11,000 B.C. Extinction

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby ancientd » Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:23 pm

Lloyd this is a better u tube vesion at 16:9 ratio and higher res.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpwAA-lNDVQ
ancientd
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:15 am

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby ancientd » Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:45 pm

Hey Lloyd while your at it I noticed in an old thread on electric fossilzation ( which I endorse) that you bught up highly preserved soft skin fossils . Now to me this is an anomaly. In fact some of these mammoth preservations are not fossilized at all. As you noted the ones buried in the ice of Alaska and Siberia but also at Hot Springs mammoth site the carcusses are preserved in minute layers of sandstone to quite a depth ( about 200 feet) The whole mass is also surrounded by a circular reddish tainted ferric sandstone. The site is on a knoll. Lary Agenbroad terms it a sink hole and I notice this is also a similar description of many mega fauna sitse . But they are not fossilized but preserved as a crumbling replica. In Snowmass where i visited in Colorado the megafauna are quite fresh but preserved ( apparently DNA intact???) in a peaty bog beneath waterhole.At Le Brea they are preserved in Tar PITS and partially fossilized. At Cuddie Springs in Australia the marsupiales are fossilized but again concentrated at a marshy waterhole and again at Romsy Victoria. Now I suspect this was not a waterhole but possiby the end point of some sort of vortex effect.Are in fact natural springs a residual of a past electric event??? This is conjecture. Any comments either of preservation or the cause , which you would suspect (despite non fossilization ) to be electric ????
ancientd
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:15 am

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby webolife » Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:13 pm

Ancientd,
Watched the You tube. Nice interview. I notice you say "non fossilized" but I think you mean "non petrified"... any remains of ancient organisms can be termed fossils, even if they are footprint impressions or the like. Fossils with any organic elements still intact, such as actual bone, tooth, or other "softer" parts such as skin or scales, etc., or as occasionally found in my state of Washington, "unpetrified" logs between lava layers where one would ordinarily expect petrifaction, are especially nice indicators of recent demise. However, as also reminded elsewhere, under the right conditions petrifaction happens in a matter of hours to days, in a laboratory. Since we do commonly find various petrified fossils, it stands to reason that they occurred under the "right" conditions, I'd say. As I've noted on other radioactive dating threads, the 50,000 BP dates for C-14 tests are actually helpful if you telescope them down to circa 5000 BP [or maybe as far as 5000 BC], with the premise that there was an insurge of C-14 at the time of the cataclysm we are all acknowledging but variously describing. This insurge would cause all the previously living biotics/organics to show a markedly lower ratio of C-14/C-12, thus resulting in a falsely older "age". So I simply correlate such high C-14 "ages" to the time of or just following the recent/historical/eyewitnessed cataclysm, whatever specific time is given for it. Spent some time at the Mammoth Hot Springs site in the Black Hills a few years back, and I also was interested that there was a lack of petrifaction there. Didn't buy the "sink hole" so much but was interested in the cross-sectional view of the site as the upper part of a deep-origin vent... suggestive of a geiser-like phenomenon, with clear indicators for possible electrical causation.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:11 pm

* Peter, thanks much for the video. I hope to hear the whole thing ere long.
* What you say about fossils found in pits is interesting. You know, some of the TPODs have suggested that many caves and the like were carved out electrically. Whether animals were there when that happened or afterward seems to be a hard matter to determine. Do you have any clues or facts to offer on that?
* And Web, your mention of unpetrified fossil finds is very interesting too, as well as your info on C14 and dating.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4410
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby webolife » Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:18 pm

Thanks, I seem to spend a lot of time arguing around here... nice to get a few "nods" now and then.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby ancientd » Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:45 pm

webolife and Lloyd

thanks for the correction on terminolgy . Now we can all talk the same language. OK firstly the C14 peaks ( and presumeably other isotopes)! Rik showed me the graphs on these at the 12,000 year ( conventionally dated) and 50,000 year mark. Now what does this excess due to the existing living sample culled at that time. Since their is more C14 to C12 ( or C13) then surely it should give a spuriously younger age ?(i.e. Heaps left to decay so must be still young) At least theoretically, if we believe C14 has a uniform decay rate . However this is only if we don't take into account possible other dramatic effects. As Rik staes an isotope of the exact same proton and neutron makeup can have a different internal makeup and can decay at a different rate . He mentioned i.e Cobalt . Could this not apply to C14 under catastrophic electromagnetic circumstances ( again conjecture) In other words our premise of steady decay is not met and the dates are chaotic.
Secondly the effect on existing fossils is debateable. From my reading the the C14 has to be intrinsic to the living matter at the time of death. In this way tree rings can be used in wiggle matching. But of course tree rings are relatively modern as used in this technology. So the question is can fossils be affected by the sudden prescence of C14 . Needs testing and shouldnt be hard.
As for caves being formed let us say by electrical etching etc? This is certainly a good possibility . For instance I visited Malta where the mega fauna are smashed and strewn along an underground sluice of limestone. Perhaps a massive teleuric underground discharege. Certainly plenty of evidence of dramatic EU effects on the island . Visit MattEU's site ( Everything is electric) We both checked this out. The other anomaly is found as noted but not visited in " Earth in Upheaval" where smashed but fresh megafauna bones are apparently found in fissures in limestone formations. These clefts were found by the early geologist Prestwich in Plymouth and many other places in England. It was suggested that they had been thrust there by massive water incursions . At Narracourt in Victoria Australia marsupial remains are found underground in limestone caves . Conventionally the giant Kangeroos fell into holes and became buried but the number and variety defies this .
Now a further but "way out" thought is the fossils found within limestone itself. I don't sprout this around but I often wonder if the limestone itself has become transmuted from water in some catastrophic event When I see ammonites deeply encased in limestone and shoals of fishes, as it were, bathing in limestone in there death throes,is this possible???? The 2 x H atoms and O16 atom add up to 20 Twice this number gives us Calcium ( limestone).Could an electrical event achieve this . Or am I being ridiculous ???
ancientd
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:15 am

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby moses » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:20 pm

Or am I being ridiculous ???
Peter


Certainly not, and it is a pleasure to read your ideas here.

I have the fish being mixed in with sea water and electrical discharge machined sediment. So a Birkeland Current passing above the Atlantic pulls up water, fine sediment, and fish, and then carries it over the continents where it is deposited in layers, probably. Thus the fish are fresh !
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby webolife » Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:20 pm

No, no... you misunderstand me about the insurge of C-14. My first premise here is that the atmospheric structure prior to the cataclysm hindered the mixing of C-14 [which is formed high in the atmosphere] into the troposphere and therefore its absorption into the biosphere. The cataclysm, my second premise, altered that atmospheric structure in such a way as to cause a rapid increase in the mixing of the upper atmosphere with the lower. What the insurge [and ongoing high rate of mixing with newly produced C-14] does is to boost the "modern" ratios up to a higher level. This predisposes the dating methodology, based as it is in a uniformitarian framework, to regard anything that has a significantly smaller amount of the C-14 to be a much "older" age. Organisms which were alive at the time of the cataclysm, and shortly thereafter, would naturally have less C-14 in their system when they die, yielding dates that are too old. The transition to the current [nearly but not] equilibrium state may have taken a couple centuries [or less], so organisms living/dying [or objects formed from organics] in that transition period will also exhibit too old of a radiocarbon age. My third premise is that by about 5000 BP [or possibly back to 5000 BC] the atmospheric mixing of C-14, and its acquisition by organisms reached its current levels, predisposing the method to be "good" for dating objects in this historical/archaelogical time frame; but then also good for giving telescoping ages relative to the time of the cataclysm, hence an age of 50,000 BP might correspond to 6000 BP or whatever was the time of the atmosphere-altering cataclysm. I made comments also about this in the old C-14 Dating Thread.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby ancientd » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:43 pm

got you. In other words C14 levels at say 5000BP were for some extended period routinely being lowered due to an upper atmosphere barrier to let's sau cosmic rays. Now that's a possibility. Any reason to think this or is it a "thought"

all the best
ancientd
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:15 am

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby webolife » Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:17 pm

Yes. The "reason" --- The entire geologic/fossil record up to the upper cenozoic/pleistocene, however its dates are interpreted, indicates subtropical conditions, and flora and fauna living [er, dying] in subtropical conditions worldwide, regardless of where they are found, Antartica to Ellesmere.

And the "thought" --- This suggests a greenhouse atmosphere structure existed in the past, and that means for me MORE WATER VAPOR "trapped" in the upper atmosphere, more even temps worldwide, and less mixing due to extreme weather shifts or otherwise. When the [I believe meteoric-ly originated] "cataclysm" happened, this vapor barrier became nucleated [both from volcanic and astronomic sources] causing at least these observed outcomes: 1) widespread flooding and sedimentary features which can be correlated across/between continents, and 2) infusion of upper atmospheric elements with the troposphere/biosphere, including in relatively small portions C-14 and ozone. The typical observed ratio of C-12 to C-14 is in the neighborhood of 1 million to 1, so we're not talking about a huge influx, just enough to change the scene and disqualify uniformitarian expectations for radiocarbon age-dating. In addition to these effects, I would also suggest [sorry... getting off thread topic] 3) rapid continental shifting, temporary global icing, along with a fairly major increase in topographic features such as mountain ranges. This last set of effects may be important to the discussion because the worldwide climatic structure [prevailing wind zones, biomes, etc.] we see today may not have been in place before the cataclysm... low [non-mountainous] topography may have been the rule world-wide, and major flooding, and associated crustal break-ups that occurred, could account for many extinction events that weren't directly caused by all the meteoric disasters which were concurrent.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:54 pm

Web said something like: the cataclysm that nucleated Earth's former denser atmosphere with its denser water vapor caused:
widespread flooding and sedimentary features which can be correlated across/between continents

* Web, my suspicion is that conforming sedimentary rock layers were deposited all at about the same time, while the disconforming, nonconforming and unconforming, some or all, may have been deposited at long time intervals. What are your thoughts on that? And where is a good map or illustration of such sedimentary deposits? And remember that Juergens said granite may be sedimentary subjected to electrical breakdown. I'd like to see maps or cross-sections or something that may show all conforming layers as one layer, so I could see a more holistic view of crustal rocks. Is anything available, that you know of?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4410
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby webolife » Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:21 am

Pretty sure "denser" is not the case... water vapor is less dense than air so therefore under conditions of less atmospheric mixing would rise and stably organize in a layer over or presumably near the top of the troposphere, perhaps in what is the present tropopause region. This is what I'm referring to as a difference in structure. Without the nucleation I described, this water vapor layer would remain in place, and effectively warm up the earth worldwide. Subtropical climate. Little or no weather. The latter proposition backed by the further supposition of a low topography worldwide. I'd love for some of the big holes in the EE theory to be filled in here, but continental drift [under whatever model] I believe pushed up the mountains on the leading edge of the moving plates... run the tape backwards to a time when these mountains didn't exist...

Now for the crust-changing cataclysm and it's globally distributed evidence... Google keywords, KT boundary, PT boundary, and Precambrian/Cambrian boundary with different continent names attached to each are good places to start, and try out Google images on these as well. The more recent geologic formations [eg. Pleistocene] have a slightly more limited distribution compared to the others, and for the most part the rest of the geologic column is imaginatively pieced together from widely differing strata occurring between those others. These major layers represent the best worldwide finds, as well as being the major extinction episodes, which is why we can talk of global extinctions and cataclysm. Also many of the biggest astroblemes are associated with these strata, further evidencing the astronomical contribution to the cataclysm.

As for the "11,000 B.C. extinction" [doubting the date, due to all of the radiocarbon problems], I haven't heard enough info about it here to determine that it was a global impact, but I might guess it was at least related as an "aftershock".
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:42 pm

webolife wrote:
As for the "11,000 B.C. extinction" [doubting the date, due to all of the radiocarbon problems], I haven't heard enough info about it here to determine that it was a global impact, but I might guess it was at least related as an "aftershock".


just a note, the OP for this thread posed the title as a question, not a belief.
It was prompted by discussion at the time about wether the Younger Dryas event and any possible bio-extinctions shared a common cause.

Since then the various echelons of academic anthro and geo logists have been busy defending their own bits of turf.

Here is 2011 Scientific American article presenting several sides:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2011/07/27/the-younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis/

And here is a piece by one William Astley , who ties it all in with solar cycle induced geomagnetic excursions and inner-ionospheric "electrical strikes" :

There is concurrent with the geomagnetic excursions a significant increase in volcanic eruptions and a significant increase in large volcanic eruptions.

If you look at the Carolina Bay burn marks there is evidence of strike and re-strike. The burn marks overlap, are elliptical, with the axis pointing the North-west direction. (The electrical strike aligns with the earth’s magnetic field and the strike is elliptical due the rotation of the planet during the strike.)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k6x20160542j846q/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2 ... 7284.shtml

This is an interesting problem from the standpoint of solar physics also.

Geomagnetic excursion captured by multiple volcanoes in a monogenetic field

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.full


http://anthropology.net/2009/12/09/the- ... y-deepens/

anybody for a turkey sandwich ?
s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby ancientd » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:53 pm

Ok sounds reasonabel . Re rapid continental drift ,I think this highly likely. Small piece of evidence from the ORONTEUS FINNEUS maps which I strongly suspect were originating from the later Pharoahs timescale. In this Antarctica is too close to South America and thus treated an error of cartography. . Also witness the Antarctic mountains perhasps as in a formation similar to those EU opposing arms . Check this on the end of this short YOU TUBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA73tcg5yYc "Antarctica once a tropical paradise" Shows these virile mountain ranges without ice.
ancientd
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:15 am

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 pm

Don't know if this might be related but it is in the same era. Maybe if there were dangers above ground people found a way to get by ....

------
Going underground: The massive European network of Stone Age tunnels that weaves from Scotland to Turkey

Evidence of tunnels has been found under hundreds of Neolithic settlements
That so many tunnels have survived after 12,000 years shows that the original network must have been enormous

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 9:23 AM on 8th August 2011

Stone Age man created a massive network of underground tunnels criss-crossing Europe from Scotland to Turkey, a new book on the ancient superhighways has claimed.

German archaeologist Dr Heinrich Kusch said evidence of the tunnels has been found under hundreds of Neolithic settlements all over the continent.

In his book - Secrets Of The Underground Door To An Ancient World - he claims the fact that so many have survived after 12,000 years shows that the original tunnel network must have been enormous.
....

Some experts believe the network was a way of protecting man from predators while others believe that some of the linked tunnels were used like motorways are today, for people to travel safely regardless of wars or violence or even weather above ground.

The book notes that chapels were often built by the entrances perhaps because the Church were afraid of the heathen legacy the tunnels might have represented, and wanted to negate their influence.

In some cases writings have been discovered referring to the tunnels seen as a gateway to the underworld.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... urkey.html
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron