History of the Earth

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Sumerian Kings List

Unread postby moses » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:18 pm

As support for the measurement of the movement of the Earth's axis through the sky by the Sumerians, we have the Stonehenge type constructions that align the sunrise at solstice with a passage or two points. Thus there would be slow movement of where the sunlight hits at the end of a passage, say, and this would give a way to calculate the movement of the Earth's north pole.

Another point of interest is the shortening of the kings' reign as we get closer to Noah's flood. This meshes well with the idea that the Earth got a big, fast wobble during the Younger Dryas planetary interactions. And thus the wobble speed was slowed by some gravity or tidal-type effect and thus the angular distance the north pole moved was lessened. Presumably the wobble speed has come to equilibrium but maybe not and measurements might support a decay of the wobble speed, but still the Noah's flood planetary interaction would have changed the wobble speed considerably.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby nick c » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:58 am

Mo,
Charles Ginenthal wrote an interesting book on Stonehenge and other megalithic structures. He presents a formidable and detailed case that these structures were built in the post Roman era, probably between 600 to 800 AD.
As far as astronomical alignments go, there is no strong case for any alignments at Stonehenge.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE AGE OF
STONEHENGE AND THE MEGALITHIC
WORLD
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby moses » Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:44 pm

Nick,
I have carbon dating correct to 2360 BC and it has taken me a long time to get to this view. I don't knock anyone who disagrees with this. I have read Ginenthal before and just read some of that pretty long article you posted. I make a couple of comments.

Roman structure came from the same source as that used for Stonehenge (a previous worldwide civilization).

Pottery styles overlay seems a week argument.

Roman coins in barrows would mean that some section of the British people still carried on the old ways in Roman times.

Velikovsky planetary interaction around 800 BC did not happen or was insignificant in carbon terms or in moving the Earth's axis.

I have read heaps of theories and I have just tried to navigate through them as best I could. For instance Ganymede, Earth and Mars coming together or being together where the asteroid belt is now. It aids the break up because Earth and Mars go in one direction and Ganymede heads off in the opposite direction and gets picked up by Jupiter. Simple stuff.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby nick c » Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:21 am

Mo,
i have to respectfully disagree with your reliance on carbon dating for recent history. Carbon dating needs to be used at best with great caution or at worst, discarded completely. Ginenthal in a number of his books cites various monumental (no pun intended) failures of carbon dating, including many for recent history. Carbon dates that don't fit the preconceived chronology of the researcher are never cited as evidence of falsification but are regularly discarded as "contaminated." The only objective reason for labeling them "contaminated" is that they fail to conform to consensus chronology.

There is plenty of evidence of catastrophes from the mid 2nd Millenium BCE to around 700 BCE. See the work of Claude Schaeffer, who from his excavations. Also the work of Folgheraiterin the 1890's that showed that Etruscan and Greek vases of the 1st M BCE had an opposite magnetic orientation then that of today. Evidence that there was a magnetic reversal of the Earth in the 1st M BCE.

also with regard to the dating of Stonehenge:
-Roman coins found beneath stones of megalithic structures is strong evidence that the stone was put in position in post Roman times
-the structures are not sunken into the ground very far, see Ginenthal's analysis of the effect of earthworms over time on the positioning of these monuments which rest upon bare ground
-the Romans wrote travel guides and there is no mention of Stonehenge anywhere in Roman literature
-the Romans were prolific makers of graffiti every wherever they went they left their mark.... "Antonius was here!"
Why is there no Roman graffiti on Stonehenge? or any of the other structures?
-retrocalculation of astronomical alignments are useless, there is no precision in the alignments of stones.

I realize that you do not accept much of the evidence presented, but I urge anyone interested to take the time to read Ginenthal's lengthy book. The extent of evidence is formidable, in my opinion.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:55 am

Hey thanks Nick for giving me something to chew on!

I think its important we don't get too hung up on Chronology! But rather a coherent sequence of events to form a narrative. Re: Charles Ginenthal, appears to be out to prove 'Everything' in conformity to Velikovsky's claims (See 'The Extinction of the Mammoth' - that this happened, and happened only once, in 1500 BC). His evidence is thus selective, and in places Ginenthal is more interested in disproving established data, for example in bringing in evidence of discrepancies in Carbon-14 dates. I suspect more of the same regarding the Roman angle at Stonehenge. But will certainly give a serious look into it!

Personally what I find most interesting about 'Stonehenge' is/was the willingness of generation after generation to constantly remodel it. The long history of constant reconstruction over a 1500-year period might suggest that the building and rebuilding of the monument might have been the most important function of all, even though the actual meaning of this eludes us!



Avebury is a much easier monument to decipher Mo ...
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby nick c » Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:35 am

YD wrote:Re: Charles Ginenthal, appears to be out to prove 'Everything' in conformity to Velikovsky's claims (See 'The Extinction of the Mammoth' - that this happened, and happened only once, in 1500 BC).

Actually...no. While the late Lynn Rose and the late Charles Ginenthal have been the most ardent defenders of Velikovsky, they absolutely do not seek to prove "Everything in conformity to Velikovsky's claims."

In fact both Rose and Ginenthal disagree with much of V's chronology, as do I. The goal of these writers is not to verify V's claims but to uncover the details of what happened. V considered his work to be a "reconstruction" of our understanding of human history and though he was on the right track his task was never completed.

Keep in mind that Velikovsky accepted the antiquity of Stonehenge, so Ginenthal disagrees with V on this very subject.
(V wrote about Stonehenge in an article in Pensee, where he disputed, quite convincingly, the assumption that there were astronomical alignments; which could be retrocalculated to disprove a recent change in the order of the Solar System.)

To my knowledge and I have not researched it, Ginenthal is the first to put forth the recent origin of Stonehenge, although I would not be in the least bit surprised if there were not many 19 C researchers who concluded that Stonehenge was a post Roman construction. I would not be surprised because that is what the preponderance of evidence suggests.

Since V regarded his own work as a "reconstruction" the importance of chronology cannot be ignored. Ginenthal's and Rose's view is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, which many of the Velikovsky inspired catastrophists have done.

His evidence is thus selective, and in places Ginenthal is more interested in disproving established data, for example in bringing in evidence of discrepancies in Carbon-14 dates. I suspect more of the same regarding the Roman angle at Stonehenge. But will certainly give a serious look into it!
There is nothing selective about it. If there were then it would be easy enough to refute by simply citing the evidence that Ginenthal left out....

The earthworm evidence is formidable, but only one piece. If Stonehenge is indeed 4, 000+ years old then the fact that earthworms have been tunneling under the stones for thousands of years, cannot be ignored. The tunnels collapse and stones sink into the ground, Ginenthal points out that the present degree of sinking is consistent with the stones being from post Roman times. This is not the core of his argument but is only one of many pieces supporting a post Roman Stonehenge.

The claim is extraordinary and as such extraordinary evidence is required. This lengthy and exquisitely detailed book does just that. And I do realize that the author's attention to details often is boring to those that want a quick synopsis. But it is what it is!
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: History of the Earth

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:32 pm

Thanks for the detailed response. Like I said I will take a closer look into his ideas about Stonehenge. His previous work left a sour taste in my mouth regarding his reliance on Dr. V's hard and fast dates/ideas. But its been a number of years and it wouldn't hurt to admit being wrong!

Re: Stonehenge
Its endless reconstruction would be the most logical response to the inquiry. Perhaps the inspiration for its original design changed, (If I'm not mistake it was originally a wood henge of 56 posts) or possibly the environmental conditions no longer allowed the desired affect>? Giving the Roman's something to contribute after the 7th century B.C!

Just for fun: The Celts clearly recall conditions of the "Era of the Gods" in their myths (4500 years after the events). But, surprisingly, we hear nothing of barrows or henges in their recorded myths -- only tales of sacred springs and trees. Since they were very late invaders of Western Europe and the islands of England and Ireland, (7th Century B.C ?) I'd wager they had not witnessed the building and construction involved in the barrows, henges.
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron