NASA impact frequency experts speechless facing Centaur

skeletal_centaur_anatomy_study_by_tursiart-d1ov3yk

Bill Napier on the Tusk

Royal Astronomical Society Press Release

Google News

Bonus PDF: Fred Hoyle’s 100th honored

Known severe upsets of the terrestrial environment and interruptions in the progress of ancient civilizations, together with our growing knowledge of interplanetary matter in near-Earth space, indicate the arrival of a Centaur around 30,000 years ago. This giant comet would have strewn the inner planetary system with debris ranging in size from dust all the way up to lumps several kilometers across.

Specific episodes of environmental upheaval around 10,800 BCE and 2,300 BCE, identified by geologists and paleontologists, are also consistent with this new understanding of cometary populations. Some of the greatest mass extinctions in the distant past, for example the death of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, may similarly be associated with this giant comet hypothesis.

RAS Press Release, December 22, 2015

Download (PDF, 630KB)

  • I suppose eventually the Black Sturgeon River and Lake Nipigon will be back in the news again. This is one thing that I wish would just go away. First it’s dark matter perterbations of the Oort cloud, and then it’s evil Halloween asteroids from the eighth dimension, and now this. It would be nice to hear something a little more definitive on the nanodiamonds, that’s the only thing that seems to be left standing, the timing of the glacial Lake Agassiz Moorhead phase drawdown remains controversial, with the two camps still remaining, one claiming St. Lawrence first, and the other claiming the Arctic ocean first. And there was even a paper claiming there had to be some sort of initiation event to get such a dramatic response. However, I still remain skeptical. One a side note the n-diamond phase has been tested by ab initio and first principle computations and appears to be a weird polymorph (allotrope?) with embedded oddball hexagon pairs caused by rapid quenching in a hydrogen rich environment.

  • Steve Garcia

    TLE –

    Sources on the n-diamond assertions?

    I am an Oort cloud skeptic, myself. Still no rel-world evidence for it. So, sorry, Bill N., but that part I am not on board with, but am willing to be taught the error of my ways…LOL

    The snarcs aren’t necessary. Can you please state your piece on subjects in a civil manner? Insults! What are they good for? Absolutely NUTTIN’!

    I, too, am skeptical of both the St Lawrence and MacKenzie outlets, from my time at WUWT – AND from discussions with Rodney Chilton. One is wrong time – so wrong that not only did Wally Broecker bail on the Lake Agassiz connection, but it forced the AMO conveyor shutdown folks to look far and wide to find some OTHER way to connect Lake Agassiz and the oceanic conveyor sinking point east of Iceland. Unfortunately, they might as well have chosen an outlet on the Zambezi in Sub-Saharan Africa, as far away as the Mackenzie mouth is from Iceland. That is all a dead cat thing.

    Renowned oceanographer Carl Wunsch is on record as calling the oceanic conveyor thing a fantasy, even though he later got intimidated into re-canting sme of his positions. I think he got it right the first time.

    On that general subject – Lae Agassiz – when a hypothesis’s predictive ability is essentially zero, it is time to abandon the idea. But anyone can tell that it has become a sort of cult, because though it failed to be at the right time, and with no evidence of an outwash torrent, people are still patching it up and screaming to their magazine science journalist friends to hype it and hype it. They need to admit defeat and move on.

  • Steve Garcia

    From the paper: “The idea that impacts can affect our planet’s climate and life is now established.”

    K-T…. Anything that can happen once can happen again. The subsequent occurrences will NOT have the same particulars.

    One of the real resistance points is simply because the YDB (and Bill’s other, more recent dates) are IN THE TIME OF MAN. And for some reason, the orthodoxy simply REFUSES to consider that such a thing can have happened and possibly affect human development.

    On the other hand, human development as the orthodoxy presents it cannot be realistic. Evolution goes at inceredibly slow rates, for all of the natural history of life on the planet. EXCEPT that humans – who had taken 3-4 million years to get to homo erectus, suddenly bursts physiologically on the scene only 196,000 years ago, with evolution FOR US AND US ALONE having sped up by a magnitude or three. Exceptionalism isn’t confined to U.S. international politics, it seems.

    The denying of recent impacts is to a large extent possible only because the scientists deny that any accounts from ancient peoples can be about what the accounts have all along been clearly asserting: Catastrophe! Comets! Meteors! Almost everyone killed! BOTTLENECK!

    Hahaha – if there is one thing Noah and Utnapishtim and the others tell about it is bottlenecks in the development of Man. And extinctions are what if not about bottlenecks.

    Bottlenecks and Dead Clade Walking (DCW). Slow-breeding animals in particular seem to have trouble with bottlenecks. Humans are on the cusp – not long gestation and not short. So when some species go DCW, waiting for the second stress event to finish them off, humans dodge them. Part of that – a VERY important part of that – is our adaptability to widely variant climates and flora zones. Being a mix of carnivore and herbivore has its advantages. But our ability to spread out anywhere means that some of us will be far from Ground Zero, at any time in history. (I am leaning to the idea that Africa is not where Mother Eve was – it was simply so far from the catastrophe that distance was their saviour. So, what looks to some like one mama for us all, it might actually simply be that bottleneck that we made it through, but that SOME species didn’t.

  • davideisenstadt

    Hey Steve:
    Ever ponder the effect of a huge chunk of frozen methane hitting the earth?
    Why does the ice have to be frozen water?

  • George Howard

    Welcome, David. Good question.

  • Paul Repstock

    David: I have considered exactly that for several reasons. However, I suspect it would need to have occured in the very distant past (multi millions of years) Not to say that there weren’t smaller incidents in recent history?
    Possible evidence: Methane Ices on the ocean floor.

    What some interpret as “Abiotic Oil” might merely be percolation of formerly subducted hydrocarbons??
    All coffee induced “idle speculations”.

  • davideisenstadt

    just saying that it seems like a bigger bang per ton of mass than mere vaporization of water, for example…
    think of the fireball.

  • David L Ulrich

    We are still going to need something bit enough to destroy Puma Punku. This is cut, carved granite that was completely shattered and thrown 1000’s of yards. They weigh in at outrageous weights. We do not have the technology today that could replicate the same stuff in the same environment. 1000 ton rocks, carved and placed with millimeter precision and they have to last 12000 years (?)….Just saying, no one is coming out a saying “this is what happened”. Is this a case of “fear and loathing” and “gnashing of teeth”. Do we even have the technology today to destroy on the same scale and NOT leave a radioactive fingerprint. Off hand, I’d say .

  • David L Ulrich

    hope this works – Graham Hancock website, scroll down the two pictures for cut stone comparison of Puma Punku and Elephantine Island. They look pretty identical and shattered the same way (close, I think, counts).

    http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1030144

  • Steve Garcia

    OOPS! At the end I wrote Paul, and I meant David.

  • Paul Repstock

    There is a lot we don’t know!
    David; I’m torn between disliking Hancock’s presentation and appreciating the quality of his photography..:)
    A very big question for anyone here: Has anyone ever founf a “Clamp”?? I find it hard to believe that they were all scavanged and reworked.

  • Steve Garcia

    Yes, there are clamps. Here is a photo pf some laid out in the Puma Punku Museum, according to the site where I found this photo online. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8634hVrvqiQ/UgVMS4jdTRI/AAAAAAAAAVE/GomhztVZi_0/s1600/silver+clamps.jpg

    The text accompanying the photo has this to say:

    “Upon some more recent digging of information on my end, i received some info that claims that some clamps have survived and are in the Puma Punku Museum. The composition of the clamps are pretty fascinating. They turned out to be: 95.15% copper—-2.05% Arsenic—-0.84% Silicon and 0.26% iron. ( http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/boliviapumapunka.htm)

    According to Wikipedia, Commercial Bronze is primarily 90% copper with 10% zinc while Architectural Bronze is 57% copper, 3% lead and 40% Zinc. No tin at all but with the zinc, they are more considered brass alloys….so what category would these clamps fall under?

    The even stranger thing, when i viewed the picture of the clamps sent to me via email, i didn’t notice copper….those clamps looked like they were made of silver! But…its just weird….check this out!”

    I’d seen that photo in One of David Hatcher Childress’ World Explorers Magazine just in the last two weeks or so. So I knew exactly what I was looking for.

    As to their metallurgy, I’ve been thinking about that myself. Copper itself is a non-ferrous metal. This gives it a “different” characteristic from ferrous metals – steels and irons. In short, in a dynamic situation non-ferrous metals can “fatigue” while ferrous metals do not. This is an important thing in, say, aluminium used in airplane bodies, where planes have known to kind of fall apart from fatigue.

    So, copper is one of those.

    The clamps need to be TOUGH, to be able to resist sudden shock. They don’t do any good if, at the first vibration of a quake, the clamps snap.

    Copper itself would stretch and fail. Brass would also fail, IMHO. But BRONZE… Some bronze alloys are pretty damned tough. It all depends on the alloys and how the alloy is prepared.

    I assume (which may be wrong) that the clamps are poured into place. Without seeing them, I can’t be sure. But if I saw one close up, I’d be sure, FOR SURE. They all seem to be flat horizontal where I’ve seen them in both photos and the couple I think I remember seeing at Ollantaytambo.

    If they are cast in place, then as they cool they shrink. This shrinking should actually draw the two blocks tighter together. And in doing so, the clamp itself is put in some fairly high level of tension.

    This IS, in fact, what we do with SCREWS when we fasten two parts together. The tightening of the screw causes the screw to get into a high level of tension – meaning that the shank of the screw is stretched. Yes, steel screws, too.

    So, the clamps were doing that, too. Cooling and tightening up the joints. JUST LAYING THERE DOES NOT DO MUCH IN TERMS OF STRENGTHENING THE WALLS.

    The clamps are 95.15% copper, which SHOULD make them rather ductile. But that Arsenic? WOW. That is an unexpected alloying material. But, from Wikipedia, there is this:

    Arsenical bronze is an alloy in which arsenic is added to copper as opposed to, or in addition to tin or other constituent metals, to make bronze. The use of arsenic with copper, either as the secondary constituent or with another component such as tin, results in a stronger final product and better casting behaviour.

    The Silicon – Silicon is present in most steel alloys.

    “Silicon is a deoxidiser and promotes graphite precipitation, it also increases the strength and wear resistance of steel while significantly increasing the elastic limit, thus being a useful alloying element in spring
    steels.”

    That explains what the silicon added, although it may have been present in the ore and not dealt with or maybe even known about. That might be known by analyzing several clamps and seeing how t it varies.

    Since copper ore is often naturally contaminated with arsenic, the term “arsenical bronze” when used in archaeology is typically only applied to alloys with an arsenic content higher than 1% by weight, in order to distinguish it from potentially accidental additions of arsenic.[2]

    The bold part – PERFECT. So, use 95% copper for ductility, silicon to raise the elastic limit, and arsenic to make the buggers stronger.

    The iron in it, should add also some strength, but they sure don’t use much! It is low enough that it might just accidentally be in the clamps because it was in the ore.

    Back to the arsenic (curiosity got to me!) —

    [Wiki] “Advantages of arsenical bronze

    Whilst arsenic was most likely originally mixed with copper as a result of the ores already containing it, its use probably continued for a number of reasons. Firstly, it acts as a de-oxidiser, reacting with oxygen in the hot metal to form arsenous oxides which vaporise from the liquid metal. If a great deal of oxygen is dissolved in liquid copper, when the metal cools the copper oxide separates out at grain boundaries and greatly reduces the ductility of the resulting object. It can lead to a greater risk of porous castings due to the solution of hydrogen in the molten metal and its subsequent loss as a bubble (but any bubbles could be forge welded and still leave the mass of the metal ready to be work-hardened).

    Secondly, it is capable of greater work-hardening than is the case with pure copper, so that it performs better when used for cutting or chopping. There is an increase in work-hardening capability with increasing percentage of arsenic, and it can be work-hardened over a wide range of temperatures without fear of embrittlement. Its improved properties over pure copper can be seen with as little as 0.5 to 2 wt% As, giving a 10 to 30% improvement in hardness and tensile strength.

    Thirdly, in the correct percentages, it can contribute a silvery sheen to the article being manufactured. There is evidence of arsenical bronze daggers from the Caucasus and other artefacts from different locations having an arsenic rich surface layer which may well have been produced deliberately by ancient craftsmen,[9] and Mexican bells were made of copper with sufficient arsenic to colour them silver.”

    One last thing – – –

    I think that we should be calling the clamps “Arsenical bronze clamps” instead of copper clamps.

    I am IMPRESSED with their metallurgical decisions.

  • Steve Garcia

    Follow up on that…

    I’d always assumed they were poured in place, but after looking at the full size image of the clamps n the Puma Punku Museum, I see:

    1.) The shapes of the ears on the ends does not conform well to the clamps slots I’ve seen. Grossly, yes. But I see signs that tell me that the clamps were pre-manufactured.

    2.) The flatness of the several clamps looks too consistent and flat to have been cast in place.

    3.) If cast in place, the clamps should have a rib across the middle conforming to the crack in the joint. I don’t see that on any of them.

    4.) The flatness appears to be consistent with having been work-hardened, which would have made them stronger. Basically a trip hammer or hammering by a blacksmith-type would suffice.

    5.) The clamps do NOT look consistent enough to have been mass-produced elsewhere and simply placed in the T-slots. Each has individual oddities.

    Now, having said that I don’t think they were cast in place, my points about cooling and tightening the joints still holds. In that vein, then, there is nothing preventing them from heating them up before placing them into the T-slots.

  • My favorite, stone work! BTW, ya’ll were talking about newsgroup trees, that site has a friendly looking set up and images too. Personally trees are indispensable. I would love to see these sites, it seems that the people who go there don’t have any knowledge of machining and masonry, plus most haven’t a clue how to use a camera. I was looking at some of those images and wondering WTF and after taking time to read it I see someone has noticed that stone doesn’t break like that unless there is some extreme force involved, my first thought is freezing water as in the ‘box’ full of water and the temperature dropping. There are some strange things going on at those sites, I don’t understand why someone hasn’t checked out some simple tests and at least assembled some of the pieces in their mind. Granted, it must be difficult to bring a descent sized straight edge to remote sites, but with some simple tools it should be easy to find out if they are decorative or precision. As for the breakage you’ll notice one it is cleaved right at the inside edge of the ‘box’ on at least two sides without breaking the end plain which would be the case of a hard blow. Also, it looks like there are multiple large fractures on other parts from both sides which wouldn’t be the case with freezing, unless that lake was around it at the time. From what little I can see from the photos it is as if a wrecking ball covered in rubber was used to break it. I believe these ancient structures were built to withstand huge earthquakes and to withstand Spacefalls I don’t see any other reason to go to such extremes. To in essence withstand the God’s powers. Plus, no one seems to measure to see if the opposite walls are parallel plans.

    I looked at the Bolivian site on Google Earth and noticed NNE just past the town and South of the river is a strange geometric pattern, like some convoluted way to irrigate. I’m about to ‘try’ to convert my book into electronic form solo and expecting the utmost frustration, I wish I could be that positive person and expects success, but I don’t think so. I’ve also been reading Kalevala The Land of Heroes, a Finnish mythology translated in 1907 and it has some correlating things that back up my posit about the Pleiades and Spacefalls. It starts out as a cosmology story of a girl in the sea and a teal nests on her knee and lays 6 golden eggs and the 7th an Iron one. And this part : Thereupon prayed Lemminkainen : “Ukko, thou of God’s the highest, Ukko, thou of clouds the leader, of the scattered clouds conductor, open now thy clefts in Heaven, and in all the sky thy windows, let the Iron hail fall downwards, send thou down the frozen masses, on the mane of that good courser(ox in previous times now a horse), on the back of Hiisi’s(the Devil)courser.” Ukko, then, the great Creator, Jumala(God) ‘mid clouds exalted(super bolide blast), heard and rent the air asunder, clove in twain the vault of Heaven, scattered ice, and scattered iceblocks, scattered down the Iron hailstones, smaller than a horse’s head is, larger than a head of Man is,…ect… And I’m suppose to believe this radiant moves and these myths around the globe are just some ingrained human cognitive default of imagination ? There is even more towards the end (two volume set) and I’ll put it up on my site once I get done compiling it all.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard –

    Misc comments…

    1. Freezing and cracking rocks at Tiahuanaco – I’d suggest that that doesn’t happen there. My experience suggested no. No weather station there, but I checked the temps and rainfall at both La Paz and Desaguadero (on the border with Peru). Tiahuanaco is close to exactly the midpoint between them. All are within a space of 100 kms. All 3 are within a range of 3 meters elevation, too. The coldest months in La Paz and Desaguadero are only slightly below freezing, and being at HEIGHT, the cold temps are brief each night. Such conditions I am sure won’t get the water in the stones to freeze solid enough to split rock. Even if the air is a bit below freezing for 3-4 hours, the stones will retain enough heat. (BTW, the climate there SUCKS.)

    Also, if you look it up and disagree (which I invite you to do!), I’ll point out that the climate at such elevations (I live in the mountains in the tropics, too, but not quite as high) is amazingly CONSISTENT. That isn’t to say that they have NEVER had like 20°F, but frankly, I’d doubt it happens very freaking often.

    They have terrible road surfaces, but frost heaves isn’t the reason for it… 🙂

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard –

    “Precision straight edges” – My friend Christopher Dunn has done exactly that, on more than one occasion, on tours and trips with and without David Hatcher Childress. Chris, in fact, studied the Puma Punku H-Blocks with those and precision calipers and determined that the H-Blocks are NOT machined and NOT consistent. And the surfaces are NOT square and parallel. Chris is a now-retired Master Machinist from Manchester, England, and former Chief Engineer in a company making industrial lasers. He brings some serious solidity to all of this.

    I thought of cast H-Blocks, but Chris asserts that that isn’t possible, either. On that I have not quizzed him enough, but I still think there is merit to the casting possibility. Casting will GIVE un-square and not-quite flat surfaces and will also give dimensional variations, depending upon the composition of the material being cast.

    The material seems to commonly be andesite, which is volcanic and which varies in composition a lot.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard –

    That stuff from the Kavela sounds like good anecdotal accounts. Right now I am actually running into some myself, Sumerian and Babylonian – covering ground others have traversed long before me, and even impact believers have done so.

    The arkies simply can’t accept that when people talk about big ass super violent stuff happening up in the sky that it is NOT talking about some imagined silly petulant gods dreamed up by superstitious ignoramuses. The arkies inject so much STUPIIDTY into their translatinos that it is amazing that anyone can AVER make sense of it aall.

    ONLY when it goes so far over the arkies’ heads do they leave any of the clear language in the translations. Normally they distort it into something ceremonial or ritualistic – the last resort explanation of people who don’t know WTF they are reading.

  • Steve Garcia

    Pardon the typos, folks…

  • Steve – I was thinking more of a climate shift temporarily, which in the myths is described as very cold. After looking at the pictures again I see that the ‘box’ I was talking about is in Egypt, that really shoots the freeze factor, still those are nice clean breaks… Andesite, ayh? I thought the Puma Punka blocks were granite… So they are made out of that reddish ‘sandstone’? Andesite has a hardness of 1.1 and sandstone of 2.6, if that entire site is of material remotely in that ballpark of hardness I’d be extremely upset if I traveled there to that high desert and found out. If so, I could demonstrate how that could be done given a day or so to think about it. Couple of long straight pieces of wood and discarded car keys. Thanks for the machinist report, there is still the Egyptian granite work…

    I’d love to see what you dig up in myths, just to see another view point and maybe what I may have missed. Other impact believers accounts, I’d like to see that too. I’ve read about others speculating and giving one or two examples, but not the actual text and multiple accounts that I’ve already done. How is it that your convinced that archaeologist have altered the myths? I wouldn’t think the linguist would endeavour to translate the stories if they had been hacked up by a different discipline. Or maybe your thinking the whole of the populace was indoctrinated into this gradualism mindset and would purposefully alter the story? I don’t think so, I’ve read a whole lot of linguists translations and they don’t seem to skew things much even when the ramifications are detrimental to the majorities beliefs. The point I’m trying to make is that same motif is spread globally as it should be from a celestial occurrence. The comparative mythologist of the late 19th century were hard pressed to believe that there was a global intercourse to spread the story and never, at least I never got a glimmer, thought that all this stuff could have actually been REAL aerial and celestial phenomena that now after Chelyabinsk we all know is common or very well could be common back when the comet was breaking up. The evidence is scant to say the least, but I think that the scorpion men are small meteorites that kill cattle in the field as is expressly mentioned in the cuneiform text and the noise makes them calf before gestation. Collectively these legends all make perfect sense and as far as I can see everything falls right in place unlike other theories. Or small speeding parts of the bolide when it explodes, as Allen West described in mammoth tusks. As far as I’m concerned the party is over, there are too many of the scatter puzzle pieces put together already to show the scene. I know your take, but I know exactly how the Just Ice system works and that comet would already have been sent up the river!

    I’ve been reading up on this psychological phenomena about paradigm shift denial and methods of persuasion and taking notes on the distractions being thrown in the way. What a mess. Hopefully something big turns up, cause waiting for the opposition to grow old and die will take too long for entertainment sake.

  • David L Ulrich

    I would think the 1) debris fallout would go on for years (some of it would have circled the earth) and eventually fallen as slower(?) moving meteors 2) broken up pieces would be still circling the sun and eventually they would earth cross 3) not all of the smaller earth falls would be seen worldwide (only the bigger ones). My take as this is why all of the underground cities we are finding in Turkey (example) are there. I think they are much older then the arkies even want to consider. For some reason (we all know why really), the arkies are just petrified that science will prove their little timelines completely irrelevant. Maybe they should stay out of science. They were built for protection and temporary shelters (maybe a few years) as the dust settled. Only latter were the adapted by the “Christians”, etc for safety from the Romans, etc. Of course the arkies only see “Romans” everywhere. This breaking up of the comets was not an organized or pretty site. It was a wide open shooting gallery for, my guess, 10,000 years. And then there are the “shock waves” which have been discussed here over the years. Did these play any part of the mythology. ie giant brooms (winds) that sweep the maids of honor into the sky, noise that parts the sky, etc etc. — just musing here

  • David L Ulrich

    “”I’ve been reading up on this psychological phenomena about paradigm shift denial and methods of persuasion and taking notes on the distractions being thrown in the way. What a mess. Hopefully something big turns up, cause waiting for the opposition to grow old and die will take too long for entertainment sake”””

    I would like it to be in my timeframe, also. I think it is really shifting already as the internet is having a field day with Graham Hancock’s book. The next step will be getting the hardcore people (Firestone, et.al.) onto mainstream TV and not just the history channel (for 45 secs) or youtube. The anthropologists are having a hard time trying to answer for GH’s book. Some of their answers are just so out there, I don’t believe people buy into it anymore (the more their questioned the louder and louder they scream).

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard – Egyptian “granite work” is Chris Dunn’s forte. I am a mechanical engineer and I respect his work 100%. He went to Egypt 30 years ago – with precision straight edges and indicators and calipers and precision squares. He has shot the hell out of the Egyptologist’s ignorant claims of copper chisels and granite balls dropped to chip away at stone.

    Arkies (especially Egyptologists) are so DUMB – ignorant, unintelligent, illogical, inexperienced – at all things having to do with stone work. They learned the names of column types and architectural types and it’s all book learning. They don’t know ANYTHING about real-world science, especially physics and materials science. They made it all up in the 1800s and have stuck to their predecessors’ errors ever since. Still singing the same old tune. It is not even a science, in my opinion – just some historians pretending to be Indiana Jones.

  • Steve Garcia

    The arkies didn’t “alter the myths” – they CREATED the myths. We don’t even know if the myths EXISTED before they got in and interceded to tell us “what it all meant”. It came OUT all myth-y and cultish and mumbo jumbop – but is it actually IN there? Judging from what I have seen, NO. The ancients were talking about extinction event killer meteor showers – and what came out the other end of the arkie Translat-o-Dyne was petulant gods this and petulant gods that.

    Look, they started out 300 years ago, a small band of rich, white Christian Europeans, out on a lark, to dabble and see what they could to prove that the Bible was true – one way to get out of miserable, drab, dank Northern European winters. Oh, and with a superiority complex about white Europeans who owned colonies being the apex of all creation.

    So they looked down on every culture they came across – current or ancient. Everything was injected with the idea that everyone else was stupid, unenlightened, mumbo-jumbo religio-cultish, and superstitious IN THE EXTREME.

    These self-absorbed prats were, themselves, going to church every Sunday morning and forcing their religion onto everyone in shouting distance. And everything they ran across that the couldn’t explain as a privy or a rain gutter wsa – in their mind – some propitiation to the gods. I.e., ceremonial and ritualistic. They PROJECTED IT ALL. None of it was really IN the accounts; they PUT it there.

    So, when they got hold of some texts/hieroglyphics/statuettes/burial items – ALL of them (in their minds) had to do with the journey to the underworld or sucking up to some imagined anthropomorphic-ized entity “up in heaven”. THEY thought of heaven as “up there”, so they projected that everyone ELSE did, too – ALL THE WAY BACK IN TIME.

    So, when a text talked about events “in the sky” it got translated as “up in heaven”. And who LIVED “up in heaven”? Well, the Christian God did, so, obviously, so did the ancient cultures’ “actors” up in the sky.

    So, when a text states that ass-kicking comets or meteors were flying around, all ablaze, that became – ONLY in their translations – some “god” petulantly giving humans what for because they had made some whoopie down on the beach after everyone had gone or a bacchanal in the glade. Nooooooooooo

    Our intermediaries with the past have been so besottted by the idea of superiority of themselves as “modern man as apex of all creation” that it colors everything they see, read, or hear about. You can’t even GET at the actual texts, even on Google Scholar, because there are thousands of hits that are all about the arkies arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. They do that so much, talking about the ancients arguing over pins and angels, and yet it has always been THEM who are doing it. I spent 4 hours the other day, looking for actual Sumerian texts, and found about 6 lines of cuneiform (that, of course, I can’t at present read yet), and everything was all mumbo jumbo this and jumbo mumbo that. It was all about scholar A commenting on the vagaries of Scholar B’s and Scholar C’s interpretations of Scholar D’s earlier treatise on the mumbo jumbo of some wine jar kiln owner in Ur, sucking up to the god of fire and the god of wine jars. And what it really was was an invoice to a customer who was behind in his account. Or some such.

    They FEED off each other, and they make careers out of doing nothing, saying nothing, and getting in the freaking WAY and not letting anyone in their little club who won’t also agree that Western man is the most wonderful creature to ever spring out of the head of Jupiter.

    End of rant.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard: “The point I’m trying to make is that same motif is spread globally as it should be from a celestial occurrence.

    As Velikovsky and Comyns Beaumont said decades and decades ago.

    The comparative mythologist of the late 19th century were hard pressed to believe that there was a global intercourse to spread the story and never, at least I never got a glimmer, thought that all this stuff could have actually been REAL aerial and celestial phenomena that now after Chelyabinsk we all know is common or very well could be common back when the comet was breaking up.

    That is what I was saying. They couldn’t believe that it could have happened – so they injected into it what they COULD believe – that the people made it all up. Or that, over many tellings, the story got corrupted and we don’t know what the original story was, but it MUST have been superstition all along.

    Thanks for your input about the linguists being honest. That hasn’t been my experience. Maybe I am just a hard case.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard: “The evidence is scant to say the least, but I think that the scorpion men are small meteorites that kill cattle in the field as is expressly mentioned in the cuneiform text and the noise makes them calf before gestation.

    Scorpion men…

    Try this: ANYTHING that has the name of a Zodiac constellation is talking about radiant points in that constellation, which is almost always crossing the Ecliptic.

    The ecliptic is where like 99.99999999% of all the non-solar mass in the solar system is. Planets, asteroids, moons, comets. Ignore the imagined Oort Cloud. It doesn’t exist. High inclination ANYTHING is rare.

    Thus, essentially anything that comes in ahnd hits Earth MUST be coming in from the Ecliptic – which ALSO means that it is going to be coming in from one of the Zodiac constellations. Taurids, Leonids, Geminids, etc. – and Scorpion men. Scorpion men – gods “up there” – what’s the diff? ACTORS coming out of Zodiac constellations along the Ecliptic. Helios/Zeus/king of the gods – same as THE SUN.

    Chelyabinsk and Phaeton are so similar as to be describing the same event.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard: “Collectively these legends all make perfect sense and as far as I can see everything falls right in place unlike other theories.

    Everything falling into place. Yes. Same thing with the thing I am working on. Things jump OUT at me. Things the orthodoxy finds and that go right over their Uniformitarian heads. And so many things FIT. And almost nothing out there does NOT fit. It is kind of scary. I think I must really be fooling myself. But then along come another 3 things that fit. You can’t ignore them, can you?…LOL

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard: “I’ve been reading up on this psychological phenomena about paradigm shift denial and methods of persuasion and taking notes on the distractions being thrown in the way.

    Read Thomas Kuhn. If you don’t find enough, I can send one or two…

    His thing about there being two kinds of scientists I thought was brilliant – and revealing. The one discovers. In Transactional Analysis what would be called the “Free Child”.

    The other is happy just plodding along and reinforcing the present paradigm and never questioning – and vociferous in defending it. Wilhelm Rich’s “Emotional plague” person, who stamps out blossoming life wherever he sees it.

  • Steve Garcia

    What a mess. Hopefully something big turns up, cause waiting for the opposition to grow old and die will take too long for entertainment sake.

    Don’t hold your breath. Others have traveled the roads we are traveling down, and are now lost to history. The paradigm didn’t shift soon enough for them.

  • Steve Garcia

    David –

    Can you point me at some of this GH stuff? I can google, but would like to see specifically what you are referring to…

  • Yeah, where is the GH stuff? I went looking cause I couldn’t figure out if it was good or bad and somehow surfed my way into censored books and Ending The Reign of Junk food News, at least I found something to watch when my eyes can’t handle reading anymore.

    Steve – Yes, I’ll look up ole Chris Dunn and see if he has any videos to watch. Also in my above search I watched the Egyptologist pitching a fit at GH cause he was going to talk about the Sphinx staring at the constellation LEO. I’ve never read a GH book and have no idea what to expect or how it is doing, all I know is my dance/reading card is full at the moment. No one created the myths, they are embedded in the oral culture, carved in stone, or imprinted in clay tablets. Those linguistic scholars are not going to skew the story much or the others will come down on them hard. Especially with the ancient cuneiform texts. Even with the Kalevala that I’m reading now, the priest interjects Christian stuff slowly and once in awhile to convert them Heathens and *try* to erase their ancient knowledge while inadvertently preserving the oral traditions. Like yesterday I was reading about the river of the underworld and they toss in the River Jordan, or the magic spell wroughing blacksmith making a cross (instead of the Sky Hammer) that will lay on the maiden’s bosom. Your sitting in a hot spot with ancient hieroglyphs carved in stone talking about the God of the Pleiades coming down and destroying the world and countless flying feathered serpents from the sky depicted. No one made that up. I would love to read the brand new translations of that stuff, but they want $300 for one of their books! Same thing with new cuneiform books. I’ve already spent years compiling that type of information, why don’t you just read my book and see if you feel the same way? Some of those myths I read 5 to 6 different versions just to see if they match up, and they do. Once in awhile you’ll run across someone copying verbatim or going off on some made up tangent, but one has to read a bunch of it to *see* it. Why don’t you do us both a favor and read my book, maybe you can be the first to give me some feed back. I must have hit the nail squarely and drove that puppy home. Got me, I even censored myself and purposefully left out many other avenues cause I didn’t want it 700 pages long. If you like doing it yourself you can go to my site and I put up the complete biography and then go to https://archive.org/ and read it for yourself. Yes, you have to go through tons of scholarly quibbling and within some they have the actual texts. Some of the books I read are not online, I had to buy them and they are a bit hard to find. Matter of fact I own most of those and read them from cover to cover. Like this one The Evolution of the Dragon by G. Elliot Smith 1919 I read online, also you have to put up with their ideas of what they think it means, but they still give out the information cause they don’t really know or believe that those snakes are in the sky. They didn’t put it together and thus couldn’t possibly have skewed the outcome, they think it’s some silly story about sea monsters, prehistoric genetic memory, or recently extinct snakes that will be dug up anytime now.

    Do any of the authors you know about this paradigm shift stuff have any clues to what works or is it the same ole same ole it’s hopeless to get deeply indoctrinated people or mildly stubborn people to change? I’m looking for answers, techniques, ect. I read one where the brain makes chemicals to block the message… There must be a way to convince people like say, that no one is going to build a 98% solid pyramid to store grain in.

  • David L Ulrich

    the stuff I’m getting on GH is coming from his message boards. I will try to round up some of the threads and link them.

    I did find this book (haven’t got it yet – maybe after taxes?)..but it looked interesting. Not physical science. But I’m making something of an effort to understand “closed mind” vs “open mind”….I think its mostly “fear and loathing”…but who am I..

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812696859?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_1&smid=A1KIF2Y9A1PQYE

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard –

    The Pleiades – Those are not even close to being the only ones who put the radiant in the Pleiades. And the Pleiades is right next to Taurus – right there just above the Ecliptic. The Taurids. If you find out what season it is, my bet it will end up being right about the end of June. More goodies on the Napier trail.

    And “GOD of the Pleiades”? Is that really the term they used? Great. “God” being, not a sentient anthropomorphized supra-human, but a COMET/meteor. This one seems to be REALLY, REALLY common. EVERYWHERE.

    Those linguistic scholars are not going to skew the story much or the others will come down on them hard.

    Not if the error/skewing is in their direction, they won’t. If it is all ceremonial and uniformitarian, they like that just fine.

    Yeah, the $300 price means only institutions will spring for those books. They don’t WANT anybody else getting their hands on them. And 75% of those journal papers have already been paid for with taxpayer money – and we, the taxpayer don’t get access for what we paid for.

  • Bel’s Flaming Sword of the Cherub, Kireb or Bull(winged human headed bull), according to the language of the Cuneiform Inscriptions, originally referred to the Pleiades in Taurus, whence Fire was supposed first to have Descended Upon Earth. According to Phoenician Tradition the Seven sons of Zeus-Chronos and of Rhea were connected with the Pleiades, the Constellation inhabited, according to old Babylonian and Hebrew Tradition, by the God Sibut-Sebaot. Pherecydes says Zeus-Chronos, the Creator of Fire, was Throned in the Pleiades where Fire Originated. It should be also noted : that the Cherub with rotating flaming swords are at the entrance of Eden as a barrier in time between hunter gatherer substance and the agricultural paradigm shift. Or a very clear message that the Pleiades did it.

  • Paul Repstock

    Steve:
    >”The other is happy just plodding along and reinforcing the present paradigm and never questioning – and vociferous in defending it. “<
    There is the crunch my friends.
    Most people equate education with intelligence, yet that is so wrong. Education is the process of transfering knowledge from one person to another, and the highest grades usually go to those who can regurgitate the best.
    I'm not well educated or very intelligent. But, I can say with certainty, that some of the most ignorant people I ever met were University Professors.
    Very sad. We should have kept the Greek model of Universities.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard –

    You’ve been doing an excellent job discovering these ancient references and applying them to impactors.

    Not so long ago I read that a neo-catastrophist is categorized as someone who tries to present catastrophism in a scientific light – as opposed to old-school catastrophists, who (for some wrong reason) were all believed to believe in the Flood of Noah. (Some old-schoolers that I’ve read and read about simply saw water as a more rational explanation for some of the evidence that was decreed by “Lyell-ists” to be from ice.)

    But there is a middle ground – those who see the evidence and ancient accounts in terms of impactors.

    It was actually before Louis Agassiz (1840s) – but only barely – that French scientists showed that rocks really DO fall out of the sky (1809 or so). But 30 or so years was not sufficient time for scientists to incorporate comets and meteors into their thinking. Even if they HAD, Lyell’s uniformitarianism had too much momentum once Agassiz’s ice age(s) put the icing on their gradualist cake. Literally, rocks falling out of the sky didn’t really go anywhere until Gene Shoemaker and Luis and Walter Alvarez in the 1980s. If it hadn’t been for Shoemaker-Levy 9 hitting Jupiter in 1994 and the Chelyabinsk airburst in 2013, people still wouldn’t be taking ET intruders seriously, even NOW.

    THAT is how slowly science works. 200 years and still no respect.

    And they are all too reductionist to accept any “old tales” as science – but these things are out there! Mistranslated beyond belief, but out there.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard – “It should be also noted : that the Cherub with rotating flaming swords are at the entrance of Eden.”

    At this point I am pretty much sold on the idea that when a comet is coming straight for us we will see that they also SPIN.

    I interpret the spirals on Neolithic flat rocks – some in megalithic sites and some just on rocks out in fields and on hilltops – as being recordings of what people SAW in the night sky. They saw spinning comets, coming our way. I say comets because meteors are only luminous once they enter the atmosphere. The only recording of the Chelyabinsk object from straight on was so brilliant that it whited out the entire video, so I think for now it is fair to say that if you see one really coming AT you, you are prtty much screwed and won’t be alive to report it.

    But COMETS, on the other hand, are out in space when we see them. But do we ever see them head-on? I don’t know for sure. In the camera-film-video era we have not. And before that, they would have been recorded in paintings. Do any paintings show spinning objects up in the sky? I am not sure. Maybe.

    What DO they look like head-on?

  • Cevin Q

    Steve
    You hit the nail on the head with, “I interpret the spirals on Neolithic flat rocks – some in megalithic sites and some just on rocks out in fields and on hilltops – as being recordings of what people SAW in the night sky.”
    Along with zigzags and squiggles.
    The association of spirals with so
    many early observatories, across cultural and linguistic lines is hard to ignore.
    The Chinese recorded several head on comets, and the twisted cross motif (swastika) clearly has its roots is such an observation.
    IMO, assign way to “mystical spiritual shamanistic” properties to images that are just a record of observing a rare and spectacular event.

  • Cevin Q

    Steve and Bard,

    From Lost worlds site’s, page on the Ocmulgee lodge,

    “in a concluding episode of the ritual events, a large paper-and-feather xihucoatl [fire serpent] was brought down the steps from the platform of the Main Pyramid, to be presented at an altar on the bottom landing: Thereupon likewise descended the fire serpent, looking like a blazing pine firebrand. Its tongue was made of red arara feathers, looking like a flaming torch. And its tail was of paper, two or three fathoms long. As it descended, it came moving its tongue, like that of a real serpent, darting in and out. And when [the priest] had come [with it], bringing it down to the base [of the pyramid], he proceeded carefully to the eagle vessel. Then he went up [to the eagle vessel] and raised [the fire serpent] also to the four directions. When he had [so] raised it up, then he cast it upon the sacrificial paper, and then they burned. (Sahagun 1951-70, Bk. 2:136).”[21]

    http://lostworlds.org/archaeoastronomy-ocmulgee-earth-lodge/

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard –

    The Pleiades is not quite in Taurus. But if you’ve got big honking meteors coming out of Taurus, the Pleiades is less than a degree away, so whatever comes at you, you can say either one. A degree is only 2 Sun diameters.

    ALSO BTW, I am probably preaching to the choir, but the only way to SEE comets coming out of Taurus or the Pleiades coming AT US is to see them when we pass through their stream around Halloween. We pass through the stream at the end of June, too – and they are coming out of Taurus then, too, but at that time the constellation and the Pleiades are over by the Sun and we can’t see the constellations.

    So, if someone says they saw a bunch of flaming mountains coming out of Taurus, it was almost certainly around Hallowwen or early November.

  • Steve Garcia

    Cevin Q –

    Yeah, you are right about the swastikas and squiggles. I saw that a long time ago.

    I would assert – without fact – that every comet head is different. The pattern has to come from outgassing “nozzling” out “dust”, and with every comet just a rock or random aggregation, the pattern mix would be pretty much infinite.

    That SAID – if they might be like fingerprints – does it not then give us a way of matching up identical patterns drawn in different places to THE SAME EVENT? Like matching chemistry of volcanic ash, or stones at Stonehenge back to the Prescilly Hills? Or stones int the Great Pyramid to the Moqattam quarries?

    If the pattern is drawn, it must have been what was SEEN. If drawn in location A and location B, one would expect the patterns to be the same. And if not, then probably either different comets or different perspectives, but probably the latter unless convincingly explained why there would be different patterns drawn for the same comet.

    And let’s not mix up meteors in with that, either. Meteors are meteors because they are IN the atmosphere, and once in, they are seen within small regions for a tens of seconds, and then gone. If very low angle, they are just streaking across the sky, almost horizontal (but IN a death spiral down path), and not providing a head-on view. So no pattern.

    Comets would give a view for days, if not weeks.

    We look at the comet busts in our lifetimes – Kohoutek, Halley, even Hale Bopp – and it is easy to project back in time and say people were idiots for having been frightened of comets. But Bill Napier and Victor Clube are correct on that, that in past times comets were more frequent and more spectacular. And if we plot those on a curve – even the few we have – it should be clear that farther back in to the past were higher numbers and longer tails – and who KNOWS what else? And then projecting that curve farther back, we probably get what Bill points at – if not the Encke Progenitor, then something damned close. And LOTS of comets. BIG comets. NASTY comets. Ass whuppin’ comets. Killer comets.

    And with ass whuppin’; comets, you’d get what? People writing about them. And drawing them. And whoever’s ass they didn’t whup would have had reason to respect the heck out of them. It would actually SUCK to be in a shooting gallery star system with Earth trying to cross a minefield of big comet fragments every year, twice a year. And not knowing what THAT part of the stream had hiding in it.

    If the tech was as good as I think it might have been before the YDB, they’d have been fools to not have devised aids to tell a dangerous fragment from a harmless one. I think that could have been possible and that I know how they could have done it. I’d want to know, and I’d want to know as early as possible.

  • Steve Garcia

    Here you all get to laugh at me….

    I am TRYING to read something that some call the Eridu Genesis. And looking at it from a perspective of maybe they knew that something was coming. And knowing what was coming, and how inevitable it was – unless they had missiles or could change the Laws of physics, they would warn whomever they could. That IS, after all, the purpose of an Early Warning System, isn’t it? Without missiles/rockets no one can affect ET bodies when they are coming – but they can sure as hell try to find ways to survive.

    Anyway, in the Eridu Genesis, when I came at the text (English translation), and I replaced words and phrases that normally can mean the same as the ones in the translation, but then I use the alternate words and phrases that make SENSE within a tech environment, what do I get?

    – This part is about them being told that there is bad news and there is REALLY bad news…

    – Ziusudra (who is GILGAMESH) created a “statue” – perhaps a console with readouts

    – – – -“He fashioned, being a seer, a statue of the god of giddiness and stood in awe beside it, wording his wishes humbly.
    – – – – – – – – I liked the “god of giddiness” phrase. I thought long and hard and decided it was electronic. (Google “giddy” – It comes from being kind of woozy or delirious. I took that to mean “frequencies”. Hey, I am trying to see what the religious people overlooked if they perhaps had tech and it was over the religious people’s heads, and – not thinking it possible that they DID, the religious translator put in a mumbo jumbo phrase, for which he couldn’t be accused of not being conservative enough. They can ONLY get in real trouble by overstepping academia’s behavioral rules, not by UNDERstepping them.)

    – Ziusudra stands next to the “statue” all the time = he watches the readouts on the console

    – At one point Ziusudra is instructed to go stand by the wall and listen = there perhaps was a telephone on the wall

    – Ziusudra is both a leader and a scientist – and by “leader” it MIGHT mean that he was a director or manager (not “king” but a honcho) of a scientific group – evidently astronomers. And by scientist, I mean THAT instead of a priest, as others translate it…

    – So, they knew that the feces was hitting the fan, and that they did NOT have anything that they could do about it

    – “…something that was not a dream was appearing: conversation, a swearing of oaths by heaven and earth, a touching of throats,[2] and the gods bringing their thwarts up to Kiur.” = Hahaha, you’re gonna LOVE this one!
    – – – – What does that sound like to YOU? In a tech world? It sounds like they’ve got SKYPE! – “something that was not a dream appearing” (a monitor?), “conversation, a swearing of oaths, by heaven and Earth” (audio? Cables? WIFI signals?), “a touching of throats” (As they realize how DOOMED they are, the bosses blurting out, “Oh, crap! We are totally SCREWED!“)

    – “And as Ziusudra stood there beside it, he went on hearing: “Step up to the wall to my left and listen!” = Go to the Skype on the wall, he was listening to what was being said… Now, come ON! What ELSE could that be? “Step up to the wall and LISTEN”?!

    – “Let me speak a word to you at the wall and may you grasp what I say, may you heed my advice!” – Ziusudra was being given instructions by whomever was on the other end… I didn’t write these passages – that is the translators blindly putting down stuff they have no comprehension of, and thinking that it is all superstitious crap. And in their ignorance, they let some of it get through and into the translation.

    HERE IS A CRITICAL ONE IN KNOWING ITS MEANING NOW:

    By our hand a flood will sweep over the cities of the half-bushel baskets, and the country; the decision, that mankind is to be destroyed, has been made

    This next one has one phrase that may make it or break it. That word is “by our hand”. I think it is NOT “OUR” but “THEIR”.

    Because of the comet fragments, there will be an impact mega-tsunami hit near enough to your cities and your country. The facts are what the facts are; it is inevitable, a certainty: Your country’s people are doomed.

    It was not a “decision”, but a CONCLUSION that the top scientists at Mission Central drew, after having looked at all the facts.

    – “…A verdict, a command of the assembly, can not be revoked…” = It’s the Laws of Physics and they cannot be repealed. And after looking at it long and hard, the top guys had to throw up their hands and accept their fate. And they were telling Ziusudra/Gilgamesh what they’d learned and concluded.

    – “no order of An[u] and Enlil is known to have been countermanded, their kingship, their term, has been uprooted; they must bethink themselves …” = It’s just something beyond what science they had at their disposal. This was something new. Their knowledge was not enough. And now they must reflect on what to do next.

    – :“Now … What I have to say to you …”” = Ziusudra was being given instructions. He is told how to take some people and survive. I will also make an assumption that the guys on the other end were ALSO going to try to survive. But they were giving Ziusudra what best advice they could for people at Ziusudra’s end.

    In the orthodox translations, as I understand them, GOD told Ziusudra/Gilgamesh to build a vessel to survive the mega-tsunami. Blah, blah, blah…

    The little more that I had access to was your standard Great Flood story, filtered by the Christian literalist view of things.

    Am I full of bull on all of that? 99% yes. But it was a really interesting account and by injecting tech, every passage made sense within the context of what would, say, happen NOW. Put on OUR terms, this story makes complete sense. No mumbo jumbo. No magic happening. No purity tests for the protagonist. He was told he was chosen because he freaking had useful knowledge that they collectively did not want to lose.

    The story makes sense to me.

  • Steve – So, your saying we are Neocatastrophist now? I’ve often wondered because (I can’t recall the terminology) some hinge on Velikovsky and others on this mysterious Electric Universe (I haven’t the time to gather parameters of what it is.)and there is another Coherent Catastrophism or the Solar one… How about Mythohierolic-scientificatasrophism LOL I don’t think I’ll ever fit a title.

    I’ve always liked the spinning swastika idea since reading it in the Cosmic Serpent 1985-6(?). I must have read one of the first copies when it was brand new because I recall buying a truck in ’86 and it was some time before that. Anyhow, I don’t talk about it much as there is more material and someone else’s idea. Unlike the Sphinx I had never heard of it being older than the original water erosion theory of ~4,000 BC and placed it along side of the Gobekli Tepe date which is half way between Virgo and Leo making it a composite creature. The Triskelion is also the same as the Swastika in other cultures such as Thor with a Iron Hammer, I mean there isn’t much of a leap to put it together, at least to me. I keep watching these new movies (when they are free) and ignorantly hoping someone will put it together, but NOooo, can’t wait to see how they butcher this next one about the Egyptian Gods! It very well could explain the world wide spirals, others are convinced they are the Sun, but I don’t think so. I’m a believer, I just get a headache thinking about the rpm without it truly flying apart. I’m also convinced that it unloaded dramatically and left a long lasting trail as explicitly portrayed in mythology this is where the snake with its tail in its mouth stuff comes from and the very ancient origin of the rainbow bridge and river stuff (not the Milky Way), it would be on the Ecliptic. ‘What DO they look like head-on?’ Night side approach, probably JUST LIKE a spiral! Might make a dramatically enhanced version outgoing as it just missed us on the day time Icarus attack but that night.

    Yes, the Barringer Crater as an impact, the Jupiter impacts, and the Russian Super Bolide are a great help. I recall as a little kid 1969 looking at images of the Moon and knowing without doubt it is littered with impact craters and perplexed up till around maybe 1996 that the inner solar system is so clean. I heard about the early bombardment stuff and still wasn’t convinced even with the huge time spans that space would be virtually empty and then news to me started piling up about NEO’s. Information was very hard for me to obtain for much of that time. I’m glad it is gaining in popularity, it is a fascinating subject, and from what I’ve read and contemplated it is imperative that we as a life form better figure out and quick before we loose our chance and get sent back to square one so to speak. Matter of fact I sent off a copy of my book immediately (6 days ago) to our first Planetary Defense Officer!

    Yeap, your preaching to the choir alright. The Pleiades is part of Taurus, BTW. I wasn’t to happy about this paper and other revelations and really don’t want to get into it at the moment. You seem to read that stuff well, didn’t they say three different speed comets are part of the Taurid Complex? No, in June they come out of the Sun and as they/it pass(s) that night they/it should “sink” off into (The Deep) the Constellation of the Goat-Fish or Capricorn. So, it goes into the ‘water’ signs Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces and later back out of Taurus in a big loop or circuit or the serpent (comet) with its tail in its mouth.

    Engineers’ and their imaginations… I use to deal with one on a daily basis and it was lots of fun, we were on the cutting edge and had some great arguments. In an older version of that story the communication device is Ea (Ea is the comet, Tiamat [the Dragon], the origin of the extant story Ubaid era) and he is all knowing (Wisdom/the Devil) and knows about the Gods about to cause destruction (gets confusing cause there are two different stories going on here) and he breaks the rules and informs a Man through a reed wall and the they communicate through it. [The Lord of Wisdom, Ea, sat also with them, and he repeated their purpose to the hut of reeds, saying : O reed-hut, reed-hut ! O wall, wall ! O reed-hut, hear ! O wall, understand ! Thou Man of Shurippak, i.e., Tsit-napishtim, son of Ubara-Tutu, pull down thy house, build a ship, forsake thy possessions, take heed for thy Life ! Abandon thy goods, save thy Life, and bring up living Seed of every kind into the ship to preserve the sleep of Plants and Living Beings.] One version is Tiamat (chaos) steals the Tablets of Fate (control of what is going to happen) and wants it her way and that is to upset Orderly universe. And the other version is the Gods get upset at Man because he isn’t building big enough temples for the Gods and praising them adequately so they decide to destroy them all and that’s where Ea comes in. There are different versions in the Bible also, with three versions of creation and then the Book of Enoch which has the giants breeding with the human women (other Gods in the cuneiform texts) and are cast out of Heaven and a different plot as the serpent on the Tree of Knowledge [Wisdom] gets Man kicked out of Eden. All I know is that if one reads ALL the myths and religions and steps way back and looks at them juxtaposition they all say the same thing!

  • Steve Garcia

    No, nobody hinges on Velikovsky, and especially nobody hinges on Electric Universe things.

    Bard, if you are working out ancient texts, that isn’t neo-catastrophism. NC is doing it base on science – astronomy, physics, geology, etc. Ancient languages is not science. It’s history/linguistics. New Age is not science, either.

    Call yourself whatever you want to.

    How ANYBODY can look at the moon and believe that the Earth’s much greater gravity didn’t swing even MORE to the Earth – they are simply in denial. The real work is to determine what happened to them here. Take away the ones that burned up int the atmosphere; take away the ones that landed in the ocean and the shock/water impact did them in; take away the ocean impacts that are silted over; take away the ocean impacts we simply haven’t noticed. Then take away those that were too fragile, and dispersed into nothing. And the ones that hit in jungle and – like pyramids in the Yucatán – are hidden under the jungle. And the ones that weren’t solid iron or solid rock – they hit and went phhht! The atmosphere slowed down so many, burned up so many. But perhaps 10% got through. That would be enough to have remnants that could be recognizable. They are here. But some are DIFFERENT. Meteor guys think 100% look like Barringer, but smaller or larger. Hell, it took 100 years for them to figure out what Tunguska was (a larger Chelyabinsk, IMO). The very first thing they ruled out 60 years ago was meteor. And then, in the end, that’s what it was. DUMB AS ROCKS.

    Bard – Spirals: “It very well could explain the world wide spirals, others are convinced they are the Sun, but I don’t think so.” WOW, they really went out on a limb with that one. The one I’ve heard most is the cycle of the year. DUMB AS ROCKS, I tells ya.

    “I heard about the early bombardment stuff and still wasn’t convinced even with the huge time spans that space would be virtually empty and then news to me started piling up about NEO’s. Information was very hard for me to obtain for much of that time.”

    The Early Bombardment thing is as much a made-up story as reality, and my guess is that it is more. Like the planetary nebula and the Oort Cloud. They saw craters all over everything, then picked out a convenient time period that no one would double check and plopped it there. With the planetary nebula they say everything accretes.

    The ONE thing they have to do is to put anything violent as far from the present as possible. NOT to protect the populace from panic, but to feed uniformitarianism. The present being the clue to the past only works if the recent past is said to be the same as now. Therefore, ALL violence had to be pushed to the remote past. How? By banging into each other. Yet TODAY, when two objects bang into each other, they destroy each other. Completely opposite. People hear hard a mouthful from me on that for QUITE some time. NONE of it makes sense, when one looks at the velocities involved. 5-30 times faster than bullets. And what do bullets do? Add so much energy as to demolish the target materials. So, 5 to 30 times more does 125 to 2700 times as much damage. But it SOUNDS good – “accretion”… The real thing is that they’ve GOT NUTTIN’ BETTER to offer. If things in the nebula went around smacking each other we’d be a big dust cloud by now.

    But THEN they compound the mistake by telling us that as more material accreted, the gravity pulled in more and then at some point it all settled out into heavy-to-the-center and light-too-the-surface. Right? NO. LOOK AT ASTEROIDS. SOLID ROCK. Metamorphic rock as often as not. HOW do rocks form in a vacuum with gravity that is less than the attraction of a flea to a mosquito at thousands of miles distance? The thing got me started on that was the olivine in the Allende meteorite. Even though one of the very biggest meteors EVER it’s attractive gravity was less than two feathers at ten miles. Olivine needs not just gravity, but PRESSURE and HEAT. So much pressure that it is the main ingredient of the Earth’s mantle – it needs DEPTH. UNDER the surface of a REAL PLANET. So, olivine (which was supposed to be the main ingredient inside Vesta (WRONG!).

    Bard, ever heard of “strengthless bodies”? Read back on our stuff hear in 2013 and 2014. I talked about it till I was blue in the face. Gravity “out there” is just SO much too small, we can hardly put a small enough number on it. And velocities are SOOOO high, that ANY contact f one to another demolishes them both. So, every part of their planetary nebula fails at the specific mechanical interaction level. The devil IS in the details. If it doesn’t work at the materials science level, it doesn’t WORK.

    End of rant.

  • Steve Garcia

    In last comment, lsat paragraph – “hear” was supposed to be “here”.

    Taurus constellation: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/astronomy/nightsky/Taurus.jpg
    http://www.popastro.com/images/youngstargazers/Tau.gif
    https://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/6006374/il_fullxfull.248992195.jpg

    A mixed bag. Some say yes, some say no, to the Pleiades in Taurus. I don’t call it in, but out. Either way. Close, either way.

    “So, it goes into the ‘water’ signs Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces and later back out of Taurus…” Carpicorn is an earth sign. Aquarius is an air sign. Taurus is also earth.

    Until the term ‘gods’ is understood to be the physical comets and meteors, no progress will be made. And as rocks flying around in space, they don’t have wills or urges or angers or petty foibles. Look not at the ancients for putting that religio-garbage into it; look at the arkies and their agenda. The ancients said as plain as they could, something like, “DAMN! That comet came down and destroyed half the country, and there wasn’t a freaking thing we could do about it.” And when translated it came out, “And the Head god sent his son to punish the wicked mofo humans who were fornicating too much. ‘Even though I told them to multiply, I didn’t mean THAT much! And they say my name every time they DO! THAT pisses me off, and I’ve got to kill ’em all off and start over again – with some nice Mormon or Mennonite types!’ ”

    You see, just like now and global warming, some people just think humans are evil, mostly for killing Bambi’s mother and driving fast cars. So, to them, Gaia/Mother Earth/Pacaha Mama is going to wake up and slaughter the demon humans – and the bastidds will desoive it.

    No.

    Sam Clemens wrote on behalf of his alter ego, “It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble; it’s the stuff you swear is true that isn’t.”

  • Steve – Yes, The Bull’s fiery eye, Aldebaran seems far enough away from the Pleiades to look like another constellation I agree, but that’s not how they are divided up into twelve. Earth, Air, Signs? I don’t know what your talking about, Tarot cards and Astrology? That’s an interesting subject, but too muddy/murky even for me. From what I’ve read they are water signs two fish, water from a bucket, and a goat-fish. I don’t know where you got the idea that the translators made this stuff up and just how to go about correcting the problem. In the oldest cuneiform text known to Man they say it was serpentine and the Ubaid period statues are serpentine, you know where the UFO people get the proof of Greys. They have lots of snakes at Gobekli Tepe, that is not made up, there also is the seven birds at the base of ‘Gilgamesh’, the birds represent the Pleiades. The Egyptians also equated the Pleiades with birds, they portray a bird on the back of the Apis Bull that they sacrifice on New Years (Halloween) where they add five days to the 360 day year. They have descriptions and key words that are what they are. They also say the raging bull caused it. Not a comet, what they do is invoke 50 Gods in the cuneiform text to please stop punishing us. Some think it was monotheism and the 50 names where actually one and the same… But how ever, it comes out the same. Like the Egyptian feathered snake in the sky and the feathered snake in the sky of Mexico no one changed the text they are snakes in both places, not comets in both places and a conspiracy changed them into snakes, they must have looked like snakes and that is how they were recorded, period. Just like Thor, he had an Iron hammer, they find them in graves, hammers that is, no one changed anything. Globally the hammer or ax is synonymous with the fall from the sky and they must have went and found out what it was and they called it Iron. The ancients thought it was God and why wouldn’t they? I don’t understand how these neo-arkies (And what exactly is this ‘arky’ word ? At first I thought you were referring to Noah’s Ark and then to Archeology and now I’m back to questioning.) would twist the words of the text to be anything other than what it says. If it said little green men made the world from disk ships, that is what it would closely be translated to. And if practically every culture had such a story the UFO people would be all over it. But that’s not the case it is more like fire from the sky, massive water, and falling mountains. That’s why they built Ziggurats and Pyramids because it is the Holy Mountain, same as is in the texts, no one changed it. Sometimes I wonder if your toying with me, one moment I think we are on the same page and then your off on some book I’ve never read. I don’t get it, there are stone monuments, reliefs, and texts of mountains, snakes, axes, bulls and some the text and image are on the same stone, even if there was some conspiracy they couldn’t change it. There was an experiment done back in 1870ish were they gave cuneiform to 5 or so translators and they all came back with essentially the same story. And it still translates the same 146 years later. Cuneiform was found in Egypt also and seems to be the international language like English is now, plus the Bible says the same thing to reaffirm it and the arkies couldn’t have got to that. Also the minstrel songs and cultural traditions couldn’t be changed all at once or the people would rebel and talk about how that is not how the story goes.

    If all the planets looked like the Mar’s moon Deimos I’d be on the same page as your anti-accretion philosophy, but they are spherical and thus they accrete or have reached the point of mass wherein gravity collects more than loses during impacts. I gave you an posit once on how it could have been that fit both models and you instantly rejected it, to me it is an interesting subject to contemplate but so remotely distant that I don’t see the connection with Spacefalls. Except the one that is going around now about the silent probe on the bulbous comet and how they are sure its two masses stuck together, which is out there in my opinion and along with your thinking, but what does it matter. I’d be more inclined to think it was molten iron nickle and formed into a dog bone shape and collected ice over time and that collected dust and rocks then when captured by the Sun the volatiles evaporated and now you have a condensed darkish ancient comet/asteroid with little activity compared to what it was when first captured.

  • Paul Repstock

    Here is a possible addition to the list:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism

    Steve; The phrase, “by our hand” can be rationalized, but only if taken in the context of accepting the possible presence of a superior alien culture.
    eg. If a culture was present, which had the capacity to break-up an incoming bolide. A ‘lesser of two evils’ scenario you spoke of recently. ??Hence possibly the odd reference to the “Half bushel baskets”???

    btw, thanks for the pictures of the “Clamps”. As a metal worker and iron artist, I would like to see them in person. The “Alloy”, if consitent is very interesting!

  • Paul Repstock

    Bard: Could you put “Paragraph breaks” into your comments please. My eyeballs fall out trying to read. Perhaps I need to change my font??

    I’ve always supported the “Accretion model”. However, when I first came to Cosmic Tusk, I was shown the error of my ways and enlightened about the insufficient gravity. I have not totally surrendered yet. The many tonnes of dust that Earth collects every year is supportive.

    I think there are many problems with our understanding of planet and asteroid formation; no least of which is the bias caused by our “Very Brief” history. Conditions in an early Universe might have been very different from what we experience. There may well have been more available material in more coherent streams (which has since been accreted) leaving only planetary bodies and the occasional erratics which threaten our tranquility??

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard: “If all the planets looked like the Mar’s moon Deimos I’d be on the same page as your anti-accretion philosophy, but they are spherical and thus they accrete or have reached the point of mass wherein gravity collects more than loses during impacts.”

    My contention is BEFORE planets can get to the point of roundness/spherical. Look at all the comets and meteors we’ve done fly-bys of. The most common shape is peanut-shaped. And ALREADY they are STONY. Where did the stone come from? They sure didn’t form by the internal pressure of the 4 km or less bodies we’ve seen. Accreting dust? Not EVEN. It takes PRESSURE and TEMPERATURE to make rocks – or settling out in ponds. When you see a pond up there, let me know. Give me a clue where the pressure came from. If you point to impacts, I again point to the DESTRUCTIVE nature of impacts at such high velocities. It is TOO much pressure. That is IMPOSSIBLE now, and we have plenty of evidence that such impacts now blow things to smithereens. A crater ends up LOSING 200 times as much material as the body that made it. And make that 2001, because almost none of the objecet remains behind, either. And if that is true NOW, then by uniformitarianism’s own rules, “The present is the clue to the past.”

    They want to have their cake and eat it, too. And they do a Quantum Leap right over all the beginning steps. Look anywhere. They say stuff like, “And the dust particles are attracted to each other, and bit by bit they attract more and more, and then when they get enough, they begin to stratify.” No details. Just Goldilocks thinking, and everything is “just right”. Schwassman-Wachmann even fell apart even when it wasn’t NEAR anything. Not enough gravity to hold it together.

  • Steve Garcia

    Paul –

    Thanks for the feedback on that.

    “Steve; The phrase, “by our hand” can be rationalized, but only if taken in the context of accepting the possible presence of a superior alien culture.”

    Oh, that is FULLY understood. The interesting thing to me was that if one tentatively accepts the presence of tech, then every passage makes sense within that scenario. Since tech is SO improbable, that strikes me as odd, but intriguing.

    “eg. If a culture was present, which had the capacity to break-up an incoming bolide.”

    There is not necessarily any connection between having tech and having rockets to send up and mitigate.

    In fact, in my reading of it, they were specifically saying that they did NOT have any capacity and because of that lack they were screwed. But in my scenario the passages DO read that they had tech to DETECT the objects, and even to tell that they were going to hit Earth, and WHERE they were going to hit Earth, and to do totally serious damage – including a mega-tsunami LOCALLY – and that it was time to get the F out of Dodge. But nothing discussed said that they had taken their tech to any level within which they might have been able to do anything.

    The “statue” – straight ceremonial interpretation of whatever cuneiform word. As to Bard and his five translators – they all had the same indoctrinations in the same schools, so of course they would come up with the same mumbo jumbo interpretations. Who cares about agreement? Before Copernicus everyone agreed on epicycles. Agreement doesn’t make something right. It just means they were all fed the same stories in school – and TOLD which way to do it. That is what school is about.

    I started down this road after reading “Uriel’s Machine” (1999) about 4 years ago. Their description of a stone circle and the one way it was used made it seem like maybe someone had inherited some very cool technical knowledge. I immediately saw how it could be used to spot comets coming out of the Sun or going away from the Sun. The time to look for objects is right about sunset and sunrise, when the Sun is very near the horizon – AND SO IS THE ECLIPTIC and any object rounding the Sun.

    And guess where Chelyabinsk showed up? “…Coming out of the Sun…”

    I STILL assert that they got that orbital stuff wrong. There is no way that could have hit in Russia where it did, that time of day, from the orbit they gave. It’s like a bird flying up behind your car and hitting the windshield without having the ability to turn or dive. To me it is as plain as the nose on your face that the orbit and the final path could not be connected. And, try as hard as I could, I could not find ANY papers on putting the two paths together.

    While this intrigued me about “Uriel’s Machine”, I think they got a lot of things wrong in the book. Overall I’d give it a C-minus.

  • Steve Garcia

    Oaul –

    Yeah, Bard’s comments are hard to read. He changes sunbject like 5 or 10 times in a paragraph.

    Bard? Could you break them up? It would be nice! 🙂

  • Steve Garcia

    As to the Accretion Theory, I am not saying that I have a replacement for it. I just think there are huge unanswered problems with it and no one seems to be addressing them.

    Paul – Your example of the dust falling on Earth NOW is kind of not the right PHASE. Once the planets from, of COURSE such things happen.

    BUT – and HUGE but – that dust doesn’t fuse when it lands. It just slows down to terminal velocity and lands – and then just SITS there. If you know it’s there you can just walk over and pick it up. Just like all the regolith on the comets and asteroids recently.

    In fact, there is so much regolith on the surface of the objects that it is clear that our remote sensors here on Earth or in satellites or probes are getting bogus readings, based on what is shrouding their surfaces. It was so bad that the idea of olivine INSIDE Vesta was completely proved wrong. (At least that was my take on it.)

    I thought that was GREAT, BTW, them getting that so monumentally wrong. EVERY paper before that completely assumed that to be the case, and they went off this way and that, telling us all about olivine this and olivine that, and all of them were wrong.

    Them getting it wrong doesn’t make me right, not at all. But my thing wasn’t proven wrong, either! So my assessment of inadequate gravity and pressure is still a possibility. Maybe I made a lucky guess… Who knows?

  • Paul Repstock

    Steve:
    With Comets Asteroids, planets, and cosmic dust, we have sort of “chicken and egg” connundrum. It seems that many if not all asteroids and comets have planetary progenitors. Perhaps these are like Seed Pearls, which somehow collect other debris. That still leaves us with a problem—“in the begining there was….”
    WHAT? I seriously doubt the story of the Big Bang. In the days before political correctness, I drove my elementary teachers nuts by asking, “What is bigger than God?”
    The scientists from ESA have tried to paper over a gapping hole in their physics by apparently fudging the gravitational power of 67CP to allow it to recapture the Philea Lander. Once the thrusters totally failed, the Lander should have been lost and gone into space. That did not happen. What attrctive force or field brought it back to the surface three times?
    Is there something we haven’t discovered yet?

  • David L Ulrich

    actually, I think your correct in asking that. Its like a basketball hitting the backboard and then circling the backboard until it goes in the net. That doesn’t happen…..now if there was a magnetic (opps, electric universe – damn here comes Steve with his baseball bat….) OR GRAVITY…hummmmm

  • Okay, if I must hone my persuasion skills retorting the devil’s advocacy with the dialectic method while multitasking courteous paragraph breaks so be it.

    Let us say the cuneiform linguists did make up these wild stories to cover up the actual academic professional records of natural celestial and atmospheric phenomena to throw off and misdirect any future inquiry of such facts and pawned off as super heroes. How could they use the same transliteration method and have it correlate perfectly to the tens of thousands of mundane litigation and municipal tax records? They surely could not have spent years of their lives also documenting trivial records of how many goats and baskets of grain they we’re taxed to lease a landlords property. Plus all the personal letters written back and forth between family members over disagreements on what the father wants his son to do with his life and how the son wants to do his own thing and thus disrupting the families cohesion all to reenforce the feign.

    Also these tedious computational minded decipherments would have to be on the same genera as the other global super heroes to be credulous preventing the unveiling of the perpetration and thus they would have to implicate other professions such as comparative mythologists to execute the same fatalistic world view with an added Cassandra syndrome so that Mankind would maintain his denial of the physical threat while focusing on incorporeal salvation, instead of keeping a prudent eye on his little world within the inner solar system’s shooting gallery.

    That sounds like an enormous amount of work just because their professional infancy could not bear the ego’s losing face with admitting they were inept at deciphering the strange newly found imprints on ancient clay tablets and thus they were psychologically forced to made up all of these convoluted stories.

  • David L Ulrich

    I’m really going to have to sit down in front of my fire and start your book……

  • Han Kloosterman

    Steve, which book by Masden are you talking about?

    I find 1 title (from the deep ocean . . .) but nowhere a descripton.

    I see he uses phenomena as if it were a singular, which doesn’t augment my willingness to spend money on it. Bad writing, and no editing?

  • David – I wish someone would, then you can tell Han. https://sites.google.com/site/fromthedeepoceanabove/

    It is basically a collection of myths that tell of Spacefalls. It has lots of excerpts from scholarly mythology and religious books that shows mankind has always known about the dangers from above. Ask away, got to for now. Or I’d put some more thought into this.

  • On second thought, there is an email at the end of the site contact me there so that if there is a dialog it isn’t taking up space on George’s blog. Maybe if there is a specific question or interest in a certain culture of mythology I can copy and paste a part of the book and email it. Sorry that there isn’t a look inside feature. I’ve been working on converting it to ebook format, but so far it has been a very frustrating learning curve. The credit card process isn’t going much better and as much as I would love it to be over with, I don’t foresee success any time soon. If anyone knows how to pull it off without middlemen drop me a line.

  • Steve Garcia

    Paul: “The scientists from ESA have tried to paper over a gapping hole in their physics by apparently fudging the gravitational power of 67CP to allow it to recapture the Philea Lander. Once the thrusters totally failed, the Lander should have been lost and gone into space. That did not happen. What attrctive force or field brought it back to the surface three times?
    Is there something we haven’t discovered yet?”

    As I recall, the lander’s approach was at a mere ONE meter per second. Even going that incredibly low speed, it STILL bounced off about ONE kilometer. According to Peter Schultz, it DID come within a whisker of being lost in space forever.

    The reason it BOUNCED was the low gravity. The reason it wasn’t lost was the low landing velocity.

    Literally, they miscalculated the gravity – but just barely, barely got it close enough to correct.

    Yes, it was its gravity that kept the lander from being lost – but ALSO its gravity that meant the first touchdown was a high bounce.

    That is how I remember it. I paid close attention at the time, but I still might have recalled something wrong. If anyone else remembers more, chime in!

  • Steve Garcia

    David and Paul – They simply miscalculated the landing velocity.

    At the same time – as I noted at the time here – THAT is how low the gravity IS, on these small objects. So, when an object comes in even REALLY slowly, the thing bounces off (or demolishes one or both of the bodies involved)> That only make my argument about the accretion theory all the more correct. Because if even something coming in at 1 meter per second can’t land worth a damn – and accrete – then how in the WORLD were dust particles coming on to land on other dust particles supposed to not bounce away to be lost forever?

    Do not lose sight of the fact that that lander was accreting onto 67P. It had its own incoming velocity, and it impacted – and according to Accretion Theory, it should have STUCK. Now ask what kind of accretion would have happened if it was going TWO meters per second. NONE AT ALL.

    Being lost in space is NON-ACCRETION.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard – “Let us say the cuneiform linguists did make up these wild stories to cover up the actual academic professional records of natural celestial and atmospheric phenomena to throw off and misdirect any future inquiry of such facts and pawned off as super heroes.”

    No, Bard you miss the point. The point is that they simply were too ignorant and pre-programmed. Which in this case are both the same thing.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard, there is also a WORLD of difference between reading invoices and bills of lading and receipts on hand and descriptions of cosmic events happening in the sky. Trying to draw these two together is like comparing accounting with astronomy and ending up thinking that astronomy is poetry.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard – “Also these tedious computational minded decipherments would have to be on the same genera as the other global super heroes to be credulous preventing the unveiling of the perpetration and thus they would have to implicate other professions such as comparative mythologists to execute the same fatalistic world view with an added Cassandra syndrome so that Mankind would maintain his denial of the physical threat while focusing on incorporeal salvation, instead of keeping a prudent eye on his little world within the inner solar system’s shooting gallery.”

    A monumentally confusing sentence.

    But I will try…

    “…they would have to implicate other professionals such as comparative mythologists…”

    And like any comparative mythologist will ever see comets and meteors in any account? No. He is going to keep within his imaginative “profession” and see everything as superstitious propitiations to “the gods” of whatever culture and match it up with some such propitiations from some other culture(s).

    And those OTHER cultures’ parallels would perhaps (probably?) also be discussing comets and meteors, and he will get THAT wrong, too.

    So, the superstition of the two cultures are all in his OWN imagination/superstition – the present-day mythologist superstition that the people of the past would say “Comet” and mean “a god”.

    The people of the past had brains as large as ours, and when we look at their writings – from all those cultures – they were as sophisticated in their thinking and understanding as we are to day about things in OUR culture.

    The thing is, WE have science, but we ASSUME that they did not. Even with the evidence of solidly recording the mostinons of the planets, OUR interpreters of the past tel us that those recordings were all done in order to best appease the gods (or some silly crap like tath). What they should be doing is recognizing that OBSERVING the natural world is the basis for OUR science, and thus should ALSO be a recognition that if we SEE them, observing persistently and precisely, it is about SCIENCE, not superstition.

    The uniformitarians are hypocrites about such things. The ONE basic rule of uniformitarianism is “The present is the clue to the past.” And they (mostly) apply that to geology and biology and astronomy, but they don’t apply it to the study of past cultures.

    And why not? Because they started out with the wrong assumptions about the past 200 years ago and have not corrected themselves yet. When they saw evidence of scientific inquiry, they should have said, “OH! WOW! They had science back then!” Instead they handed it over to the mythologists – which is like handing a moon landing to cellists and violinists.

    And that is not an exaggeration. Learning that cultures of the past had SCIENCE is as big a leap for mankind as landing on the moon. To do so would change EVERYTHING about what we think about the past. OUR HISTORY.

    To deny that our distant ancestors had science is as big a lie as pretending that the moon landing was faked.

  • Steve Garcia

    Han: “Steve, which book by Masden are you talking about?”

    Han, I don’t have a recollection of that name nor a reference to me saying anything about a book by him/her.

    Can you point to my comment in which I mention him/her?

    I can’t answer, because it isn’t ringing a bell.

  • Steve Garcia

    Paul – “With Comets Asteroids, planets, and cosmic dust, we have sort of “chicken and egg” connundrum. It seems that many if not all asteroids and comets have planetary progenitors.”

    In that you’d be far afield of orthodox astronomy. I am, too, so you’d have company. They say that comets and asteroids are almost entirely remnants from the birth of the solar system – planet material that never accreted onto a planet. So, every time one come along, they feel obligated to point out that, “We are looking at the early days of the solar system when we look at asteroids and comets”. But they give the imagined Oort cloud some credit, too.

    I tend to agree with you, that asteroids, etc., come from planetary progenitors. If you get a chance, buy Tom van Flandern’s book “Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated”. If he is right, those minor bodies DID have a planetary origin.

  • Steve – I was sure that would have cleared this up. Let us assume the linguist can read half of cuneiform as easily as today’s modern English. No matter where common every day words show up they are the same, so say you take the text on this blog above and highlight all the common everyday words such as : and, as, from, to, ect. till the point that half of the screen is populated. Then take those same words and highlight those onto a blog about cooking and then try to interpret the cooking blog to be about pottery and you can’t change the highlighted words. How easy do you think that would be to accomplish? I would think about as easy as your favorite saying as using a pry bar and forcing really hard to make it read like it was about pottery than cooking.

    It is highly improbable, to the point that I have a hard time believing you are so certain about this. And let us not forget that all those common words have to match all the different texts from war stories, river level reports, property disputes, inventories, you get the idea. Plus the Egyptians and Babylonians conversed in this language all the time, there is no possible way it could be construed and made to fit a falsehood.

    For your accretion thread, you should compare the two different landings on objects, plus maybe one of their explosive spikes did fire to send it back up a kilometer?… (company, got to go)

  • David L Ulrich

    It should also be remembered this was the first of its kind. to expect 100% out of the chute is pushing. Did we learn a lot, of course. We learned we could take a little piece of metal, send it a zillion miles and hit the target and actually get back info on the 1st try. We even got some really neat pictures. 1st of its kind. There is a picture of it landing over, I think, LA. We also learned that, probably, the most dangerous ET objects are the fluffy ones but then it only took a couple of hard ones a few million apart to destroyed the dino’s.

    The fluffy ones breakup into a bunch of little fluffy ones and we have to live with them for 20,000 years. I think the original comet entered the solar system at 18,500 BC or so and its been an end run ever since.

  • David – 18,500 BP for a guessing compromise. I get caught up in the thought that it couldn’t have possibly influenced the Earth the very first time, so it must have been a grand spectacle fly by. Who knows between cave art, petroglyphs and Gobekli Tepe. In one text it says they visited and then went out circled and came back. I found one story interesting that a blanket of black clouds came out of the North. All there is, is art and most of that is in a storeroom. I have a hard time imagining this comet hung around for 40k plus yrs and not being a beyond major influence. There is so little evidence that who knows… I personally find it intriguing to speculate what things were like before ~13KBP, but it is really wanting for information. That in itself should be a red flag to anyone. That is how Our story goes, no one recalls before except it was greener.

  • David L Ulrich

    The first flyby must have been just an incredible thing. Hence, I would think the fear of “Chariots of Fire”….And as far as Punka Puma and Gobekli Tepe go..well, I guess I just don’t believe the story of “caveman” building them.

  • David L Ulrich

    And as a side note. There was a story somewhere about the RH+ and RH- thing around 40k BC. I find that as “not an accident” of some mutation. Something really big happened….and our myths tell the story but they have been “corrupted” over the last 10’s of thousands years….

  • David – That’s why I like the granite hardness area of stone work and the Great Pyramid, was it before or after 13,000 BPyrs.? I tend to lean probably not before the mega fauna extinction. Still there is the mystery, are they older or not??? Not long ago I first heard about RH-, came across it while surfing, and that is a weird subject. It is funny also because I knew a alien believer and he never mentioned the RH negative stuff. I tend not to get into mystical, interdimensional, aliens stuff, but I’ll read it up until incredulous, but that is like an Astrology book a girl friend and I bought at a WOW Book Store and it is really good and amazingly accurate, I fit the questionnaire of RH negative. I never heard a date until you just brought it up. I’ve seen some strange things, my favorite is “synchronicity” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6HofT9_fmk , and stuff like when I was growing up everyone with a close connection was the same nationality even through seemingly random circumstances. I would love to have access to images of whole inventories of museums just to look for clues, so I guess I’m a dreamer. LOL I’m not sure about genetic dating, it is a very complicated science and I’m not even sure they know what they are talking about when it comes to dating. I have a hard time believing different races were all one in the ball park of what I have over hear them saying now days.

  • David L Ulrich

    Paul LaViolette is where is got this stuff. I have to dig out my books from him but I think it came from “Earth Under Fire”. That book is chock full of mythology from way back. He states there was a “neutron” surge at around 40,000 bc and before that there was only one blood type. After, there were the major 4 types.

    Don’t quote me yet as I have to find the pages he talks about this from his books but some of this stuff stuck in the brain because my family is very “medical”. They talk about this. The problem as spelled out is “the human body fights genetic change, especially rapid. In other words, if its not right, the baby dies. We didn’t fix Rh negative until the 50’s. My first wife was Rh neg and she lived because the doctor had just returned from a trip to Stanford in 1954 and it was fresh in his mind. The result was 25 years of marriage. Otherwise,,,well.

    This is part of the story of your book, I think (getting there). He also states that the “wave” came around 40,000BC and the space rocks arrived several thousand years later. My memory says he included the Clovis barrier and the meteors (comets) to this “supernova” burst. It was absolutely massive. Now, I don’t know all details (its been 3.5+ years since I read the book) but this is worth checking. The “blood type” evolution is a huge problem (my mind) as the human body by its nature, preserves itself (ie, no mutations in blood type allowed) but here we are with 4 (FOUR) blood types. Something is not right.

  • David L Ulrich

    As added, he uses Hans quite extensively in some chapters

  • David L Ulrich

    As far as your friend into the “alien” stuff, that’s a huge one also. I think I know why they don’t mention it as it puts the “alien” question front and center into “human mutation”. Those two words are enough to send any discussion off the rails and over the canyon rim (so to speak). Its OK to say “who built Puma Punku” with a question mark but you add in “genetic mutation” and —- look out.

    All this being said, something happened because humans did not “evolve” with 4 blood types…..they just plain did not.

  • David L Ulrich

    “Tom van Flandern’s book”. Steve and I went over this a few years ago. I should reread that one too….We are still a “sitting duck” here is the “cosmic 3D pool table”…..just a thought.

  • Earth Under Fire : Humanity’s Survival of the Apocalypse – sounds really good. Reminds me of The Zonal-Belt Hypothesis A New Explanation of the Cause of the Ice Ages by Joseph Y. Wheeler 1908. One can find great information in theories of books that don’t seem right to you. Super Novas are past my realm, possible, okay. I get a funny feeling that maybe part of it did get eaten by the Sun and started the hot spell, just seems like some of the stories tell of such things. I’m sure they could see some great stuff in the blue sky back then.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard – “No matter where common every day words show up they are the same, so say you take the text on this blog above and highlight all the common everyday words such as : and, as, from, to, ect. till the point that half of the screen is populated.”

    No no no. those so-called everyday words are the ones that will throw the whole translation off. Every language uses such as prepositions, those are used differently in different languages. Even in today’s LIVING languages. I don’t know about cuneiform exactly, but it is a dead language, and so there is no one to correct them if they get it wrong. And many of the older languages didn’t even HAVE connecting words, as I understand it.

    You give them the benefit of every doubt – and in fact accept everything they say as gospel. I take a normal scientific skeptical prove-it-to-me position. I have NEVER seen two translations of the same passage by two different people who used the same specific words throughout. And if THEY can chose to use alternative words in the passages, so can I. If they say a god “got up” or rose up”, I can say “moved up in the sky”. “Sky” because the assumption of gods in the sky, and “moved up hs the same annotation meaning as got up or rose up, but put together in context the two phrases can mean much different things. It has VERY MUCH to do with the point of view – are gods sentient anthropomorphized entities living in some paradise in the sky? Or are gods actually very real and tangible comets?

    If you yourself are going to assert those are comets then you can’t go half way and then accept the rest of their translations as given. You then have to ask, “What is it that these god-comets did?” And once you accept that the ancient observers were objective and recording what they actually SAW, how can you accept the rest of the pablum that the translators pawn off on us all?

    I don’t get your POV, Bard. You want comets but then you accept the silliness the translators throw at us about the rest of it. I know: You want it to all be about mumbo jumbo but in a different way. I don’t. I reject the mumbo jumbo projection by the modern orthodoxy in toto.

    You know, you are either in or you’re out. Choose side. You want it all to be about comets, but then you accept their garbage. With all due respect (and I do mean that), that just doesn’t make sense to me.

    If it was a real event, it was a real event. And if so, let’s take out all the flowery interpretations and see what it says. If we had such an event today that wiped out 90% or 99% off the people, even a janitor’s account today would be talking about comets and explosions and mega-tsunamis and earthquakes. And what would future arkies and translators into tomorrow’s languages write? That we were all a bunch of superstitious bumpkins, straight off the boat, who saw angels and archangels and magic and were making offerings to the gods? Out of what a janitor wrote about comets and impacts and catastrophes?

    If we expect future researchers to take US seriously if we get hit, aren’t we being hypocritical if we accept characterizations of past cultures’ serious reports on what happened to them?

    Only Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists and maybe some not-yet modernized Amazon tribesmen would write about a comet swarm and project god punishing people for having fornicated too much. I would hope that whoever writes about OUR future catastrophe with dispassion and trying to tell people of the future what horrors we went through – not that God got mad at humans for having too much fun.

    Those people of the past were every bit as rational as WE are. I wish they would just stop with the religious crap. YES, they can inject that into it. And YES, they DO. And you buy into it. I don’t.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard: “For your accretion thread, you should compare the two different landings on objects, plus maybe one of their explosive spikes did fire to send it back up a kilometer?”

    Yeah, that is a good possibility! In their trying to idiot-proof the system with several backups they may have shot themselves in the foot with too much complexity.

    We may never know. But if that come out, we all bow down and kudos to you, because that is a good observation and possibility. 🙂

  • Steve Garcia

    David –
    “The fluffy ones breakup into a bunch of little fluffy ones and we have to live with them for 20,000 years. I think the original comet entered the solar system at 18,500 BC or so and its been an end run ever since.”

    I just read someone’s paper (sorry, but can’t remember whose) who tested hypervelocity impactors and found that fluffy ones not only don’t leave a crater, but they actually leave the ground bulged up a little bit.

    After Chelyabinsk I got into papers on meteors and ablation and from what I learned I came away pretty certain that fluffy ones never do make it to the ground. By “fluffy” I assume you mean low-density ones. Some of the recent comets had densities under 1.0 (the density of water), which implies not only not much in the way of rocks, but also quite porous. Maybe even BIG pores inside. Whether water or dust or agglomerations, I have a tough time believing that they could make it through the humongous turbulence intact or not shredded to smithereens.

    Seriously, the atmosphere is such a HUGE force field, at least in terms of what it DOES to incoming stuff.

    So, I think fluffies actually hitting is doubtful, and that IF they manage to somehow make it to the ground, they are not going to do anything LIKE Barringer or Nördlingen or Sudbury. I wouldn’t want to be 2 miles away, but a world killer I don’t think is possible.

    BTW, I try to clearly state when I am stating MY opinion, versus what is sold science. But I am sure I’ve lost that battle long ago. My certainty on some things always has something solid behind it (IMVHO), but I don’t often succeed in communicating the difference between the certain ones and the opinion ones. My bad, but I don’t know what I can do about it. Try harder in the future, I guess. But don’t expect miracles…

    But I totally understand the materials science limitations that the orthodoxy is violating, so what am I supposed to do? Not call them on it?

    Mainly my POV – probably on EVERYTHING – is that they’ve got an orthodoxy full of holes and they play careerism politics instead of fixing their damned mistakes. That pisses me off.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard – “I found one story interesting that a blanket of black clouds came out of the North. All there is, is art and most of that is in a storeroom. I have a hard time imagining this comet hung around for 40k plus yrs and not being a beyond major influence. There is so little evidence that who knows… I personally find it intriguing to speculate what things were like before ~13KBP, but it is really wanting for information. That in itself should be a red flag to anyone. That is how Our story goes, no one recalls before except it was greener.”

    Well, the 18,500 date you are talking about I wouldn’t agree on, but no one knows and you and I are trying to put the pieces together as best we can, so me disagreeing is just he-said-he-said. 🙂

    This passage has several things in it. If my present inquiry is correct, the nasty stuff WOULD have come out of the north in that region. (I assume around Sumeria?) I put it at about north northwest.

    I have to ask why a comet out in space and before it hits would be doing anything that would make it a “major influence”. How so do you mean?

    And I totally agree with you that the utter lack o f anything before the YDB should BY ITSELF be a red flag.

    As Knight and Lomas argue, just how IS it that agriculture, the wheel, writing, and domestication of animals all came about at the exact same moment?

    The easy, logical answer to that is that they DIDN’T, that they existed before but that earlier evidence was erased somehow (or is being missed or misinterpreted). Otherwise we, along with the orthodoxy, have to believe in serendipitous miracles.

    This is one of the areas that the YDB impact hypothesis will eventually lead to. The evidence IS out there; it simply isn’t being recognized as such.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard – “I personally find it intriguing to speculate what things were like before ~13KBP, but it is really wanting for information.”

    Hahaha – But when I point out that maybe we DO have evidence of what life was like before 13 kya you balk at it. Which you should. But on specifics and not defending those whose translations are HIDING things, innocently to some extent. That “Eridu Genesis” things seemed to me to tell a totally rational and consistent story that tech existed and was used to determine that they were S.O.L. and that they’d better do everything they can to save SOME people.

    BTW, I looked high and LOW to find an actual translation of that Eridu Genesis, and couldn’t find ANYTHING online. I wanted 3 or 4 different translations to compare. I don’t trust the one I read. But it’s all I had.

  • Steve Garcia

    David – ““Tom van Flandern’s book”. Steve and I went over this a few years ago. I should reread that one too….We are still a “sitting duck” here is the “cosmic 3D pool table””

    Exactly. We Earthlings are REALLY unfortunate to live in such a solar system. I am certain that this is not normal, though the orthodoxy will tell you that comets and asteroids area a normal bunch of leftovers from the planetary nebula.

    PIFFLE. Van Flandern has page after page after page of reasons/evidence that support an exploded planet between Mars and Jupiter. AND if such a planet DID explode, then neither comets nor asteroids would date back to 4 billion years ago.

    I can only IMAGINE how far along we would be if the pre-YDB tech people has not been wiped out. I envy sentients who live in solar systems free of Apollos and Main Belters and comets and such. They would be able to develop for perhaps MILLIONS of years, in one upward development. We keep getting sent back to the stone age in Bottleneck events – and then forget what we had accomplished before. And then think we moderns are the apex of all existence.

    Heck, with no comet/gods up in the sky/heaven raining down upon them, they may not ever have had any religion get started.

  • Steve Garcia

    The comets and asteroids may even only date back to 13,000 years ago, when you think about it. Or not so long before.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard – “’m not sure about genetic dating, it is a very complicated science and I’m not even sure they know what they are talking about when it comes to dating. I have a hard time believing different races were all one in the ball park of what I have over hear them saying now days.”

    Haplotype X will eventually prove that the Pre-YDB people did make it through the bottleneck that was the YDB.

    And the X pockets are so far apart from each other, that is an argument for having tech. If they didn’t WALK between those spread out places, guess what?

  • Steve Garcia

    David – “As far as your friend into the “alien” stuff, that’s a huge one also. I think I know why they don’t mention it as it puts the “alien” question front and center into “human mutation”. ”

    Yeah, my old buddy Lloyd Pye was the foremost proponent of Interventionist Theory. After perhaps Sitchin, who Lloyd thought was correct.

    I don’t think Sitchin was right. The Anunnaki crap doesn’t hold water.

    But Lloyd made some great points about things supporting the Interventionist idea.

    I also don’t think Lloyd was right, either. But he presented a better case than the Creationists and Darwinists.

    I think that if there was a high culture before the YDB alien intervention is totally unnecessary.

  • Steve Garcia

    David – “All this being said, something happened because humans did not “evolve” with 4 blood types…..they just plain did not.”

    Why not? We have different colored eyes and hair and skin. Why is blood sacrosanct?

  • Cevin Q

    Seeing as how current humanity is the product of interbreeding between AMH and at least 4 different archaic hominins, Homo sapiens Neanderthal, homo sapiens altiaensis(denisovans), an Asian specific archaic(late homo erectus) and an African specific archaic(post African diaspora, hieldburgensis or erectus), we should have several different blood types.
    Type O can be traced back to Neanderthals, and the rh factor is a product of the particular admixture.

  • Steve – ‘I have to ask why a comet out in space and before it hits would be doing anything that would make it a “major influence”. How so do you mean?’

    I just think that if there was a huge comet swinging around every 3.3 years for 20,000 years before it strikes hard would have produced much more art work. I don’t understand why it couldn’t have shown up and swung around maybe a dozen times then hit. If say only half of it struck the Earth the other part would be perturbed to make up the Northern and Southern Taurid streams right off the bat. There would HAVE to be three… One to strike, two to be the Southern and the third to be the original inner solar system orbit. After that the Earth, Mars, Venus, and Mercury would perturb all the small parts around to make up the rest of the ‘Complex’. I don’t see why it has to hang out for 30-40 Kyrs. to generate what I think is a tight pattern of what is the Taurid Complex.
    And ‘they’ always put such a great emphasis on Jupiter and ignore all the other planets it has crossing orbits with. I would think the timing of Jupiter pulling on it from a distance would not change it much, but have it come really close to the North Pole and be perturbed downward into a brand new approach to the Sun would generate the two separate streams in one pass not thousand of years.

    I guess we are just going to have to agree we have separate opinions on the myth issue and I am equally baffled by your view point. I tried. But see, then you say something like you want to see more interpretations / translations of that text. I haven’t looked for that specific artifact’s text, so I’m just guessing, anything new is in a realm of copyright because of the work put into ‘reading it’. When was it found? There are a couple of what is called the antediluvian king list, IIRC it is in the Bible also and opposite order. Within the etymology it means prior to the flood but that is it for evidence, there were ‘kings’ before the incident. If the one your interested in was found around 1900 I might have one to three different “takes” on it.

    http://www.openculture.com/2010/10/the_sounds_of_ancient_mesopotamia.html They even have it in original Arcadian. Note the flying circle that everyone thinks is the Sun.

    I don’t know… I read all those books to find all that text and took notes where it was in the books and then compared maybe 5 to 6 different versions and made them into one in my book. They have new material, but it is copyrighted and only maybe one ad-on version with probably more translated, but not published. I’d say less than 5% has been ‘read’ and 80% out of all of it is off limits in a dark corner.

    Yes, I think I know what you are after, but that isn’t going to happen unless you personally know someone who knows how to read it and strips it to your satisfaction and then they don’t want you going out and saying my friend X said its different even if it was, would have to be a really good friend. Each of the scholars interprets it a small amount different and sometimes argue over certain words, but if you read them all and just pick the common words it still has the same story…

    If it was all Bovine Excrement then why would the Sargon story sound like the Moses story? Do you really think the linguists would take a Bible story and reverse engineer it to fit a cuneiform tablet and publish that it is proof of antedated material especially when 90% of them know the material intimately and being Doctorates of Divinity and other numerous doctorates? And there is another story that is Egyptian from hieroglyphics in the monuments, (I was thinking of a different one, but IIRC there is the exact same story) that would make three in three different languages and two are confirmed as communicating with each other. The odds are very slim that it is recently manipulated or guess at. With the Rosetta Stone that would connect it all up…

  • David L Ulrich

    Cevin Q – “Seeing as how current humanity is the product of interbreeding…”. I’m just having 2 issues, probably related. One is the time frame or length of time. According to the pretty pictures of the tree of monkey to human, etc., they talk of millions (maybe hundreds of thousands)of years and this shows up, seemly out of nowhere. I have no issue with “interbreeding” vs “inbreeding” and coming out with what we have today. Second point is the “ability of the body (species) to protect itself from life threading genetic mutation”. The mutation is self-destruct and it won’t reproduce. You really can’t mix Rh+ and Rh- and live. Now I realize the possibility of some mutations surviving..but then we are back to the “time frame”….

    I’m having some difficulty working around the body (species) protecting itself.

  • David L Ulrich

    As far as “fluffy” comets, etc. I agree about them pretty much self-destructing” in the atmosphere. But at 6 miles (or even a quarter mile) and traveling at 40,000 mph, the atmosphere would have lit up like the sun. I think Levy and Jupiter proved that in spades. As far as ancient civilizations like Puma Punka, we don’t have one stupid clue……

    Steve Garcia “As Knight and Lomas argue…”. I know they are going down the right road with the “megalithic” dimensioning. This had to come from some very smart people who could pass the information to future generations in one piece. I think over the last 2000 years this religious thing has so destroyed that line of thinking so we could all give our time and money to the “magic man”. And don’t forget the war over the “Clovis Barrier” from the academics who really don’t want the general population of have a brain (my thoughts). They talk a good game but when you get down to the score, they have to win. I think its a shame that we have to start over every time. I’m in contact with others who think there were several civilizations prior to ours. The whole story is written in the “rocks”…..

  • jim coyle

    Gentlemen; I have bred Quarter horses for a number of years. Approximately 40 years ago a genetic mutation showed up in a certain bloodline which caused those afflicted to not be able to process potassium properly which generally caused death or tremendous expense to the owners to keep them alive. The breed Association then determined to have all mares bred to any of these animals genetically tested for this mutation. Any foals that showed positive weren’t allowed to be papered in the association. The mutation was under control in 3 generations and virtually eliminated within 6. Testing is still required for any foal bred from any individual within 4 generations of the original mutated animal. If we are being selectively bred then genetic flaws will be corrected by the breeders. If we are truly free willed to breed as want then nature will correct any flaw to our species disadvantage. Only the strong mentally or physically survive.

  • Seems to me that the comet viruses turn off and on genetic code. I might have been following leads from this book, not sure : Comets and the Origin of Life by Janaki and Chandra Wickramasinghe and William Napier. The ancient stories commonly talk of pestilence and bad water when the Comet came around. Genetics sounds interesting… How long would it take to change eye/skin color, stature, facial features…? Can’t be 13KBP or could it? I would think the start of the last ice age would be an impact and bottle neck, so there are two major events. Sounds like the consensus is 150K BP for full blown homo sapiens, so how did it all split up after that. Space Virus and we are looking out there for confirmation of aliens. What happened 150k yrs. ago? Must be from something or that number is wrong.

    Steve – Maybe I haven’t tried the common sense approach. However anyone views the subject it still comes down to it is our story and it is not going away. It is universal, ubiquitously ingrained into global tradition.

  • Steve Garcia

    Bard – “I just think that if there was a huge comet swinging around every 3.3 years for 20,000 years before it strikes hard would have produced much more art work. I don’t understand why it couldn’t have shown up and swung around maybe a dozen times then hit. If say only half of it struck the Earth the other part would be perturbed to make up the Northern and Southern Taurid streams right off the bat. There would HAVE to be three… One to strike, two to be the Southern and the third to be the original inner solar system orbit. After that the Earth, Mars, Venus, and Mercury would perturb all the small parts around to make up the rest of the ‘Complex’. I don’t see why it has to hang out for 30-40 Kyrs. to generate what I think is a tight pattern of what is the Taurid Complex.

    And ‘they’ always put such a great emphasis on Jupiter and ignore all the other planets it has crossing orbits with. I would think the timing of Jupiter pulling on it from a distance would not change it much, but have it come really close to the North Pole and be perturbed downward into a brand new approach to the Sun would generate the two separate streams in one pass not thousand of years.”

    Wow, so much in this that you don’t understand well…

    “I just think that if there was a huge comet swinging around every 3.3 years for 20,000 years before it strikes hard would have produced much more art work. I don’t understand why it couldn’t have shown up and swung around maybe a dozen times then hit.”

    Let’s put ONE fragment of the Taurids even with the Earth’s orbit, going in toward the Sun, and let’s put Earth 0.1 million kms from it at that moment, following its own orbit… Okay, then 3.3 years later it will again cross Earth’s orbit – at essentially the same spot. But since it’s orbit is not 3.00000 years exactly, the Earth has passed that point in its orbit 0.3 years earlier (3.6 months) and is now about 283 million kms past that point, along its orbit. That is 176 million kms on a straight line across the solar system. IOW, the Earth is way on the other side of the Sun. The next year the Earth is even farther away from that crossing point when that big thing crosses there again. The third year it is considerably closer, but there is still almost 100 million kms between the two bodies – 60% of the radius of Earth’s orbit.

    So, basically, it’s not like the comet hangs around earth, waving at us every day or every month.

    While we certainly would have seen that chunk up in the sky on that first pass, it takes 33 years before we would have another close pass. And THAT is if it is exactly 3.30000 years. If not, the object would have gone in too far toward the Sun, too early or not gotten to that point again yet. With the length of Earth’s orbit being about 942 million kms it’s really hard for something to come past us close again.

    The middle of your paragraph there makes no sense.

    “After that the Earth, Mars, Venus, and Mercury would perturb all the small parts around to make up the rest of the ‘Complex’. I don’t see why it has to hang out for 30-40 Kyrs. to generate what I think is a tight pattern of what is the Taurid Complex.”

    “…all the small parts” constitutes an known gazillion particles that extend the entire distance around the path of the Taurids. The major axis is about 666 million kms. This comes out to a bit over 2 billion kms measured along the length of its elliptical orbit. Those planets all pass through the Taurids, too. so, yes, they will perturb particles nearby when the orbits cross, and some particles will impact those planets. As to the odds on ONE fragment passing the planet’s orbits, look at the stuff I just wrote about Earth. The principles are the same. The very great majority of the time the planet isn’t going to be anywhere close when the fragment crosses the orbit.

    Hollywood has us all thinking that every intruder into the solar system is going to make close passes by each planet. They ALWAYS show one whizzing past Saturn and its rings or Jupiter and its bands. That is all poppycock. Close random passes are a rare thing.

  • Steve Garcia

    David – “The mutation is self-destruct and it won’t reproduce. You really can’t mix Rh+ and Rh- and live.”

    No. On both counts. Right in general – KIND OF – but not in specifics.

    Let’s take the latter one first…

    As I learned it many years ago, when a woman has her first baby of the opposite RH, she does not have any antibodies against it, but she develops the antibodies, and they don’t kill THAT baby, but they WILL kill any subsequent opposite RH babies she gets pregnant with. So, they get ONE freebie and that is it.

    I won’t go into more details on that, about husband’s RH sign and grandparents, etc.

    I happen to run across a hybrid scientists about 3 years ago, by the name of Dr. Gene McCarthy. He came up with the idea of the chimp-pig ancestors for humans. Amazingly, he presented it in a way that got past people’s predilection to blow him off as crazy – many people thought he had something that may be correct. I followed him for quite a while, and in that time he taught those who were paying attention that it is NOT true that all hybrid animals are infertile. I don’t remember the details, but more or less it is that some of them ARE able to bear offspring, by mating back with one or the other of the original species. It had something to do with 2nd or 3rd blends becoming 100% fertile. Don’t hold mt to that precisely, but something along those lines… Yeah, that was new to me, too.

    He went in that direction because he noticed that EVERY single characteristic in humans that was NOT the same as Chimps was one that pigs have. This was not true of any other mammal. I can provide a website if you wish…

  • Steve Garcia

    David – Your January 20, 2016 at 12:04 pm comment – YEAH, to all of it.
    When scientists are fighting for something they’ve put decades into they can and do get vicious. Read up on Climategate some time.

    But the dodos really held up anthropology and archaeology a long time with their Clovis Barrier. Thank the gods for Monte Verde, for getting rid of Clovis First.

  • Steve Garcia

    Jim –

    Good info on breeding.

    My good friend the late Lloyd Pye was a fervent advocate of intervention, and one of his BIG arguments was that humans have so MANY genetic diseases that other animals do not have. He argued that Mother Nature made all the other animals without these, but that something different happened with humans

    THEN he goes into the 2nd chromosome of humans, and WOW is that one weird. It’s not normal length (much longer than all the others), and it totally appears to have had two chromosomes spliced together.

    So, we’ve got these strange 2nd chromosomes, all the genetic disorders, and on top of that we’ve got horny chimps doing the barnyard thing with pigs. Hahaha – it seems porn wasn’t born yesterday. And maybe we are the results, perversions included. So, maybe guys need to be more careful around sheep. Who knows WHAT might come out of it! Some Baa-aad dudes who like to butt heads maybe…LOL

  • Paul Repstock

    >”AND if such a planet DID explode, then neither comets nor asteroids would date back to 4 billion years ago.”<
    Why not? If Earth exploded and someone happened to be looking at a little piece that came out of the Canadian Shield, wouldn't they get that range of dating?
    Apologies to George, I know he doesn't get paid for this…But, this is driving me NUTS! I'm away for 48 hrs, and when I get back it is as if I entered an "Insiders joke club". There is too much material and too many threads of ideas for this format. Any new person entering the site would run away screaming..:D For one thing, the coment stream button must not default to page 2. The reader must have the option to chose page one so they have some idea what we are talking about, and the individual comments need to be numbered for reference and response…jmo

  • jim coyle

    Paul: I like our idea, hopefully it can be worked in.

  • Steve Garcia

    Paul –

    I think we should have an Open Thread – perhaps one for each month. That way we don’t clutter up the specific topics, too.

    If the Open thread topics carry over to the next month, we’d know right where to go to find previous comments.

    It should be simple enough to create a new post each month, for catch-all comments and delusionary thoughts.

    Maybe quarterly is better? Less work for George?

    George? How say you?

  • Steve Garcia

    Paul –

    An exploded planet that had oceans or underground water-filled caverns (or ice) – the fragments might just be some from terra firma and some from ice. And some mixed. It could explain the composition of comets and asteroids – AND explain how olivine got inside the Allende meteorite and others.

    It would also explain high-inclination asteroids and other bodies. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/images/nature12908-f1.jpg

    That map is an eye-opener.

    How does one explain so many high-inclination bodies? Thousands of them above 20° inclination. Hundreds above 40°. How are ANY of them above 40°? According to accretion (here I go again!) everything finds its way to the ecliptic, making a nebular disc – and STAYING THERE. After 4.5 billion years, that should have happened. But it hasn’t. About 100 are above 45° – over half way to the zenith. How does THAT happen in a slowly winding down, entropy-ridden system? Why haven’t those been pulled down to the ecliptic?

  • Paul Repstock

    Hugely interesting! I can’t have been the first to notice the wave pattern, almost like a spectrograph. Mars being too small, and Earth to far Sunward to exert gravitational control over significant numbers of fragments.

    And therein may lie an acceptable “Accretion Theory”: If fragments end up at appropriate distances between large gravitational forces, the might be gathered into bands like magnetic force bands between magnets???? These fragments could then colesce by weak forces with little relative motion.

  • Jonny

    Paul, the gaps are caused by orbital resonances with Jupiter which eject objects with orbital periods (and conversely semi major axis) that fall within that resonance. See more here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkwood_gap

  • Paul Repstock

    Thank you Jonny.
    I see the weakness of my idea. The planetary tidal forces which seem to organize the fragments might also break them up and “eject” any which nolonger conform to grade. Are there any clues to suggest that fragments might be sorted by mass or density?

  • Steve Garcia

    One thing I noted in that is that Mars and Earth apparently have no collection of asteroids, evidently even at their Trojan points.

    Swept clean?

    Actually, aren’t the NEOs considered asteroids? I can look it up, but the void there has my attention and I am working on something else. I will come back to it…

  • Jonny

    Paul the gaps do not arise due to tidal forces. A Tidal force is a differential force across an object. The gaps arise because orbital resonance pumps up the momentum if the asteroids.

    Regarding the structure of the asteroid belt and sorting. There is some sorting that occurs within the asteroid belt with most s type asteroids on the inner part and c type asteroids on the outer part. This spacial distribution is likely to originate with differentiation of the primordial circumsolar disc. It is difficult to explain in the context of an exploded planet hypothesis one would expect to create a homogenous mixture of spectral types.

  • Jonny

    Steve Mars dies have trojans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trojan

    Earth has one confirmed trojan as discovered by WISE. The trouble with earth trojans (if I recall correctly) is that the earth Trojan geometry makes them very hard to observe from here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_trojan

  • Steve Garcia

    Jonny – Yeah, that only makes sense. I should have looked it up; I just went off that asteroid cross-section. There were seriously not many shown at the orbit of either. THANKS!

    And it is pretty obvious that the Earth trojans are hard to see. Some big bright star makes it a bit difficult.

  • Steve Garcia

    Jonny –

    “It is difficult to explain in the context of an exploded planet hypothesis one would expect to create a homogenous mixture of spectral types.”

    Homogeneity would depend on how long ago – if there was enough time to homogenize the population, no?

    Isn’t it odd how in the accretion model the accretion was selective based on materials? – sending carbon to c types and stone to s types and iron and nickle together? All at many km per second which should be demolishing? Yes, we would expect homogeneity of each packet – if such impacts were constructive instead of destructive and each impact were of random elemental dust particles. Homogeneity at the accretion level? Not.

    Also, Saturn’s rings are thin because the higher inclination/higher energy particles impact and lose energy and “fall” to the ring plane and are only tens of meters thick. But the asteroids are not subject to this? Why such high inclination asteroids – both main belt and otherwise?? If the same orbital resonance process governs both there either should be no high inclination asteroids or many high inclination Saturn ring particles, yes? Something is different.

  • Paul Repstock

    Speaking of higher inclinations, I found this interesting:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/planet-9-bob-macdonald-1.3414268
    Apparently, Pluto and out are higher angle?

    Homogenous bands: not anything I would expect. The destruction of a planet and the attendant collapse of its gravity, should suggest that the higher density fragments would have more energy and travel further (in or out) so the bands should be sorted.
    Thanks for the information on “Earth Trogans”. I’m with Steve; one would expect more??

  • Steve Garcia

    From here —

    “Scientists estimate that thousands of bodies more than 62 miles (100 km) in diameter travel around the sun within this belt, along with trillions of smaller objects, many of which are short-period comets. The region also contains several dwarf planets, round worlds too large to be considered asteroids and yet not qualifying as planets because they’re too small, on an odd orbit, and don’t clear out the space around them the way the 8 planets do.”

    “When the solar system formed, much of the gas, dust and rocks pulled together to form the sun and planets. The planets then swept most of the remaining debris into the sun or out of the solar system. But bodies farther out remained safe from gravitational tugs of planets like Jupiter, and so managed to stay safe as they slowly orbited the sun.

    Planet 9 data from Wiki (hoping they have the data straight):

    Orbital characteristics
    Aphelion – – – – – 1200 AU (est.)[1]
    Perihelion – – – – 200 AU (est.)[2]
    Semi-major axis – 700 AU (est.)[3]
    Eccentricity – – – 0.6 (est.)[2]
    Orbital period – – 10,000 to 20,000 Earth years[2]
    Inclination – – – – 30° to ecliptic (est.)[2]
    Mean radius – – – – 13,000 km to 26,000 km (est.)[2] – two—four Earth radii
    Mass – – – – – – – 6×1025 kg (est.)[2] – ≥10 Earths (est)
    Apparent magnitude – >22 (est.)[1]***

    And according to Brown, they don’t know where on its orbit it is. (WHY NOT?????) I don’t know how the math could have led them to anything without pointing at it, more or less – at LEAST the quadrant RA and quadrant inclination-wise. And if the numbers are too vague at this point, I would caution everyone to not get their knickers in a twist.

    The Mirror is not at all good journalism, but they have an article throwing cold water on this. It’s not much of an article, but here it is, in full http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/nasa-speaks-out-planet-9-7223625:

    Stargazers and conspiracy theorists were delighted when scientists claimed there was an undiscovered planet slowly orbiting our sun .
    But NASA has said there is simply not enough evidence to unequivocally prove that it’s really there.
    Jim Green, NASA director of planetary science, said a paper predicting the existence of “Planet X” was only “the start of a process that could lead to an exciting result”.
    “It is not, however, the detection of a new planet,” he warned.
    “It’s too early to say with certainty if there’s a so-called Planet X out there.
    “What we are seeing is an early prediction.”

    For the moment that is my take on it… with caveats:

    Planet 9 is based on only SIX bodies which are – based on that graphic – on the opposite side of the solar system. SIX bodies? That’s it? And they are way on the other side of the solar system? What kind of gravitational attraction at 200-1200 AU could there be for a body only 10 Earth masses? What is the gravitational pull on bodies traveling at probably 10-30 km/sec? The force of a feather falling on the ground?

    Jonny was just telling us about orbital resonance, which adds energy when an inner and outer planet line up with the Sun and creates the Kirkwood gaps. Jupiter does that from 1 or 2 AU, and Saturn does it on its rings at 0.2 AU or less. Well, 10-Earths pulling on something the size of Pluto or less at 200 to 1200 AU? Where is the energy kick? And what value? Maybe TWO feathers? Hey, inverse square of the distance! 100 to 600 times farther is 10,000 to 360,000 times less attraction.

    (And Brown stated in Jan 2015 that they thought they’d found all the big bright KBOs and were discontinuing their search for more. http://www.universetoday.com/118118/it-looks-like-these-are-all-the-large-kuiper-belt-objects-well-ever-find/
    That is another issue: In the entire band of the KB (30-50 Au radius) which comes out to about 5,000 SQUARE AUs there are only the few that we’ve seen in HOW many/few years of looking? ~23 years. Why does that not strike me as good science? Quitting on it already?)

    With Neptune at 9.582 AU, that gives the distance at 20 times Neptune’s orbit up to 120 times Neptune’s orbit.

    I don’t understand how anything that low in mass could produce any effects at ALL at 200-1200 AU, when Jupiter at 5.46 AU is said to NOT have had any affect on objects only 30-50 AU away in the Kuiper Belt.

    Proportion, proportion, proportion….

    Something doesn’t add up. I am willing to be convinced, but they don’t give a crap what I think, I am sure – whether I approve or not. But there certainly isn’t enough here for anyone but a true optimist/believer.

    I usually give CalTech science high marks. This sounds to me like jumping the gun and grandstanding. Getting good press is a necessity in science, I know, and it has to happen often enough that people don’t forget astronomy and NASA and ESA.

    Maybe I will be proven to be simply a Bah Humbugger. We’ll see. There certainly isn’t enough to go with.

  • Paul Repstock

    Owww!
    I don’t like that orbital perid at all:
    “Orbital period – – 10,000 to 20,000 Earth years[2]”
    It is pretty much in the range of 12,000-24,000??

  • Paul Repstock

    George;
    Email your postal address so I can help pay for use of this interesting site.
    Not fair that you should have to do the maintainance and also pay rent, when you don’t profit from it.

  • Steve Garcia

    About the arkies being our interpreters of the past, it seems I wasn’t QUITE right about them. There was a moment in time in the 1950s when archaeologists changed how they did archaeology. It came with something called “New Archaeology”, centered a good deal around the Univ. of Arizona.

    [Wiki] Processual archaeology (formerly the New Archaeology) is a form of archaeological theory that had its genesis in 1958 with the work of Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips, Method and Theory in American Archeology, in which the pair stated that “American archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing” (Willey and Phillips, 1958:2), a rephrasing of Frederic William Maitland’s comment that “[m]y own belief is that by and by, anthropology will have the choice between being history and being nothing.”

    I’ve been saying for about 3 years now that archaeologists are not scientists, that they are historians. Here their own people not only admit it, but they insist upon it. Archaeology is anthropology, and anthropology is either NOTHING or it is history. BINGO!

    This idea implied that the goals of archaeology were, in fact, the goals of anthropology, which were to answer questions about humans and human society.

    This last phrasing dodges the actual statements and re-phrases “history” as “questions about humans and human society”. This specific re-phrasing was done by some anonymous Wikipedia editor. And it doesn’t change the reality. Even their own recognize that they are historians, not scientists. The difference is huge. In history, every historian has an opinion – and no one’s opinion is necessarily better than anyone else’s. I had that rubbed in my nose not too long ago, and I responded that it has nothing to do with SCIENCE.

    While every scientist does, indeed, have opinions, that never stops the search for the one actuality/reality, and it is based on quantification (putting numbers to it). In history they ACCEPT that the reality, AS INTERPRETED, will change over time and never stop changing. With history, there is no such thing as quantification of anything but TIME, and perhaps distance from one event/person to another.

    This was a critique of the former period in archaeology, the Culture-Historical phase in which archaeologists thought that any information which artifacts contained about past people and past ways of life was lost once the items became included in the archaeological record.

    HOW STUPID IS THAT? If true, this shows that arkies don’t have the mental capacity to even think logically in a scientific way. OF COURSE artifacts can still contain information after they are found and included in the record. What kind of stupid logic is that statement???? They couldn’t possibly have actually THOUGHT that.

    All they felt could be done was to catalogue, describe, and create timelines based on the artifacts.

    If only they had stopped there…

    Proponents of this new phase in archaeology claimed that with the rigorous use of the scientific method it was possible to get past the limits of the archaeological record and learn something about how the people who used the artifacts lived.

    Seriously, that is like a stratigrapher logging all the geological layers under the ground as to age and type – and then telling us the religion of the dinosaurs and mammals.

    And WOAH! – – – “Past the limits of archaeological record”????? In other words, they PROJECT – project “past the limits”. They go BEYOND the actual discovered THINGS and claim to get into the HEADS of someone they have never met and never will. What IS past the limits? PAST FACTS and into imagination and interjection and injection of concepts in the heads of the researchers and NOT actually what is in the “archaeological record.” They are, then, MIND READERS. When you go past what is measured and documented and into the heads of the people of the past, it not possible without making sh*t up.

    …And thus it began that they started INJECTING their modern ideas (about the past) into the past. And they actually BELIEVE it.

    Colin Renfrew, a proponent of the new processual archaeology, observed in 1987 that it focuses attention on “the underlying historical processes which are at the root of change”. Archaeology, he noted “has learnt to speak with greater authority and accuracy about the ecology of past societies, their technology, their economic basis and their social organization.

    This is where they formalized the attitude that the earlier a society was, the more superstitious it was, and that all past societies were based upon religion and superstition – and ESPECIALLY they project that there was in each society a priest class that lorded it over the common members of the societies. This was injected enough formerly (in the 1700s and 1800s), and they upped the cartoon characterizations of the past to a new level.

    Now it is beginning to interest itself in the ideology of early communities: their religions, the way they expressed rank, status and group identity.”

    I stand corrected – in terms of WHEN this mentality in archaeology took off and ran with this. To some degree, anyway. Though this was certainly in archaeology earlier (I know, from Egyptology, specifically), THEY INTENTIONALLY AND ARTIFICIALLY DECIDED TO LAY ALL THIS MUMBO JUMBO CRAP ON THE PAST CULTURES. They intentionally CHANGED their own discipline in order to take on this role as “Interpreters of the past” on behalf of modern society and FOR modern society.

    While I was reading the book that led me to look up this “New Archaeology” phrase, I was actually thinking from the wordings in the book that I’d woken up to realize that the arkies AS DESCRIBED were only technicians – AT THE TIME JUST PRECEDING THE ADVENT OF NEW ARCHAEOLOGY. And right now I am certain that that assessment of mine is correct. They were – and are now, too – technicians who know how to organize a dig and log things. Which makes them science TYPES but not scientists. It’s like the difference between the shop personnel working in quality assurance who know how to measure carefully and document the measurements VERSUS someone who designs machines and equipment and is responsible for making sure the equipment WORKS, with all its subsystems and moving parts and producing a particular product or process in the end analysis. No one would consider the quality assurance technician a scientist. Archaeologists are ADJUNCTS to scientists, but not scientists per se.

    Having worked with all of these myself for years, I know exactly when functions are technician functions and when they are research functions and when they are engineering functions and when they are scientific functions. In terms of data collecting, arkies are, fundamentally TECHNICIANS. Nothing more. In terms of interpreting, they are historians – opinions are a dime a dozen and like rectums – everyone has one.

    It is when they inject their biases artificially into things that the understanding of the past goes all wrong. ALL of it is in their mind and they feed off each other.

    And the biggest single flaw as I have seen it so far is that THEY CANNOT ADMIT THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW SOMETHING. When they have an artifact in front of them that has an unknown function, they refuse to simply say, “We don’t yet know what it is for.” Instead, they always say, “It is a ceremonial object”. THAT, in their minds is its function. Sometimes – but not always – they then launch into a complete speculation about its function in rituals. Its not enough to simply guess that it is ceremonial; they have to then describe – BASED ON NOTHING – how the priest handles it and the commoners gawk. In this, when I say ALWAYS, I really DO mean always. So far I’ve never seen them NOT to do this. Even when they say they are not certain, they then launch into, “It is probably something ceremonial“.

    NOTHING in science gets my goat as much as this – historians intruding into science with their legions of guesses and opinions.

    Opinions have no place in real science.

  • Paul Repstock

    Steve; I agree with your frustration. You know very well that this absolutist twaddle comes mostly from pecuniary requirements. Nobody will pay you 2 cents for a rock that “may be” gold, salesmanship 101. Another good chunk stems from our education system; Those who progress by rote learning, often view their hard-earned nuggets of “wisdom” like the Holy Scriptures and tollerate no apostasy.
    However, I believe we all have some tendency to this. Reverting to Economics for a moment: Opinion seems to be a larger currency than Reality?
    The “Economy” is supposed to be the value of all human interaction. Yet, when one tries to reconcile the debts with the assets, production with consumption, or the money stock with the Economy; then one will soon find a huge disconnect! There is no money to pay the debt, and not enough paper in the world to even print the money?
    But, the World keeps functioning, somehow? We function on FAITH and we function because going forward on the same path is preferable to suffering the consequences of starting over again.

  • Paul Repstock
  • Steve Garcia

    Paul –

    I just came on here, and it is interesting that the time stamp on your comment is 1 minute AFTER I came on. (???)

    The rote learners… Thomas Kuhn – he of “paradigm” fame – wrote about the two types of scientists. One type is those who do research to expand science. The other is those who do research to confirm the current orthodoxy and make its foundation stronger. Included in the latter I would put the defenders of the faith – those who knee-jerk react to anything new.

    I found out just today that our old friend and nemesis, YDIH skeptic and defender of the rote school of science David Meltzer has a THIRD frontier direction of inquiry that he lists himself as a skeptic of – the Solutrean-Clovis connection. Oh, he is free to find fault with any science he wants to. But when oh when is he actually going to DO science? When is HE going to initiate research at the frontiers of science?

    Apparently Meltzer is getting enough published that he probably doesn’t NEED to generate any new knowledge for the world. I think he is the Director of the Argument Clinic at the Monty Python Institute. . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY

    “But this isn’t argument! It’s just contradiction!” Welcome to Meltzer’s World.

    (I DO agree with him on one of them, though!…LOL)

    I don’t even know if I consider the Confirmers as anything above engineers. Engineers are applied science, as opposed to theoretical science. And so are the Confirmers. They certainly don’t do work on theory. Their whole world seems to be them standing on a firm (if dogmatic) sidewalk and snitching on those walking on the grass.

    “Oh! You forgot to dot an “i”! Thus your ENTIRE hypothesis is wrong!”

    Yeah, cheap shots… LOL But at the same time they invite them, don’t they?

    (I know that if I ever submit anything they will be all over me like flies on feces. And I will have deserved it…LOL)

  • Paul – that Babylonian stuff is all made up. It is just triangular cubism patterns.

  • Trent Telenko

    The Centaur herd just grew.

    There is a fresh crater on Ceres discovered by the NASA Dawn probe that has land slides and what looks like a volcanic mound in the center.

    See:

    The strange glowing ‘spots’ of Ceres up close: Researchers reveal craters are recent and show evidence of giant landslides
    •Nasa’s Dawn spacecraft captured images at 240 miles above the surface
    •Close-ups show complex fractures and linear features in Occator Crater
    •The new images reveal small dome inside the crater, in the bright center
    •Additional data by craft gives evidence to support presence of water ice

    By Mark Prigg For Dailymail.com

    Published: 18:38 EST, 19 April 2016 | Updated: 22:31 EST, 19 April 2016

    “Ceres’ Haulani Crater, with a diameter of 21 miles (34 kilometers), shows evidence of landslides from its crater rim. This image was made using data from NASA’s Dawn spacecraft when it was in its high-altitude mapping orbit, at a distance of 915 miles (1,470 kilometers) from Ceres.”

    and

    “In its lowest-altitude mapping orbit, at a distance of 240 miles (385 kilometers) from Ceres, Dawn has provided scientists with spectacular views of the dwarf planet.

    It showed off the Haulani Crater, with a diameter of 21 miles (34 kilometers), shows evidence of landslides from its crater rim.

    Smooth material and a central ridge stand out on its floor.

    An enhanced false-color view allows scientists to gain insight into materials and how they relate to surface morphology.

    This image shows rays of bluish ejected material.

    The color blue in such views has been associated with young features on Ceres.

    ‘Haulani perfectly displays the properties we would expect from a fresh impact into the surface of Ceres.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3548842/The-strange-glowing-spots-Ceres-close-Researchers-reveal-craters-recent-evidence-giant-landslides.html