologists to start thinking.

If so, we can look forward to the next breakthrough in rather less than another quarter of a century.

The War of the Worldviews

More often than not, the controversy between catastrophism and uniformitarianism is represented as a conflict within the geological sciences. But considering that in catastrophism a dynamic picture is given of Earth history, and thus of the Earth, whereas uniformitarians try to play down as much as they think feasible the more global, rapid and life-threatening processes in favour of local, slow and innocuous ones (however preposterous the hypotheses they have to invent and defend), we must conclude that we are dealing with a conflict between two antagonistic, incompatible worldviews, vastly transcending the field of one particular discipline.

The fight has indeed been raging for thousands of years. Plato was a catastrophist, Aristoteles tried to play down what Plato considered to be historical discontinuities. Two millennia later, Leibniz sounds as Aristoteles redivivus.

After a wave of catastrophist theories during Romanticism, the uniformitarians proclaimed their view to be the only scientific one, and triumphantly declared the battle won. When during the 1970s the Chryse Flood was discovered on Mars, an oceanless planet, geology professors didn’t resign en masse and go back to school, but continued pontificating that such a flood was impossible on Earth. Doubts about uniformitarian dogma arose only in 1980, after the K-T discoveries, which caused however but a minor crack in the wall of Academe. The uniformitarians stood their ground and tried to encapsulate the new findings into their system. They turned up with ‘catastrophist uniformitarianism’ –  a contradictio in terminis, and worse, a metaphysical confidence trick: the appropriation of empirical findings by a magical formula. More cracks and holes appeared, but now, after 2005, they have to try corking up a really big one.

But as before, uniformitarianism will find its staunch defenders – not because they can produce arguments of any validity, but because they are well-conditioned:  Natura Non Facit Saltus.   The war of the worldviews may go on unabated for a long time to come.

This Manifesto

This Manifesto is not an attack but a counterblast. We, persons who have understood that we are born on a highly dynamic planet that tumbles and gyrates and spirals through a highly dynamic universe, have been calumniated, cold-shouldered, blacklisted, denied research funding, refused publication space, and chased out of jobs by sectarians who took power at the universities around 1860, sectarians as dogmatic and repressive as their christian predecessors, and who tried – and continue trying – to describe the world as static as they can. And to enforce consensus, they continue using ad-hominem arguments, their “common sense”, the anonymous peer-review censorship system, and the medieval Occam’s razor, long since rusted and blunt.

castastrophist manifesto geology

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Cancel Post Comment

  1. Any professor straying from mainstream’s way of thinking is immediately tagged as narrow-minded. “Common sense” became a real dictatorship in the world of science (not to say all communication means), from kindergarten to university: a teacher who doesn’t share nowadays principles “as given” might be ridiculed by 13 years old students at high school. Serious researchers, in the quest of genuine understanding should be able to discern theory from proved facts to start with, and not to take theories automatically for granted. Unfortunately, “common sense” adapts reality to theories instead of doing the opposite, while politically correct unanimously assumed theories became the contemporary gates for obscurantism and embezzlement.

  2. Welcome, Bruno. Good to see you E.P. Thanks a lot for visiting and thanks even more for commenting. Didn’t you enjoy Bert’s manifesto? It is spot on.

    The uniformatarian paradigm is extraordinarily deep-seated and it deserves any and all criticism it receives.
    Wind and water and tectonics are indeed powerful forces — but by god, Mr Geologist, you better make sure that every force is accounted for, even things you have never considered (i.e. swarms of space borne atmospheric bombs a la tunguska). To the astronomers (even worse) get humble and work from a presumption of personal stupidity. You do not have the information or authority to overrule 13,000 years of “myth.” And if you are wrong in the slightest — you are dangerous in the extreme. That archeologist in my experience are a lot better because they more readily accept their ignorance.

    Keep posting and send me some material! E.P. How about sending me something from Man and Impact in the America’s? Your book is packed with blog worthy snippets!

  3. The impression that I continue to have, is that unfortunately the bastions of uniformatarism remain deeply ensconced througout the scientific community. The belief that gradual processes, with but few exceptions, such as periodic localized events such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and some weather events, continue to overwhelmingly dominate the forces shaping our planet remain. There was a time after the time of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in the early 1700’s, when a temporary movement towards viewing catastrophic events as also prominent was in evidence. This was in the 1820’s and 1830’s when scientists like Adolf Erman and Georges Cuvier expressed the view that a huge widespread devastating event took place at the close of the Last Ice Age, and was cause for the enigmatic deposits of ice age mammals deposited high above the valleyn floor throughout parts of Alaska and Siberia. The open mindedness displayed by these two (and a few others since), quickly dissipated just after the 1830’s with the writings of George Lyell and James Hutton. I believe that overall we contiune on in this unfortunate vein at present. The great quotation by paleontologist Dewey J. McLaren in the early 1970’s is still appropriate. Dr. McLaren stated ” following the overthrow of catastrophism, there has been a natural tendecy to overcompensate and to avoid catastrophism interpretations even when the evidence calls for one.”

  4. Han Kloosterman answers:
    Thanks for the comments, Bruno, E.P. and Rod.
    Bruno:
    Once you’ve deconditioned yourself in one respect, that’s just one step, and the question arises what’s going to be the next one. Which of the sacred opinions I harbour are mere received ideas?
    It is good to be conscious of the fact that the division line betw. academic science and the “lunatic fringe” not only changes with time but also with place. Dowsing, elsewhere taboo, was in the Soviet Union and is now in Russia perfectly respectable in Academia. The Clube/Napier scenario, around which formed in the 1980s in the UK an interdisciplinary school to which p.e. adhered Sir Fred Hoyle, grand old man of astronomy, was met in the USA with an ear-deafening silence.
    E.P.:
    “Never let data interfere….”
    That sounds like a quote. Is it yours?
    I wasn’t aware of your book. I am especially interested in Amerindian myths, with more disaster traditions – Great Floods, Geat Fires – than in the eastern hemisphere.
    This morning I found that it is not present in a Dutch library, and that I cannot get it through the American bookshop here. Do you have a suggestion?
    Rod:
    “The openmindedness . . . quickly dissipated just after the 1830’s”.
    The ideas in geology correlate well with the general cultural movements, Enlightenment, Romanticism, Positivism-Materialism. During the 18th century, after Leibniz, Burnet and Whiston, catastrophism and uniformitarianism coexisted without a sharp line dividing the two camps. During Romanticism catastrophism prevailed, with uniformitarianism as an undercurrent, with antagonism but without discrimination.
    Then, around 1860, there was a materialist coup in Academia, applying over the whole political spectrum. And whereas there are direct lines from proto-nazi Ernst Haeckel to Hitler, and from Marx and Engels to Stalin, the moderate Left and Right took over Academia, with as their prophets the socialist Ludwig Büchner whose “Krafft und Stoff” became a runaway bestseller, and the liberal Auguste Comte whose slogan Ordem e Progresso can be seen even today in the Brazilian flag.
    Only after 1860 the division into academic consensus and “lunatic fringe” was created by the dogmatism of the academics, a dichotomy similar to the medieval one into orthodoxy and heresis.

  5. Thank-you first to George Howard for what I think is a terrific forum> And I would like also to reinforce the views as expressed so very eloquently by Han Kloosterman. You are so correct, I think in your asssessment as stated above. I think a very good example of the deeply entrenched attitudes, indeed dogmatic in their intensity, have been eocountered by many including the likes (as Han also mentions0 of Drs. William Napier and Victor Clube as well as Sir Fred Hoyle. There is another scientist that I am sure you are aware of as well, and that was Dr. J. Harlan Bretz (1882-1991)(who it so happens I dedicated my book to). Dr Bretz was the first to identify the unusual landscape (the Channeled Scablands) of eastern Washington, as shaped by a megaflood way back in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Against all manner of derision he perservred in his views for about forty years before. Then it was finally recognized that he was correct. Many more scientists since have been subject to ridicule and more. And in closing, I think I would rather be included in the lunatic fringe (that perhaps has become to think) than the dyed in the wool unchanging scientists who may not even be thinking.

  6. Rod,
    In the middle of so many sad stories the Harlan Bretz’ story is exceptional because it had a happy ending. When Bretz was rehabiliated he was 90 ys of age, and able to enjoy it.
    I include my own in the few happily ending stories. I made the correlation of the end-Alleröd Usselo Horizon with the Twocreekan in North America in 1977 (An Alleröd Conflagration? Catastrophist Geology 2/1: 13-15). After a quarter of a century appeared Rick Firestone and Allen West who got independently about the Clovis Layer the same ideas as I had about the Usselo Horizon – and they had, unlike me, lab equipment to analyse their samples. And I, old though not quite as old as Bretz, am able to enjoy it.
    The truth always wins? O no, I’m not at all sure about that.
    The paradox is that the message is not enjoyable at all: we were born on a life-threatening planet.

  7. Han, can you send me a copy of?: An Alleröd Conflagration? Catastrophist Geology 2/1: 13-15. I want to post it.

    FYI, and BTW, I am also working on having recent comments like these directly accessible from the front page. Right now no one can click from the snippets currently visible to these discussions….

  8. George, you can find it through the online Velikovsky Encyclopedia, which gives a line to my personal page.
    No, I’m not a Velikovskian – but you know that.
    You’re welcom to post it.
    Han.

  9. Where, Han? Can you cut and paster the link? I found a bunch of interesting stuff, as always on that site, but can find any the Kloosterman Papers.

    BTW, I will delete these talks a some point, to clean it up. Maybe.

  10. “I am especially interested in Amerindian myths, with more disaster traditions – Great Floods, Geat Fires – than in the eastern hemisphere.”

    They are not entirely myths, Han and several of them were written
    (though we have trouble reading them).

    You can think of an oral corpus as a library – children’s section, religion, philosophy, how-to books, adventures, romances, histories. The histories were usually kept in the “reserve room”, held by specially selected and trained individuals.

    It is comforting to know that you are not a Velikovskian, as the man’s linguistics, physics and achaeology were terrible. As Leroy Ellenberger points out, he was a plagiarist as well.

    I suppose that you were startled by the data you found in the excavation, and that is what brought you into Velikovskian circles at that time, way back when.

    Thanks to Clube and Napier and many others, we now have well developed impact models, and the past is becoming less confusing.

  11. Han, today’s “lunatic fringe” with its theosophist roots is a well developed industry, and they have their own beliefs, which deny and defy reason and data.

    I have my own short summary if you’d like to post it.

    I would like to see this forum focused tightly on asteroid and COMET impacts right now, and leave the retro-spective analysis for later on.

  12. E,P.,let me specify that I am a NON-Velikovskian, not an ANTI-Velikovskian. I have never moved “in Velikovskian circles”, but I insist on keeping on friendly speaking- and e-mail terms with them.
    I think V. was an excellent bibliographical researcher, I have picked up some useful references in the 2 books I’ve read, and after I found, with much work, some references it has happened that I noticed that V. had found them decades before me, without the benefit of the Internet.
    The accusation of plagiarism is unfair. V. doen’t tell us how he got his references, but who does? That’s required nowhere, and not customary.
    Unfortunately V. was more of a scholar than of a scientist. I don’t like his planetary ballet, and before he pubished Earth in Upheaval he should have shown the MS to a geologist, to avoid silly mistakes. And I think the Dark Ages were indeed dark, that’s obviously (to me) a post-catastrophe darkness.
    I admire Harry Hess, at the time of the Velikovsky controversies the only honest academic geologist around.
    Han.

  13. Han: Is the Dark Age you refer to in your posting the so called “European Dark Age” If so, a part of this time was the period of 535 AD to about 545 AD, a time when many believe that there was one of the cosmic encounters of which I speak of in my book, “Sudden Cold, An Examination of the Younger Dryas Cold Reversal” Rod

  14. Rod,I was referring to the Dark Ages in Greece between Mycenaean/Minoan times and the classical period – the centuries Velikovsky tried to eliminate. Perhaps the gap was somewhat shorter than in the academic chronology?
    I have the impression that V. had a tendency to shorten timescales, whereas I have a tendency to lengthen them.
    In the academic progressive sequence from Palaeo- and Meso- to Neolithic, to Bronze and Iron Age, the ubiquitous Megalithic remains have no place.
    What if they are much older, “antediluvian”? Then we can hypothesize that the incredible Francocantabrian rock art, in a style utterly unexpected from hunter-gatherers, was made by an artists’ colony, comparable p.e. to the group of western artists on Bali, a century ago.
    I haven’t researched how the megalithic remains were dated, but I harbour a deep mistrust of the establishment scheme.
    Food for Atlantologists? Well, I’m not afraid of the uniformitarians, so why should I be of the Atlantologists.
    Han Kl.

  15. Thank-you very much Han. A comment on Veilkovsky if I may. I read with great interest his book “Worlds in Collision.” Veilkovsky was certainly a free thinker. I believe he must be respected for that alone. However, do you believe he may have been correct about the planet Venus as being captured by the Sun, not from a comet form, but instead having an origin as one of the moons of Jupiter? I happened to read this idea somewhere or another just recently. Rod.

  16. Rod, let’s not start a Velikovsky discussion here. My manifesto is directed against the uniformitarians.
    E.P., thanks for sending your book.
    Han.

  17. This is largely a V-Free zone, though it is in suspension while an audience is being built.

  18. Han –

    Let me start off by pointing you to Leroy Ellenberger’s discussion list on Velikovsky, and suggest to you that you discuss Velikovsky with him. He is the expert on him, and Velikovsky was a plagiarist.

    Moving on, megalithic sites are well dated; early faulty dates for them are only promoted by those I have named “cult archaeologists”, and they have developed quite a business promoting bad archaeology, their peculiar “theosophist” religious beliefs, and fascist political theory, as their religion promotes the concept of superior races (when it doesn’t promote the select intervention of aliens in human development).

    The beginning of megalithic tradition is seen in Turkey at Gobleki Tepe. These structures were built after the YD impacts, and the YD impacts may have been causative for their construction.

    They likely followed on earlier wood henge technologies.

    When and how these megalithic technologies spread, and how they further developed, is an interesting area of research, one beyond the scope of discussion on this comment form.

    That said, as an example of the power of impact in chronological work, the megalithic culture on Malta disappeared entirely in 2,360 BCE along with the population, the same year as the Rio Cuarto impacts, the date for which is now known from Mayan records.

    Any time you ignore the work of those archaeologists who have spent their lives trying to establish chronologies, you are not doing science, and one of the most powerful results of impact studies is that they allow better precision in chronological work.

    I believe that if Clube and Napier had had a better understanding of Egyptian chronological works, their books would have received a better reception.

    Comet and asteroid impacts are what differentiate catastophism from neo-catastrophism; give the limited resources, the focus should be on scientific impact studies, with retrospective analysis of earlier catastrophism left for those working on the history of science.

  19. E.P. I don’t intend discussing V. with Leroy E., because he would start shouting. He and I have different opinions, and we have done our bit of shouting already. Let me stay on friendly e-mail terms with him.

    If you accuse V. of plagiarism you should give examples, and not hide behind Leroy’s back.

    I am interested in “cult archaeology” though I am not a theosophist and even less a fascist. I am possible more antifascist that you are, because I have personal experience of it.

    “(T)he intervention of aliens in human development” has not only been popularised by “the hotelier von Däniken” but also by Robert Temple in his well-researched book The Sirius Mystery. What’s the connection with catastrophism?

    The “archaeologists … who have spent their lives trying to establish chronologies” were and are uniformitarians, followers of the Marxist Gordon Childe (“What Happened in History”) who has spent 10.000 years in an Earth-orbiting satellite with electronic monitoring equipment aboard, writing up what he heard and saw beneath him.
    Western Marxist were often more dogmatic than Soviet ones.

    “the focus should be on scientific impact studies.”
    Now you are giving rules, and I for one don’t intend to follow them. If you want to focus your research, by all means do so and send me a copy.
    I am interested in a general way in discontinuities in Earth history, by whatever agency they were caused.

    Cheers,

    Han.

  20. E.P. I must take exception to those you call “cult archeologists.” There are a number of excellent archeologists, such as Dr. Tom Dillehay and Christopher Hardacker, both who have done extremely diligent work in the Americas to do with the dating of very early peoples.Their work has found that the Americas have had people here much earlier than the very conservative, dare I say dogmatic, scientists contend. For the longest time,and I am sure it continues to this day, Dillehay and Hardacker have not been given the time of day by most other archeologists.Let’s be fair, and at least admit there is a healthy debate that must go on here. The ignoring of the early dates reminds me what has gone on for years in regard to the Clube and Napier findings. Once again, this scenario is being played out all over again with oppostion to the comet hypothesis as cause for the Younger Dryas.

  21. Rod, I’ve seen the reviews of Christopher Hardaker’s book on Amazon.com. I’m going to order his book.
    Han.

  22. Hi Han: Yes it is a very good book I think. Though if you read between the lines I think you will see he is a little angry and also frustrated by the mainstream science (understandably so I think).

  23. Rod –

    The issue of early dates for the first peoples in the Americas is entirely separate from cult archaeology.

    “Pole shifts” and absymally bad dating, physics, and archaeology lie at the heart of cult archaeology.

    Asteroid and comet impact studies stand in opposition to cult archaeology, as cult archaeologists make their money promoting “mysteries”, while impact studies end those “mysteries” in a most sudden manner.

    Other natural phenomenon are perfectly acceptable data.

    Leroy knows Velikovsky far better than I do, or ever will. I will just repeat his demonstrated conclusion that Velikovsky was a plagiarist. Comyns Beaumont.

  24. PS – you can email me for a detailed history of today’s cult archaeology industry.

  25. I like V. V is cool. But V is not good for The Tusk and you guys are are fighting the last war. Contribute new information and links — do not analyze the recent past of studying the recent past.

    PS. I will do a V blog soon enough and we can have a good run there.

  26. Rod, book in hand. Reading now when I get my glasses and my wife lets me before before bed.

  27. E.P. — thanks for pumping The Tusk around the net. Nice hits today from the DG. A favorite of mine as well.

  28. Han, relax and breath deeply. These guys do not know you have a tube in your throat. Don’t let them get you riled up about Velikovsky. I personally would like to hear about your encounters with Catastrophist geology in your travels around the world.

  29. George, I have made it clear to E.P. that I have opinions of my own, and that nobody should try to bully me into an exclusive impact paradigm. And then he just repeats what he has said in his previous message, making it worse with errors of concordance (“phenomenon are”)and of philosophy (“natural” which has a different meaning in different paradigms). This is sterile, a yes!no!yes!no!
    debate.
    V. was erudite and polyglot, and his English, perhaps his 4th or 5th language, was as good as, say, Leroy E.’s – bien étonnés de se trouver ensemble.
    My own (minor) doubts about academic procedures began when I was a student and the professor of geology at Montpellier U. “proved” that I was wrong about a sediment in which I had found foraminifera. He took a tiny sample and washed it as rapidly as he could. That’s the method Rick Firestone is running up against now as used by the adversaries of the-Clovis/Usselo-Horizon-as-an-extinction-layer.
    Researcher bias.
    Han.

  30. I must pass along my apology to you Dr. Grodine. I misuderstood you. I thought you were lumping the likes of Dr. Tom Dillehay and Christopher Hardacker with the fringe element (I aggree there is some) out there. I would love to see something here at the Cosmic Tusk on Dr. Tom Dillehay’s work in South America. Though not directly related to the subject of cosmic impacts, there may be some evidence of times when early people had to abandon their settlements because of very dire conditions, (possibly caused by cosmic impacts).

  31. Rod, Dillehay’s work certainly has something to do with the Alleröd/Younger Dryas boundary. The Usselo/Clovis Horizon was found in Colombia (Van der Hammen Th, Hooghiemstra H, 1995: The El Abra Stadial, a Younger Dryas Equivalent in Colombia .Quatern.Sc.Rev.s 14/9: 841-851), and in Venezuela (see ref.on Cosmic Tusk).
    And in the profiles Dillehay gives of Chile there is also a dark horizon on the to-be-expected stratigraphical level.
    Han.

  32. Han: That is exciting re: an anaomolous layer at the beginning of the Younger Dryas. Any thoughts why the layer would be dark? Is it somewhat like the black mat seen further north? I examined some papers from South America (coastal area) and found some interesting features re early settlements in that region. There was an early fishing village inundated, not once but a number of times. (four). The first of those just happened to be close, or perhaps even coincided with the beginning of the YD. Now the explanation given by the scientstis doing the study was that torrential rsins caused massive mudslides. The times when this region does receive copius rainfall (as it most often dry) is during El Nino events. The problem with that idea is that the El Nino phenomena did not begin, according to Australian proxy till about 5,000 BP. Intrigung to say the least? I did suggest somewhat bravely (hope not foolishly)in my book that a megatsunami possibly linked to a extraterrestrial impact may well have been the cause. Of course very large localized earthquakes, especially those associated with subduction plates (in that region) may also be an explanation. Dr Ted Bryant may be the best person to ask about this? In any case, with more information from South America, perhaps the cause (assuming it was triggered mudslide by either tectonic or extraterrestrial influences) might be revealed.

  33. Rod, the “black mat” of the Clovis Layer was as a term and as a hypothesis introduced by Vance Haynes Jr. in his younger days, when he committed a lot of sins, such as being a proponent of the Clovis-first dogma. But he became a wonderful illustration of the saying that one’s never too old to learn.
    In the “black algal mat” no algues were found, and until the day there are, I don’t believe in the hypothesis.
    What me struck in 2002 when I visited Murray Springs, Arizona, and later when I saw pictures of the layer taken at other N.Amer. sites, was the similarity with the European occurrencies.
    Together with the occurrencies in S.Amer. (Colombia, Venezuela and probably Chile) and in Africa (Egypt and S.Afr.)
    enough to conjecture a world-wide layer.
    My own survey, from the UK to Poland and Belarus, from Denmark to France and Italy, stops at the Russian border, I think only because I don’t read Russian.
    O yes, and there are a few more sites East of the Mediterranean found by Marie-Agnès Courty, which I have to look up.
    Han.

  34. Han: Yes, this is all very exciting material to be sure. The very recent geen layer found by Melissa Scruggs (to be reported in full soon) is also very intriguing. I think too, that if more conclusive evidence could be found along ocean perimeters (boulders etc) much like Dr. Ted Bryant has found and reported in his fine book “Tsunami The Underrated Hazard” (primarily from Australia), the case for cosmic encounters would be strenghtened even more.
    George; Glad you made a start on my book, hope it didn’t cause you to drift off to sleep right at bedtime.

  35. It should be noted that at locations where you find the ‘black mat’, the sedimentary material covering it usually doesn’t represent a significant amount of erosion, or mass movement. That means that many, if not most, of the surfaces which could be considered as co-effected materials of the same atmospheric conditions that the Nano-diamonds formed in, whether just burned, or kicked around a bit, are still in perfectly pristine condition. It also means that a single chronological horizon can be established for almost all of western North America. And that chronology bares no resemblance to the mutual inter assumptive confabulations of uniformitarian theory.

    I’m not sure the world is ready for just how far reaching the upcoming paradigm shift is going to be. But we’re in it. There’s no turning back. And the realization that the world isn’t flat, is pretty ho hum by comparison. Between Firestone, and friends, and Bill Napier, Chuck Lyell must be rolling in his grave.

    The part that I don’t hear sinking yet in is that with Bill Napier’s latest paper specifically proposing in refereed literature that the Taurid Progenitor was the Younger Dryas comet, he changed the game completely. Because he didn’t just give us a convincing astronomical model of the event. We also have a pretty good picture of the physical properties of the thing that did the disastrous deed. And if you can describe a beast, you can predict it’s footprints.

    With Bill Napier joining the fray, YD impact hypothesis has become a fully fledged theory that can successfully predict the planetary scarring. And it isn’t craters.

    What say we take a great big comet, say 50 to 100 km wide, out of the Oort Cloud, or the Kuiper belt, and inject it into the inner solar system. And we park it an elliptical, Earth crossing orbit, and break it up into not so little pieces. Let it make a couple of orbits, and so that tidal forces can break it up completely, and stretch it out into a very long stream of particles, and fragments. Our average fragment size is about the size of the Tunguska object. But they range all the way from more than a half mile wide, down to clouds or dust.

    We’ll bring it in from the south at a low angle. And about 30 km/sec. The first fragments to hit will produce temps well over 100,000 degrees C. And they are just cheerleaders, twirling batons in front of a parade. The rest fall into already superheated impact plasma, and just crank up the heat, and pressure. In this way, almost 100% of the kinetic energy gets translated to heat, and pressure. And that heat, and pressure, hit’s the ground as an almost continuous supersonic stream of completely ionized, thermal impact plasma, hotter than the surface sun.

    In just a few minutes, I bet we could sterilize the lush, African Savanna, and make it look just like central Mexico , and the American Southwest.

  36. Dennis Cox blog, plain text, with images of samples of magnetic black glaze on melt rocks from 13 Ka ice comet fragment extreme plasma storm geoablation in Fresno, California: Rich Murray 2010.07.02
    http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.htm
    Friday, July 2, 2010
    [ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/53

    Since November, 2008, I’ve found many sites within 160 km of Santa Fe, New Mexico with similar features, including red-brown sandstone, white-pink granite, lava, and other surface bedrocks, popular as 1 m size parking lot decorations, with ubiquitous black and redbrown surface glazes up to 1 cm thickness, as well as many rocks with white surface coatings.

    Common are rounded, often broken, quartz rocks from 2 to 25 cm size with softened and melted surface layers, often with a light yellow color — I imagine quartz rocks suddenly heated and cooled, like glass, will store internal stresses from thermal contraction that cause them to easily and even explosively fragment — a hazard well known to glassblowers.

    Sun Mountain
    35.659284 -105.912294 2.421 km el, about .191 km rise,
    S of St. John’s College, parking lot 2.230 km el

    Sun Mountain just SE of St. John’s College, on its NW slope, below the summit, has many intersecting cracks in the white-pink granite bedrock, about 10 cm thick, about 1 m apart, filled with irregularly crystalized quartz — I imagine that the extreme pressure plasma impact may have opened cracks that were filled the next moment by melted quartz — there are many smaller rocks with similar filled cracks of various colors.

    Two Mile Reservoir
    35.689440 -105.894726 2 miles E of Plaza, E of end of Cerro Gordo Road against Upper Canyon Road, the Santa Fe River, a 0.13 km long pond left over from a drained reservoir for hydroelectric power.

    The top to the N is 2.259 km el, 21 m above the pond’s 2.238 km elevation.
    The steep rise to the NW of the pond has a good walking path along a 1 m high aluminum wall, giving easy access to many kinds of blasted, broken and glazed rocks in this public park.

    http://craterhunter.wordpress.com/the-planetary-scaring-of-the-younger-dryas-impact-event/california-melt/
    [ many fine color photos on this article — this plain text copy has been mildly edited, nothing taken out, to fix minor typos and add spacing to increase readability ]… more

  37. Full screen view of Rogelio D Acevedo at top rim edge of large crater, Bajada del Diablo, Argentina: National Geographic Blogwild, Ami Bucci 2009.09.11: Rich Murray 2010.03.28
    http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/blogwild/2009/09/mega-meteorite-mystery.html

    [ you may have to copy and paste these URLs into your
    browser, or just highlight and then click on the URLs, as
    this is a plain text document ]

    http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/blogwild/2009/09/mega-meteorite-mystery.html

    3 images — within the blog article, right click each photo to Save, or select, Open in a new window, to access larger
    views, which can also be right clicked to Save

    two men, dark green and dark red pants, by far edge of flat
    center of crater, with broken dark rocks, up to 2 m size,
    with higher crater rim of lighter rocks
    608 x 456 – 139k – jpg

    full screen view of Rogelio Acevedo [ dark green pants ]
    at top rim edge of large crater, with dark flat center behind
    and below him, then the less high opposite crater rim of
    lighter color rock, curving around behind him on the right side of the view, with view across plain to far mountains [ south ? ]
    — at his feet the rocks are about .3 to 2 m size and “volcanic”, blue-black mixed with red

    very large full screen view of man with red pants with metal
    detector at edge of flat crater center of dark gravel-like
    pebbles, this side of the crater rim with a variety of sizes and types of “volcanic” dark, red, grey, and white rocks, mixed jagged and rounded

    September 11, 2009 4:22 PM
    Megameteorite Mystery
    Posted by Amy Bucci — Blogwild Contributor

    National Geographic staffer Fabio Amador shared some news
    about one of our National Geographic Society/Waitt grantees,
    Rogelio Acevedo, a geologist from the Centro Austral de
    Investiggaciones Cientificas in Argentina. [ in green pants ].

    In a remote region of Patagonia, enormous craters measuring
    up to 500 meters wide and 50 meters in depth could be
    evidence to a bombardment of meteorites.
    This meteoroid impact field, the largest in the southern
    hemisphere, is of extreme interest for Dr. Acevedo.
    This site, call Bajada del Diablo or Devil’s Descent, contains more than one hundred impact craters spread over 400
    square kilometers.

    Curiously, no meteorites have ever been found, but Acevedo
    and his team will be traveling there this October in hopes to
    solve the mystery by studying petrographic and mineralogic
    marks on the rocks.

    ground views of over 100 .1-.5 km shallow (ice comet fragment bursts) craters, Bajada del Diablo, Argentina (.78-.13 Ma BP) [42.87 S 67.47 W] Rogelio D Acevedo et al, Geomorphology 2009 Sept: Rich Murray 2010.03.28
    http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.htm
    Saturday, March 27, 2010
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/47

  38. As a confirmed catastrophist, may I provide some helpful resources that may shed some light on various topics raised in this manifesto?

    The first addresses the crisis of understanding what the term ‘uniformitarianism’ actually means by those that subscribe to it:

    The second deals with the peer review issue:

    I chuckle at the way this group glibly discusses the reality of a 12.9 ka event in the same way that true uniformitarians speak of billions of years of earth’s history. And for the same reason: uncritical acceptance of radiometric data. Everything seems to work out fine as long as nothing unusual of a global extent affected the factors contributing to radiometric data (the essence of uniformity). But IF something like a relatively short, intense period of global volcanism occurred just 5500 years ago, that would throw off all (carbon-14) radiometric dates for organic materials much older than about 5000 years.

    Don’t get me wrong. I fully support the idea of cosmic impacts in recent times. The geologic evidence is all over the world in the form of 170+/- impact features, and these don’t include the evidences for comet detonations in the atmosphere. It is just that my time-frame is telescoped into a period less than half the age of what you guys are dealing with. And except for the occasional rogue comet, probably most impacts occurred within a few months or even weeks of each other during a meteor swarm that affected the entire solar system about 5500 years ago.

    I realize this post will just be shrugged off as the unwanted ramblings of a young-earth creationist (sorry George, but I couldn’t resist), but if you are truly interested in developing a coherent geological, biological, and anthropological model based on recent impacts, you might find that a catastrophic global Flood model may be very helpful.

    Terry Egolf
    Greenville, SC, USA

  39. I’m obviously not a html guy. Sorry about the links in the last post. Perhaps George can fix them, or delete the post in its entirety if he wishes.

    Terry

  40. Rich, there may not be any meteorites there. There weren’t any at Tunguska. But airbursts should never the less produce a significant enrichment of siderophile elements Ni, Co, Cr, etc. And there is also the potential for extreme thermal effects, and burnt facies.

    While your on your road trip Ed, If you want see a few new craters, or airburst burns, these places might be worth a closer look.

    31.347399, -105.364137
    30.941671, -104.531153
    35.135053, -104.747908
    33.861993, -106.000411
    33.710195, -105.329311
    33.169739, -104.301552
    34.364134, -104.995863
    35.161413, -104.700073

  41. Hans,

    This comment of yours struck me as worthy of comment, more than all then others of yours and everyone else’s:

    —“Only after 1860 the division into academic consensus and “lunatic fringe” was created by the dogmatism of the academics, a dichotomy similar to the medieval one into orthodoxy and heresis.—

    Yes, by 1860, they had begun to think of themselves as the winners. Once they got the feel for being on top (they’d been underdogs to the Church for oh so many decades), the realization kicked in, and so did the hubris – “Hey! We get to lay down the dogma now!”

    So, academia bequeathed itself pews, complete with kneeling rails, and the cloistering began in full force.

    As to this one in your post,
    “This schism pitted against each other, sometimes violently, academic geology (and biology, archaeology, history, mythology) and the so-called lunatic fringe, marginalised by the uniformitarian establishment – Atlantologists, pole-shifters, Velikovskians, Theosophists, etc.”

    Yes, the idea of “We are the bishops now,” took over. And just like the christians did in AD 325 at Nicea, anything disagreeable was simply declared “loony bin” heresy. That way they didn’t even have to reply to them. One of sciences most ridiculous efforts is when a scientist actually DOES address something contradictory. Without reading or investigating the phenomena, concept or evidence, a complete conjectural speculation is blurted out ad hoc, with a smirk, after which the “scientist” turns on his heel and walks out, considering the matter dispensed with.

    I’ve advocated that the Atlantologists and Velikovskians – and especially poleshifters – simply ignore the academics and start their own peer review, evolving their own standards. They have their own publications already, most of which have 5 times the circulation of any of the academic ones. The only danger in peer review is what you refer to as “censorship.” One would hope that that would not become major for many decades – but better our reviewers than theirs.

    But on that note, you point out 1700 as a demarcation. It was only a few handfuls of years before that that the Royal Society conclaved. Perhaps that also had something to do with the energy of Leibniz’ homogenization. I am certain he was aware of it and was influenced by its ethos.

    On that note, the Royal Society WAS behind my thinking about the lunatic fringe simply flipping the bird to the dogmatists of our day, like the Royal Society did to the Church.

    So maybe it is just as well that everyone ignored my suggestion. Otherwise someone 300 years from now will be writing about how silly all the dogmatic catastrophists are, in their Medici and Maori gowns at baccalaureate events – after all, it will have been 150 years since the last major impact; all that End of the World stuff is getting rather Noachite.

  42. Hello Steve,
    On the 1860 cultural reversal I find amazingly little literature, perhaps because those who took power then at the universities are still in charge. I compare it to reversals in politics, the bad ones. The French Revolution became the Terreur, Marxism became Stalinism. Freedom fighters tend to become tyrants when in power.
    A good term for it I only found in French, in the novel Le Roi des Aulnes by the philosopher-writer Michel Tournier, who used it mostly for changes in the lives of persons. He called it Inversion Maligne. It is not a regression or a decadence or a downfall, but the blooming of a promising-looking budd into a big stinking flower. An ethical downfall, yes, – the participants loose their moral integrity.
    That is what happened in 1860, the empiricists of the Romantic era lost out against the rationalists (positivist à la Auguste Comte, materialists à la Leopold Büchner), who fenced in the field in which we were allowed to do research.

    Better not institute an “own peer review” system! Unless it is done with open visor, not anonymous like the hooded judges of the Holy Inquisition.
    And for the periodicals there should be a Freedom of Information Act, with free enquiry into the archieves, for the benefit of future historians of science. At the moment, a reviewer can tear apart a MS just because he/she dislikes the author. That’s not theoretical, it has happened to me twice, once in a Brazilian and once in a US scientific periodical.

    Gr.,

    Han.

    The 1700 demarcation – I’d say the last decade of the 17th century, with a great geological activity, but we had to wait another century for stratigraphic superposition to become firmly established by William Smith.
    Descriptions of the Earth before that, whether by Leibniz or by Kirchner, are hardly understandable to us.

    We don’t have to wait 300 years for dogmatic catastrophists. At least dogmatic impactists are here already, whereas there are other hypotheses around, launched by LaViolette, Topping, Warlow, Flodmark.

  43. Han –

    Somehow I never saw your comment here on this thread until now – 2-1/2 years later. Many apologies. Let’s see if I can make a proper response after all this time…

    Your comparisons to Le Terreur and Stalinism I would agree with in spirit, certainly. It is definitely common for those not really used to being in power to be insecure about keeping it. Many a 3rd world martinet has gone down that road. Perhaps when they took over from the church they should have planted cardinals and bishops at the top – someone used to having such lofty positions – in order to let themselves keep on with doing science.

    I myself have seen it so much in various areas that I expect it. I refer to it as “Institutional Think.” It happens in pretty much every organization – where the bureaucratic types gravitate toward the administration end of things, and then they take on the idea that the life of the institution is more important than its original purpose or its people. The new purpose for them is the defense of the life of the institution. In this case, the real scientists are repelled by the Institution Think mentality and avoid participation in its activities, though joining to have the membership on their CVs.

    I arrived at a truism eventually: All institutions are destructive of the individual.

    That doesn’t mean that all individuals get their life sucked out of them, but that certain things transpire: If they participate beyond a certain level they will become imbued with Institutional Think, too. Also, the Institutional Thinkers will do everything in their powers to destroy any individuals who show any moxie. (Think Stalin, if on a somewhat less physical destruction level; he destroyed anyone who he even thought was a threat. The normal thinking about Stalin is that it was all about HIM. I maintain that he identified with the institution so much that he couldn’t tell the difference between himself and it. Functionally it is the same thing, but what is most fundamental is that it functions the same way, with the differences being only a matter of degree.) The Institutional Thinkers get to the point where they exist only as organs of the institution itself, losing their own separate selves and ambitions: all their ambitions become ones on behalf of the institution itself.

    About open peer review – it would also devolve into an institution. To fight an institution with another institution means that in one or two decades nothing will be different.

    It is often said that all organizations have within them, at their inception, the seeds of their own destruction. I would maintain that those seeds are Institutional Think itself, which leads to the destructive qualities which later on will need to be extricated.

    When I go to look at some (often publicly funded) research paper, and I see Springer or Elsevier listed as the publishers, I see institutional parasitism. Just like Halliburton in the Iraq wars, there are those who will step in and ingratiate themselves enough to create a symbiotic relationship with the universities (themselves institutions, of course) or the military (institution^2). Thus an industry is born.

    In the case of science the paywall becomes a barrier to free exchange of ideas. No doubt academics want that, so they can imagine themselves on an altar, separate from and superior to the lay person. In reality, there is no harm done if a citizen reads an academic paper. After all, they usually paid for the studies, and should own the studies. And the grants should, in themselves, include the cost of publishing the papers; it is amazing that the grants don’t.

    In this world of ubiquitous privatization it may be heresy, but it seems that the government itself should be about as fair a publisher as any; since its money paid for the studies, they should have first right of publishing. Why the journals themselves don’t act as the publishers in all cases I do not understand. Springer is not itself a journal, is it? NO, not according to their site. They only claim to be a publisher, not a journal.

    End of rant.

    Once more, apologies for not responding long ago…

  44. Now he shares the secret to his effective regimen with readers like you.
    This is the result of Co – Q-10 because it increases production of energy
    in the hearts cells and slows the development of blood clots and slows the progression of atherosclerosis.
    An additional benefit would be that the diet
    program is an excellent source of fiber.

    Here is my homepage: kondenstrockner angebote

  45. Sorry, folks. Ive cleaned up a bit and will have the integrity of the filter (akismet) checked. Have new help now from company web folks and plan several upgrades, including a wiki. Promise to crank up the post engine in the next week as well. Thanks for your patience.

  46. Heh.

    First, this isn’t spam, so please don’t delete my comment. (Well, OK, go ahead and delete it if you want!)

    (Dr?) Kloosterman’s final Manifesto paragraph is the same lament that young-earth creationists could claim, word for word. The difference is, we don’t expect anything less. Science is paradigmatic, and only one paradigm can exist to govern the practice of science. Anything else, and you have a schizophrenic model of the world. The current natualistic, gradualistic paradigm is the relative newcomer on the scene and it’s broken.

    My only amendment to Kloosterman’s otherwise excellent paper is replacing references to early “Christians” and “Christianity” with “Romanists” and “Romanism” (another “instution^2”–thanks Steve G.). Modern Bible-believing Christians (without any other modifying adjectives) consider Romanism to be cultic and the source of many evils in Western culture.

    I have been impressed with the body of accumulating evidence for historically recent impacts that you folks are amassing, as evidenced on this site. Keep up the good work. This is the stuff that paradigm shifts begin with, if history is any judge.

    Terry

  47. Hello Terry, you ask me if I am a Dr? I am, 1959, Utrecht U., on a palaeovulcanological thesis. But why do you want to know, it’s arguments that count. A benefit of my thesis work is that I did much heavy-mineral microscopy, so people consider me now a living fossil. They are wrong, it continues to be a benefit.

    The lament of the last paragraph I intend to delete someday. My excuse for including it is that I’ve had an exceptional amount of flak coming my way, and I never got quite
    accustomed to it. Each time I’m shocked by the level of agressiveness of the well-conditioned.

    What do you mean by Romanists, Roman Catholics? I consider ALL christians to be cultists and the source of many evils. It’s the religion of massacres, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, auto-da-fe’s, pogroms. And Calvin also burnt people alive. How decent of the nazis, in comparison, to kill people before burning them. I harbour a healthy dosis of anticlericalism and antipopism.
    Thank God.
    Amen.
    Yours, Han.

  48. how very german of you!

    It seems maybe you have never personally listened to a jew who was tattoo’d and survived Auswitz and a few other camps..
    Obviously you have not seen the tears of a man who as a young child was forced at gun point to throw almost dead Jews into the furnaces and hear them scream. and I heard the conflict in his soul that he now wished he would have chosen to be shot.
    I have !

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

  49. Add the word EVEN to what I said: Even the nazis were less cruel, they killed their victims before burning them. Perhaps, then, even people with chicken brains will be able to understand what I mean.
    And what, pray, has that to do with geology? Quite a bit. People, and whole groups, can be induced to believe in perfect nonsense, by some process of mass suggestion. That’s what happened in Germany in the 1930s, and it happened around 1860 in western universities, when Positivism took over and started to repress all other ways of thinking.

    And now, Chicken, do me a favour and don’t send me another message.
    Over and out.

  50. You guys a are pitiful. We wait years for solid confirmation of our beliefs, and you bicker on a four year old post!

    Sigh.

  51. George, during the 6 (not 4) post-Post years, I have not been waiting for confirmation. I have gone out to get it, going some 25 times to Usselo exposures and possible ones.
    That’s not pitiful – what do YOU prefer to do when you’ll have my age, just watch TV?

    Cheers, Han

  52. George, I gotta disagree with you on that. People’s minds go where they go, and if there is valid contribution to be made on recent or distant past, it’s all good. I learn from all – including what Han pointed to – Positivism – which I find a ludicrous and pompous a** position to take by scientists.

    And I wanna get my 2 cents in on this, too. I can juggle recent and non-recent and comment on both. Just like the YDB is multidisciplinary, what is learned in one area can help thinking in another.

    Han: “People, and whole groups, can be induced to believe in perfect nonsense… and it happened around 1860 in western universities, when Positivism took over and started to repress all other ways of thinking.”

    [wiki] Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that information derived from logical [???] and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge, and that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge.

    Wow, that is absurd. There is no knowledge in logical treatments; there are only opinions/speculations/hypotheses from logical treatments. Until supported by empirical evidence and predictive capabilities, nothing logical has any validity at all, except perhaps as a guide to other – real – evidence. Obviously, they meant THEIR logic, not any other kind or from any other sources. (I am dealing with this elsewhere, so this is timely for me.)

    With that and the math part of that, now I see where the academics get the idea that output from computer models are actually facts.

    They’ve reinterpreted scientific thought into a twisted parody of itself.

    No WONDER Richard Feynman was able to so easily outdistance so many people – maybe he didn’t have much competition. His solid approach to the scientific method garnered many insights that made good predictions.

    With all due respect to Wally Broeker, his oceanic conveyor has missed on its predictions, which SHOULD have made people suspect it was wrong. But instead they tried to crowbar it in, in other ways. It is remarkable and courageous of him to have supported the research on this

  53. Steve, the positivism I know is that of Auguste Comte, who in the 1850s wanted to build temples for the adoration of Reason.
    I consider that there started to appear serious cracks in the walls of Comte’s temple in the hippie time, especially in the 1970’s, with the appearance of an abundance of books on countercultural subjects. Before that, there were heard only a few protest voices – William James, Henri Bergson, Andrew Lang.
    Meanwhile, there existed a flourishing occult movement, notorious for its lack of criticism, which was brought to a more scientific approach by the London Soc. of Psychic Research (1883), and in the XXth century by parapsychology departments of universities.
    But the change of paradigm had been in the making since the advent of quantum physics, which led to the discovery of Entanglement, first of particles (proved by Alain Aspect in the 1980s) but then in the decade following 2000, also of macroscopic materials.
    That’s pure magic!
    No wonder that the interest in shamanism, a few decades ago has risen sharply.

    Please note the parallel development, from their rise to power to their latterday agonising, of positivism and uniformitarianism.

    Greetings, Han.

  54. Steve,
    (your message dated 23 June 2013)
    My experience is in mining companies, so I enlarge your Institutions into Hierarchical Organisations. My best recollections are from when I worked in small companies, directly or almost directly under the owners. These are after success for their company, and you know what you are expected to do: work, and work well. However, when working in a bigger company, just somewhere in the hierarchical pyramid, I found that I had to do what was good for the career of my direct chief. So, if that chief was a nice sort of fellow (it has happened to me) things were OK for some time. But then, if he was a psychopath (it has happened to me) I used to react, and had to switch companies – again.
    The psychopaths’ rise in hierarchies is well described in Snakes in Suits – when psychopaths go to work (Babiak/Hare, 2006).
    If you have some pride in doing a good job, better don’t get involved in a hierachical organisation. Of course, I didn’t know that, half a century ago.
    But also, it is an opportunity to learn a lot – if you survive.
    Greetings, Han
    PS. I survived.

  55. Han –

    Oh, I CERTAINLY included hierarchical organizations in my “institutions,” but you won’t see me capitalizing the term…LOL

    Your experiences I know well – which is why my career was done in “engineering temp” work for over 25 years. I found I was immune to the office politics of the psychopathic bosses and neurotic ones and insecure ones – plus Peter Principle ones. ALL of those were my clue to leave, and I often did, on my own terms. All of them were opportunities to learn, yes.

    Leaving is a way to keep your sanity, your integrity, and to keep your self-sufficiency intact. Moving around from time to time also gives a chance to learn USEFUL and technical things, too. I’ve also had functional people give me $10/hour raises on the first day, because they learned the value of having someone – FINALLY – who was capable and not a bullsh** artist.

    Yes, this is off topic here on CT, but not nearly as much as religion is off topic.

    When I say “religion” I mean current religion, not what some arkies think was religion among the first peoples. The arkies label anything they don’t understand as ceremonial, ritual, or religious. The arkies also translate AWAY from impact eyewitness accounts – turning comets or meteors into gods and goddesses, which not only distorts the past, but it also distorts the present, because it gives us in the present a sense that civilization has been a one-time incline, out of the muck, out of the trees, out of the caves, out from under the heels of priests, out of ignorance. Instead, the past has been interrupted and “cataclysm-ed” back into caves, back under the heels of priests many of whom who took advantage of the disasters, telling the newly stupid, newly un-infrastructured population that it was “god’s will” and “god’s retribution”. And with such parasites as those priests in SOME places in the past, the arkies have consistently assumed that it was true everywhere.

    So when a government scribe thousands of years ago wrote down that the Milky Way “rose up”, until “the gods stopped it from rising further,” (at least in the arkie translations) we have to ask what really happened? We can be sure the arkie got it wrong, but what can we do beyond just being a nay-sayer to their take on it?

    Principle #1: The arkies got it wrong.

    Principle #2: People of the past had brains as big as ours and were not stupid.

    Principle #3: People of the past were every bit as practical as we are today – perhaps more, since they were not as insulated from nature as we are. When your family’s lives depend on practical solutions, people go in practical directions.

    Principle #4: People of the past were no more gullible than people of the present – perhaps even less so, since they were almost certainly more practical than we are today.

    Principle #5: Go to the most original source you can.

    Principle #6: For each word, look at all the alternative translations – the ones the arkie did NOT pick. In THOSE somewhere is the real account, if one can string together alternative terms that make some sense in a practical world sense – not in the magical, gullible, mumbo-jumbo world the arkies think the people of the past lived in.

    Basically, we not only have to try to understand the original account (which may or may not have an agenda), but then we have to grope past or through the arkie “concept intervention” and try to see what it is they mealy-mouthed their way around to crowbar the story into their silly ideas of the past.

    That is the only place for religion in the inquiry into impacts. We have to ASSUME as a basic principle that anywhere the term “gods” or “heavens” comes into the accounts, it means real “objects” in the “sky.”

    We don’t have to include Creationist or ID ideas or chicken little spoutings. We don’t have to include anything from the Book of Revelations, nor from Ezekiel or Isaiah – unless someone can show how the Bible translators got a verse WRONG. We have to assume that the 16th century or 19th century translators were the stupid ones – but maybe use their stupidities to our advantage.

    *****
    It is brave and honest of George to allow chicken little to spot here, but CL has long taken advantage of George’s good nature.

    Notice how everyone else here uses their real names, but CL still hides behind an AKA? What FOR? On an impact blog, CL thinks he needs an alias? We don’t even know who the hell we are talking to.

  56. Steve, if the Milky Way rose up, there must have happened something unexpected to planet Earth.
    Poleshift, they call it erroneously, a subject dear to the fringe. In reality, it is the tippetop movement, as described by physicists Peter Warlow (London) and Stig Flodmark (Stockholm). Warlow was a Velikovskian, whereas Flodmark did away with the Velikovskian deus-ex-machina.
    The hunter-gatherers tell that story, on all continents minus Antarctica.

    The late Pleistocene and the Holocene were interrupted again and again by global disasters, not recognised by the mythologists because they believe the uniformitarian
    geologists.

    The ID people give some valid arguments against Darwinism, but I’ll never understand what that has to do with christendom.

    In the books of Ezekiel and Isaiah I find some interesting tidbits, which must date back to a time when the old Hebrews were hunter-gatherers.

    And before that, there was obviously an antediluvian technological culture.
    I find indicatians everywhere.

    Han

  57. Hello Barry,
    thanks for your article.
    I think each extinction event might be quite different from another. I started working on the end-Pleistocene event when I read about Wendy Wolbach finding soot in the K-T boundary layer.
    But now I find in Usselo exposures in the Netherlands a thin layer of peat on top of the Usselo Layer. So, the bitter cold of the Dryas III cannot have started immediately. This peat occurs in 3 out of 7 exposures.
    Much work will have to be done, by the others, for I am an old man.
    And I have found no palynologist willing to investigate. What, if the pollen in this layer correlates with that of the Alleroed type locality in Denmark? Then everything should be done anew, and reinterpreted.

    Greetings,

    Han

  58. Han, do not be sad with the amount of effort you have to do to defend his point of view against those who attack you, but they have little knowledge.
    This blog should be only of a scientific nature, do not you think?

  59. Han, I’ll be in touch to bring you good news.
    Cast my website with the discovery awaited.
    The Dr.Diogenes Campos, Rio de Janeiro, had already read it.
    You will see that uniformitarianism is nothing more than the recovery of almost uniformitarian Earth that was the target of a super-catastrophe.
    Fernandes-Moça
    Rio de Janeiro 10/12/2013

  60. Dr. Han, have you ever noticed that the earth is only 30 % ( 151 million km2 ) of the original continental crust or with more than 44 km thick , and the remaining 70 % or oceanic crust ( 5 km thick) are just compounds basalt, the upper mantle solidified , the ? Where are the 70 % of the original crust ?

  61. Alo’Fernandes Moc,a,

    Please be more specific about your website, then I’ll try again to find it.

    Is Diogenes the Diogenes I know? Palaeontologist of the Ac.Sc., heavy-set, old.

    Most certainly I know about the “Australian School”, the expanding-Earth paradigm.
    Very interesting.

    Abr.,

    Han

  62. Alo’Dr. Kloosterman,

    the Dr.Diogenes is a paleontologist at ABC Brazilian Academy of Sciences.

    The theory is not the “expanding-Earth” because the laws of thermodynamics do not permit.

    I already launch the theory in a book with ISBN to ensure priority. When I to launch the theory through a website, I will inform you.

    I want to talk you, more.
    I will send a book for you.
    Contact me.
    My email: [email protected]
    Skype: JMFERNANDESMOCA
    Abr.,
    Rio de Janeiro
    Fernandes-Môça,J.M.

  63. Pierson, the best-known Earth-expander is Samuel Warren Carey (1911-2002), and his successor is James Maxlow (1949 – ). but there are more of them, forming a school of dissidents, against Plate Tectonics theory.

    H.

  64. If you’d met me yesterday, and we’d talked about the history of geology, I’d affirmed, as usual, that the only readable books on the subject are written by Richard Huggett, geomorphologist of Manchester U.
    Other books on the subject are written by uniformitarians, and full of nonsense. More correctly: the other books which I have rapidly looked through.
    Huggett:
    1997; Catastrophism – Asteroids, Comets, and other Dynamic events in Earth History
    1998: Cataclysms and Earth History.
    2000: Catastrophism – Killer Asteroids and the Making of the Natural World.

    Today however I stumbled (on the Net) on an essay by Davis A.Young
    adapted from his book The Biblical Flood. He has done an enormous amount of reading, he is absolutely an authority on the history of geology, especially Flood Geology, which he criticizes. He is a Christian, non-fundamentalist, and in favour of local floods.
    I very much disagree with him, I am anticlerical and a global-diluvialist, but I recommend him because he has done an admirable work in consulting the written sources of the controversy that developed between orthodox Christians and geologists since about 1700.

  65. Guys, you’ve got to stick more closely with mainline science! Plate tectonics is too well understood to be dismissed. If the continents fit together this is simply because they first broke up (from cosmic body impacts, not plumes), as we see happening along the East Africa rift zone today: when you break a dinner plate the pieces will still fit together — almost.

    What the great mainline scientist Albert Einstein wrote to Dr. Velikovsky (who had four PhDs and was no dummy) might be repeated to Earth expanders: “Every expert will react with a smile or with anger—according to his temperament; he notices that you know these things only from hearsay — and do not understand them in the real sense. ”

  66. V. had four doctorates, I know that from Steve G.s emails, an MD and three PhDs, not four, I suppose.

  67. Hermann, sticking to mainline science?? That’s what I did when a U.student! Never more!

    Einstein, when visiting Rio de Janeiro in 1925, was invited for lunch at the home of a Brazilian physician. After lunch, on the veranda, Einstein sat down on the Amerindian-model hammock hanging there, and fell on his behind on the floor on the opposite site of the hammock.
    The design of that hammock is based on the ellipsoid, and any child in N. and N.W.Brazil knows that you’ve got to open the hammock first, then sit down on the central part, before stretching yourself out in the diagonal of the hammock.

    But Einstein’s greatest mistake in my view is that he didn’t check any paper written by Ting Ying Ma, professor of geology at Hainan U, before he wrote a foreword to Hapgood’s book On the Earth’s “shifting crust”. O yes, HE should have stuck more closely to mainline science!

  68. Hermann, for the time being I don’t believe a word of that story
    of Velikovsky’s 4 doctorates. I don’t think he was THAT crazy.

  69. From what I find, he studied medicine & psychiatry at several several, quite a few, universities. In 1921 at Moscow University he earned a магистра медицины. This was during his recovery from being shot in the course of the revolution. He is credited with helping a fledgling Hebrew University in Jerusalem by publishing (at his father’s expense) Scripta Universitatis Atque Bibliothecae Hierosolymitanarum.

  70. Actually, Hermann, I am going to back off the 4 doctorates thing. My sources from long ago I can’t recall, and the places I’ve looked since you asked – I can only find an MD and Psychiatry.

    Sorry folks, my old source was wrong.

    My bad.

  71. Hapgood’s book had as its premise that an off-kilter Antarctic ice cap could have enough “throw” to carry the crust under it as it tried to move toward the equator. It was an idea worth looking into, but his mathematician let him down, IMHO. The idea was not tenable in the end, but worthy of consideration.

  72. Being as how it is Christmas, it is time for me to say something nice about Dave Morrison.

    One of the finest things that he did in his career was exposing Velikovsky’s nonsense, and doing his best to put a stop to it.

    In that, he was joined by astronomer H. Shapely, an expert on impact.

    It is too bad that Velikovsky wasted the time of both of them, and confused so many people.

    Yes, Han, there will be a growth layer over the impactite layer. One which ends 1,000 years or so later.
    Hermann, have you ever worked out the mass of the Moon?

  73. One of the finest things Velikovsky did in his career was exposing the uniformitarian nonsense.
    What was his role or influence in the K-T discoveries? Did these become possible because pa Alvarez, being a physicist, had not been conditionned in uniformitarian dogmas, or because son Alvarez when working for his PhD under Harry Hess had become acquainted with Velikovskian catastrophism?
    Hess, not a Velikovskian, was the only geologist who said that Vel. should be granted a hearing, and he organised a Vel. workshop.
    Son Alvarez doesn’t mention that in his Tyrannosaurus book.
    Did he participate in the workshop?

  74. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indonesia-cave-reveals-history-of-ancient-tsunamis/2013/12/24/42484ba8-6c67-11e3-a5d0-6f31cd74f760_story.html

    if you believe their time tables then they may be proving huge events in recorded history .. maybe..
    which I tend to think they are close when the closer to now that the date is . because they don’t know the laws in effect of anything really profoundly cosmic yet. and sand deposits and bat guano in a Tsunami probably have less laws involved that might get altered by unknown higher laws.. than say radio active carbon/ any kind of radioactivity would in a cosmic event.

  75. As usual on this, Ed is talking second-hand, having never read a word of Velikovsky and taking other people’s word for any and all of it. Shapley – NOT Shapely – (who also never read a word of Velikovsky) – was the goon who went all political instead of addressing the science, and was responsible for the Velikosky Affair by extorting MacMillan Publishing. All Shapley had to do was write a paper refuting it. Because he chose the nuclear potion, we are all still talking about it 63 years later.

    Ed: “In that, he [Morrison] was joined by astronomer H. Shapely, an expert on impact.” NOT EVEN CLOSE, on either point.

    Ed, you totally have your generations mixed up. Morrison was all of 10 years old when Shapley abused Velikovsky and extorted the publishers. Shapley was near retirement.

    And Morrison not only was not “joined with” Shapley against anyone, but Shapley’s research career was mainly on galactic and extragalactic subjects, but he also helped found the science of astrobiology; his work helped define the size of the Milky Way and determine the location of Earth along one arm of the galaxy.

    So wrong on both counts.

    As to Ed’s probable attitude that no scientists of any kind found Velikovsky’s work untenable, well-known and well-respected geologist Harry Hess, who was chairman of the Department of Geology at Princeton, wrote in an open letter to Velikovsky in 1963, “Some of these predictions were said to be impossible when you made them. All of them were predicted long before proof that they were correct came to hand. Conversely, I do not know of any specific prediction you made that has since been proven to be false. I suspect the merit lies in that you have a good basic background in the natural sciences and you are quite uninhibited by the prejudices and probability taboos which confine the thinking of most of us.”

  76. I take none of Velikovsky’s astronomy seriously myself (with one caveat following). I focus on the evidence of catastrophe that is on the surface. For impacts we don’t need more than that solid and semisolid bodies are out there and will be out there for billions of years after we here are gone.

    The only issue about his astronomy that I agree should be addressed seriously is the role of electromagnetism. He NAILED several things in his predictions, and those predictions were ridiculed – but they came true. It is simply foolishness to pretend that such a potent force as electromagnetism is sitting by idly while a terrifically weak force, gravity, is given all the credit for all celestial mechanics. I mean, were those guys educated in a barn? Even if they can’t see it in there, they really need to start looking someday. It’s there.

    Brian Greene: “Brian Greene in ‘The Elegant Universe’ makes the following assertion: (For two electrons close together) “Their mutual gravitational attraction will favour their getting closer while their electromagnetic repulsion will try to drive them apart. Which is stronger? There is no contest: The electromagnetic repulsion is about a million billion billion billion billion (10^42) times stronger!”

    Somewhere in there electromagnetism has to play some role. If the equations that currently work so well (but not flawlessly) don’t currently SEEM to include electromagnetism, then it is probably hidden in the constants. But electromagnetism surely is not pretending to not exist, hiding behind neutrons or quarks.

    If only 1^-42 of the positive of negative electromagnetic force somehow leaks across, that would explain gravity, or if the two charges are unbalanced by that much, that would equal the gravity force – and all sides would be happy. But physicists and astronomers are insistent that the insignificant gravity force is the end all and be all of the universe, which is just unbelievably ludicrous. That’s simply not something I can agree on, no matter how certain they are.

  77. Steve, and not even the predictions that come true prove necessarily something about the premises upon which they were built. We decidedly live in a world created by a Trickster God.
    Three or four of Velikovsky’s predictions came true, and also the Moons of Mars described by Jonathan Swift, some 150ys before they were discovered.
    That’s common knowledge, but I found another one myself.

    I was educated in the 1930s with the mythology of Rupert Bear (my mother’s choice of bedtime story, and how grateful I am!).
    In those stories figures a wise goat doing her research partly in books, and partly on the Internet. That was back in the 1920s.

    If you don’t believe it, look on Images with rupert, “wise old goat”, and “michel snoeck”

    A few ys later I started to make my own choices, Sonnleitner, the Cave Children in the Secret Valley, and William Long’s nature stories and his life in the Canadian forests.
    When my children were young, I found Thorgal, but I also found old issued of Rupert Bear.

  78. Steve G,

    This passage:

    Principle #1: The arkies got it wrong.

    Principle #2: People of the past had brains as big as ours and were not stupid.

    Principle #3: People of the past were every bit as practical as we are today – perhaps more, since they were not as insulated from nature as we are. When your family’s lives depend on practical solutions, people go in practical directions.

    Principle #4: People of the past were no more gullible than people of the present – perhaps even less so, since they were almost certainly more practical than we are today.

    Principle #5: Go to the most original source you can.

    Principle #6: For each word, look at all the alternative translations – the ones the arkie did NOT pick. In THOSE somewhere is the real account, if one can string together alternative terms that make some sense in a practical world sense – not in the magical, gullible, mumbo-jumbo world the arkies think the people of the past lived in.

    Basically, we not only have to try to understand the original account (which may or may not have an agenda), but then we have to grope past or through the arkie “concept intervention” and try to see what it is they mealy-mouthed their way around to crowbar the story into their silly ideas of the past.

    That is the only place for religion in the inquiry into impacts. We have to ASSUME as a basic principle that anywhere the term “gods” or “heavens” comes into the accounts, it means real “objects” in the “sky.”

    Pretty much covers my opinion of the problems with archeology as a “profession.”

    Rejecting all folks living in the past as “Stupid” compared to today is hubris of the first order. It is a combination of arrogance and ignorance that should be rejected as “unscientific” on its face.

  79. that was Offensive..
    there is no magic needed… man or science still uses that concept of magic though the word is scientickly ordained “chance..”
    but they don’t know what they don’t know. we don’t know what we don’t know !

    so while scientists argue over wether or not the world will end because of carbon build up .
    fire water brimstone and the sky was really falling a few times .. our world was struck at least twice maybe three or 4 times by somethings huge!
    huge enough to almost completely rearrange the the surface of our planet a few times.
    BUT WE SURVIVED!!! I will survive… as long as ….I will survive !!!
    NOW politicks of scienticks want to help guberments tax us on our carbon, because of our carbon we are “destroying the earth….”

    V at least tried to guess what happened in real history. and laws of magnitism of some kind has got to have something to do with something. Because we stayed about where we were in our rotation.. so mankind don’t got a clue or know the laws of anything .. about the laws of anything ! but mock everything they don’t understand which is just about everything!
    We may even have a kind of warming and cooling wobble because of these same impact events .. OH YES but they are going to tax us on their ideas born in their ignorance and stupidity.

    so No Sir NO trickster is ever needed from heaven or hell .
    man is doing a good enough job tricking himself and his neighbor all by himself.. no such thing as any gold on those rules now days.

    The most basic fact that man remains alive here now at all proves both divine protections by a very precise even highly calculating entity. One so calculating and lawful so as to be able to even spit in mud and create eyes, Just because he knows the laws of eyes so well..

    ALL These re-arrangements of our planet surfaces to get all that funk and shway going just right , all those rearrangements.. IF those Strikes on the surface of our world were not as perfect as He is perfect , why did we not all die ? why did we not sail/fall in to into the sun? especially if everything is just about chance and or tricks!
    we all should have been burned up by now.

    So if there is the thing we call ” chance” .

    With just one lunar or other large body impact , then maybe some of humanity was just lucky enough we didn’t fly into the sun .

    but twice? GEE NO .

    .if it is really 3, 4 or more major strikes by huge objects including the moon .
    there is now NO wonder why Scienticks refuse to explain those events in eye witnessed and recorded history ..

    There is not enough billions of anything including rabbits feet..to explain being that lucky that often with those large of impacts that did happen and in recorded history . THAT is WHY politicks of Scienticks will refuse to see what is in front of their three eyes blind .
    but they are helping guberments get their funk and shway all up in our pockets so that Caesar can steal what Caesar made out of thin air ..
    All the while brainwashing our children into really believing they are ” LIKE god’s” and humanity can “save the world” . WHY it is always for our good?

    They will steal our money and our lives, blood sweat and tears. and if we let them even our souls too, please don’t let them .
    Maybe the Scienticks are three eyes blind so that they get their share of those guberment grants ?

    If I considering the probability that there is two continents under two continents now..

    probably really 6 on top of about three or so . and two sent to the south .
    no that can’t be done with any kind of plate tectonic movement I don’t care how many billions you put on those days .
    it can only be done with some BIG things helping someone with profound precision.
    the simple fact that anyone lived to tell the tale proves even there is someone out there with even more profound protection than he has profound precision.. More profound protection than any guberments of men can provide ,
    oh but watch out for what they promise.
    No doubt you will get community organized out of everything one way or the other because you are carbon , for your good of course , they need to save the planet from YOU! 😛 .

  80. the they who decided they have the right to decided well have to save the planet from what ever they want to and consider a threat to their power.. no one is a threat to the planet. they are the world. and who ever they are knows it.

  81. Trent –

    The hubris of the arkies comes from the history of arkies. White, rich, male, Christian, northern European, and all the self-superiority all of that entails.

    From what I’ve read, the Latin American arkies area always livid about that superiority complex they keep running into in Norteamericano arkies. The attitude of “Oh, you come from south of the border, so your brain cells aren’t as functional as ours are up in Gringolandia. You stand aside and just watch while a real pro goes to work.” To USA arkies everything in any brown-skinned country is beneath contempt, including brains.

  82. >> White, rich, male, Christian, northern European, and
    >>all the self-superiority all of that entails.

    I doubt very much that even a plurality of the current generation of tenured academic archeologists are practicing Christians.

    There is too much leftist cant involved in academic tenure committees for practicing Christians to make full professor.

  83. Trent, please leave “leftist cant” out of it, the positivist take-over after Romanticism took hold over the WHOLE political spectrum.
    And I don’t know what practicing christians are, people who put me,a Pagan, on a pyre? And who tell me, like Jesus at the end of the gospel of John, that I am not going to be saved because I lump him together with all the paranoiacs who declared themselves to be Messias?

    Well, thank God, I WAS saved: from christendom.

    Han

  84. Han –

    Yes, positivism is a dogma, not science. Its daughter, reductionism, has its place in science – and a big place and useful place it is, too – but should never be as all-consuming as it is.

    Either one.

  85. Trent –

    Regarding “self-superiority,” I am always amazed that so many people in “modern” society or “modern” science do not realize that we are simply at some point along a continuum – and not very far along it, either. And that we today, some day, will be looked back upon as near savages, barely out of the trees.

    Alternatively, if we get whacked by a big comet, we may become known as a legendary ante-diluvian civilization, by people who live in caves or mud huts. And our ruins may perplex arkies in millennia to come.

    Which, I THINK is one of the aims/hopes of CosmicTusk – to help us all avoid the latter.

  86. Steve, perhaps we have different definitions of reductionism. To me it means the reduction of all phenomena to material causes, p.e.”explaining” mind as an epiphenomenon of matter. I don’t see any useful place for it.

    I HAVE lived in mudhuts, in W.Africa and in Amazonia, and they are quite comfortable. But the palmleave huts in Amazonia are even better, and moreover one sleeps in them in an Amerindian-model hammock, the design of which is based on the ellipsoid, invented, in my hypothesis, by an Olmec mathematical genius, somebody like Archimedes.
    The Europeans post-Columbus were amazed, copied them and introduced them on board of their sailing ships – or so they thought. But they couldn’t copy them because they hadn’t understood the design. Instead of a comfortable amaca, hanging slack, they made a hammock which they had to span tightly lengthwise, and in which sleeping is highly UNcomfortable.
    Even in Mexico where they have preserved the correct design, I have seen hammocks for sale with 2 pieces of wood at either end, spoiling the design completely. Copied from the stupid white men to the North.
    An additional benefit of the Amerindian design is for chronically ill people: the pression of our bodyweight is divided over a greater surface, sothat we preserve ou coccix unharmed.

  87. Han –

    My understanding of reductionism is that to understand the whole it is necessary to break the whole down into pieces (reduce it down) and then study the pieces – and then the whole is the sum of the parts.

    [Wiki] Reductionism is a philosophical position which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.[1]

    So my understanding is a close paraphrase.

    Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge,[1] and that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge.[2]

    Positivism is elsewhere defined as “the view that all true knowledge is scientific,”[56] and that all things are ultimately measurable. Positivism is closely related to reductionism, in that both involve the view that “entities of one kind… are reducible to entities of another,”[56] such as societies to configurations of individuals, or mental events to neural phenomena. It also involves the contention that “processes are reducible to physiological, physical or chemical events,”[56] and even that “social processes are reducible to relationships between and actions of individuals,”[56] or that “biological organisms are reducible to physical systems.”[56]

    So I think on positivism we both are hitting it pretty close to the mark. I spoke of one part of it and you another. Positivism has tentacles that run out in all directions.

    I DO see many benefits that have derived from both (if they are not taken to extremes). For example, computers. And modern engineering, which has given the world many new products and many products produced in mass quantities – a very large part of our world. Good or bad, depending on one’s frame of reference, modern living would perhaps not exist if not for applications based on reductionism and positivism.

    I myself see both those positives and other negatives, but no need to go into all of them or any of them.

  88. It is not MY OWN viewpoint at all, but in terms of “there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge” – the positivism point of view – Ed and Velikovsky and Baillie and others who pull(ed) up ancient accounts have been and will continue to be ignored by those who consider themselves to be “real scientists.”

    “Real scientists” work with things that can be measured.

    I thin they are full of crap in many ways, too. But as I see it that is the reality of scientific inquiry in today’s world.

    It will never be the result of ancient peoples’ accounts that wins over the scientific community to the YDB. It will be the forensic detail – chemistry, isotopes, crystallography, scanning electron microscopy, etc. – that the YDB team has been working with.

    Realpolitik is (more or less) understanding and working with the power structure that exists in order to get things accomplished – more or less office politics but on a grander scale. I like the term “doing what is possible to do.” The Realpolitik of science right now is in quantitative science, measurable science – data science. Things out side this approach cannot hope to fare well in this reality. At best the ancient accounts will be received as quaint legends or curious myths – but never as actual evidence. Not when stacked up against or alongside forensic evidence.

    As much as WE want those accounts to be accepted as valid evidence, it is my interpretation of the timbre of scientists that they will ignore such evidence.

    Where those accounts CAN WORK is to help pick out directions for discovering quantifiable impact or geologic evidence – or, in a perfect world, to point toward a crater or two.

    Before I leave off on this, I want to spell out clearly: I MYSELF think these accounts are real and also – if proper provenance can be shown – that they are valid evidence. But what I want and what will fly is not necessarily the same thing.

  89. Steve,in the Wiki definition of reductionism (a system is nothing but the sum of its parts), they define analysis and exclude synthesis. The sum of the parts is much MORE than the parts, the sum which Koestler called a holon.
    In the definition of positivism they speak of sensory experience, a priori excluding extrasensory experience, which classifies the positivists as rationalists, building their worldview on preconceived ideas and not on experience, as empiricists do – empiricists like parapsychologists, or like Steve Baxter with his Primary Perception
    It’s what the attack of the 1970s on academic reductionism was going about, but too many academics remain unaware of it. They think slowly, but perhaps now, almost half a century later, things will start moving.

  90. Steve; A while back you and I were discussing the idea of multiple impacts hitting the laurentian ice sheet and basically turning it to mush. You were of the opinion that clustering of hits is highly improbably. If multiples were to happen they would follow in the form of chaining such as Schumacher – Levy. If you know someone who is adapt at crater identification have them look at the Drake Passage and Sandwich Islands off the southern end of South America. There appears to be one large crater that may have ripped the land bridge between South america and Antartica. and several smaller ones just north and behind the first one. I’ve been loking at this for a while now and can’t come up with a better feeling scenario. The sea floor in that area is about 33 million yrs old, about the time the antartic climate did a nose dive from subtropic to present conditions. If this can be confirmed to a reasonable point then it might just be more probably that multiple hits could have happened around the YDB causing the failure of the ice sheet and massive sudden flooding. If this is the case a number of smaller hits could have done the same damage as one big hit and not have left as much as a dimple on the landscape. Ideas?

  91. Jim Coyle said:

    "If multiples were to happen they would follow in the form of chaining such as Schumacher – Levy."

    Jim, you might want to think that assumption through a little more thoroughly.

    The “string of pearls” effect we saw in SL-9 was produced by powerful tidal forces on the comet’s first close pass of Jupiter’s gravity well as it was captured into the Jovian system before it orbited back to impact in fragments, and not independently by internal forces acting from within the comet.

    That’s why Eleanor Shoemaker was so startled to see a “squashed comet” on the comparator. Nothing like it had ever been seen before. 

    The important thing to keep in mind here is that out of all of the comet breakups that’ve been witnessed since mankind first started looking up at the sky with telescopes, the process of SL-9’s breakup is unique. Without exception all of the others broke up into a dense cluster of fragments. And since it took the close passage of the powerful gravity well of a gas giant to do that to SL-9, it is far more likely that Comets Linear, or Schwassmann – Wachmann 3 are better examples of the kind of broken comet that we should expect if the Earth were to be hit soon after the complete breakup of a super comet such as the Taurid progenitor.

    So instead of a steady plop plop plop of lone fragments arriving one at a time in a string of pearls like SL-9 smacking into Juptier, we get an impact storm consisting of tens of thousands of Tunguska class airbursts, and even larger, piling into the Earth over a short period of just an hour or two as the Earth passed through the Taurid progenitor’s still concentrated debris field.

    The frightening thing is that those intense impact storms would have been a bi-annual event for thousands of years after that first main event each time the Earth passed through the  region of highest concentration Taurids debris field again.

    We haven’t seen the last of them either.

    The Taurids have been implicated in the collapse of many of the bronze age civilizations, and it’s a pretty safe bet they’re not through with us.

  92. Han –

    Lest you think otherwise, I agree with you on both reductionism and positivism. YES, the sum IS greater than the parts. Thanks for pointing my toward Koestler. I’ve not heard of him. He sounds like he says some good things to learn from.

    Have you ever heard of the biologist Rupert Murdoch? He writes specifically about how reductionist and mechanistic thinking falls short.

    I agree with all you’ve said in this last comment.

  93. Han –

    Also, I am slightly familiar with Cleve Backster, but had not heard of his Primary Perception work. More to check out. Thanks!

    Happy New Year!

  94. Dennis –

    On your multiple impacts comment, in one of my comments a while back I discussed how SL-9 had all its fragments hit on the same latitude on Jupiter and how IF that holds true (it’s reasonable sounding) then if the YDB was also multiple then we really should see some craters along the same 44°N. Especially because at Saginaw/Michigan was about the furthest south extension of the ice during the last advance. With almost all of the 44°N exposed the odds were great for a land impact. I did even go measure how much of that latitude was ocean and how much land. I don’t recall the numbers off hand.

    And I DO think it sounds plausible, if not obvious, that the fragments would hit on the same latitude. Comets and asteroids mostly are in the plane of the ecliptic or close, so the “geometry” is pretty much all 2D, and the gravity well of Earth should affect all fragments of a comet equally. It’s center of gravity will be above or below their paths by the same amount, meaning the pull up or down is equal. So if their orbits approach along a pearl necklace string – and it seems that is how they do line up (along the comet’s elliptical orbit). So, outside of the timing, the paths should come in the same, with a rotating Earth below as target.

    The only thing I would say is that Earth’s weaker gravity might not lend to yield direct incoming hits, but more of wrap-around hits. The Earth can’t realign the orbits as well, so only later in their orbits do they fall into the gravity well, meaning that with their momentum the path is a death spiral instead of simply a bent direct (non-death-spiral) shot. Jupiter probably has death spiral impacts, too – but its larger gravity well catches more of them sooner, meaning more direct impacts.

    I hope some of that got across.

    As to the Sandwich Islands and the Drake Passage, certainly that all looks quite dramatic and cataclysmic. If it is multiple hits, the two (or more) would have had to be very close behind one another. One degree of longitude equals 4 minutes in time. From center of the left-most to center of right-most it is roughly 30° longitude. That would be about 2 hours.

    While SL-9 fragments were separated in time by more than this, that may or may NOT be the norm. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crater_chain.

    Just as a starting point, that image of Ganymeded’s Enki Catrena “crater chain” shows around 12 impacts within only about 90 miles. Given Ganymede’s velocity through space, those fragments must have been VERY close behind one another.

    If possible on Ganymede, one must argue that such rapid fire impacts can occur on Earth, too.

    A factor is the gravitational tidal forces of Earth versus Jupiter. Does Jupiter’s gravity pull the fragments apart more? Farther? More often? Logic says yes. Logic of us humans is sometimes wrong. But I’d bet on all three.

    Another factor is the degree of “strengthlessness” of comets – how well are they glued together? Are large comets glued together better? One would think it is normally in direct proportion to their size, but that may not necessarily be true.

    It would seem that the range and number of factors would give a wide range of results – both in space and as impactors.

    The Drake Passage does appear to have more than one crater-looking feature. They are also seriously larger than those in the crater chain on Ganymede. In fact, when looked at from farther away, they look suspiciously LIKE a crater chain, with apparently overlapping craters.

    The centers seem to be in a bit of an arc. THAT, too, could be a feature of fragmented comets – that they not only move apart along the orbit but likely bounce out to the side a bit, too.

    All in all, that looks very interesting. That could have been the mother of all megatsunamis. Not just ONE oceanic, but several.

    I have no doubt that if some organization wanted badly enough to that they could acquire samples with which to date all of that, but the water and depth and other factors would make first interpretations of the evidence VERY uncertain.

  95. A tiny bit more:

    My first and fairly obvious impression is that all those Drake craters are on the same latitude. This would not be contrary to my surmise, which I might as well turn into a prediction:

    Crater chains will almost always be on the same latitude (relative to the Ecliptic).

    (I am not even sure if one can determine the Ecliptic part, though, since a tilted planet or moon might have been in any number of positions at impact.)

    And taking that one step further:

    I have not yet looked, and I will predict the crater chain Enki Catena to be on the same latitude relative to the Ecliptic.

  96. Steve, for me the book Darkness at noon by Koestler (1905-1983) has been important, it is specifically about the 1938 showprocesses in Moscow, but in general anti-totalitarian. It was recommended to me by my bookdealer in Montpellier in 1955, when I was doing fieldwork nearby (“Le Zero et l’Infini”).
    From when K. got his doubts about materialism date 1969: Beyond Reductionism (ed.), and 1972: The Roots of Coincidence. I compare Darkness at Noon, as an antitotalitarian work of art, with Costa Gravas film Z, on the 1953 showprocesses of Prague, with Yves Montand, “the French Kirk Douglas”.

    After a long while I have just googled Backster, and see that there is something of an update written by Daniel Chamovitz, 2012, and a novel written by Algernon Blackwood.

    I have known personally both Koestler and Backster. During the 1970s when I was actively changing my own paradigm, I searched such people out and had long conversations with them.

  97. Steve,
    After a long while I have just googled Backster, and see that there is something of an update written by Daniel Chamovitz, 2012, and a novel written by Algernon Blackwood.

    I have known personally both Koestler and Backster. During the 1970s when I was actively changing my own paradigm, I searched such people out and had long conversations with them.

  98. For the moment it looks like the three marked crater chains on Ganymede have angles of about 30-45° to Jupiter’s and Ganymede’s equators, so on the surface my conjecture/prediction appears to be wrong. It appears that the direction of the comet fragments was at a fairly high inclination in all three cases.

    There is one loophole, which I am not going to try to invoke, and that is the gravity of Jupiter and how it slings things around. We DO have to remember that the comets are NOT being attracted to the Moons of Jupiter, even though Ganymede is the second biggest moon in the Solar System. They are attracted to Jupiter. They hit J’s moons on the way in or out, just before or just after perihelion. For them to be hitting Ganymede at such high angles, the comets must have been somewhat below or above the center of gravity of Jupiter. I am sure such things happen, but I am not going to lean on them in that way.

    For now I have to put it on a back burner.

    But I will also say this: The compact pattern might be exactly what would happen immediately after a close flyby of Jupiter, right after Jupiter’s tidal pull broke up the comets. Enki Catena covers about 4° east to west. That represents about 2 hours, with Ganymede in synchronous orbit, like our Moon. All of those 13 fragments hit within 120 minutes – about 12 minute intervals. And the time intervals were fairly equal, based on the pattern.

    So from that we DO know that comet fragments CAN hit close together in time, even though strung out in a “pearl necklace.” SL-9 is NOT the only way it happens.

    The short time interval of 10 minutes probably argues that the comet that made the Enki Catena crater chain DID just break up as it passed by Jupiter – or WAS approaching Jupiter.

    Assuming ~25 km/sec, a 2-hour interval would have meant ~180,000 km apart, or about 14 Earth diameters or about 1.25 times the diameter of Jupiter. Or 34 diameters of Ganymede. NOT FAR! At SL-9’s est speed of 60 km/sec, the distance between would have been 2.5 times farther, or 450,000 km.

    [SL-9 took 6 DAYS for all the 21 fragments to hit, about 7 hours in between, on average…]

    The reason I am interested has to do with the Michigan/Saginaw situation, in terms of how CLOSE can comet fragments be as they come in? 2 hours is a LOT, for Michigan. That is 30° of longitude. So this suggests that comet fragments are probably no close enough together to do what I had had in mind.

    So scratch that one! I am not predicting well, but I actually am learning a lot.

  99. Steve,

    The crater like features you are referring to… is the South Sandwich Islands arc the east rim of the east most crater?

  100. Barry –

    Give credit to Dennis, not me, for seeing these. And he’s the one who has looked at them the closest.

    But as I see it on GE it looks like that is correct.

    It looks like something pushed something. In gradualist circles, it all would have happened over eons. Here, we can at least look at it with a broader point of view. The gradualists may be correct.

    That large “mushed” region is called the Scotia Plate, with the rounded tip being the Sandwich Plate. NO JOKE… LOL

    Check out all the Google Image hits on http://tiny.cc/t7d38w. Some of them are pretty cool, and I imagine we can all learn something by visiting some of the links.

    This one looks especially fruitful:
    http://plate-tectonic.narod.ru/scotia2photoalbum.html

    This 2000 paper “Scotia Sea regional tectonic evolution: implications for mantle
    flow and palaeocirculation” – Peter F. Barker might prove useful, too:
    http://rockbox.rutgers.edu/~jdwright/MarGeol/Old%20Marine%20Geol%20folder/Barker.pdf

    Between the two of them we might get a good idea of what the main stream science says.

  101. One aspect of that Scotia Plate is that in plate tectonics it preliminarily does not seem to have moved away from Africa at the same rate that the S American plate did. The “outflow” from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge does not seem to have moved it much.

    I won’t even speculate on what that means. The impression is that it either got pushed from the west by something or something failed to push that small plate as much as it did the much larger S American plate. Visually it looks more like the former – but looks can be deceptive.

  102. Steve; I’ve been digging around on the Drake Passage and the approximate date for the impact would be around 33mya based on the sea floor ages. This also around the time the Antartic went from sub tropic to glacial. From what I have read what ever opened the Drake Passage allowed for the polar current to develope and cut Antartica of from any warm currents. Also the temp downturn was supposedly caused by a major drop in atmospheric co2. Could this have been caused by an impact or 2? There are also a couple of other impacts listed in this general time frame. I believe ChesapekeBay is one of them. I’ll have to check on that again. I’ve asked around on several other sites about possible impact and the silent responce is deafening.

  103. yes It appears Antarctica at least part of it rolled out from under South America/South Africa (SASA )where it was once joined..

    but the interesting part of that the other piece /chunk of Antarctica appears to have came from somewhere else … and no tectonics plates can do that like that, not like that !!! .

    ( what could He be hiding under two miles of ice and in 9 months of pure darkness ) and stuff from two different continents even.. OHHHHHHH YES ROTF!! what a plan! ROTF!

  104. Dennis; I’ve been rooting around on the Drake Passage idea and came up with some info that may or may not be of consequence. There was one impact confirmed at that time–Chesapeke Bay. There others that are close Popigai Russia, Egyptian Desert, Flaxman and Crawford, Austrailia all in at 35mya give or take a millenium.

  105. Just pondering on that Scotia Plate whatever it is…

    Knowing from several images that this plate seems to be NOT doing what the SA plate and African plate are doing – moving apart – this image
    http://files.myopera.com/nielsol/blog/scotia_plate_polonia.jpg

    shows arrows of relative plate movements. The Antarctic plate is moving clockwise around the pole (eastward), while the SA plate is moving (more or less) anti-clockwise (westward).

    This image is from Google:
    http://tiny.cc/0sz48w
    and shows what GE shows.

    Because the Scotia plate is at the 3-plate SA-African-Antarctica plate junction, one can imagine that the Antarctic Peninsula is essentially pushing the Scotia plate eastward – and that this motion also is dragging the southern tip of S America eastward, too – forming the hook. One can imagine a time when the Antarctic Peninsula and the SA tip were aligned.

    I would not be surprised to see that description somewhere in the gradualist literature.

    But since I have reason to believe that too much is attached to plate tectonic theory – in a bit of greedy reductionism – I am resistant to what I just said above. But I do understand if someone sees it that way.

  106. I have found 2 more Usselo exposures (on the Net), 1 in Holland, 1 in Germany near the Dutch-German border.

    In the period 2007-2013 a few Northamericans have come this way, and I had the pleasure of showing them around, which is important to me because they have what I have not – lab facilities.

    But since my illness last year things are getting more difficult. I am 82ys old, and handicapped. If anybody comes here, he/she will have to pick me up, by car, at my apartment, and drive me to the Usselo exposure. Form my sleeping room to my scootmobile I manage with a walking stick, but for my next trip (to Germany), I am arranging a pair of crutches.

    That’s new, doing fieldwork supporting oneself on crutches? Perhaps not, I think I am just continuing my own history of being a good field geologist, and that’s per definition somebody with a great adaptability.

    Han

  107. Steve; If there was an impact big enough that it broke open the land bridge between SA and Antarctica, could it not also have fractured either the SA plate or the Antarctic plate forming the Scotia plate. Your “theory” of the plate rotation is all there is for an explaination out there that I have found. Gradualists rule, for now. Next question: How big do think of a ground hit or airburst do you think it would take to creat a roughly 50km crater with a couple hundred mile long trench attached also taking out the narrow land bridge. I would think that the hit would have had to been a low angle hypervelosity hit.

  108. Jim –

    I wasn’t really giving a theory, merely anticipating what I thought would be likely by gradualists – as you actually found out. I find that a hoot. Yes, according to them, gradualists DO rule.

    If Wegener had not come along with his moving continents, I wonder what kind of silliness the gradualists would say reality was on this. After all, when I went to grade school and high school they ere still teaching that mountains formed because of the shrinking of the Earth and the wrinkling of the surface from that shrinkage, like an orange peel drying up.

    Others here are experts on scaling laws. I don’t know what they are, thought I’ve seen something about them before and forgot to bookmark it.

    If it was a low-angle impact, it looks FAR different from others – such as Rio Cuarto in Argentina. YES, it looks like a gouge, an what else could cause a gouge? But I have no way of knowing.

  109. This year 2014 starts incredibly well. Not one week has passed yet, and first I found 2 more Usselo exposures, and now I find the following:

    I have told you before that long ago I have seen a paper on a profile in Germany near Luxembourg, with both Laacher See tephra and the Usselo Layer, written by 2 Dutch geographers of Amsterdam U. And that I had lost the reference to that paper during my terribly disorganised life (no, not all of it my own fault).

    But now, hear, hear, I think I have found a substitute.

    At Abri IX on the Bettenroder Berg in Germany, some 10kms SE of Goettingen, there is in an abri-sous-roche a stratigraphical sequence
    which includes the Laacher See tephra, lying directly on top of a layer that includes Federmesser artefacts.
    Now Federmesser artefacts in Germany -and Tjonger in Holland, the latest Magdalenien in France, the Cresswellian in the UK – are all “guide fossils” for the end of the Palaeolithic, just as the Clovis stone culture is such a guide fossil in N.America.
    I have seen papers which date the LS explosion from 200 before the Usselo Event, and others that date it to 600ys after that event. The later dating is obviously by people that erroneously call the Usselo Layer a soil, and are in need of so many centuries for soil formation.

    The authority on the site near Goettingen is archaeologist Klaus Grote. I am trying to take up contact with him.

  110. From Wikipedia in German I copy and translate, on the Bettenrode site.

    Direkt unterhalb des Laacher See Tuffs findet sich eine spaetpalaeolithische Begehungsphase. (Directly under the Laacher See tuff is found a Late-Palaeolithic occupation phase)(…).

    Unter den Steinartefakten dominiert nun nordisher Flint mit 41 Stuecken.
    Zwei dieser Artefakten lassen sich eindeutig als Federmesser ansprechen.
    (Amongst the stone artefacts dominates now northern silex with 41 pieces. Two of these artefacts can unambiguously be classified as Federmesser).(…)

    Bereits die erste Begehungsphase ueber den Laacher Tuff enthaelt ein deutlich mesolithisches Inventar.
    (Already the first occupation phase above the Laacher tuff carries a clearly mesolithic content).

  111. THIS IS INCREDIBLE!!!
    On Januari 1st of this year 2014 the Gods-that-be have started force-feeding me with new data, 1) 2 new Usselo exposures, 2) the Bettenroder Berg sequence with the Laacher See tuff directly on top of the Usselo event level, and 3)today happens the following.

    In 2004 or so I have seen (on the Net) a picture of sediments, a Late Pleistocene LACUSTRINE sequence, including one thin layer contrasting with the others because of its very whiteness. I formed then the hypothesis (in my head) that that layer was the lacustrine equivalent of the windblown Usselo Horizon. AND NOW I FIND THAT IT IS!!!
    Moreover, there is a thin layer of peat on top of it (the environment was changing from lacustrine to swampy). “Black Mat”??

    Who’s coming, to investigate, to take samples? You’ll need a week.
    And you’ll have to take me along, by car.

  112. Steve, I have just received Atlantis books written by Cedric Leonard. They look serious, well researched. On Russian Atlantologist Koudriavtsev he says ” most importantly he gathers abundant data demonstrating scientifically that the end of the last Ice Age was anything but smooth and gradual.”

  113. The publisher has saved money on an editor, but the book is well-informed.
    P.e. on p.10, on the Great Pyramid:

    “First of all, it is completely devoid of any insciptions whatsoever.”

    That means: It is devoid of inscriptions.

  114. Han –

    I am a decent expert on the Great Pyramid myself. Studied it since I was 19. And I agree with that – almost.

    Above the current carved out entrance there are two angled blocks that form the roof of the entrance. The blocks would have been buried for how many thousands of years. But there are hieroglyphs on those blocks. I can’t remember the specifics, but they are there.

    I LIVED for two and a half months 5 doors down from the Great Pyramid, back in 1971 and 1973. It was when the Soviets were there, and we were the only Americans anywhere to be found. I saw NO Europeans, either, though I knew they did visit once in a while. Now the entire area is crawling with tourists. I was there when we could have the entire Giza plateau to ourselves. We spent 45 minutes in the Tut room at the Egyptian Museum – and nobody else came in at all. It was a different time. We rented horses by the week and had the run of the plateau on horseback, all to ourselves, without guides. I’ve spent HUNDREDS of hours there.

    Sitchin, in an article back in the late ’70s, wrote an account of a man who wsa on the dig when the cartouche of Khufu was “found”. In the article Sitchin describes how they faked the cartouche, because they were running out of permitted time for their dig and they hadn’t found anything, so the dig coordinator had someone climb up in the relieving chambers and paint the cartouche in a place that would lend it authenticity. The account was believable to me. I think there were NO hieroglyphs to identify its builder. Ergo, all assignments to Khufu are based on NOTHING.

    ALL the really old structures at Giza are hieroglyph-less – the Sphynx, the Sphynx Temple, and the Pyramids themselves. It is one of the notable features of them. They certainly were NOT built in the Kingdoms when pharaohs put hieroglyphs on everything, like at Karnak.

    I go with the great age of them. The weathering pattern on the Sphynx enclosure is geologically inconsistent with wind erosion and 100% consistent with water erosion. And sufficient rainfall has not existed in Egypt for at least 5,000-7,000 years. And the amount of erosion present had to take perhaps another 1,000-2,000 years before that. And that doesn’t even take into account that the enclosure was buried in sand for millennia and the erosion was halted for who knows how long. This means that no one CAN know how old it is, not from the erosion. That puts the Sphynx back in a time when arkies claim the technology didn’t exist. So, with this conundrum, one gets to choose sides: Is the Sphynx 6,000-9,000 years old? Or is it 3,500 years old? Or is it as old as Gobleki Tepi, at 12,000 years old? And if it is, we are then pushing HIGH architectural technology very soon after the YDB.

    It is an open question right now. But none of the old dates have surprised me. The arkies are village idiots claiming to be scientists. I know. I grew up in Cahokia, near where the largest Indian Mounds in the world are. The arkies there make up 99.9% of what they tell the world. And each new “discovery” overthrows everything they said before, so you can’t rust anything they say. It is all fantasy, based on racist ideas about what the past was.

    As to the Giza platau, if you ever have a question, run it by me. I know a LOT.

  115. Steve, thanks for the info. I very much agree with you, but that’s a mere opinion because I have never been to Egypt. However, I HAVE been to the Andes and seen places like Sacsahuanan and Puma Punku.
    And after that I read ex-cathedra words of some well-conditioned academic, that the megalithic culture in the Andes had lasted until a few centuries before the Spanish conquista!
    And so, these stupid Quechuas and Aymaras had forgotten all about it within a few generations!

    I was very much impressed in Bolivia and Peru by the high technology of the megalithic culture which was lost after some cataclysm.
    One reason why the academics get away with this kind of nonsense is that the megalithic technology is very DIFFERENT from ours, it is unimaginable, which makes people shy away from it.
    During millennia of separation people tend to get different languages, architecture, institutions, medicinal arts, and so on. If there are similarities, there must have happened something special, and curious people want to find out what has happened.
    Contact? Similar memories? Similar psychological makeup?
    The contacts must have been very different from those broadcasted by the academics. Similar memories of Deluge combined with Earth reversals I have found in the Corpus Mythologicum, which were never understood by the mythologists, and so they don’t talk about them. Pyramids all over the world, megalithic architecture all over the world.
    Similar psychological makeup is clear from the existence of shamanism on all continents.
    Yes, after the hippie years research into that has started – and after 1972 I started breathing more freely.
    But there is one very negative point, the downfall of poetry. Some New Age idiot – for a change – said that poetry should be “free”. But poetry, during millennia, had never been free, because it’s not only the meaning of the poem that counts, but also the music. And even the aspect, of a sonnet for instance. During Romanticism there was a flowering of poetry, and logically during the hippie revolution there should have started another another wave, like there did in the 1880s and 1920s. But no wave came and nobody reads poetry anymore.

  116. PS. Today I have gotten myself a pair of crutches, as preparation for my trip to an Usselo exposure in Germany. Fieldwork on crutches – that is going to be a first for me. And I am rather proud of it.

  117. Master those crutches, Han!

    For one thing, it will be using your muscles and building muscle mass, if you can do it often enough. Go for it!

  118. I agree, there should have been some glorious poetry in the hippie age. But the poets probably all got drafted and wasted in Viet Nam.

  119. I am most interested in a possible correlation of these Left hemisphere – Right hemisphere cultural changes with changes in the frequency of the Schumann Resonance.
    Are we being manipulated by dear Mother Gaia?

  120. The relevant publication on the abris-sous-roche in the Goettingen region is: Grote, Klaus, 1994: Die Abris im suedlichen Leinebergland bei Goettingen. Archaeologische Befunde zum Leben unter Felsschutzdaechen.
    Oldenburg. (thesis).
    There is not ONE, but there are several abris in which the Laacher See tuff is found immediately on top of a layer with Federmesser artefacts – i.e. the Usselo layer.

    The book is present, library-wise, all over the place in Germany, but not in Holland or Belgium.

    I am trying to find a 2ndhand copy for sale.

  121. Steve, wars have inspired some of the, yes, most inspired poetry. There always are survivors, who use poetry in their struggle with the traumas they have to live with. Hopefully, that works therapeutically.
    The Iliad, Macbeth, Paul Celan.

  122. Steve Garcia etc.:
    What is the connection, if any, between Victorian positivism and N.American positive thinking, the keep-smiling syndrome blown to pieces by Barbara Ehrenreich? Mid-Victorianism, of which uniformitarianism is a part (people believing in progress need a stable planet to progress upon)was followed in the 2nd half of the XIXthe century by a concern and fear for crowd behaviour (Gabrieel Tarde, Gustave LeBon), and also by a reaction against the naieve materialism of the positivists (the London Soc.f.Psych.Res., the Golden Dawn, Madame Blavatsky).
    Since when the N.Americans keep smiling – at least since Hollywood films are required to have a happy end?
    Why is Europe full of poetes maudits, America not?

    But now materialism is agonising, with Entanglement, action at a distance, proved first at a quantum level, then also at a macroscopic one.
    That legitimizes the para-sciences, for instance the utterly “crazy” results of empiricists like Cleve Backster (entanglement of people and plants) and Guy Playfair (entanglement of identical twins).
    Why is the New Age science, including catastrophism in geology, taking wing in N.America, whereas in Europe the majority remains as paradigm-frozen as Steven Dutch, Boslough, Wim Hoek and van Hoesel – who behave as if in panic when confronted with evidence that we are born on a life-threatening planet, and degrade themselves by dishonesty and cavalier behaviour.

  123. Han – My most impactful war poem was Alan Seegers’s “I Have a Rendezvous With Death.”

    As to Ehrenreich, I hadn’t heard mush about her in a long time. But she certainly didn’t invent anti-positivism or anti-positive-thinking. Malthus in the early 1800s argued that population would rip apart whatever gains “progress” ever could make. Paul Ehrlich was a contemporary of Ehrenreich whose book “The Population Bomb” scared the bejeezus out of a lot of people – but whose projections have all one by one been shown to utterly and completely wrong. Neither took into account the great increases in crop productivity in the late 1900s.

    In rebuttal of the tone of Ehrenreich (Ehrlich’s predictive failures speak for them selves), I’d recommend the talks of Hans Rosling on YouTube.

    It is ALWAYS possible to point at some aspects of society that aren’t perfect and conjure up a negative take on human endeavor. Why? Because there will always BE some imperfect aspects to any society. Just about the time Malthus’ career was peaking the longevity of humans and the population began to live longer, all over the world. In 1800 NO COUNTRY had an average life expectancy of 40 years. The U.S. longevity was only 49 years in 1900, 100 years later. With the advent of preventative medicine after WWI, the longevity of the world began a steep rise. When I was born just about the middle of the 20th century, the world population was 2.5 billion, and as we all know it has recently passed the 7 billion mark. Malthus said that even in the early 1800s the population (about 1 billion) was unsustainable. WRONG. BIG TIME WRONG. The world’s population is now better fed and living longer and healthier lives – and earning more*** – than even 50 years ago, much less in the early 1800s. The U.S. for example now has an average of 78.9 years – 29.9 years longer than in 1900 – and debilitating and mortal illnesses are happening about 30 years later, giving us those extra 30 years in relative health. And the U.S. is not even in the top 20 longest-lived countries. And the only countries with under FIFTY years life expectancy are Afghanistan and Sub-Saharan Africa. All the countries in the world are better off, as measured by this reasonable metric. [All the figures from Hans Rosling’s accumulation of official demographic statistics from nearly 200 countries.]

    *** Except for perhaps the U.S.

    And it is not just longer lives, but much more prosperity in many more countries. Many former 3rd world countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Korea (South) have standards of living equal to or better than the gold standard (the U.S.) – and more are passing the U.S. all the time. (When I first traveled to Europe in late 1971 much of Europe was still far behind the U.S. in prosperity. Now almost all of those same Western European nations are up to or past the U.S.)

    Ehrenreich seems to have only discussed the U.S., and yes the U.S. is losing its edge and losing its way – in comparison to other countries especially. But it is NOT typical in the world. Ask Hans Rosling: Even the “developing world” is shrinking as its countries are becoming part of the developed world and by the latter 21st century there may not BE any developing countries anymore. The U.S.’ “Golden City on the Hill” status seems to have been part of upgrading the lives of people all over the world (except perhaps in the U.S. itself).

    None of this addresses politics, which seem to not have been terribly important in the world’s continuing improvement.

    So, pessimists will always be able to point to specifics and cry, “Ain’t It AWFUL!” but in the REAL world – taken as a whole – things are better than we are all led to believe by the anti-positive-thinkers. Ehrenreich can point out things in the U.S., but they don’t hold true for the world at large. And she could have pointed at the same sorts of things wrong 100 years earlier, and 200 years earlier, etc. The world has been progressing along pretty nicely, thank you – even if she chooses to not look at the positive facts.

  124. Han: “Mid-Victorianism, of which uniformitarianism is a part (people believing in progress need a stable planet to progress upon)was followed in the 2nd half of the XIXthe century by a concern and fear for crowd behaviour (Gabrieel Tarde, Gustave LeBon), and also by a reaction against the naieve materialism of the positivists (the London Soc.f.Psych.Res., the Golden Dawn, Madame Blavatsky).”

    Taking the last one first, I would not characterize the rise of the Golden Dawn and psychical research as a new thing in that period, nor as a reaction to a naive belief in progress, though I respect your thoughts on it. There have always been a large portion of the population interested in parapsychology (by some name or other). That it got more press in the later 19th century I put down to the fact that the press was more evolved (and looking for things to print).

    Mid-Victorian was also a time of very, very sexually repressed people, resulting in a lot of various levels of neuroses and insanity. Prim and proper was IMHO a recipe for disaster. (Yes, guys, I do read a LOT LOT LOT, and most of it not about impacts. So I do have a fairly well informed opinion about some things.) And the prim and proper sedateness in the sciences that began with Uniformitarianism has led some sciences down the primrose path – no pun intended.

    I probably could concoct some sort of formula equating wrong Victorian thinking about science subjects and Victorian sexual repression. Repression is repression, perhaps, no matter if it has to do with sexuality or open inquiry. Both come from conservative minds, after all. (Hahaha – The only impressionist painter who went bonkers was van Gogh, and he was probably the only one not getting any.)

    Han, I would also assert that the world is more stable now than before, say, Malthus. Yes, there are “wars and rumors (reports) of war” – but, again, I put it down to a more developed news media and better communications, by leaps and bounds. When it took several weeks to cross the Atlantic and 3 months to go from London to Australia, a lot of conflicts tended to get compressed into single half-columns in newspapers. Who cared bout East Timor-Leste, anyway? Then or now?

    We are far from any perfect societies, perfect economies, or a world without war, but hundreds of millions of people fly every year all over the world and VERY FEW run into instability problems. (I DARE anybody to point at the narco problems of the last few years in Mexico – where I now live….LOL I will give them an earful about legalization of drugs, just as a starter!)

  125. Steve, thanks for sending the Seegers poem; and I send you “In Flandres Fields the Poppies Blow”, also WWI.
    On WWII there is Celan: Der Todt ist ein Meister aus Deutschland.
    The most impressive movie I’ve seen on WWI is Kubrick’s Fields of Honour, with Kirk Douglas.

    And now I’m going to sleep early, tomorrow Sunday I’ll write more.

  126. Yeah, Han – I looked up Celan. REALLY depressing stuff – which is what SHOULD come out of the trenches!

    I still have yet to see Field of Honor.

    BTW this is the 100th birthday of WWI – The War to End All Monarchies, if not all war… 100 years ago, Europe was run mostly by monarchs. In 4 years they almost all went down. In another 3 years it produced Adolf. In another 12, Adolf opened his chess game with a killer opening – and then screwed up the mid-game with a thrust deep into you know where. Can any of us imagine the world if he hadn’t?

    Adolf was the Younger Dryas comet impact event of the 20th century. His star shone so brightly that he thought he was the Sun.

    The man who REALLY screwed up the 20th century was Luddendorf. Because of him we got Hitler AND Lenin/Stalin. AND the Cold War. Not bad for one 6-year period (1916-1922). Luddendorf was the screw-up of all time.

  127. Steve, in matters of predictive failure I think of Herman Kahn. His “2000” (in 1967) didn’t resemble much the real 2000, with some exceptions (as I just read on the Net), such as what he predicted about Korea.
    Your optimistic view on the world (greater longevity, prosperity) I do not share. There prevails an extremely fragile, vulnerable equilibrium; when disrupted we’ll have Armageddon within days.
    As a pre-adolescent I have witnessed (and suffered) one breakdown. During the Hongerwinter (that’s Dutch) 1944-45 we in the Randstad (Amsterdam-The Hague-Rotterdam-Utrecht) were beleagered by our friends, defended by our enemies. The Germans took our provisions, cut our supply lines and everything broke down. We not only had very little to eat, but inside the houses it was about as cold as outside with the difference that inside there was no icy wind blowing. We spent most of the day in bed, shivering. A whole year we didn’t go to school. It was of course also our introduction to lice, they immediately sniff such a situation out.

    What was the sequence of events at the end of Romanticism, and what caused what, I do not know. There was the Carrington Event in 1859, at a moment that Spiritualism had already been superposed on the Mesmerism of the romantic period. Perhaps the positivists thought enough is enough, and was their takeover of Academia a preemptive coup. And then came the London Soc.Psych.Res. as a countermeasure, the parapsychologists organising themselves in a defense organisation, which resulted in the XXthe century in the huge amount of research done, also at universities.

    And so, I harbour also some optimism: that the rift between academic science and fringe is going to be healed, by the advent of Entanglement, which will relagate positivist materialism to a historical footnote.

  128. Hi Han –

    Hitlerism has its roots in the “occult”, cults using German variants of Augustus LePlongeon’ theosophist re-incarntion cult.

    It featured really bad science.

    These cults were so bizarre that no one at the time had a handle on them.

    They were so bizarre that most modern historians can not understand their functioning and development.

    Hitler’s cult of Nazism had nothing to do with Logical Positivism.

    As far as thr future of science goes, I don’t know. While I have been called a low brow determinist, the “philosophy” of science is a field in which I am not involved.

    I stick with impact studies, and ordinary history.

  129. “So instead of a steady plop plop plop of lone fragments arriving one at a time in a string of pearls like SL-9 smacking into Juptier, we get an impact storm consisting of tens of thousands of Tunguska class airbursts, and even larger, piling into the Earth over a short period of just an hour or two as the Earth passed through the Taurid progenitor’s still concentrated debris field.”

    Prove it.

    Prove any of your general statements as to comets and their behavior, Dennis. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable.

    Excuse me if in the meantime I focus on simple data recovery, and try my best not to let “theories” interfere with it.

  130. Ummm… that speculative and imaginative scenario comes from Bill Napier’s work on the Taurid complex, and images of comets breaking up like Linear 1, or SW3. There is nothing at all in the context of that imaginative conversation though that requires proving anything. But if you are so all fired up with indignation and requiring proof that comets of the past did, or did not behave and brake up exactly as we see them doing today, feel free to get off your couch-bound, armchair theorist butt, go out in the field, turn over a rock or two, and dig for some.

  131. While one must provide proof for all that is stated as fact. That which is stated as theory merely requires some good supportive evidence.  But for the record, the theoretical large cluster of air bursting fragments/impact storm scenario only partially described above, (only part of the full sentence is provided here)  and so strenuously objected to By Ed comes directly from W. M. Napier’s description of the early debris field from the breakup of the Taurid progenitor object, and his estimation of the amount of time it would have taken for the Earth to pass though the TP’s then still concentrated debris streams. Unfortunately, even though a link to Bill Napier’s Palaeolithic extinctions and the Taurid Complex was provided in that same conversation, there is no evidence here that Mr. Grondine has ever bothered to read it; otherwise he would have recognized immediately that he was barking at Bill Napier’s thinking, not mine. 

    As for a typical example of a cometary breakup, out in the middle of nowhere, far from the influence of any planetary gravity well; and a fair enough small-scale model of what the remains of an icy body like the Taurid progenitor may have looked like soon after a major breakup event, a link to a pretty good image of comet Linear 1 was also provided.

  132. Just killed Ed’s last comment. Stick to the subjects fella. I am not doing this to listen to you fight.

  133. Yeah, so now I remember. We had been talking about possible impact scenarios for the YD event.

    The thing is folks have a lot of attention on the SL-9, “string of pearls” phenomenon. So, since that’s the most dramatic example of a comet breakup anyone can imagine, as well as the only example of a breakup that most are aware of, that’s the impact mechanism folks imagine for Earth during the YD event. The trouble with that assumption is that for a capture orbit to separate the fragments of a into a linear string like that requires the kind of intense tidal forces you will only find in the very close passage past a very strong gravity well like that of a gas giant like Jupiter. So you get a kind of pouring over the edge effect as the thing zips by Jupiter like droplets of water dripping from the edge of a table.  But that’s only one example of a probably rare breakup mechanism that won’t work here anyway. We just don’t have a strong enough gravity well to do that to something that passes too close.

    The other far more common breakup mechanism is the kind of breakups we’ve seen in examples like Linear 1, Holmes, or SW-3. In each case they were completely outside the gravitational influence of a planet where, as the volatile ices holding the thing together sublimated away in the heat of the inner solar system the comet loses structural integrity. So it just comes unglued, and flies apart like the wings of Icarus.

    See, I was arguing the point that the Earths passage through the debris of the Taurid Progenitor professor as Napier described is far more likely to be an intense impact storm consisting of thousands of air bursting fragments, than a terrestrial version of SL-9.

    And that’s were we get the argument that:

    “So instead of a steady plop plop plop of lone fragments arriving one at a time in a string of pearls like SL-9 smacking into Juptier, we get an impact storm consisting of tens of thousands of Tunguska class airbursts, and even larger, piling into the Earth over a short period of just an hour or two as the Earth passed through the Taurid progenitor’s still concentrated debris field.”

    So tell me folks, what is the broad, and overly general part of expressing that theoretical impact scenario, based on Bill Napier’s work on the Taurids, and images of broken comets, that requires proof? After all, where is Ed’s proof for his fantastical, myth-based claims that big chief Farts-In-His-Tent was there to see it all go  down?

  134. E.P.Grondine:
    There is a direct line of development from the R wing of mid-Victorian positivism (Ernst Haeckel) over Willigut and von List to Hitler.
    Haeckel, antisemite, white-supremacist, member of the Kolonialverein and of the Flottenverein, died in 1919, just missing the upsurge of nazism.
    Both Stalin and Hitler consulted mediums, as did King Saul, and as did the Greeks in Delphi and the Tibetans in Lhasa. Much of the spiritist movement in the XIXth century was linked with socialism.

    Occultism lives because many of us suspect, or are convinced, that our everyday world is only a facade behind which another reality is hidden. But behind the facade there seems to be a storeroom full of rat traps, and people get trapped into believing the revelations of one particular piper of Hameln. And the unbelievers are then declared stupid and a nuisance, and so we get the Inquisition, Auschwitz, the Gulag.
    Occultism exists because we are born curious, and that has nothing to do with our political orientation. And those who follow minor prophets like Blavatsky or Leary are far less dangerous than the ratcatchers of the multimillion movements and religions.

  135. Han –

    Now THERE is a name out of the past. . . Herman Kahn.

    Wow… I haven’t heard THAT name in a lo-o-o-ong time. For those who don’t know the name, Herman Kahn was actually called a “futurist” back in the ’60s. [I actually dated the sister of a true genius hired by Herman Kahn after meeting the guy at a conference.]

    Kahn had us having elevated sidewalks, moving sidewalks, flying cars, an airplane in every garage, powered roadways, blah, blah, blah.

    I DO recall his idea of what a future car would look like – and it didn’t look ANYTHING like the cars of the 1960s. But – amazingly! – it DID look like cars of the last 20 years. So he did get some things right.

    But mostly, he did what most prognosticators do about the future – he missed on mist of it.

    …Lice. You were REALLY lucky they didn’t carry typhus.

    …Yes, about the positivist takeover of science. I agree with you. The sooner the better. ANYTHING almost, just to get them to get their heads out of their butts and open up research again. If you are suggesting that they used the psychic stuff to belittle any non-conservative science, as I understand it you are right.

  136. Dennis – Proving that something is totally true in science is not possible. You can prove something WRONG (falsification), but you can’t prove it right. You can only prove that a hypothesis does not conflict with the evidence. Source – Richard Feynman. Even if something is not proven wrong, there may still be scenarios or conditions we haven’t thought of. Feynman gives an example of one that took about 200 years (off the top of my head) to discover had an exception. If memory serves me correctly, it had to do with gravity and the orbit of Mercury, but I don’t recall the details. For those 200 years it seemed to have been proven right.

    At the same time, some people think that something is disproven simply because Dennis Cox said it…LOL

  137. Dennis – Chief WHAT?

    Also, my take on the SL-9 breakup was that it seemed to show that the progenitor was a pretty strengthless object. It wasn’t just the 20 fragments or so that are noted. There was debris strung out, too, from all the images I saw. I might be wrong on that, but that is how it all appears from the description of it all. I DO believe that all of the story of the breakup is projecting backward in time with assumptions that may or may not be true but that seem reasonable to them and to me. I do NOT think that the bodies were high density (meaning solid rock or metal). Even a close passage past Jupiter is not going to shear iron or nickel and make it “drift away” if it is ANYWHERE NEAR the solidity of such meteorites as we have.

    I have not yet looked up the calculated or suggested density of SL-9.

    I would be very interested in a full-bore take on what they think is the step-by-step, bump-by-bump mechanism of the breakup – as opposed to a general “Well, they all kind of strung out, you know” explanation.

    And, yeah, Earth flying across the stream of big Taurid objects isn’t going to be like SL-9. It’s going to look like the NORMAL Taurid meteor shower – only with bigger objects and bigger shooting stars, possibly tending toward airbursts and actual impacts not out of the question.

  138. “Natura Non Facit Saltus” – coming back on that, I am amazed that they didn’t laugh Leibniz out of the room.

    Of course he didn’t know about electrons jumpoing from one orbit (energy level) to another. Or about catastrophe theory. How they have managed to keep their double think in line in their brains all along I can’t fathom. Even quantum theory, at its base, exists because they found discrete bundles of light to be the best explanation for some phenomena (but not all), rather than the wave theory of light. Discrete pretty much means distinct and separate – as in there is a jump in what exists as one crosses the boundary from atom to not atom, electron to not electron, quanta to non-quanta. The very idea of the EXISTENCE the electron as a particle (or any particle, for that matter) is that density jumps from zero to SOMETHING.

    The very concept of evolution has been shown to NOT be free of jumps. Else why would Stephen J Gould ever come up with Punctuated Equilibrium – acknowledging that the VAST majority of extinctions of species and the VAST majority of the appearance of new species came in BIG jumps such as the Permian Explosion. Gould was just formally acknowledging the realities of the fossil record.

    So Natura Non Facit Saltus is not only laughable. It is WRONG.

  139. Steve, paradigm is such a useful word in part because it easily can be combined with other substantives, such as in paradigm blindness, paradigm war. With your laughing Leibniz out of the room we have now “paradigm hilarity”. But both sides are equally laughing, olympically – or voicing their disdain for the other side. Or cutting research money, and feeling sorry that there is no tougher method, as in medieval times.
    When in the first year of secundary school (1943-44) I entered the small school library, and found there busily engaged 2 (Dutch) nazis, removing the books written by Jews.
    What a wonderful apprenticeship time I had, didn’t I?

  140. Han –

    Are you calling research money cutters Nazis? Or am I reading that into it?…LOL

    In my climate skeptic reading it is common for people to lament that billions are going to the “alarmists” and their (often very cherry-picked) research and other activities, while VERY little is available for others to provide any balance. (There is a LOT of research that still happens, despite the efforts of those who would go medieval on the “balancers.”)

    It is interesting that on the YD there are really only a handful of skeptics, while the pro-YD folks number well into the dozens. Yet, the handful gets most of the press, even with their atrocious science – which in only a handful of papers was anything more than kibitzing. (I don’t understand how kibitzing is considered good enough to get past journal editors.)

  141. Steve, the kibitzing papers are published because the authors work within the reigning paradigm, they defend the status quo.

    The skeptics are NOT just a handful. In Holland and Belgium ALL academics belong to that group. I have asked people to show me more Usselo exposures, and so repeatedly hurt my nose against a medieval castle wall . . . getting no answer. By now, p.e., all archaeologist in Belgium know that I have placed myself in the opposite camp, attacking uniformitarianism, and they have closed ranks. They would jeopardize their careers if they behaved otherwise, like well-educated people, but they also seem to be full of spite to such an extent that they forget their good manners, which presumably they once had.

    And I presume in he US also, it is only the vociferous skeptics that form a small group, others form a silent majority, or keep waiting and watching, like Roman citizens in the arena, which one of the gladiators will win, which one will die.

  142. Then it behooves us, Han, to encourage and encourage – literally to “give courage” – to those who are on the track toward the truth, as opposed to the attack dogs and their cowardly masters.

    This is all a puzzle, made more difficult by the haystacks they build to hide the needles they know are there. One thing about haystacks is this: A strong enough wind blows them away. It’s the Three Little Pigs all over again. And evidence is the storm.

    The REAL evidence is, and always has been, the forensics. It always will be. Physical laws are incorruptible. Chemistry and physics do not lend themselves to interpretation, not like geology, climate, biology (YES, biology), archaeology, history, paleontology, and astronomy. “Astronomy?” you say! Yes. There is so much in astronomy that is built on sand, out of straw. In geology, as long as they are counting laters (like tree rings and ice layers) they are on solid rgound. As soon as they start “deciding” what the layers mean, they step onto quicksand.

    Remember that science is not a collection of evidence – it is the interpretation of the evidence, in the effort to build a gestalt. Some sciences built tentative gestalts 150 years ago and more, and they still fight updates of those gestalts. That is how you can tell a real science from a pompous, pedantic fake sciences: Real science grows and widens its grasp of things with new evidence; fake sciences hunker down and refuse to grow, to include new evidence or to crowbar new evidence into old. It’s like the parable of the wine…

    If a science is not growing and stretching, it is dying. It is up to the scientists in each discipline to decide which side of the stretching they will be on. A harnessed science has nowhere to go.

    I LOVE to go back to the books I found online – science books from the late 1800s. The interpretations seem now so silly. It is only 130 years or so. 130 years from now, what Steve Garcia of that time will look back on our textbooks and giggle at the naïvete of our present experts? What evidence not accepted or found yet in 2014 will inform that Steve Garcia that “They simply didn’t understand that yet, did they?”

    We are only on a point on a continuum – a continuum between utter ignorance and complete understanding of everything in nature. Science magazines and journals would have us all think that we are near the end of that continuum, that all the big things are known and that the light at the end of the tunnel is only around the next bend in the tunnel. I will say that they said that 50 years ago when I was a young man in school. In only 350 years, they think they know it all!!!! Aren’t we full of ourselves! Hubris, thy name is scientist.

    Hell, in most of the earth sciences we haven’t even compiled all the data yet. SOME of the data we don’t even know that we are going to have to go measure it.

  143. He who conjures up hypotheses before the data is in, he be not a scientist. Such a discipline is archaeology, pretending to be a real science by sending off C14 samples to labs where real scientists measure and tabulate the data. Oh, in time they may become one, but so far, no…

    I recall not so long ago reading up on geomorphology, and one of the papers described how in 1950 one of their kind decided to begin using physics and math and physical tests, and it caused a revolution in geomorphology. IMAGINE! Using physical laws! TESTING!!! And they called themselves a science BEFORE THAT TIME!

    Know that any discipline that looks to QUALITIES is not a science. Science MEASURES. Science quantifies. It quantifies QUANTITIES – things measured. If they talk about style of tools, styles of ceramics, styles of architecture, styles of anything at all, then THAT portion of their discipline is not a science but is an art. When it takes experts to tell what each number IS, what it means or what it doesn’t mean – it is like Olympic ice dancing, judged by subjectivity, by personal or national or group interest. But at least ice dancing judging systems even ADMIT the individual biases – by throwing out the most egregious highs and lows, hoping to gain SOME level of propriety.

    ANYONE listening to the man who wsa the most powerful man in Egyptology – Zahi Hawass – over most of the last 30-40 years knows the man was a bumbling, buffoonish idiot. And yet his subjective interpretations of massive amounts of ancient Egyptian evidence will taint the discipline for a hundred years or more. Take away the highs and lows from ice dancing scores and you have SOMETHING. Take away the 18th century gobbledegook from Egyptology – which still rules the discipline – and you have a vacuum. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It is almost all based on qualitative comparisons, and shame on them in the 21st century…

  144. Steve, the academic establishment is not only pompous and pedantic, it is dishonest. They hide evidence. As p.e. in archaeology, when the lowest/oldest layer of a building is megalithic, and constructed by sophisticated mechanical means. As in Egypt, as in Greece (p.e. at Delphi). My own “revelation” came in the Altiplano where I saw the ruins of a highly technological culture.

    In geology there are many examples, let me mention only how they include Mars in their thinking. The Chryse Flood on that planet may have lasted a geologically short time, but not the ocean surrounding Olympus Mons. That volcano is surrounded by cliffs up to 1000m high, ergo it was for a (geologically) long time an island in an ocean. And that huge volcano itself must have taken also a long time to build up, like here on Earth Hawaii or Mount Cameroon.
    So then, with a bit of panspermia in my head, I wonder: if there was an ocean during a long time, were there fish swimming in it? I cannot notice fish by Remote Sensing, but I have seen things that look like trees! Had they discoverd there, before the climatic breakdown, an all-powerful anti-freeze chemical?
    Steve, researchers don’t only measure, they also dream, and some of their dreams come true.

    Books or chapters on the history of geology are written by uniformitarians, that’s why they are so soporific by their silly repetitions, and irritating by their lies and omissions. The only 2 readable books I found are both written by a (yes!) geomorphologist, Richard Hugget. Geomorphologist and catastrophist. He must be very old now.

  145. Richard Huggett, retired from Manchester U., is not as old as I thought, he dates from about 1948.
    The books are 1) 1990: Cataclysms and Earth History: the Development of Diluvialism, and 2)1997: Catastrophism: Killer Asteroids in the Making of the Natural World.

    The 2 books stand symbolic for the 1980 paradigm change from uniformitarianism to catastrophism, the change that most academics haven’t noticed yet. But Huggett had understood it very well.

  146. Hello steve –

    I really have to take exception to your slander of Dr. Hawass. There is a belief among cult members that if Dr. Hawass goes way their cult archaeology sacred science will be confirmed by data.

    It will not.

    If the ancient Egyptians had of been using ancient alien technology, as your friend the “Atlantis Expert” David Childress proposes, then I would admit it. For that matter, I would have tried to sell the story myself.

  147. David Childress is not a researcher, and his views are those of a writer like yourself, and therefore of no importance in science. Bringing him into the arguments here is like bringing in the views of a science editor instead of the scientists he writes about. Why should we consider second-hand opinions when first hand ones are available?

    Christopher Dunn, on the other hand, is the source for almost any and all claims of ancient Egyptian high technology. I notice you left him out, as you can have nothing to say about engineering and machining evidence, since you know nothing about either technology.

  148. Steve, I am reading, with pleasure, Return of the Golden Age, by Edward Malkowski.
    He is convinced of the importance of the “Great Historical and Geological Divide” of the end-Pleistocene, to which he dedicates a chapter, in which he gives a few pages to Firestone et al., as he does to Anthony West and Schoch, and to LaViolette.
    And he also writes about Christopher Dunn, and the antediluvial Civilization X of which the high-technology remains are found around the world.

    A negative point is that he also writes about Hapgood, without having checked Hapgood’s
    alleged source, Ting Ying Ma.

    That the Golden Age was indeed golden, and that such an age can exist at all on planet Earth, is too optimistic a belief for me.

  149. Han –

    I know Ed Malkowski. He is an alternate researcher who, when I talked to him seemed to be focused on book sales. That doesn’t make his work good or bad, but I like my researchers to be focused first on getting the story right.

    I am not a fan of John Anthony West. I’ve always thought his primary fame was on some somewhat misguided conclusions, and I am not sure he’s done anything of merit lately.

    Schoch does solid work, a geologist whose found a nice niche in the alternate research field. His books are thoughtful and so far as I’ve seen, without holes in their premises. West and Schoch are, of course, the ones who showed that the Sphynx enclosure erosion was 100% water erosion, not wind erosion. In the Sahara that is something important. But I would also point out that the Sphynx is only a few tens of yards from the edge of the Nile’s agricultural fields – the Nile basin. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything, because the irrigation doesn’t come from rain in the area but diverted river flow.

    Christopher Dunn is a very good friend, who is welcome for a visit here anytime. Dunn’s work is solid, as one would expect from a master machinist and chief engineer. Dunn shows irrefutable physical and geometric evidence of 3D machining work every bit as precise as machining done at the end of the 20th century and up to today – and ahead of machining done as late as the 1980s. As such, Dunn’s evidence stands alone and unchallengeable at a pinnacle of alternate research.

    Hapgood for his day gave it a good shot. However, his mathematician let him down with assumptions that I found untenable, allowing Hapgood to arrive at conclusions that even then (~1950) weren’t supportable.

    What does it all mean? Much of the work done – but not all, by any means – by alternate researchers is gadfly material. If scientists would get off their positivism and gradualism duffs and did some work in any of these many fields (and, yes, they are many), the level of work in this direction would improve vastly.

    There is certainly prima facie evidence for earlier tech, far, far above the level of 1900. Especially in stone work. Arkies give NO credence to anything outside their ancient = mumbo-jumbo dumb shits, and it hamstrings their possibilities to do any viable work and find out what the heck happened in the past. Arkies are historians who’ve gotten the idea that they are gatekeepers to knowledge of the past, but really all they are is rats in an alley, scaring others away the best they can. Sorry, but they don’t do good work on the whole and just get in the way.

    As anyone who has eyes can see, much in the alternate fields has to do with some sort of cataclysms and ending of some earlier civilization(s). The evidence of two rather small tsunamis in 2004 and 2010 show how devastating even puny tsunamis can be. An ocean impact by a moderately large comet or meteor (say 200 meters) would cause tsunami damage not unlike that described by Plato. And in an era without satellites and television to inform the world, a big tsunami that hit a region would seem to come out of nowhere, as they always seemed to in centuries past (instead of from earthquakes or impacts). Extrapolating up from the damage from the Japanese and Sumatran tsunamis, on can see coastal cities scoured from the face of the shorelines, with debris clogging the coasts for some long duration, especially if massive clean-up efforts are not undertaken. With many if not most ancient cities on coasts, it might take months or years for word of tsunamis to reach other regions. Word of mouth tales might be all that remained of some cities. That they are incomplete or second-hand should not completely rule the stories out, but science – especially archaeology – dismisses them as unreliable. But unreliable or not, enough exist to point reasonable researchers to investigate. That archaeology and geology drop the ball should be to their shame. Instead they ridicule those who take up the call and do their work for them.

    Mostly it makes them look like the idiots. If they don’t research such things, then they have no one else to blame for the proliferation of alternate research. They can’t sweep everything under the carpet and pretend it’s not there. Inconvenient or anomalous evidence is still evidence and needs to be incorporated, not ignored.

    I will look into buying Malkowski’s book.

  150. Hapgood a good shot???
    He effectively shot down himself, as a researcher, by changing Ting Ying Ma’s shifting mantle into a shifting crust. That’s a crime in academic science, in popular science, in alternative science, to utterly misrepresent one’s alleged source. Or any other referred to source.
    He disqualified himself, and moreover provided ammonition to the academics, helping them in their gunfire barrage on alternative science.

  151. Hapgood a good shot???
    He effectively shot down himself, as a researcher, by changing Ting Ying Ma’s shifting mantle into a shifting crust. That’s a crime in academic science, in popular science, in alternative science, to utterly misrepresent one’s alleged source. Or any other referred to source.
    He disqualified himself, and moreover provided ammunition to the academics, helping them in their gunfire barrage on alternative science.

  152. In that case I am seeing spooks.
    I see a lot of different paradigms, with two currents especially strong, and fighting each other relentlessly. The academic mainstream, and the alternative opponents becoming since 1970 stronger and stronger.
    If you don’t hear that there is a battle going on, you must be deafer that I am.
    I hear the guns.

  153. Han,

    I will take your word for it on Hapgood and Ting Ying Ma.

    Did I say, “alternative science”? I usually am careful to say “alternative research.” I think most of the alt researchers would LIKE to do it as science, but having gotten a later start on it, academic careers are not possible so they do it freelance. FEW ever have the wherewithal to even send stuff to labs for testing. Most are glad they didn’t go that route.

    And, yes, alt research is getting stronger and stronger, and good on them. “Science” perhaps needs a contender. Ed’s whipping boy David Hatcher Childress is a major part of that growth.

    “Science is science” – could be debated. It has certainly changed a lot since the Manhattan project in some fields. “Big science” and “science” are not necessarily the same thing. The government money distorts things.

  154. Barry –

    Dennis would probably be interested in that map and the flow patterns discussed. They look superficially very similar to the Google images at Upper Red Lake, Minnesota at 48°17N 94°44W.

    I enjoy (snarc) seeing how as long as it is in the ultra-remote past, scientists can invoke all sorts of catastrophic events. Everything was so different then, they say, so they can imagine any sorts of violations to Uniformitarianism. It’s a bit like ex-hippies trying to tell their kids that there is no sex allowed, and when busted about what THEY did in their younger days, they could say, “Oh, but you see kids, that was a completely different time.” Then nit is left to folks like Clube and Napier to arrive at reasons why Uniformitarianism may actually hold, that the “wild hijinks” of the inner solar system may NOT all be relegated to the deep past. Uniformitarianism is uniformitarianism only when they say so. Like the ex-hippie parents, the term for such behavior is “hypocrisy.”

  155. Hi Steve –

    I am not surprised to hear you defend David.
    He is not my “”whipping boy”.

    What David is is an opportunist who can expertly spout any sort of nonsense that pays.

    He is adroit at lifting the work of others without acknowledgement, and that goes from Richard Kieninger on. If you met any of the “ancient alien theorists” who he has lifted from you would know that.

    Aside from that, the secret of David’s success lies in the death of his half brother John Moss.

  156. Again, a straw man, not addressing the issues at hand but diversion…

    EVERYONE needs defending against the expert “impacts” researcher.

  157. No Steve, John Moss was not a straw man.
    He was a real person.

    In his death lies the secret to both David’s success, and your confusion.

    Instead of lecturing on “catastrophism” and trying to share your confusion with other people, you need to read Steve Hassan’s “Combatting Cult Mind Control” and learn how you got your brain scrambled by Richard and David.

    I deal with impact events.
    I am not dead.

  158. Ep, I have googled Steve Hassan. This has nothing to do with deprogramming, it is REprogramming adherents of minor cults, forcing them to come back into the folds of the mainstream cults, the multimillion ones. The same thing they did during the Middle Ages with hangings and beheadings.

  159. Hi Han –

    You need to read Steve Hassan’s book, and not simply google it.

    You are also unfamiliar with the “catastrophism” set out by the theosophist cults, such as those promoted by Richard, David, and Adolf.

  160. Someone here has no idea about my history with David before I began visiting Kempton at the time I met Ed. I met Ed the same year, exact same conference. No cult. A guy who is fun to hang out with. Very scary stuff. Got my mind all in a tizzy!

    I met Richard Kieninger exactly once – thought HE was an asshole. Never had the desire to talk with him again. Again, no cult. Yes, Kieninger had a group that followed some of what he said. A group that had a revolving door – no one stayed long. And that included David, who was only there a short time.

    Ed has a fantasy about all this that is right out of tin foil hat country. He makes it up and then believes it. He tried to convince me to agree with him, and I chose not to. Since then Ed thinks I am a Kieninger worshipper. Anybody here knows that I don’t “follow” anybody; I think for myself.

    It is all sour grapes on Ed’s part – a revenge thing.

    WHY?

    Because David refused to publish Ed’s book.

    Why? Because of Ed’s personality.

    And Ed keeps on proving why it was a good decision on David’s part. Ed’s personality is simply very nasty. And David got on his bad side. And Dennis got on his bad side. And I got on his bad side. Stick around long enough, folks, and you will get on Ed’s bad side to.

    Notice that Ed has nothing against me except for his delusion that I was “in a cult.” And that I obviously have been under someone else’s spell ever since. We are talking 40 years ago here, folks. I checked out a group that said some interesting things. I stayed a year or so and then left. Without having to be de-programmed! Since then, according to Ed, I have been a zombie, doing their every bidding. That is why I moved to Mexico! To convert the entire country!

    My main fault according to Ed really is that I didn’t jump on his revenge wagon, to be in the Ed-hates-David cult. I simply chose to not take sides in the feud between him and David. I chose to think for myself and not get in the middle of that. Ed has never forgiven me for that.

    As to David, who lives two blocks from Ed – David ignores Ed. Ed is not even yesterday’s news to David. David has a VERY successful publishing house, the world leading publisher in alternative research. David also hosts tours all around the world to ancient megalithic sites, and it is a booming business. David is a fairly regular interviewee on the “Ancient Aliens” TV show. David has what Ed wans, and Ed doesn’t like it – especially as they live so close.

    If you mention Ed to David, David’s eyes roll up in his head. David is a very agreeable, talkative sort. But he just doesn’t let Ed’s presence in town affect him, and he doesn’t bad mouth Ed. He just ignores him. Except that Ed became so obnoxious years ago in David’s restaurant that David banned him from the restaurant – the only place within 10 miles to get something to eat or drink. Ed burned that bridge completely, and David sees no point in rehashing ancient history. I can’t get David to even talk about it. He says there is no point. And, frankly, I didn’t push it. None of it is anything to me, anyway.

    But for those here who keep seeing Ed bring all that up about me, I thought I should give some background. The above is basically all I know about it. I am just a guy who became friends with two guys and one of them hates the other. And now I have to endure all these constant jabs, pointing out crap about which I had no part. Over and over and over and over. . .

    I plead nolo contendre.

    NONE of this has anything to do with me. Ed claiming that I am a cult zombie for anyone else is simply silly, all in Ed’s head. I’ve ignored 99% of his accusations. Early on because I considered Ed a friend. Ed crossed a line at someone, and I am no longer his friend. And that has only ramped up the accusations. Ed is delusional about what my history is and what my connection to other people is. He makes shit up.

    With this comment here, now I choose to not discuss it anymore. This will be my last comment about it.

  161. I am not an “alternative researcher”, nor a “catastrophist”.

    What is left of me is still an expert on recent impact events.

    Steve’s made a mistake in attacking me.

    Steve, why don’t you tell the folks here about that terrific snowstorm that occurred when you arrived in Stelle?

    As far as David goes, the secret of his success lies in the death of his half brother John Moss.

    Steve, I told you that I used to cover the Soviet space program and the Chinese space program.

    Did you really think you could keep it all hid from me?

  162. Ed, I have had it. I read your last twenty comments and you are going the way of the Chicken. You make too many comments and pick too many fights. Half of MY blog is devoted to you — and the subject matter to which it is intended to address is clearly more important than you. Every single comment I see of yours will be immediately deleted as spam. Your provocative surliness is no longer welcome.

    Please start your own blog so that you may share your occasional insights somewhere else.

    Sincerely,

    George Howard

  163. Steve, thanks for explaining things.

    E.P., I am a catastrophist, and an alternative researcher. And I have nothing against sects in general, only when they are R-wing such as Moon and Rael, or (worse!) when they take power such as the Christians in Constantine’s time, or the nazis in 1933. For then after that, they suppress all other sects. So hurray! – when sects exist and thrive we know that we live in a democratic society. The reprogramming of sectarians is brainwashing of the type we got to know from early Maoist times, the sect-in-power enforcing conformity.
    Animal farm. 1984. Brave New World. Darkness at Noon. We were warned.
    Reprogrammers think that it is normal to be mainstream. My normality is the pluriform culture of Antiquity, and then of post-Renaissance Europe struggling toward pluriformity, but -how difficult!- with the setback of 1860, when positivism took over the function of thought police, of which the christians had so well taken care before.

  164. NOTE TO EVERYONE HERE:

    I Have NO IDEA what Mr Grondine is talking about. I have no idea how to respond to him referring to whatever it is he is talking about.

    I think he has lost it.

    The attack thing? He was dissing me for months before I ever responded to him once. If me responding to his insults is attacking, it is all in his head.

    Personally, I think none of this non-impact stuff has anything to do with CT – whatever it is he is suggesting.

    Literally, folks, I have no clue.

  165. Han –

    Yes, there was not much time – if any – between the mind hegemony of the Church and the mind hegemony of the positivists. One set of dogmas for another – to fill the void they felt they needed? I think it all stems from their own fear of change.

  166. I am an alternative research advocate. By necessity. They forced me into it. Some of the sciences are simply on the wrong track and they won’t make course corrections, so if I want free inquiry I go with the people who aren’t afraid to look an inconvenient fact in the eye and try to work it into the paradigm, even if it means the paradigm has to go.

    If a paradigm has to ignore facts in order to stay viable, then it is time for that paradigm to go the way of dead paradigms.

  167. Thanks, George.
    And now, back to geology. After having correlated the Usselo Layer with the Clovis Layer, I consider it to be my next important contribution (in my role of catalysator of the end-Pleistocene research) that I have unearthed, on the Net, the profile on the island of Moen in Denmark. Perhaps the problem of the stratigraphic position can be solved there: the N.Americans in N.America, and Romuald Shield in Poland, place the layer at the Alleroed-Dryas III boundary, whereas the Dutch and Belgians place it during the Alleroed. And I have seen, near Hilversum and at the Lutterzand, a thin layer of peat on top of the U.L., also indicating that the bitter cold of the Dryas III didn’t start immediately after the Clovis/Usselo event.
    Also, there is the Laacher See tuff, found immediately on top of the Usselo Layer, and which can be easily identified with heavy-mineral analysis: the diopside it contains has a colour and a habitus which is determinative for the L.S. explosion.

    How I’d like to go to Moen, and sample that profile! However, there are two problems. One is financial: I always paid my pension fund in Brazil, and I have lost that. Two-third because of bad luck, one-third of stupidity: administratively I am semi-analphabetic, when I see a formular to be filled in, I get stomach cramps (and I’m not the only one). The second problem is that since last year I am crippled, iatrogenically. When my heart was beating too fast and too irregular, they gave me metoprololtartrate, and that is poison.
    Now, to go to Denmark, I need somebody to pick me up, by car, at my front door. Or else, more difficult but not impossible, per bus or train, and then per taxi to the Moen beach. I am trying to think up somebody with a car, and a week time to spare, but I’d still have to pay for the gasoline.(no hotel or camping costs for I have a tent, and I am an expert in making a tent invisible).

    Something else. At which American geol.dept. they do heavy-mineral analysis? I can do the pre-concentrating (panning), but I need some help to mount the concentrate on a microscope slide (I don’t have a thermostat needed for that). But after that, I do have my polarizing microscope (several decades older than I am).

    If I manage to get to Moen I can take samples for others. But you’ll have to pay the mailing costs.

  168. And back again to the cultural history of uniformitarianism / catastrophism.
    I have been wondering about a possible connection between mid-Victorian positivism in Europe, and the N.American keep-smiling syndrome. I just received the Barbara Ehrenreich book Bright-Sided (2009)and read, p.79: “It was the meeting of(Mary Baker) Eddy and (Phineas Pankhurst) Quimby in the 1860s that launched the cultural phenomenon we now recognize as positive thinking.” The New Thought churches replaced fire-and-brimstone Calvinism based on the geological catastrophes described as acts of God in the Hebrew Bible, their Old Testament.
    And so, there is a perfect synchronicity between the two continents.
    The New Thought churches are in their optimism about a benevolent God of course similar to Leibniz’ ideas.
    A relevant reference I pick up in Ehrenreich is Donald Meyer, 1998: The Positive Thinkers: Popular Religious Psychology from Mary Baker Eddy to Norman Vincent Peale and Ronald Reagan. Wesleyan U.Press.

  169. Barry: Thanks for the link to the Barberton Greenstone belt article. You gave me another source to look through for help in defining the Drake Passage as an impact site.

  170. Han: “Instead of an evolutionary success, we might be a mere post-catastrophe pioneer species.”

    Yes, exactly. Catastrophe creates what we refer to as cave men, painting on cave walls, living around campfires at cave mouths, and along streams and their mouths, in lieu of apartment complexes. Some learn to survive in varying other environments. It may not be African Eve at all, but post-apocalypse African farthest-from-the-cataclysm bottle neck. Having some retention of skill sets from ante-cataclysm, the pioneers develop quickly – appearing to develop elements of civilization somewhat all at one time (~10,000 BCE). But perhaps those are not new developments but remembered/carried-over/passed down technologies. With the world human population mostly gone, the world is their oyster, free to pioneer wherever suits them best. Their intelligence is unimpeded, so using their adaptability and belief in what they were before, they move through stages rapidly. They seek out and follow herds because it is a known and continuing source of food, something known from before. They seek out and find grains because it was known from before. They seek out and domesticate herbivores, because it was known before. They seek out estuaries, because from before they know they are great sources for foods. In the absence of tools, caves become preferred shelters, because covered homes is what they knew before. They seek out sources of pigments, because art is in their blood from before. They seek out the best stone to work for points, because their society knew about hunting from before. They have to work to do all the above, to make survival more probable. Better too much development than too little.

    Pioneers, yes, in the sense of striking out into a new world. Advances are necessary from day two. Standing still is to die off. With starvation only days away, every moment counts, at least for a while. But remembrances of what went before guide the humans. Animals have limited adaptability and it is all instinctual; humans have vast sources for adapting, and far more because they have more than instinct to guide them. Starting out but little above the animals after the catastrophe, the divide widens and widens, as humans pull out ahead. They know how to gauge from the sun’s path which direction is north or south, and know that downhill leads to water. Some don’t make it as pioneers, but some do.

    Animals find their new niches – or not. Resourceful humans, able to find many niches and exploit them, begin to become dominant again. In time pioneering gives way to settled small communities, based on a variety of food sources. Omnivorous humans fit in, in many niches – that is their strength and the source of their spreading.

    All speculation, but also predictions based on that reasonable conjecture. If A, then series of effects B. They are none new coming from me, but similar to what others have projected for US, if nuclear war had occurred. Humans WILL be resourceful. Humans WILL adapt. Humans WILL sort out things and begin again. If it is reasonable in one catastrophe scenario, it is not unreasonable to expect it to be true in the other.

    Pioneers post-nuclear holocaust or pioneers post-impact. Fairly similar premises. Ergo fairly similar effects on humankind. Most of the difference is nuclear fallout. Heck, the impact might well be EASIER to recover from.

  171. Steve; I concur with you on this. I’m sure that the human race has been kicked back to the caves time and time again. Each time we come back quicker and progress further and everyone has a collective memory deep in their brains that will come out as intuition or “gut feeling” when needed.

  172. “…but because they are well-conditioned: Natura Non Facit Saltus.

    “Nature doesn’t jump, therefore HOW can we explain things without jumps?

    We must use the crowbar.

    Or if we can’t use the crowbar successfully, we must use the broom and find the edge of the carpet under which to sweep it. Thus we ignore it.”

  173. Steve, I continue reading Barbara Ehrenreich’s Bright-Side, and find that positive thinking in the 1890s led to Theodore Frelinghuysen Seward’s “The Don’t Worry Movement” and “The Don’t Worry Philosophy”.
    Isn’t that funny! What an excellent characterization of uniformitarianism is that.

    Soon afterwards we got Edouard Coue’: Every day in every way I am getting better and better and better. His system of self-hypnosis became hugely popular in the USA. That’s fine in quiet interludes, but in hectic times when you’re being pursued, when people and/or Gods are trying to get you, it might be smarter to DO some worrying.
    Like Odysseus who, with some help of Pallas, outsmarted the raging Poseidon, and survived.

  174. Hahahaha –

    Han, That “don’t worry philosophy” is hilarious. Espccially as to uniformitarianism. Having lived many years in the suburbs, you could call it the White Picket Fence Philosophy, since the suburbs are the place for people who want to pretend that there safety and only safety in the world. Maybe even the School Marm Philosophy – but you’d have had to live in lily-white suburbs to really get the gist of that. Yes, the Don’t Worry, Be Happy Syndrome. Nothing ever does anything suddenly in geology! Everything is erosion and sedimentation – except when it isn’t.

    Now, I am NOT into alarmism. Chicken Little I am not. It is VERY likely that nothing will happen for a thousand years or 50,000 years. The important thing is that when it happens it will happen QUICKLY and with little chance to react. A car accident isn’t going to happen to a person every year, nor every 10 years. But it is about 50% likely (a guess) that ONE will happen in one’s lifetime. Which year? Who knows? To my knowledge, no one in our country is even ALLOWED to FAIL to take precautions against that accident – everyone thinks that that is simple prudence. And there is insurance for health and for homes. No one thinks it odd at all to have insurance for those – the thinking being that a catastophe can happen at ANY time, in spite of the fact that it will probably not occur this week, and that to be prepared for the monetary impact is NORMAL and logical. Yet that accident or fire or sickness may not happen at ALL in this lifetime. A catastrophist is not someone who talks of IMPENDING IMMINENT danger, only one who argues that to not inform about the risk is imprudent. And in order to inform ourselves, we need to collect information on past catastrophic events, in can quantify the risk. Insurance companies use actuaries – mathematicians – and no one laughs at them for doing so, nor do they call the companies alarmists. The call them realists.

  175. Steve, Han; I believe that positism can be explained by the words of the great American icon Alfred E. Newman: “What–me worry?”

  176. “Only erosion and sedimentation”

    Charles Lyell was a forerunner of Norman Vincent Peale.

  177. Actually, Han, this is a new angle on this for me. I had looked at positivism more on the lines of “positively certain about things.”

    The positivism you are bringing up is, to my mind, not even remotely scientific – more of a New Age, self-help, self-delusional thing. Although I do practice some of that myself, it is more in a psychological vein, and I am surprised to see someone tying the two lines of thought together. WHile positive thinking works to some degree on a personal basis, connecting it to Uniformitarianism is new to me.

  178. Steve, to me also it’s a bit new, but of course I found it in the first place because I suspected it and was looking for it. But it can never be a coincidence or blind chance, starting in both Europe and N.America in the 1860s, right after the downfall of Romanticism as the dominant cultural attitude that had prevailed since the end of the XVIIIth century, or even since 1770 if we add pre-Romanticism to it.
    I see the enforced optimism, the Pavlovian keep-smiling in America, against the pessimism of Romanticism, and in Europe the rigidity of Academia, the fear of being associated with the fringe, against the openmindedness of the Romantic period. Another difference is that in Europe positivism is linked with materialism, and became the dominant doctrine in Academia; whereas in N.America it was (and is) christian.
    The name of the New Thought movement in N.America reminds me singularly of the Orwellian Newspeak.
    I am most grateful to Barbara Ehrenreich for her clear insights.

  179. PS. In Europe the fear of being associated with the lunatic fringe is much less all-pervading in the UK than on the continent. In the UK there exists a time-honoured tradition of being tolerant towards excentrics.
    In Germany the name of Alexander Tollmann became synonymous with lunatic after he had hypothezised a multiple comet impact at the end of the Pleistocene. In the UK the Astronomer Royal, Sir Fred Hoyle, adhered to that hypothesis. In the UK Trevor Howard, professor of botanics, was for a while president of the (Velikovkian) Society for Interdisciplinary Studies. In Holland Doeko Goosen, tenured professor of geomorphology, was hounded out of his job when he started to be interested in some catastrophist hypotheses.

  180. Dear Han

    For me the lunatic Alexander Tollmann hypothesis (the man with the head on Moon and feet on Earth) is in palaeolagoons worldwide. Meanwhile, here I found possible impactites in most of them just walking in its surroundings. If digging will find more thing. All these people should be laughing with me when I find a molten rock.

  181. Pierson, when you find that piece of molten rock, let me know. Or better, tell it to somebody with laboratory facilities, which I haven’t.
    After the Clovis/Usselo discussions started in 2005, more and more Holocene impacts are being found. The Chiemgau impact in Bavaria, dated to between 3300 and 2300 ys BP (Ernstson 2011); the destruction of the Akkadian culture and the capital Agade in Mesopotamia, about 4200 ys ago (Seifert & Lemke, 2013).
    It is not only the uniformitarian Earth history we learned that has to be abolished, but also human prehistory and history, which have to be superposed on the history of catastrophes, natural ones, and the Acts of God we know about from myths around the world.
    If the Chiemsee impact happened in the middle of the two estimated age limits, at 800 BCE, that would be close to the Sterno-Etrussa geomagnetic event, just as the end-Alleroed is close to the Goteborg event.

  182. Steve; Those pics I sent to you weren’t of Dolomite as I was told but they are chert samples. I was looking at the link that Barry Weathersby posted and it talked about chert filling in cracks in the rock and he had photos of the rock faces showing the chert veins. I got curious and looked up chert and found an amazing variety of chert samples. whilst checking these samp[le pics I came across an identicle pic minus the pinholes. Well so much for my idea of heat glazed dolomite. Another grand concept down in flames.

  183. Too bad it wasn’t dolomite Jim. I was rootin’ for that one.

    But if it had been, and if it had been subjected to great heat somewhere along the line, there would’ve been a clear signature of chemical changes in the rock from that heat. When lava has a high concentration of calcium, then when the lava cools, the calcium goes into minerals such as plagioclase and pyroxenes.

    So I would think that if you found a piece dolomite, or limestone with those kinds of minerals in it, or on it’s surface, and you could rule out volcanism as the heat source for those chemical changes, then you might have a smoking gun for violence from above.

  184. P.S. A simple field test to test for carbonate rocks can be done with 10% hydrochloric acid.

    When out in the boonies I always have a little bottle of the stuff, and eye dropper with me. Any carbonate rocks will fiz and bubble when you put a drop of acid on them.

  185. Han –

    “It is not only the uniformitarian Earth history we learned that has to be abolished, but also human prehistory and history, which have to be superposed on the history of catastrophes…”

    Yes, that is the BIG thing about all this catastrophe stuff: It has to create an entirely new framework for history, natural and historical. There will be so much that needs to be thrown out, because they’ve gone so far around the bend with the unworkable present history, and retreating is not just ONE step, but 100 steps. They have been in-filling for decades a paradigm that is bankrupt. All that in-filling was interpreted based on a mirage. Take away the mirage and nothing is left. Entire careers are at risk.

  186. It is hard to fathom that NONE of them saw or had the balls to admit that the paradigm was flawed.

  187. Dennis; Thanks for the acid idea. I’ll try it just in case. I’m going to look up chert again and look REAL close at samples. Wouldn’t chert found limestone react to the acid also because the chemical composition should be somewhat similar?

  188. Dennis; I’m still going to acid test this rock but it appears to be Rhynie chert which is found in Rhynie Scotland and apparently in Wilmington, Ill. There are no known devonian outcroppings in my area only slurian limestone at the surface the dolomite is much deeper. I’ll let you know about the acid test.

  189. P.S. Since the acid reacts with calcium carbonite, and since chert is mostly Silicon Dioxide, then if you get a strong reaction you’re probably looking at one of chert’s calcareous cousins.

  190. Dennis and Jim, what a funny place you choose to research the chemical difference between limestone and chert. You could have asked any geology student in his-her freshman year. It’s not only chemically but also optically easy to distinguish between them, both micro- and macroscopically.
    And what has it to do with the end-Pleistocene research, and the uniformitarianism / catastrophism controversy?

  191. >>It is not only the uniformitarian Earth history we learned that has to be
    >>abolished, but also human prehistory and history, which have to be superposed
    >>on the history of catastrophes, natural ones, and the Acts of God we know
    >>about from myths around the world.

    That is one of the reasons I find the “catastrophism” viewpoint so fascinating.

    It means that — lets be real here — the entrenched racism of both the archeologist and anthropologist communities about our ancestor’s “sky god” religions is more rooted in those communities ignorance and superstitious denial of catastrophic reality than the ancient’s religions.

    It wasn’t ignorance and superstition that had our ancestors looking to “sky gods.”

    They had good and pressing reality-based reasons to watch the skies like hawks and speak of vengeful sky gods. It was the only explanation they had for the reality they witnessed.

  192. Trent, I don’t know in how far it has been racism, and in how far religious hubris that made them construct an evolutionary ladder from animism to polytheism to monotheism. Both were strong in western culture, in the 2nd half of the 19th century. Monotheism is like saying that everything is connected, or entangled, something particle physicists are discovering right now. But also the “primitive” religions distinguish clearly between an Uppergod and secundary ones. In Judaism it is the archangel Michael who is in charge of the Sun, in ancient Greece it was Apollo. What’s the difference between an archangel and a secundary God?

    I make a prediction. Once Holocene impact structures and geomagnetic events have been dated, the prehistory from 13,000 BP to the beginning of history will become more similar to history than to the imprecise prehistory now based on archaeology, palaeontology, linguistics.
    I also predict that it is going to take a long time before a new synthesis can be made.

    I am busy with the N-S instability of planet Earth, and find that in central Africa the Pygmees tell about Earth reversal in 2 different manners: in a stable-earth paradigm, but also in a stable-heaven paradigm. Now how on Earth did they know THAT??

    If tomorrow morning I miraculously wake up being 18ys old, I’d try to find a shaman, to initiate me to the mysteries of Life. Somewhere in the wilderness, far from universities.

  193. Steve, “it is hard to fathom that NONE of them saw .. that the paradigm was flawed.”
    O yes, some of “them” did see it. That there ever existed a consensus about uniformitarianism, is a bluff of the uniformitarians.
    I became a catastrophist after reading Arthur Koestler’s The Roots of Coincidence, 1972. I thought, if the (positivist) academics are fooling us in such a tremendous way, there is most probably also something wrong in the heads of the academic geologists.
    Especially after 1975, when I started “Catastrophist Geology”, I have kept my eyes open, and taken some notes. Very twenty-centurish, I have them on My Documents, on real paper.
    Tomorrow I’ll get them, and write about it here on the CT.
    Perhaps that can be of use to somebody after a PhD in the history of science.

  194. >>Trent, I don’t know in how far it has been racism, and in how far
    >>religious hubris that made them construct an evolutionary ladder
    >>from animism to polytheism to monotheism. Both were strong in
    >>western culture, in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

    Hans,

    We are in the 21st Century, and the religious motivations for looking down on the old sky gods areas dead as the Soviet Union.

    Yet the whole “primitive religions” meme hangs on in the archeologist and anthropologist communities like grim death.

    Treating our ancestors like they were stupid, and we are more “enlightened,” just grates.

    You just don’t know beans about a culture without knowing it’s tools and how they were used in context.

    If the Tusk is reality, the context of the “Sky Gods” religious artifacts changes radically from “primitive” to a logical cultural response to Holocene and early historic impact events, given the very limited knowledge base of those cultures.

    Stonehenge and the Mayan temple-observatories as impact early warning systems makes the ancients look anything but “primitive.”

    Tool limited — A definite “Yes”

    “Primitive” — Oh H*ll no!

  195. Trent, please be more specific, you are giving just generalities. If you were more specific, we could find out where we agree, and where we don’t. There exists an enormous amount of New Age blah-blah, so just as with diamond digging (less than 1 carat per cubic meter constitutes paydirt) one has got to do a lot of reading before finding a gem.
    I have been reading the newest Edward Malkowski, and thought it better than his other books. And I haven’t finished Barbara Ehrenreich yet, that’s taking time because I do a lot of parallel-reading.

  196. Trent, your 1:19 comment yesterday – I couldn’t have said it all better myself.

    I agree 100%.

  197. Han – “I make a prediction. Once Holocene impact structures and geomagnetic events have been dated, the prehistory from 13,000 BP to the beginning of history will become more similar to history than to the imprecise prehistory now based on archaeology, palaeontology, linguistics.

    I also predict that it is going to take a long time before a new synthesis can be made.”

    Yes. “…will become more similar to history.” Right now pre-history is this veiled NOTHING that the arkies an anthros project their (lets call it) temporal racism into, with almost nothing in it but phantasms from their imaginations. There simply isn’t a damned thing in it that is solid. Nothing but a shadow play.

    Those QUALITATIVE, COMPARATIVE so-called sciences have so little hard science in them – and much of the time the hard science is put on the back burner or bent to fit the comparative delineations, which is horse crap. Those need to be made QUANTITATIVE. They also need to allow and prioritizes quantitative evidence into the discussion that is currently ignored or rejected.

    And, yes, it is going to be a long slog.

    Thesis > Antithesis > Synthesis. We here and the scientists/science that we discuss here are the antithesis stage, and it is hardly yet begun – the PUSH BACK of antithesis.

  198. “If tomorrow morning I miraculously wake up being 18ys old, I’d try to find a shaman, to initiate me to the mysteries of Life. Somewhere in the wilderness, far from universities.”

    Hahahaha – Han, I am going to go all metaphysical on you here for a moment:

    At age 18, I dropped out of school, knowing that was NOT my direction. I’d been honor student in five subjects in high school, but the stench in college I could sense without knowing what it was. I just had to get away from it. It was too stifling.

    I spent years exploring anything and everything I found interesting, looking to see how much solidity there was in any of it. I wasn’t looking for TRUTH; I was looking for solidity, what things FIT and what things looked like b.s.

    My premise was that there IS – WAAAAY up there in knowledge land THIS: What really happened and what really IS. I insisted that:

    Reality is integral. It is unified – without contradiction and without gaps in it.

    – In that, then, no part can contradict any other part.
    – No grouping can contradict any other grouping or part.
    – No process can contradict and grouping or part.
    – No outcomes can contradict any process, grouping, or part.

    It all has to be INTERNALLY CONSISTENT.

    I also did not accept any of the shamans I ran across, because the ones I SAW were all snake oil salesmen and phony New Age gurus.

    Like the gnostics, I had to find each truth about anything on my own. “Only the truth you experience yourself is real in your life.”

    Gnostic = the opposite of AGnostic.

    And what is AGnostic? One who admits that he/she does not know.

    Ergo, a gnostic is one who admits that he DOES know. He knows what he knows, and he knows THAT he knows it. And he knows WHY he knows it.

    Bit by bit it grows… It is the only way.

    Sorry for the mumbo jumbo, but. . . LOL

    But I wasn’t going to find it in the stagnant, morbid halls of academia, where they teach you more about what NOT to think than HOW to think. (IS teaching NOT to think even teaching?)

    I CHOSE to not go that way, just like you wish you had done. At age 18, no less. Maybe a tiny bit precocious on that. Maybe just lucky.

  199. Trent –
    “Treating our ancestors like they were stupid, and we are more ‘enlightened,’ just grates.”

    Been there and thought that.

    “You just don’t know beans about a culture without knowing it’s tools and how they were used in context.”

    And do not forget that 90%+ of their tools didn’t survive. So whatever we THINK from the few we find is a few percent fact and 90%+ speculation/imagination.

    And even that supposes that we recognize their tools properly. Read Christopher Dunn’s books. There are certainly things in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo that are tools for technology that we know nothing regarding what they were for. The arkies call them “ritual” or “ceremonial” or (not as often) “decorative.

    “If the Tusk is reality, the context of the ‘Sky Gods’ religious artifacts changes radically from ‘primitive’ to a logical cultural response to Holocene and early historic impact events, given the very limited knowledge base of those cultures.

    Stonehenge and the Mayan temple-observatories as impact early warning systems makes the ancients look anything but ‘primitive.'”

    Absolutely. The observatory that Enoch was shown in the UK was certainly used to determine if a comet was a danger or not.

    For me the issue is where that tech knowledge came from in the first place. The arkies hem and haw about it and note a couple of star or sunrise or moonrise stones, and somehow, in their utter stupidity, think that those are the ONLY alignments. They seem to have not even ASKED why all the OTHER STONES were put into their places. Scores of additional stones, when a handful would have sufficed.

    In engineering NOTHING superfluous is ever put into a piece of equipment. EVERYTHING has a specific reason. And do not kid yourself, those stone circles (many hundreds in the UK and Ireland) were pieces of equipment – unrecognized as such or for the vast majority of why they were built.

    “Tool limited — A definite ‘Yes’

    ‘Primitive” — Oh H*ll no!'”

    Which to me goes back to the issue of where the tech CAME FROM.

  200. Steve, better don’t believe the uniformitarians when they tell you that there ever existed a consensus. There didn’t, just as there have been no monolithic Catholic Middle Ages (very interesting is the aborted renaissance of troubadour times, 3 centuries before the one that succeeded. It was drowned in blood, at Beziers and Montsegur).
    During the uniformitarian dark age, 1860-1980, there were non-geologists who didn’t accept the academic dogmas; well-known catastrophists were Henry Howorth, Hoerbiger, Velikovsky.
    But there were also, and always, a few geologists who started to doubt, and/or became convinced of the stupidity of a science based on a-prioristic slogans such as formulated by Leibniz and Lyell – natura non facit saltus, the present is the key to the past.
    Here follow some names.

    Joseph Prestwich, 1812-1896. first friend and fellow traveler of Lyell, he became a diluvialist on geological grounds – field evidence.
    Obruchev, 1863-1956.
    Joseph LeConte 1823-1901 (CA, Berkeley).
    Marcel Bertrand, 1847-1907. Paris.
    Pierre Termier, 1859-1930.
    Louis de Launay, 1860-1938.
    Whereas the others mentioned here are individuals, in France Bertrand-Termier-Launay formed something of a school. They overlapped in time with the old catastrophist school of Romanticist times, Elie de Beaumont, 1798-1874, Agassiz 1807-1875.
    Termier wrote geology handbooks, and also books on Atlantology.
    Wilfried von Seidlitz, 1880-1945. Geologist, catastrophist, and oy-veh, nazi. He was killed while defending the fatherland, shortly before what even Germans have started to call now their liberation – both truely, and hypocritically.
    Ting Ying Ma, 1899-1979, professor of geology at Hainan U. concluded, on palaeontological evidence, that there have been sudden changes in the angle of the Earth’s axis with the ecliptic. His conclusions were scandalously distorted by Charles Hapgood, Ma understood that only the mantle/liquid core interface could be a slipping surface, not the mantle/crust interface. The most interesting researchers here are physicists: Warlow and Flodmark.

    More names,badly organised:
    Otto Schindewolf, Alfred Romer, Shatskiy, Krasovskiy, Shklovskiy. Liniger, Dale Russel, Salop, Digby Maclaren, Newell, Tucker.

    And then, I proudly add my own name, for I started in the 1970s, before the 1980 revolution of Napier and Clube, Warlow and Louis Alvares.
    Wish I had started before.

  201. Han – “(very interesting is the aborted renaissance of troubadour times, 3 centuries before the one that succeeded.”

    Now THAT, if I hear you right, would be the Cathars in southern France. Yes, NASTY stuff, that genocide.

    “But there were also, and always, a few geologists who started to doubt, and/or became convinced of the stupidity of a science based on a-prioristic slogans such as formulated by Leibniz and Lyell – natura non facit saltus, the present is the key to the past.”

    I ALWAYS argue that simplistic memes are completely misguided, such as Occam’s Razor. THE stupidest thing EVER in science and inquiry. The real natural world is MUCH more complex, and “simple slogans” simply mislead and are simply WRONG. There is ALWAYS discovered SOME complicating factor – usually a litany of them.

    As I wrote here on CT a year or two ago, no sooner did Uniformitarianism get started when they started finding holes in it and having to make exceptions. It took 100 years, though, before Stephen J Gould looked at the mass extinctions and Permian Explosion and formalized it into a bastardized “Punctuated Equilibrium” – which is a slick way to call it Catastrophism with long periods of slow, steady Gradualism.

    Even Darwin saw it all while on the Beagle and new cataclysms had occurred.

    NATURE DOES JUMP.

    GRADUALISM CAN NEVER, EVER BE A CLUE TO CATASTROPHIC EVENTS. To try to use it that way is to have no eyes, no ears, no brain.

    Thanks for the list of heretics…

  202. As to the last bit about Gould – When you have Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism in one package, the obvious evidence MUST be the BIG evidence.

    And THAT is the cataclysms. The Uniformitarianism is simply the backdrop, like scenery for a play – No matter HOW pretty the scenery is, the PLAY is the action, not the objects that sit there and don’t DO anything.

    It is AMAZING that 150 years of scientists have been looking at the scenery and trying to divine what the play is all about.

  203. Under Count Raymond VI of Toulouse there were tolerantly living together in the Languedoc Catholics, Cathars, Jews and Moslims – and undoubtedly some surviving Pagans also. But it was verboten by the pope to be tolerant.

    Slogans are typical for autocratic regimes, but that rule should be applied with care for it is a slogan also.

    I don’t like Gould’s punctuated equilibria, that sounds to me like describing a car accident with total loss as a puncture. And though I am not a Velikovskian, I do admire Velikovsky: what a chutzpah he had!

  204. I’ve always admired the Cathars. Yes, that was a very tolerant society. Killed off by the same sort of mental aberration that infected Hitler – that only HIS kind were acceptable.

    I am not a Gould fan, either. But at least he had the guts to mention that sudden changes DO occur. He didn’t have the courage to follow up and try to find out WHY, though.

  205. There was once an elephant in a room. The beast was the subject of lifetimes of careful study, and speculation, by skilled, and dedicated, specialists of precise, but very limited, vision. The man who studied a leg said the elephant is like a pillar. The one who studied the tail said the elephant is like a rope. The one who studied the trunk said the elephant is like a tree branch. The one who studied the ear said the elephant is like a hand fan. The one who studied the belly said the elephant is like a wall.
    The nature of the beast was all very contentious, and controversial. And even the fleas on the elephants back joined in the debate, with the assertion that “This is our ever unchanging world, you fools!” Until one day, a person came along who could see the whole beast from a distance, and he explained to them:

    “All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you has perceived a different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned. But there is so very much more to the beast than any of you know. You just need to get enough distance to see it all in context”

    The blind scholars all dismissed the new viewpoint as heresy. They argued that it had never been established among them, that vision was a valid tool of science. So, since this new, and heretical, viewpoint flew in the face of all they had assumed they knew, and all they had so carefully, and painstakingly, confabulated about the beast, they quickly resolved to ignore the upstart’s new perspective, and to get on with their life’s work of studying, and debating, the true nature of the elephant in the room.

  206. Steve Garcia said —

    >>And do not forget that 90%+ of their tools didn’t survive. So whatever
    >>we THINK from the few we find is a few percent fact and 90%+
    >>speculation/imagination.

    >>And even that supposes that we recognize their tools properly. Read
    >>Christopher Dunn’s books. There are certainly things in the Egyptian
    >>Museum in Cairo that are tools for technology that we know nothing
    >>regarding what they were for. The arkies call them “ritual” or
    >>“ceremonial” or (not as often) “decorative.

    Funny you should mention that.

    My wife’s science article RSS feed spit out an Egyptology/science article that talks about how “The arkies” have finally discovered how the Egyptians moved those huge pyramid rocks across the desert.

    It seems that the answer was on the wall all the time. The hieroglyphics showed men with water vases in front of massive rocks being moved.

    One of the Egyptology crowd decided that meant more than spilling and tested out the picture in real life and found out the fact that desert sand of the proper wetness — not to much and not too little — became a relatively frictionless surface.

    The ancients were anything but “primitive.”

  207. Han –

    You still have your wife with you? Cool!

    I looked up that article. It seems to be all over the wires. I read the one at http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0502/Ancient-Egyptians-used-wet-sand-to-drag-massive-pyramid-stones-say-scientists

    I was shaking my head over and over as I read it. So many assumptions, so many illogical conclusions jumped to… such BAD science by news release… This is really sad science…

    For the moment (and probably forever on this one), consider me a BIG skeptic on this claim. I have serious reservations about it. Not the least of which is that moving them horizontally was NOT the technical marvel that they make it out to be. Making those statues and lifting them are MUCH bigger technical problems.

    The FIRST point is simply this: THEY ASSUME that the Egyptians are pulling the damned things over the freaking desert! I have to ask if even ONE of those scientists has ever even BEEN to Egypt. The Egyptians, given a choice, would NOT have been dragging it over the desert. Jesus H Christ! They would have made the statues so that the path to the final site was over a hard surface. THAT alone makes the entire premise of this thing MONUMENTALLY STUPID in the extreme.

    FINE, they made ana ssumption, and from that they found that wet sand has less tendency to pile up in front of a sledge. And from that, they built an entire b.s. scenario out of their own imaginations.

    There is NOTHING pictorial in that wall scene that indicates that the surface is SAND.

    This would not be the first time some academic found out ONE thing that they conjecture about how things were done in ancient Egypt. Others have come up with spiraling ramps up the pyramids, raising cut stones floating mini barges up like canal locks – and the biggest, most pathetic doozy of all, that the pyramid stones were POURED as concrete.

    I’ve worked some with lubrication and tribological aspects of friction. I am no EXPERT, but I have a good sense of what goes on.

    I will add that people long ago learned that quicksand is due to having a spring under the sand, which effectively suspends the particles and makes a slurry.

    Another ASSUMPTION: Of course I can’t read the hieroglyphs, but so far it seems that they are assuming that the liquid being poured in front of the sled is water. Why not some REAL lubricant, like oil? The Egyptians definitely had oils. I haven’t done the experiment, so I don’t know one way or another. Oil might actually thicken the sand and make it worse. I don’t know.

    I can tell you THIS: Oil on rock is a WHOLE LOT BETTER means of transporting the sledges than water on sand. They left out any and all more common sense solutions.

    As to the water percentage needing to be within some fairly narrow range: That is a BIG factor. And I DOUBT that one guy in front with one vase full of water would be able to keep the lubricity required. The amounts of water needed would be very large. The water would evaporate quite quickly at the very surface. As anyone who has built sand castles on the beach will tell you, the water/sand ratio changes pretty rapidly, as the water disperses in the sand/evaporates.

    But do they REALLY think that Egyptians lived and worked IN the desert? What wankers! They lived and worked in the NILE valley.

    GRRRRRRR!!!!!

    I will check with Chris Dunn and see what he has to say. Being a master machinist, he will have some opinion.

  208. Oh, and I WOULD point out that the fluid being poured in the image is BLACK.

    Before anyone responds with “Black? Of course it is black! It’s DRAWN!” I will point out that there are OTHER features in the scene that are shown NOT black, so the black would seem to be intentional, or likely to be.

    It seems pretty obvious that water would have been depicted to be clear(er).

    (See the enlarged image at http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2014/05-02-pyramid/18423180-1-eng-US/05-02-pyramid_full_600.jpg)

  209. MAHANEY IS AN IMPOSTOR

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geoa.12033/abstract
    William C.Mahaney et al. 2014, Recent Developments in the Analysis of the Black Mat Layer and Cosmic Impact 12.8 ka. Geografiske Annaler Ser.A, Physical Geography 96/1: 99-111.

    The “Boelling-Alleroed” doesn’t exist, the sequence from old to young is Dryas I / Boelling / Dryas II / Alleroed / Dryas III. The climate changes were worldwide.
    And what are M. et al. talking about, the Usselo/Clovis Layer, or the so-called black mat on top of it?
    “Deposits from both areas were mapped from air photos”. A genius, this Mahaney! I need a shovel for it.
    “Shocked pyroxene, olivine, amphibole” – so that’s a volcanic tuff, an not the Usselo/Clovis Layer. Perhaps M. is also able to do his petrographical and mineralogical analyses from air photos?

    What a pity, now that occurrence in Venezuela is invalidated, because related by an impostor; in S.America, only Colombia is left, and probably Chile.
    And Allen, are you crazy to accept coauthorship of a paper written by a madman?

  210. Hans; I just read your latest comment and then the abstract listed and it’s all interesting how such ideas get put together and put out there as fact. I’m working on a theory that the Drake Passage opening is actually a cosmic impact site that is related to the confirmed 34mya sites at Mt Ashmore (off the NW Australian coast in the Timor sea, the Chesapeake site and the Popigai site in Russia. These sites combined to produce a trajectory that went 1.5 orbits. Each impact site was least 50km or [email protected] of the four sites are multiple impacts and a third one is probable. The 34mya is also the dating for the Grand Coupre Extiction Event. I know this does directly impact the YDB, but if it can be proven then the possibility for the same scenario at the YDB would be much more palatable to mainstream science. And if the YDB scenario can be confirmed as multiple impacts then the 34mya event should be more acceptable.

  211. Jim Coyle: my name is Han.
    And why do you change the subject?
    At this moment I am only concerned with the Mahaney hoax.

  212. Han,

    How is Mahaney an imposter and how is it related to the “Black Mat?”

    Those of us that don’t follow the research closely lack the background to make judgments.

  213. Trent, of the nonsense Mahaney passes off as geological research results, I have given some examples the day before yesterday. He has not the slightest idea. A thin layer of sand cannot be detected on aerial photographs; and its mineral content cannot be determined without doing laboratory work. And he doesn’t know that the minerals he mentions, pyroxene, olivine and amphibole, ate typical for basalt. He just spouts some geological-sounding buzzwords, without understanding.

    On the Net I see that there are 59 William Mahoneys in N.America, and so, the one we are talking about must be one of the 58 non-geologists. Or else, he has set a trap, deliberately, in order to see who is so stupid to stumble into it. Remember the Sokal hoax, in 1995 if I remember well.

    Meanwhile, Allen West has chosen to answer me only privately, per e-mail, whereas such a hoax concerns the whole Firestone group, affecting its credibility, exposing it to ridicule.
    Mahaney, whoever he is, has obviously never been to the Alps, and is unable to do geological laboratory work. What his motivation is to write crap, I cannot judge.

  214. Han –

    I agree with Trent, in asking why you think Mahaney is an impostor. I do not think in your previous comment that you gave anything more than accusations. The passage you quoted, “Deposits from both areas were mapped from air photos” – you seem to have taken that out of context, as I read it.

    The full passage reads,

    Deposits for both areas were mapped from air photos, and sites selected on the basis of representative deposit and soil expression. Deposits, including MUM7B (Mahaney et al. 2010b, 2011a, 2011b), were investigated for LG stratigraphy and radiocarbon controls. The Western Alps sites were similarly studied for differentiation of LG and YD weathering characteristics and paleosol properties. Both the YD and LG deposits were sampled for rinds, and counts with corresponding soil/stratigraphic pits established in each case. [emphasis added by smg]

    .

    I think stopping your quote at Mahaney’s air photo level of investigation was unfair of you. A scan down the article text shows in Figures 3, 4 and 5 that the investigation got down far beyond air photos. And a full reading of the “METHODS” section of the paper shows that far more was done than merely looking at air photos. The air photo stage was for mapping, as Mahaney clearly spells out. I think various methods are commonly used to size up regions for the best locations to take samples. If Mahaney did that, so what? He followed it up with field work, samples, and lab work. There is nothing “impostor” about it. As to the science in his paper, that is another issue. I honestly don’t see why you don’t accept his narrowing down his site selection via air photos to be a problem.

    It doesn’t sound like you to get so confrontational.

    All I can say is that when I read the paper I see much more than what you imply. And I don’t think there is anything in there to assert that Mahaney is an impostor. Han, you KNOW that I DO think some scientists are impostors, so I don’t give Mahaney an easy pass on this. If I saw only air photos I’d scream as loud as you did. I don’t want some piss poor effort giving the YDB impact a bad name, either.

    I just don’t see what you are seeing in what the paper says.

  215. Han,

    This —

    >>A thin layer of sand cannot be detected on aerial photographs; and
    >>its mineral content cannot be determined without doing laboratory work

    Regards mineral composition, I have no argument, that is telling.

    About identification of sand via aerial photography, that is a yes and no kind of thing. In WW2 the US Military developed a system of identifying beach sand types by aerial photography for landing “trafficability.”

    The US Navy still followed them up with UDT combat swimmers taking sand samples immediately prior to landings, to validate aerial color film photography. But the aerial photography method got to be remarkably accurate.

    I have no idea exactly what modern digital multi-spectral photographic methods are capable of in this vein, other than the thought that those methods are likely far more reliable for the US Navy today.

    Not having read his paper I also have no idea what Mahaney used for his study in terms of digital photographic techniques.

    However, if your contention that there is a lack of a sample of a physical sand sample for validating the aerial photography is correct. That alone is a very strong poker “Tell” that something is not right.

  216. Hopefully this will clear up some misconceptions about Mahaney’s work in the Alps — I am a co-author of several of those papers. Mahaney used aerial photos to identify sites of interest. After that, he and a crew hiked into the Alps several times to 2300 m above sea level and brought back many kilograms of samples. I and others have examined some of that material with light microscopes and electron microscopes. Other material has been put through Neutron Activation Analysis. There are high-temperature, melted minerals in the presumed YDB layer at the site, and we have found significant peaks in Pt, Ni, Co, Cr, and some REEs, which are often abundant in ET material. The site certainly appears to be the right age and to contain YDB markers.

  217. The Usselo Layer is well-hidden. The idea that favourable locations can be pre-selected by studying aerial photographs is preposterous. Unless the layer is exposed in a sandpit, it is always found by local people, more often than not amateur-archaeologists, who then notify archaeologists and geologists.
    In the Mahoney paper I see only 1 GPS location, and no photographs of the layer.
    I repeat, the Boelling-Alleroed doesn’t exist, so the authors suffer from a lack of stratigraphical knowledge.
    Pedological terms – entisols, cryorthents, Ah horizons – are unfamiliar to most geologists and so have only the effect of buzz-words without transmitting a meaning.

  218. Steve, I quoted the essential part, “Deposits for both areas were mapped from air photos”; what follows, “and sites selected on the basis of representative deposit and soil expression” carries no meaning, it’s just bla-bla.
    Trent, sand can be detected on air photos, yes. But not a thin (10cm) layer that is part of a sand deposit tenths of meters thick. So that holds for the N.European Sand Belt. Where the lithology is different, as in the UK p.e. in Kent, or in the US at Murray Springs (the only site I’ve visited there), it’s even more difficult to find the layer. Of most (or all?) of the layers in N’America the stratigraphy had been puzzled out by others, before somebody of the Firestone group could go there to take samples.
    And so, when somebody says that he flew in from the other side of the Atlantic, after having pre-selected sample sites on air photos, and then really found the layer he sought, I don’t believe a word of it.

  219. Allen, please be so kind to remove my name from the list of co-authors of the upcoming PNAS paper. I don’t want my name on the same list as Mahaney’s.

    I continue willing to show Usselo sites to visitors from N.America, as I have done before.
    But I am crippled now, they’ll have to pick me up by car at my front door.

  220. Two years ago I have warned against speculating about the Carolina Bay sands without having done one’s homework.
    The discussions of you (Americans) about Saginaw and a 40,000 ys old sand occurrence don’t make sense when you do not have assembled the basic data first.

    To say it more clearly: it’s Kindergarten babble.

    I can teach Heavy-Mineral microscopy to anyone who has done the basic course in thin-section microscopy. You can sleep on a mattrass in my living room. Reserve a month for it.
    Take microscopic preparations along, I have a Zeiss-Ikon polarising microscope (several decades older than I am).

    \\\\\\\\\\][
    \\\\\\\\'[[[[[]

    \]\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\