Ancient Egyptians transported pyramid stones over wet sand

The setup in the lab.
A large pile of sand accumulates in front of the sledge when this is pulled over dry sand (left). On the wet sand (right) this does not happen. Credit: Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM)

Physicists from the FOM Foundation and the University of Amsterdam have discovered that the ancient Egyptians used a clever trick to make it easier to transport heavy pyramid stones by sledge. The Egyptians moistened the sand over which the sledge moved. By using the right quantity of water they could halve the number of workers needed. The researchers published this discovery online on 29 April 2014 in Physical Review Letters.

For the construction of the pyramids, the ancient Egyptians had to transport heavy blocks of stone and large statues across the desert. The Egyptians therefore placed the heavy objects on a sledge that workers pulled over the sand. Research from the University of Amsterdam has now revealed that the Egyptians probably made the desert sand in front of the sledge wet. Experiments have demonstrated that the correct amount of dampness in the sand halves the pulling force required.

Firm sand

The physicists placed a laboratory version of the Egyptian sledge in a tray of sand. They determined both the required pulling force and the stiffness of the sand as a function of the quantity of water in the sand. To determine the stiffness they used a rheometer, which shows how much force is needed to deform a certain volume of sand.

Experiments revealed that the required pulling force decreased proportional to the stiffness of the sand. Capillary bridges arise when water is added to the sand. These are small water droplets that bind the together. In the presence of the correct quantity of water, wet desert sand is about twice as stiff as . A sledge glides far more easily over firm desert sand simply because the sand does not pile up in front of the sledge as it does in the case of dry sand.

Wall painting from the tomb of Djehutihotep.
A large statue is being transported by sledge. A person standing on the front of the sledge wets the sand. Source: Al-Ahram Weekly, 5-11 August 2004, issue 702. Credit: Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM)

Wall painting

The Egyptians were probably aware of this handy trick. A wall painting in the tomb of Djehutihotep clearly shows a person standing on the front of the pulled sledge and pouring over the sand just in front of it.

Besides revealing something about the ancient Egyptians, the results are also interesting for modern-day applications. We still do not fully understand the behaviour of granular material like . Granular materials are, however, very common. Other examples are asphalt, concrete and coal. The research results could therefore be useful for examining how to optimise the transport and processing of granular material, which at present accounts for about ten percent of the worldwide energy consumption.

The research was supervised by FOM group leader professor Daniel Bonn and is part of the FOM programme 'Fundamental aspects of friction'.


Explore further

Sampling study suggests Mississippi River has ample sand to prevent delta land loss

Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: Ancient Egyptians transported pyramid stones over wet sand (2014, April 30) retrieved 24 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-04-ancient-egyptians-pyramid-stones-sand.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
10148 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 30, 2014
The article says it was a "clever trick" and a "handy trick", but was it also a 'weird trick'??

haha


Unknown.

Also unknown is whether or not they actually employed this "trick" regardless of its quality.


yep
Apr 30, 2014
Unknown? There is that wall painting that seems to make it obvious they did, or why would they bother depicting it?

May 01, 2014
Unknown? There is that wall painting that seems to make it obvious they did, or why would they bother depicting it?


Did it occur to you that perhaps the person depicted may have been performing some sort of libation ritual, or that there might be some other symbolic meaning for the action?

An illustration is not the same thing as an explicit inscription, so we'll have to let it rest as an unknown, given the absence of additional qualifying information.

May 01, 2014
Unknown? There is that wall painting that seems to make it obvious they did, or why would they bother depicting it?


Not to mention the logistics of transporting said water in sufficient quantity and distance to put it to use, and ignoring the difficulty inherent in metering its application for consistent results.

I'm not saying that it is impossible --just not very likely.

yep
May 01, 2014
No, because I also read the caption with the picture.
https://journals....2.175502
Wall painting from 1880 B.C. on the tomb of Djehutihotep. The figure standing at the front of the sled is pouring water onto the sand.
"We show experimentally that the sliding friction on sand is greatly reduced by the addition of some—but not too much—water. The formation of capillary water bridges increases the shear modulus of the sand, which facilitates the sliding. Too much water, on the other hand, makes the capillary bridges coalesce, resulting in a decrease of the modulus; in this case, we observe that the friction coefficient increases again."
No rest!
Time to go to the beach and play in the sand. Maybe make some tunnels to.

May 01, 2014
There is obvious benefit of not having so many people consuming water as so much less slaves are needed, but still water must be quite a valuable resource. Why not use "recycled water" called urine?

May 01, 2014
There is also no mention of the fact that rivers change course over time. There is evidence that these vast distances may not have been so great.

May 01, 2014
Great Amazing Post its looking like magic very nice thanks.

sauna slim belt

May 01, 2014
was it not the case that the 3 pyramids at Giza, in the time of their construction/use had the nile lapping at the causeway, and the whole area was in fact lush and green, desertification took over later as result of nomadic herdsman cutting down trees for their herds, and the romans similarly cutting down to farm crops.... so access to water would not have been a problem, in fact the largest pyramid sits atop an aquifer, so rather sand may have been harder to come by at the time of their construction....

May 01, 2014
The explanation was painted on the walls of a well-known, centuries ago-discovered pyramid the whole time. Do you think Science just now figured it out or knew all along and lied? Hard to swallow the concept of Egyptologists staring for centuries at those paintings, wondering what they mean when they are freakin' how-to drawings. A smart ten year old might have figured it out.
I suspect Egypt has a large hand in not solving the mysteries of Egypt. If it did not have this "mysterious" history, that nation would have little.


May 01, 2014
The explanation was painted on the walls of a well-known, centuries ago-discovered pyramid the whole time. Do you think Science just now figured it out or knew all along and lied? Hard to swallow the concept of Egyptologists staring for centuries at those paintings, wondering what they mean when they are freakin' how-to drawings. A smart ten year old might have figured it out.
I suspect Egypt has a large hand in not solving the mysteries of Egypt. If it did not have this "mysterious" history, that nation would have little.

try reading some history, start here you dunce: http://en.wikiped...ki/Egypt

May 01, 2014
Think of this hypothesis when studying these events:
In the late Pleistocene the Moon was in a low and unstable orbit due to Pangaea's weight all on one side of Earth, causing imbalance. The Moon then came in for a landing, impacting the Mediterranean, scraping and burning material pushing into a pile known as the Appalachia mountain range, exhuming massive amounts of limestone to form the Ozarks, Rock of Gibraltar, Betic Cordilleras, the many structures throughout southwest U.S., Ecuador, Chile and Peru and covering the Yucatan Peninsula, the pyramids and temples in melt rock.
This lunar impact event not only caused mass extinction, it slowed the outer plates and mantle in relation to the faster moving inner core, causing an increase in electromagnetism, gravity and the length of Earth's day [by approx. 34 min.]
Many if not most of the monolithic structures were built during the Pleistocene, when there was considerably less gravity.Thisisthereason!
http://able2know....224693-1

May 01, 2014
How did they get enough water for moving each stone in a DESERT?

May 01, 2014
One things for sure... All those Jakes who professed the Pyramids couldn't have been built by human beings have even more omelettes on their visages.

May 01, 2014
I can't believe this is a "physics" news page/ blog and we don't have any information about the volume of water that would likely have been needed per unit distance for a given weight of stone. Why would we not be interested in that? The method saves labor overall, no doubt, but how many additional laborers were involved in carrying massive amounts of water across the desert?

May 01, 2014
There are several artifacts that document the use of water to move the sledges. I worked on a project 5 years ago where we found this written in hieroglyphics. You can see this interactively in gigapixel detail here http://www.xrez.c...-images/

May 01, 2014
According to Maximillien de Lafayette, the pyramids of Giza were built by djinns who were summoned up by the Anunnaki from a non-physical dimension. After the djinns were finished, the Anunnaki returned them to the dimension whence they came.

All other pyramids were built after the pyramids of Giza - using water to increase the stiffness of the sand or not - and are nothing more than shoddy man-made replicas.

May 01, 2014
A tomb without a body .... or writing .... hmmm....

On a side note, how they get from moving a statue to moving a pyramid stone is beyond me.

May 01, 2014
Uhm? So again, how exactly did they place that last heavy block of stone at the very top of any pyramid?

May 01, 2014
There are several artifacts that document the use of water to move the sledges. I worked on a project 5 years ago where we found this written in hieroglyphics. You can see this interactively in gigapixel detail here http://www.xrez.c...-images/


@gigarizel,

Well then, please provide a transcript of these hierotext translations. I'm not interested in paying for the privilege of watching vacuous "Nat Geo" cable content.

A real shame how the offerings of the National Geographic Society have devolved in the Digital Age.

May 01, 2014
" A person standing on the front of the sledge wets the sand."
There's one in every crowd.

May 02, 2014
Did it occur to you that perhaps the person depicted may have been performing some sort of libation ritual, or that there might be some other symbolic meaning for the action?

An illustration is not the same thing as an explicit inscription, so we'll have to let it rest as an unknown, given the absence of additional qualifying information.


Following is a depiction of a libation ritual of the type that occurs just before sprinkling of the water and dissolved carbonate of soda from the bowl onto a statue to purify it:

http://www.sacred...4200.jpg

Very different from what is depicted on the inscription in the article. This inscription cited in the article actually is depicting workmen pulling a colossus made in honor of Djehutyhotep. Purification does not take place until the statue is about to be placed in its permanent location. That is not depicted. The inscription just behind the article image describes the struggle of moving the statue.

May 02, 2014
This is Breasted's translation of the text in the inscription following the scene of the workmen pulling the statue (in two parts because more than 1000 characters):

Following a statue of 13 cubits of stone of Hatnub. Behold, the way upon which it came, was very difficult, beyond anything. Behold, the dragging of the great things upon it was difficult for the heart of the people, because of the difficult stone of the ground, being hard stone.
I caused the youth, the young men of the recruits to come, in order to make for it (the statue) a road, together with shifts of necropolis-miners and of quarrymen, the foremen and the wise. The people of strength said: "We come to bring it;" while my heart was glad; the city was gathered together rejoicing; very good it was to see beyond everything. The old man among them, he leaned upon the child; the strong-armed together with the tremblers, their courage rose. Their arms grew strong; one of them put forth the strength of 1000 men.

May 02, 2014
Second part of Breasted's translation of the inscription immediately following the image of the workmen in the article:

Behold, this statue, being a squared block on coming forth from the great mountain, was more valuable than anything. Vessels were equipped, filled with supplies, [in advance (?)] of my army of recruits, the youth bore [... in advance of (?)] it. Their words were laudation, and my praises from the king. My children ... adorned were behind me. My nome shouted praise. I arrived in the district of this city, the people were gathered together, praising; very good it was to see, beyond everything. The counts who were of old; the judge and local governor who were appointed for ... in this city, and established for the [...] upon the river, their hearts had not thought of this which I had done, [in that I made (?)] for myself ... established for eternity, after this my tomb was complete in its everlasting work.

May 02, 2014
Second part of Breasted's translation of the inscription immediately following the image of the workmen in the article:

Behold, this statue, being a squared block on coming forth from the great mountain, was more valuable than anything. Vessels were equipped, filled with supplies, [in advance (?)] of my army of recruits, the youth bore [... in advance of (?)] it. Their words were laudation, and my praises from the king. ; the judge and local governor who were appointed for ... in this city, and established for the [...] upon the river, their hearts had not thought of this which I had done, [in that I made (?)] for myself ... established for eternity, after this my tomb was complete in its everlasting work.


@SR,

Thanks for digging up that translation.

Your point regarding the libation might be valid, but remains uncertain.

What _is_ certain, though, is that nowhere in the translation does it say anyone poured water on sand to sledge the statue across.

Maybe 90 weight?


May 02, 2014
This hypothesis doesn't hold water! The picture clearly shows a rail with a sawtooth on bottom that was laid in front of the sledge. The sawtooth prevented the wooden rails from sliding forward in the sand. Water isn't isn't poured in front of the sledge, but some type of lubricant. A "plain bearing" is how the Egyptians moved large stone blocks and monuments. Simply laying down a series of portable rails in front of the object, then lifting them out after the sledge had passed over, then placing them in front again.

May 02, 2014
A tomb without a body .... or writing .... hmmm....

On a side note, how they get from moving a statue to moving a pyramid stone is beyond me.

The image does have a great amount of writing.

May 03, 2014
Anyone know the equation for the sand gran size to water mix for the relevant weight of the body to be transported and the speed of movement?

May 03, 2014
How did they get enough water for moving each stone in a DESERT?


they used the Nile; it was also used for irrigation; Egypt was a fertile and green land in the two or three thousand years BCE

May 03, 2014
Uhm? So again, how exactly did they place that last heavy block of stone at the very top of any pyramid?
Uh they stood on the platform at the very top of the spiral ramp.
Egypt was a fertile and green land in the two or three thousand years BCE
Sorry you're off by about 10k years.

"Egypt includes parts of the Sahara Desert and of the Libyan Desert. These deserts protected the Kingdom of the Pharaohs from western threats and were referred to as the "red land" in ancient Egypt."

I wonder what's the latest on the theory that at least some of these stones are concrete?
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0

May 03, 2014
The question isn't how people built stuff 4000 years ago. It is why were humans here for 120K years and we only have civilization for 12K. Considering how prodigious and driven human beings are in general, why did we just barely survive for over 100K years and then all of a sudden realize, hey...we should get together and like farm and build shelter and stuff. It doesn't really make any sense, but go ahead and just discount the question with, well people were just trying to survive and expand. Yea, that makes sense. The population over the last 12K years has increased exponentially, but previous to that we just couldn't figure out how to have babies and survive.

May 03, 2014
Uhm? So again, how exactly did they place that last heavy block of stone at the very top of any pyramid?


Who knows what they really did, but personally, I just wouldn't have had it put on last. It'd be like painting yourself into a corner.

I would guess it was something like they made it more like a step pyramid, then filled in the steps to make the smooth sides from the top down.

May 03, 2014
why did we just barely survive for over 100K years and then all of a sudden realize, hey...we should get together and like farm and build shelter and stuff. It doesn't really make any sense,


Eh do you know people? Lots of people don't want to change unless they have to.

Hunting and gathering in bands of ~30 was actually wildly successful for a long time. But they couldn't build a community larger than ~30 with that way of living. Basic h&g didn't support more than ~30 people on I forget how many sq miles. When they had surplus people, those people had to move away and start their own band on a new territory.

One version of what happened next has the previous ice age kill off many from those bands of ~30 and the survivors eventually moving ~South. Larger communities seemed to have just sort of happened around then, as people figured out some tricks to make it work. Hunting megafauna (mammoths etc) with drives and falls, or hunting small game with beaters. Specialization.

May 03, 2014
The question isn't how people built stuff 4000 years ago. It is why were humans here for 120K years and we only have civilization for 12K
"Between 10,000 and 13,000 years ago, the ancestors of modern cattle, sheep, goats and pigs were domesticated in [the Fertile Crescent]. The gradual transition from wild harvesting to deliberate cultivation happened independently in several areas around the globe. Agriculture allowed for the support of an increased population, leading to larger societies and eventually the development of cities..." Etc.

-I hate it when people guess about things they should realize scientists have been working on for a long time. And which can easily be found on the INTERNET.

May 03, 2014
@SR,

Thanks for digging up that translation.

Your point regarding the libation might be valid, but remains uncertain.

What _is_ certain, though, is that nowhere in the translation does it say anyone poured water on sand to sledge the statue across.

Maybe 90 weight?


Only part of the total text was translated. The Breasted translation was only of the text immediately behind the scene of the workmen pulling the statue. My Egyptian is really rusty (haven't really used it in years) so I would make no claims about certainty as to the contents of the translation and what it doesn't say. The original is now badly damaged and even Breasted didn't complete the translation of text. The color of the paint in what is left of the original suggests pouring of water. In Egyptian artwork, pouring of libations for dedications of statues is displayed differently. The water would be shown being poured over the head and onto the ground for such a libation ritual. Not the case here.


May 03, 2014
You might have a point. Look underneath the statue in the picture. What are those people carrying? It looks like three of them are carrying wheels (just my imagination?)


Looks to me like three are carrying a lever used, when needed, to break a friction seal, and the three in front of them are carrying water jugs hung from workmen's yokes, two jugs apiece. The color of the liquid being poured suggests water or something water-based. Three indicates plurality in Egyptian, and three in inscriptions can indicate any number more than two in Egyptian texts. Multiple groups of two and three also are used to indicate a very great task using numerous people. What is depicted taking place here is the work of moving the statue, not the dedication and libation ceremonies that took place after the statue is placed. The pouring is simultaneous with pulling. The guy on the knees provides a beat. Unfortunately, the man pouring the water isn't named in what is left of the inscription.

May 03, 2014
The Moon then came in for a landing... exhuming massive amounts of limestone to form the Ozarks
@Kalopin
this does not explain the Ouachita mountains, their east/west orientation, and the fact that they have a completely different geological makeup than the Ozarks
the pyramids of Giza were built by djinns who were summoned up by the Anunnaki from a non-physical dimension
@dballard614
if the Giza pyramids were built by djinn, then why are there tool marks on the stone?
I just GOTTA see your empirical data proving this one
It looks like three of them are carrying wheels (just my imagination?)
@Sinister1812
it looks more like yokes with water to me... and if they WERE wetting the sand in front of the sledge, this makes sense, toting water to the needed location

May 03, 2014
Here is an actual libation scene in another place in the same tomb of Djehutyhotep, on the right-hand side of the entrance wall:

http://www.osiris...p_47.jpg

Note the difference between the scene of the workmen pulling the statue as opposed to this libation scene.

May 03, 2014
@dballard614
if the Giza pyramids were built by djinn, then why are there tool marks on the stone?
I just GOTTA see your empirical data proving this one


Not only that, many of the stones on which more than one side can be seen also have Mason's marks inscribed in them. These marks were often abbreviations of the names of the workmen who worked the stone, or sometimes even were the full names of the stonemasons involved.

May 04, 2014
What if most of the weight was at the back, and thus lifted the front end up so it never dug in?

Also the Egyptian image shows a large curve at the front far more than the experiment has, that doesn't seem to like an accurate representation ....

May 04, 2014
What if most of the weight was at the back, and thus lifted the front end up so it never dug in?

Also the Egyptian image shows a large curve at the front far more than the experiment has, that doesn't seem to like an accurate representation ....


The way it was depicted, while not 100% accurate to physical reality, was the way it was done in ancient Egypt. They used large sledges much like those in the image.

It also is a substantial improvement on the way they did things a few hundred years before. Prior to the method depicted in the image used in the article, the man pouring the water stood directly on the ground, in the path of the sledge, while pouring the water used as lubricant. Not exactly a worker-friendly environment for the water pourer in earlier times.

May 04, 2014
Here is another inscription, which shows a man pouring a liquid in front of the sledge that is used to pull a statue.

http://www.osiris...detA.jpg

It is the same method as with the Djehutyhotep tomb inscription, with the main difference being that the person is standing directly on the ground rather than on the sledge while pouring the water. The words just above the man pouring the water actually state "pouring water."

Unfortunately, we may never know what was next to the man pouring water in the Djehutyhotep tomb inscription because the original is too badly damaged and the plaster where the text should be is missing.

May 04, 2014
The scale of the statue in that glyph is about 4 times human scale.

This object is vastly, vastly smaller than many blocks in the pyramids, and especially at certain other construction sites where ~1000 ton blocks are stacked 3 high.

Maybe they made some kind of jack mechanism out of copper or bronze? I don't think they had iron working yet when some of this was done. Why bother with stone if they could do that though?

Is it true that the cap stones on Pyramids were gold plated? I've seen that claimed on AA and other history channel shows, but history channel is unreliable for the majority of technical details, because those guys are loons and biased as hell.

May 04, 2014
Is it true that the cap stones on Pyramids were gold plated?
I don't know why don't you look it up? This is the internet you know. Perhaps you're afraid you'll come across real history such as

"In Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion author Ahmed Osman contends that the roots of Christian belief spring not from Judaea but from Egypt. He compares the chronology of the Old Testament and its factual content with ancient Egyptian records to show that the major characters of the Hebrew scriptures--including Solomon, David, Moses, and Joshua--are based on Egyptian historical figures. He further suggests that not only were these personalities and the stories associated with them cultivated on the banks of the Nile, but the major tenets of Christian belief--the One God, the Trinity, the hierarchy of heaven, life after death, and the virgin birth--are all Egyptian in origin. He likewise provides a convincing argument that Jesus himself came out of Egypt."

Amen (hotep.)

May 04, 2014
'The greatest story ever told' - watch it if you dare
http://youtu.be/iWX53mMWapg

May 05, 2014
Wow, what a big discovery!
László Kákosy (https://en.wikipe...A1kosy), an internationally recognized Hungarian Egyptologist clearly described the use of sledges and wetting the sand ahead in his famous Hungarian book "Az ókori Egyiptom története és kultúrája" (Osiris, Budapest, 1998, page 89). He made reference to a wall fresco discovered in the Thothotep tomb, where 172 workers are pulling a sledge supporting a 60 tons statue while another man is spilling water on the track.

Dug
May 05, 2014
Are we sure that the substance poured is water - or just water? For example olive oil would have reduced friction even more, lasted much longer on the sand and required less volumes than water - important where multiple objects (blocks perhaps) are moved on the same track of sand. Even a clay/water slurry would have been better than just water alone. Remembering that the Egyptians were also experts in making bricks - they would necessarily understand the slipperiness and reduced coefficients of friction typical of wet clay slurry. Personally I'm guessing water only is not probable because it would only reduce friction 1. in a specific ratio of water to sand that had to be maintained in balance over long distances 2. the state of lubrication only exists for a short period until the ratio of sand to water is changed by seepage into the surrounding and dryer sand and or evaporation, and 3. the immense volumes of water involved for moving objects any significant distance.

May 05, 2014
This object is vastly, vastly smaller than many blocks in the pyramids, and especially at certain other construction sites where ~1000 ton blocks are stacked 3 high.

Most stones in the pyramids of Giza were on the order of 2.5 tons.
Maybe they made some kind of jack mechanism out of copper or bronze? I don't think they had iron working yet when some of this was done. Why bother with stone if they could do that though?

Iron working in Egypt, so far as is known, began in the time of Tuthmosis III. Egypt continued working in stone long after ironworking began there. No jacks known.
Is it true that the cap stones on Pyramids were gold plated? I've seen that claimed on AA and other history channel shows, but history channel is unreliable for the majority of technical details, because those guys are loons and biased as hell.

Several ancient historical sources (including Herodotus) so state that at least one pyramidion was covered in gold leaf. None found so far were.

May 05, 2014
Are we sure that the substance poured is water - or just water? ...


When there are inscriptions extant and present directly above, below, or next to the person pouring water in the depictions, the Egyptian word for water (mu) generally is used, as shown in one of the examples I provided above that still has its inscription next to the water pourer. The pots depicted also were water pots.

May 05, 2014
..."In Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion author Ahmed Osman contends...


Sorry to say it but Osman is revisionist and is regarded by many as a bit of a crackpot on a number of issues. He is as bad as (if not worse than) Eisenman claiming the Dead Sea Scrolls talk about struggles within Christianity, involving James, Paul and Jesus, when the scrolls he cites in his very large, book-length arguments have zero to do with Christianity and predate Christianity, as has been shown by carbon dating of specific scrolls.

May 06, 2014
Are we sure that the substance poured is water - or just water? ...


When there are inscriptions extant and present directly above, below, or next to the person pouring water in the depictions, the Egyptian word for water (mu) generally is used, as shown in one of the examples I provided above that still has its inscription next to the water pourer. The pots depicted also were water pots.


As it is said: "correlation is not causation", and --like it or not-- if the inscription does not explicitly state that the water is being poured to enable the sledging, then it is mere supposition to claim so.

You will have to provide a definitive answer for this in terms of an inscription, its translation, and its explicit statement of this specific use relating to any object or objects being moved via such method, which you have thus far failed to do.

Otherwise it remains pure conjecture.


May 06, 2014
As it is said: "correlation is not causation", and --like it or not-- if the inscription does not explicitly state that the water is being poured to enable the sledging, then it is mere supposition to claim so.

You will have to provide a definitive answer for this in terms of an inscription, its translation, and its explicit statement of this specific use relating to any object or objects being moved via such method, which you have thus far failed to do.

Otherwise it remains pure conjecture.


The depiction in the article never will have anything definitive because the plaster that would have contained the text is broken and missing. But, it matches other inscriptions that show the same thing. In one inscription I posted a link to above, it states "pouring water". But, in the case of the Djehutyhotep tomb inscriptions, a bona fide libation offering is depicted in the same tomb (which I posted), and the pouring in the statue-pulling depiction is not a libation scene. Period.

May 07, 2014
The Moon then came in for a landing... exhuming massive amounts of limestone to form the Ozarks
@Kalopin
this does not explain the Ouachita mountains, their east/west orientation, and the fact that they have a completely different geological makeup than the Ozarks

http://en.wikiped...ountains are "fold mountains" and is the land that was pushed in front of this impact and out to the side, in an east to west fashion, as this would be the effect from such a collision. The chert and quartz was formed from this impact as well. Thanks, good question. Please study every facet and see how it all fits... :-]

May 07, 2014
Here is another example of a group of men dragging a statue on a sledge, with a man pouring water onto the ground before it.

http://www.metmus...67?img=2

Notice how the draughtsmen who carved this made additional effort to show the direction of the pouring as the man pulled the jug away from the sledge while pouring. The inscription says only "Following (the) statue to his chamber." (Some would translate "its" but I prefer to be more literal here because the Egyptians personified their images of people.)

In fairness, I thought I would mention that there is another one I saw not long ago that actually has both the pouring of water and a libation ritual portrayed at the same time. In that case, you not only see the liquid poured directly onto the feet of the statue, but the inscription text itself actually states that offerings of water and milk are being poured. I'll have to hunt down the link and post it when I find it again.

May 07, 2014
Here is another representation of the same depiction I mentioned above.

http://www.osiris...i_02.htm

Unfortunately, this photo has a lot of the text cut off in the photo, which removes important context from the scene. But, you can clearly see that the liquid is being poured directly on the feet of the statue, which differs from those depictions that have the man (job description referred to as a "moistener" in some inscriptions) clearly pouring water to the ground just before the sledge.

May 11, 2014
There is no question that water alone will not reduce the friction coefficient and make easy to move the heavy limestone blocks.Surface active agent mixed with fine sands can slide these heavy limestone blocks very easy.Surface active agents can be produced from the reaction of an acid ( e.g oil, the fat of a pig) and a base ( such as costic soda). How can you make caustic soda ?

May 12, 2014
There is no question that water alone will not reduce the friction coefficient and make easy to move the heavy limestone blocks.Surface active agent mixed with fine sands can slide these heavy limestone blocks very easy.Surface active agents can be produced from the reaction of an acid ( e.g oil, the fat of a pig) and a base ( such as costic soda). How can you make caustic soda ?

The presence of the right amount of water also makes it easier to drag heavy objects across sand. See the paper referenced by the above article. There was a reason why the person pouring the water before the sledge often actually was the leader of the workmen. The person doing it had to know what one was doing. Too much water or too little and sand wells up in front of the sledge. They also used Nile silt in constructing roads on which they dragged heavy objects.

The ancient Egyptians used natron, lime and water to make a form of caustic soda.

May 12, 2014
pushed in front of this impact and out to the side
@Kalopin
specifically, I have issue with
The Moon then came in for a landing, impacting the Mediterranean
given the mass & size of the moon and a collision course, even a graze would cause considerable more havoc than what you speculate. any "collision" would also form certain things we would still see today, and the East/West orientation of the Ouachita's with no curvature aligned with a Mediterranean impact that would show deformation of the range as well as deformation in the Quapaw, Rockies, Smokies and other ranges still visible today
Your philosophy seems to be flawed as well as not supported by empirical data. There is no correlation between the topic, your gravity conjecture and your philosophy of the moon's collusion with land formation.

May 13, 2014
Think of this hypothesis when studying these events: ...


Claptrap. Nothing more.

Jun 03, 2014
pushed in front of this impact and out to the side
@Kalopin
specifically, I have issue with
The Moon then came in for a landing, impacting the Mediterranean
given the mass & size of the moon and a collision course, even a graze would cause considerable more havoc than what you speculate. any "collision" would also form certain things we would still see today, and the East/West orientation of the Ouachita's with no curvature aligned with a Mediterranean impact that would show deformation of the range as well as deformation in the Quapaw, Rockies, Smokies and other ranges still visible today
Your philosophy seems to be flawed as well as not supported by empirical data. There is no correlation between the topic, your gravity conjecture and your philosophy of the moon's collusion with land formation.


The impact was to the Mediterranean when Pangaea was still intact 12,900 years ago! Pangaeas did NOT slowly break apart due to convection. Impact physics is flawed!

Jun 03, 2014
Think of this hypothesis when studying these events: ...


Claptrap. Nothing more.


Skepticism will not change facts! The limestone ejecta is easily seen. Ozarks, Baetic Cordilleras, Rock of Gibraltar,...all have the same westerly projection. The blanket melt to the north of impact formed the many caves throughout Missouri and to the south covered the Yucatan including pyramids and temples that were there. The Mayans did not build pyramids within caves or temples beneath water. The many cities were not just buried by the inhabitants and left.Look up present 'CLAPTRAP' theories,
The Moon is the only object with enough mass, weight, volume, density and in close enough orbit to break apart a supercontinent and still be able to achieve stable orbit leaving a more balalnced planet.

You see- it is a weight and balance issue and has happened many times, AND, when the ice melts and the equator has accumulated too much weight, this will, once again occur. So, maybe a decade? ;

Jun 03, 2014
The question isn't how people built stuff 4000 years ago. It is why were humans here for 120K years and we only have civilization for 12K
"Between 10,000 and 13,000 years ago, the ancestors of modern cattle, sheep, goats and pigs were domesticated in [the Fertile Crescent]. The gradual transition from wild harvesting to deliberate cultivation happened independently in several areas around the globe. Agriculture allowed for the support of an increased population, leading to larger societies and eventually the development of cities..." Etc.

-I hate it when people guess about things they should realize scientists have been working on for a long time. And which can easily be found on the INTERNET.


All of our history and technology accumulated up to the end of the Pleistocene was lost due to the Moon impacting where the Mediterranean now exists and a cometary impact to the Hudson bay about 2k yrs later to end the Clovis culture, eliminating further knowledge...
FindTruth!:]

Jun 03, 2014
More ridiculous claptrap. If there is limestone ejecta it is because of the impact at Chixalub, for that entire region contains a substantial mass of limestone.

If the moon came ever that close, there would have been massive effects that would have exterminated complex life as we know it and left traces erosion caused by ocean waves over 1000 feet high. The rotation rate of the Earth would have been changed in such a way that would have caused the winds to rip around the planet at over 500 mph.

Most complex life would have been exterminated by a sandblasting effect and the moon would have shattered and become a ring orbiting the Earth because of its approach to within the Roche Limit. Even if the moon were made of solid iron (it isn't) it still would have shattered like any mass that enters within the Roche Limit of a more massive body.

So, yes, ridiculous claptrap. Nothing more.

Jun 04, 2014
If there is limestone ejecta it is because of the impact at Chixalub,for that entire region contains a substantial mass of limestone.

If the moon came ever that close, there would have been massive effects that would have exterminated complex life as we know it and left traces erosion caused by ocean waves over 1000 feet high.The rotation rate of the Earth would have been changed in such a way that would have caused the winds to rip around the planet at over 500 mph.

Most complex life would have been exterminated by a sandblasting effect and the moon would have shattered and become a ring orbiting the Earth because of its approach to within the Roche Limit. Even if the moon were made of solid iron (it isn't) it still would have shattered like any mass that enters within the Roche Limit of a more massive body.


That's pretty close to what happened,except the Moon IS iron and sprang out to a more stable orbit. http://geoweb.pri...ge1.html

Jun 04, 2014
I hope you all get more time to study into this hypothesis. You will find no other option once all the information has been looked through.

During the late Pleistocene the Moon was in a much closer orbit, as all this shows up in the climatological evidence. As the Moon entered the atmosphere, releasing massive arcs of plasma, forming the Black sea, it impacted at the Mediterranean, pushing massive amounts of burnt mattter to form the Appalachian Mts., raising the Catskills,... pushing down and 'pinching' the plate to form the Mississippi embayment, exhuming massive amounts of limestone to form the Ozarks, sending the shockwave to flatten the plains, raise the entire tectonic plate to subdue the Farallon plate, raising the Rockies and sending massive amounts of sediment and water to form the Grand canyon. It sent the Arabian plate to form the Himalayas. It 'ripped' the plate from the mantle to form the Marianna trench,... In the 'geological blink of an eye'

OR, your theories? ;-]]]][

Jun 04, 2014
There is no correlation between the topic, your gravity conjecture and your philosophy of the moon's collusion with land formation.


The Moon is the inner core out of another planet in a now defunct solar system that was ahead of this one...

When the Moon impacted it slowed the outer plates and mantle in relation to the already faster spinning inner core, this produced an increase in Earth's electromagnetic force, gravity and the length of the day [about 34 mins.?]

This is the reason for the loss of megafauna, megaflora, most all the rest of the dinosaurs [except the tuatara], the 'great Pleistocene die off',... http://thetruthwi...feathers
What other mechanism could bring in so much super cold air to instantaneously freeze all life in the northern arctic regions?

Plants and animals can not grow as large or live as long and objects are heavier. Would this correlate?]

Jun 04, 2014
Kalopin,

What part of "would have exterminated complex life" do you not understand? Homo Sapiens Sapiens (that is us) also would have been exterminated by such a close approach of the moon as well as the megafauna, etc.

The moon would not and could not have "sprang" back into a more stable orbit because it would have been dust and now observable as a ring around planet Earth due to its having entered within the Roche Limit. There would be no moon and no humans to observe the ring left behind.

The Mariana Trench is part of a subduction zone, not a plate "ripped from the mantle." The Himalayas were created in the main by northward pushing of the Indian plate into the Eurasian plate. Such a pull on the Arabian plate from a moon impact in the Mediterranean as you postulate would have reduced pressure on the Eurasian plate from the Indian plate. No Himalayas for you!

Your hypothesis still is claptrap and crank science from beginning to end, no matter how you slice it and dress it.

Jun 04, 2014
Skepticus Rex,

You may very well be the king of skeptics. However, you must understand that all these events took place and there has to be an explanation. So regardless of what you may believe, the Moon is the only source for such an outcome.

The Mariannas trench is NOT in a subduction zone, it is in a divergent zone, where the plates are seperating. The Indian plate did not follow ocean currents or Earth's rotation as it went northward at a much higher rate than is presently believed and this impact scenario is the ONLY option for such a force. There were people who understand and made ready as best they could: http://www.britan...ppadocia [near the bottom]

My research will prove the Moon is a crystalized, terraforming harmonic balancer. Mercury may soon do the same for Venus... ;-]

Jun 04, 2014
As you continue to postulate, how about throwing out some of the commonly accepted theories for these anomolies and events?

The melt rock shows up in exactly the expected places. What formed the Kasha-Katuwe tent rocks that are so similar to Cappadocia?: http://v-e-n-u-e....gic/time

Mnay structures haven't even been attempted to find proper explanation. Please tell your professors to give an explanation or except that an impact from an object the size of the Moon is the only source...


Jun 04, 2014
Kalopin, you stated:

The Mariannas trench is NOT in a subduction zone, it is in a divergent zone, where the plates are seperating. . ;-]


Uh-oh, it appears that the established science sharply disagrees with your geomorphological theorizing:

http://www.ask.co...#Geology

I normally hesitate to utlize the Wiki --but in this case, it provides a succinct, understandable-from-the-layman's-view summary of the known mechanics.

Mariana Trench = subduction zone.

I'll leave the rest of your assertions alone, provided you desist in this enterprise.

Jun 04, 2014
In the late Pleistocene the Moon was in a low and unstable orbit due to Pangaea's weight all on one side of Earth, causing imbalance. The Moon then came in for a landing, impacting the Mediterranean, scraping and burning material pushing into a pile known as the Appalachia mountain range, exhuming massive amounts of limestone to form the Ozarks, Rock of Gibraltar, Betic Cordilleras, the many structures throughout southwest U.S., Ecuador, Chile and Peru and covering the Yucatan Peninsula, the pyramids and temples in melt rock.
This lunar impact event not only caused mass extinction, it slowed the outer plates and mantle in relation to the faster moving inner core, causing an increase in electromagnetism, gravity and the length of Earth's day [by approx. 34 min.]
Many if not most of the monolithic structures were built during the Pleistocene, when there was considerably less gravity.

wow... And here I thought I would be a good sci-fi writer....

Jun 05, 2014
Absolute BS, Kalopin. The Mariana Trench is a subduction zone, caused by the Pacific plate undergoing subduction below the Philippine plate. In fact, this has been measured. Want to see a real set of divergent plates? Look no further than the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, particularly evidenced by the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. There is zero evidence of this kind of divergence in the Mariana Trench. It has been and is being studied.

Once again, a glancing impact large enough to gouge out the Mediterranean would have pulled on the Arabian plate and pulled it westward. This would have caused the Indian plate to change direction and would have resulted in there being no Himalayas as we know them today. In addition, it would have pushed the Eurasian plate into the N. American plate.

And, the moon would have been nothing more than a ring of dust orbiting the earth had it ever come that close. The pyramids built during the Pleistocene? They have been dated and don't date to that period.

Jun 05, 2014
Kasha-Katuwe tent rocks? Volcanism 6-7 millions of years ago. Cappadocia? Also formed by volcanism, millions of years before that, followed by erosion.

Nothing but crank "science" on your part. By the way, I haven't had professors for several decades. You need to take some serious geology and other science courses, and learn about the Roche limit. You are going to have to figure out how the moon would have survived something like that and how humans survived 500-plus mph winds while leaving behind zero evidence of being sandblasted to death.

You are going to have to explain how it is that pyramids were built during the Pleistocene when they are datable to known persons in Egypt from within historical times. Your hypothesis is invalidated from start to finish. Trouble is, your understanding of the science is so limited that you have no idea that such is the case.

Claptrap. Nothing more.

Jun 05, 2014
NO, the Mariannas trench was split apart, not pressed together and the Phillippine plate is no where near it. The Phillippine plate is in the Indian ocean and has very little affect on the Mariannas trench!

The mid-Atlantic ridge is where the western edge of the American plates rifted upward, breaking a huge slice of tectonic plate, known as the Farallon plate and engulfed it to form the mountain ranges down the western edge of the American continents, which is easy to see.

Youn can tell everyone that the dating process is mostly a joke and that they are WRONG!
The Kasha-Katuwe rocks are limestone and could no way be volcanic.

Let me explain why I know the pyramids were built in the Pleistocene- Because there are pyramids and temples buried within melt rock on top of Chicxulub crater. Surely you can understand that the pyramids could not have been built on top of a crater and then covered by its ejecta?

The 'crank' science is what is presently believed!
built in caves or burieid?:]

Jun 05, 2014
Skepticus Rex,

There is so much more! You really need to read the information on every thread, as it still needs to be consolidated. The scraping and scarring across the sea floor is still easily viewable, proving this had to occur recently.

The Arabian plate was attached to west Africa, along with the other continents that broke away at impact. This force is what started the plates drifting. The Arabian plate could not have accomplished this action by any other means. So, how could this impact have changed this if it was the cause?

The 'Roche limit' is misunderstood as well. If an object has enough mass, it has a limti too and will produce electromagnetic repulsion, actually slowing the impact even more...

It is you who needs to give better study, as you are unable to give ANY mechanism for ANY of the forementioned anomolies and events! I run into so many, just like you, with the blinders put on by years of "phaulty fysics" and distorted history lessons.PLEASE!

Jun 05, 2014
Kalopin, you stated:

The Mariannas trench is NOT in a subduction zone, it is in a divergent zone, where the plates are seperating. . ;-]


Uh-oh, it appears that the established science sharply disagrees with your geomorphological theorizing:

http://www.ask.co...#Geology

I normally hesitate to utlize the Wiki --but in this case, it provides a succinct, understandable-from-the-layman's-view summary of the known mechanics.

Mariana Trench = subduction zone.

I'll leave the rest of your assertions alone, provided you desist in this enterprise.


Yes, they are wrong. The Mariannas trench was split apart, not pushed together. Subduction zones subdue, divergent zones seperate. Is a trench a place that has been pushed together or pulled apart?

Read on and see what else our 'modern' science is badly mistaken about [dating, petrification, impacts,...and the list rteally does go on...]

no other option!;]

Jun 05, 2014
Quite entertaining to watch you all attempt at proving me wrong, while not even trying to prove common beliefs correct. Why don't you all defend accepted theories? Oh, but you are trying to say the Mariannas trench was subdued [what a joke!], form what? A trench is a split and is so obvious it's pathetic!
Present theories on these matters are ridiculous.
If you all really want the truth, study my research.
Here is some more concerning a much more recent impact at

http://koolkreati...s-legacy
read- "A Few Comments on 1811"
here you will find the truths behind the myths...

Jun 05, 2014
Uh-oh, it appears that the established science sharply disagrees with your geomorphological theorizing:


That is what this is about- the 'established' science disagrees with most of my theorizing!
One of us is wrong! Guess what, it's not me! ;-]]]]]]]


Jun 05, 2014
The Arabian plate was attached to west Africa


Sorry, my bad- The Arabian plate was attached to EAST Africa...;-]

Jun 05, 2014
Kalopin, you stated:

The Mariannas trench is NOT in a subduction zone, it is in a divergent zone, where the plates are seperating. . ;-]

Uh-oh, it appears that the established science sharply disagrees with your geomorphological theorizing:
[...]
I normally hesitate to utlize the Wiki --but in this case, it provides a succinct, understandable-from-the-layman's-view summary of the known mechanics.

Mariana Trench = subduction zone.

I'll leave the rest of your assertions alone, provided you desist in this enterprise.

Yes, they are wrong. The Mariannas trench was split apart, not pushed together. Subduction zones subdue, divergent zones seperate. Is a trench a place that has been pushed together or pulled apart?

Read on and see what else our 'modern' science is badly mistaken about [dating, petrification, impacts,...and the list rteally does go on...]

no other o


Oh, Gawd --a genuine fruitcake nutjob.

Dude -STFU and go home.

No one is listening.


Jun 05, 2014

No one is listening.


Then don't. remain in your delusion.
Do you all really believe that:
1. people built huge structures deep in caves and underwater?
2. bones can last for 65 million yrs in the places found?
3. coal can pile itself into mountains over long periods?
4. cities were just buried by there inhabitants?
5. huge, thick tectonic plates and mountains could be split apart by convection?
6. scraping and scarring across a sea floor would still be so obvious over millions of years?
7. the Earth never becomes imbalanced and the Moon never impacts it?
8. that Chicxulub crater was a big enough impact to cover the planet in a layer of iridium?
9. that there was a greatr die off, for some reason?
10. that all these limestone mountains were exhumed many millions of years ago from some unknown force?

No, now it is your turn to explain 'your' formation processes for these anomolies. But will you then get it?
There is, presently NO other explanation. Only choiice! :-]

Jun 05, 2014
You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, Kalopin. Following are links to photos of the Mid Atlantic Ridge and Mariana Trench region, which are classic examples of divergence and subduction.

Divergence:
http://www.extrem...unts.jpg

Notice the big "crack" running through the whole range?

Subduction:
http://eoimages.g..._lrg.jpg

Notice the raised portion as the Pacific plate undergoes subduction under the plate on the northwest side of the Mariana Trench.

Learn basic geology at the very least so you can actually tell the difference between subduction and divergence of tectonic plates. At least learn how to spell Mariana Trench properly. It makes you look sillier when you cannot even spell and/or properly use the correct terms and proper names.

The rest to follow after waiting for the three minute limit.

Jun 05, 2014
There was no comet strike in 1811. We would not be here discussing it had there been one. Remember what Shoemaker-Levy did to Jupiter? That would have happened here in the US, if so. There would have been no life left in North America after a comet strike. It has been know that forms of ball lightning sometimes are seen during earthquakes. The earthquake that hit in 1811 was caused by the so-called New Madrid fault, a very large fault capable of such kinetic energy experienced.

1. Yes structures in caves were built by the Maya, and by others. They were not underwater until the limestone ceiling collapsed, leaving shattered remains and a flooded structure.
2. Yes, when fossilized.
3. Yes, with geological action over millions of years.
4. Nope. They were buried later, which happens even now.
5. Yes. Convection in the mantle is very powerful.
6. No evidence of what you claim.
7. Humans and the moon still here, so yes.
8. Probably.
9. Several, actually.
10. Nope. Forces known.

Jun 05, 2014
NO! The Mariannas plate is now filling in from erosion after being split so abruptly by a Lunar impact to thhe Mediterranean. It is landslides and convection you are witnessing. The American plates have drifted away from the Eurasian and African plate in divergence from same said impact.
The mid- Atlantic ridge is the exact design that would occur from the instant lifting of a tectonic plate off the mantle.

See where the plates scarred the surface of the ocean while 'drifting'?
See where the scarring stops?
As soon as the boundary contacts the hotspot the entire continent was raised from the heat and pressure, forming the "ancient ring of fire" that pushed magma beneath the southern states, from east Texas to west Florida. At this point in longitude is where the Caymen trench begins, as this was where the plate was weak and was pushed into the mantle by the raising of the north American plate..., possible the Chicxulub impactor may still be present at the compressional boundary?...;-]

Jun 05, 2014
C/1811 F1 was a Sungrazer that was big enough and on the right trajectory to travel directly in front of Earth's path.In doing so, it left a trail of meteoroids released from its 'slingshot' around the Sun. As Earth travelled through this meteor storm, several impacted. There were many catastrophies worldwide. As this also was the formation process for the Carolina bays, one meteor came in and struck north Mississippi with enough force to cause massive earthquakes, river tsunamis, mass death [mainly Chickasaw], and took down everything in the embayment. Many temples, pyramids and even a couple of volcanoes in central Mississippi were flattenend.
They have nicknames, many stories and legends behind them, have NEVER been referred to as a 'caldera' , were said to have been discovered in 1819 or maybe 1860 as there are conflicting dates, no name of a discoverer, no geologists, no ground penetrating radar and are said to have been buried in the Cretaceous! Now, put that down on the test!;]

Jun 05, 2014
Are you not aware of the photographs and actual, detailed studies that have been done in the Mariana Trench? It is not erosion filling anything in. Movements on the sea floor have shown that subduction is occurring in the region of the Mariana Trench.

Nope. You are incorrect as incorrect can be on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Have you ever seen the new rift that is forming in Africa? This also is an example of divergence of tectonic plates. Lifting off a plate from the mantle? Ridiculous! A very different pattern would be shown than exists. Surely you were aware that Iceland literally is pulling part because it sits on two separate tectonic plates, weren't you?

The so-called "scarring" you mention occurred over millions of years and have all the appearance of a gradual process over a long period of time.

Cayman trench? Strike-slip deformation combined with currently occurring eastward movement of the Caribbean plate.

Jun 05, 2014
Tsunamis are oceanic events, not "river" events. The Carolina Bays have differing creation dates, all of which predate 1811 by 12,000 and many more years, depending on location sampled and dated.

Jun 05, 2014
Surely you were aware that Iceland literally is pulling part because it sits on two separate tectonic plates, weren't you?
Cayman trench? Strike-slip deformation combined with currently occurring eastward movement of the Caribbean plate.


Iceland and the trench are splitting from the same divergence. The trench is filling in as it is pulled apart. Theresurelymay be some subduction along divergent boundaries, as plates are not straight..., but a trench is formed from seperation not compression.
The Caymen trench was formed from the pressure of the north American plate lifting at the hotspot and pressing down at Belize. This pulled out the islands forming the Caribbeansea and Gulf of Mexico...

1811 catastrophies: http://ebooks.aid...r14.html

Jun 05, 2014
Tsunamis are oceanic events, not "river" events. The Carolina Bays have differing creation dates, all of which predate 1811 by 12,000 and many more years, depending on location sampled and dated.


Jees!, massive waves up the river, then! I guess 'river tsunamis' can be my term as well
;-]]]]]]]

The Carolinabays were not dated properly. They sit on a coastline where they would have easily eroded in such a time frame as is considered. They are all elliptical, have white sand rims that are all higher on the northwest side. there are no trees near two hundred years old on or near them and there are even reports of many massive meteorscoming in before during and after the earthquakes...

Please see Captain Robert Alaexander's account: http://pasadena.w...ell.html [3/4 down]

Jun 05, 2014
Tsunamis are oceanic events, not "river" events. The Carolina Bays have differing creation dates, all of which predate 1811 by 12,000 and many more years, depending on location sampled and dated.


Jees!, massive waves up the river, then! I guess 'river tsunamis' can be my term as well
;-]]]]]]]

The Carolinabays were not dated properly. They sit on a coastline where they would have easily eroded in such a time frame as is considered. They are all elliptical, have white sand rims that are all higher on the northwest side. there are no trees near two hundred years old on or near them and there are even reports of many massive meteorscoming in before during and after the earthquakes...

Please see Captain Robert Alaexander's account: http://pasadena.w...ell.html correct link. please read its entirety when you get a chance, but this has been edited, removing the volcano story...



Jun 05, 2014
Iceland and the trench are splitting from the same divergence. The trench is filling in as it is pulled apart. Theresurelymay be some subduction along divergent boundaries, as plates are not straight..., but a trench is formed from seperation not compression.
The Caymen trench was formed from the pressure of the north American plate lifting at the hotspot and pressing down at Belize. This pulled out the islands forming the Caribbeansea and Gulf of Mexico...

1811 catastrophies: http://ebooks.aid...r14.html


Complete claptrap. Many trenches are formed from compression caused by nearby subduction and pressure from the plate moving under another. Go learn some Geology so you can learn the differences between subduction and divergence, and understand trenches in general. The Mariana Trench is known to be part of a subduction zone because movements of the plates can be measured and these have been measured. Subduction is the process.

Jun 05, 2014
http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/hough/mitchill.html


Interesting link but it does not support your hypothesis. No lights descending from heaven were seen. All lights seen came up from the earth. Had it been a series of meteorite strikes the "shooting stars" would have been seen first. Everything described in the testimony are classic signs of massive seismic activity across a very large fault, radiating outward. No meteorites or comet fragments required and there is no evidence for any, at any rate.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/humboldt/alexander/travels/chapter14.html


Another interesting link but this also describes classic seismic activity and volcanism. No meteorites from the sky mentioned at all.

Do you even read what you link for others? None of it supports your hypothesis of multiple meteorite strikes in 1811.

As to the Carolina Bays, they were dated as correctly as possible. None are from 1811. They also are not all aligned the same direction.

Jun 05, 2014
Do you even read what you link for others? None of it supports your hypothesis of multiple meteorite strikes in 1811.
@Skepticus_Rex
I believe he is attempting to alter your view of the historical New Madrid quakes of 1811-12. These quakes epicenters were in N. Arkansas
https://en.wikipe...rthquake

The New Madrid quakes relocated parts of the Mississippi river and made it flow backwards for a day.
I guess that is what he is referring to as his tsunami up the river because, as you point out
As to the Carolina Bays, they were dated as correctly as possible. None are from 1811. They also are not all aligned the same direction
IMHO- he's a troll


Jun 06, 2014
northeast corner of marshall, circular depression, partly into tennessee, just to the east of where mill pond rd and early grove rd meet, a white sand creek-follow up above wolf rv. bottoms, around to west and back down- will show similar pattern as outer edge of embayment.follow each river down their valleys-the larger waves, draw line from new madrid bend straight to north slayden to see the direction, angle, force of impact extends from tennessee rv. on east past st francis on west. land was pushed northward, shockwave formed rolling hills all emanate from this central location...

view the horseshoe and wagonwheel cap embedded with vitrified sand and impact melt rock.
you will find no other scenario available to describe all the stories, rocks, topography, myths,...the information has been studied.

a lunar impact to the mediterranean started the holocene. a comet struck the hudson bay to end the clovis culture and a cometary fragment/meteor impacted the mississippiembayment1811;]

Jun 06, 2014
http://abob.libs....int.html [see a comet as the bay forming mechanism]

they even had to stop farmers from plowing through them! they are not old...

they are all aligned from the southeast to the northwest...

Jun 06, 2014
BS, Kalopin. If a comet ever hit North America there would be no North America. Unbelievable. You cited as evidence a page that weakens your hypothesis of a meteorite shower causing the Carolina Bays. I quote:
Meteoritic impact is no longer widely regarded as a plausible hypothesis. No meteoritic fragments have been found that are genetically related to the Carolina Bays. No known meteorite falls elsewhere in the world have resulted in approximately half a million depressions over a wide area. Studies of magnetic anomalies associated with individual bays are not conclusive (MacCarthy, 1936; Prouty, 1952). Shatter cones and high pressure changes in quartz grains associated with known impact craters are absent. The heavy mineralogy of sediments within one bay did not differ from sediments beyond the bay rim (Preston and Brown, 1964). The selective confinement of Carolina Bays to one physiographic province has also been cited as evidence against any extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Jun 06, 2014
Skepticus Rex,

The 1811 event was from a comet's tail, many small fragments of mainly ice and sand, little iron. Cometary impacts are not iron asteroid impacts and impact science is badly flawed. The lack of spherules and any magnetic anomolies has little to nothing to do with a cometary serial impact. Many of the meteors exploded when contacting the troposphere.
The Carolina bays formed from a serial impact of meteors made from ice and sand, impacting on frozen ground in one of the coldest winters on record- instant steamy lakes...

A comet did impact the Hudson bay in approx. 8500 b.c., emptying out lake Agassiz, pushing Greenland to the northeast and ending thhe Clovis culture. Beside the fact that it is so round and can easily make out the shatter effect, the magnetic anomaly is a 'smoking gun' as the cometary nucleus must still be attached [welded and magnetically] to the Mantle...

and a meteor impacted north Mississippi on December 16, 1811...pleasestudy;]

Jun 06, 2014
More ridiculous claptrap. If there is limestone ejecta it is because of the impact at Chixalub, for that entire region contains a substantial mass of limestone.
.


I have to point out that the pyramids and temples are on top of the crater and deep within caves. obviously the structures could not have been built on top of a crater and then covered by that same said crater's impact ejecta blanket. study, you will see the direction it came from...

limestone is formed deep at the bottom of seas, so why is limestone, all in melt fashion, on top of the Yucatan?

open the strait of Gibraltar until the Arabian peninsula is pushed several km into Africa and Asia, this will accomodate the eastern seaboard of the U.S. and the arc of the Gulf of Mexico. push north America in until the Ozarks come into line between the rock of Gibraltar and the Beatic Cordilleras [almost perfectly] push south America to align back with Africa, return India, Madagascar, Australia, and Antarctica-Pangaea;-]

Jun 06, 2014
The closest approach of a comet in historical times was Halley's Comet. The comet of 1811 was never that close. Impact science is flawed??? Apparently you really were unaware of the observations of the impacts of fragments of Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter. The destructive force caused by those pieces of "ice and sand" was extensive. This was physically observed!

The results of the observation were then transposed onto earth. Had just one of those fragments hit earth all complex life on this planet would have been exterminated.

Carolina Bays were not formed by meteoric impacts. Zero evidence of this has been found and they do not all line up in the same directions in spite of the optical illusion that they do.

Lake Agassiz??? 8500 BCE??? Give me a break. Try earlier than 10,000 BCE. There was no cometary impact in Hudson Bay or we would not be discussing this now. See above as to why.

http://www.boulde...arth.gif

Just 1 impact radius of 1 fragment!

Jun 06, 2014
As to the meteorite impact in Mississippi in 1811, once again, no lighted were seen to come down from the sky. All lights seen came up from the ground. This is consistent with the kinds of electrical discharges that occur during and just before large seismic disturbances.

One major problem (of many) with your hypothesis is that what is now Connecticut was once a tropical island. Several parts of the East coast of what is now the US actually came from elsewhere, drifted northward and slammed into the East Coast.

Limestone is sedimentary stone. Plate tectonics caused the former seabed to thrust upward above sea level. Mount Everest was once undersea, too. Almost the entire Yucatan is limestone, no "impact ejecta blanket" required.

The Gulf of Mexico began forming during the Jurassic Era, with completion after the Cretaceous as the Caribbean plate pushed through toward the east. That plate is moving the wrong direction if caused by a supposed moon impact northward. Claptrap all!

Jun 06, 2014
By the way, Kalopin, there is zero evidence for a Hudson Bay impactor, and plenty of people have been looking for the geological evidence of an impactor because of the shape of the "rim" that exists there. So far as I am aware, none has yet been found. It is less likely that any will be found, anyway, since its distinctive shape is the result of seismic activity and tectonic activity and movements. Even though that entire region is rising year by year, as the glaciation that caused its deformation and depression no longer is present, the Hudson Bay is going to get a whole lot bigger over the next 160,000,000 years or so at the current rates of movement.

As I have suggested several times, take Geology courses and make thorough effort to understand the subject matter.

Jun 06, 2014
c/1811f1 was seen as 50% larger than the Sun in October1811. There are vast intracacies and variables. The comet that struck the Huidson bay was rather small. Shoemaker/Levy9 was much larger and more compact, as was c/1811f1. The magnetic anomaly is from the nucleus blocking the force...
wind eddies or water currents could not form the bays, there is no other choice...
11k bce is when the Holocene extinction event occurred [from this Lunar impact], 8.5 bce is when the Clovis extinction occurred [from a comet]

Yes, plenty of reports of lights across the skies before, during and after the 1811-1812 events...
sorry, your geologic mechanisms are a joke and couild not work.

so, here I am again- red pill or blue pill?
Are you going to actually study the information I have posted, or are you going to continue to postulate present positions with no backing evidence?

I have given you the mechanisms, scenarios, history and the science...
These hypotheses have been proven, just needs study!;-]

Jun 06, 2014
[o.k., think now]
people pay a lot for a decent education and information concerning public safety should not be withheld. please go over every single facet, every single detail. why would I be the one to ask you to thoroughly investigate?

This has been going on for far too long now. I have been trying to straighten this up for several years and have become disgusted with the behavior of the certain individuals who know I am correct and the ignorance of those who fail to study and understand.

I am still waiting on ANY rebuttal with ANY evidence that may be to the contrary. The faulty dating and bad physics is obvious and will not explain any of the details concerning Eartth's and the Moon's geography.
sadly, this will all be in the hands of those who have the control and it has become quite apprarent that, to them education takes the 'back seat' for their 'almighty dolla''
the geology you were taught is false, sorry you wasted all that time and money.
Should I apologize forthe truth?

Jun 07, 2014
Should I apologize forthe truth?


No apology needed as there is no "truth" simply stop posting and we'll all be better off.

You remind me of another poster who constantly makes outlandish claims with nothing to substantiate them, alleges they are "theories/models" then challenges everyone to either disprove him or blindly accept his drivel as fact.

As always the burden of proof is the claimants to bear, no-one needs to disprove anything that you or anyone else claims to be "THE TRUTH".

Jun 07, 2014
Kalopin,

You keep telling me to study your 'model' but every time I look further into it it looks more and more ridiculous. Sorry but stating what I see is the truth of the situation. Your hypothesis is not proven. If there were traces of impactors in the Bays or in the Hudson Bay that would be another matter and it might have been able to move into the realm of theory. Zero evidence of any of it has been found.

Your model contradicts the actual directions that tectonic plates are moving, and movements can be observed using GIS and other technologies. In addition, you have zero plausible explanation of how the moon could survive a close brush with the earth, how the Alps could form and yet not have a set of like on the African Continent, but the standard model actually explains the whole as it exists today.

Your own sources cited say the lights originated from the ground. And what struck Jupiter was a mere set of fragments of the comet. Nearly all you post is claptrap.

Jun 07, 2014
Should I apologize forthe truth?


No apology needed as there is no "truth" simply stop posting and we'll all be better off.

You remind me of another poster who constantly makes outlandish claims with nothing to substantiate them, alleges they are "theories/models" then challenges everyone to either disprove him or blindly accept his drivel as fact.

As always the burden of proof is the claimants to bear, no-one needs to disprove anything that you or anyone else claims to be "THE TRUTH".


can you all seriosly not see that the 'outlandish' claims are present beliefs?
have you all studied the theories on the formation processes for these structures?
do you not see how ridiculous they sound?
I do not just 'claim' it, if you take a moment and study the research you will find this has all been proven!

Jun 07, 2014
Your model contradicts the actual directions that tectonic plates are moving, and movements can be observed using GIS and other technologies.

Your own sources cited say the lights originated from the ground. .


carolina bay impactors were ice and sand, you will find no meteoric evidence, but there is no other choice!

Every single tectonic interaction, [except for the natural filling in of the crater by the African plate,]emanates out from the Mediterranean. So, no, my model totally agrees!

There were MANY reports of lights across the skies. Many thought the entire comet went down in the Ohio rv. It was so bright at 2:30 in the morning a man in Kentucky said he could 'see a needle on the floor', people believed it may have 'touched the mountain of California,...
you just have not done enough study: http:www.showme.net/~f...nnah.htm [there are many, please see my 'documents and links' page!]

I assure you will find these all to be facts, there is NO doubt! ;-]

Jun 07, 2014
"...proceeded by a meteoric flash of light..."-what could he mean?
http://www.rootsw...er-2.htm
[go to- Saturday Dec. 21, 1811- "...perhaps it has touched the mountain of California..."]

I could post links all day, but I would prefer you to use your own initiative, be a scientist and study the work, without having it to be 'spoonfed'

as an individual you may be entitled to a belief, as a scientist you will be obligated to determine the percentage of possibility.

The percentage rests entirely in favor of these impact scenarios...
seek and you will find- the truth is really 'out there'! ;-]]]]]]]

Jun 07, 2014
you do realize that your statements show that you have not and are not putting any study into this. maybe you are just so sure in your beliefs?

i hope you do all realize that, very soon in the near future that all this information and all this geolography, geology, science, history,... will be interpretted in this manner, as there will be no other option, as this is easily observable to anyone who has studied the terrestrial impact cratering process...

once you study the satellite views enough, you will see that all this topography is unmistakable. i could not make any of this evidence up, as it is all tangible. You all argue with reality!;-]]]]]]]

Jun 07, 2014
observation- there were two 'pivot points' at impact, at the western edge of the Arabian peninsula for Africa and the lower continents and at Iceland for north America. As the Eurasian plate remained stable[it is the only plate still 'securely' attached to the mantle]the African plate was pushed downward, splitting mountains, releasing south America, it appears the tectonic rebound effect may have been the formation process for Table mt., South Africa: http://www.tablem...gallery/ As well there are-to quote"...ancient mountains in south Africa which align with the mountains near Buenos Aires:
http://www.yale.e...5.x.html

even though Pangaea was mostly flat and had a vast, shallow inland sea, it did have some mounainous features. this is evidence for some earlier impacts to Rodinia... ;-]

Jun 07, 2014
oh yea, Skepticus Rex,
...they used many techniques such as wetting the sand, but there was also less gravity...

why do I know the pyramids and temples were built on Pangaea during the Pleistocene?- when you put the Pangaea puzzle together in the manner I have suggested then the pyramids align with the poles, just as the ones in Bosnia...
The pyramids and obelisks were a wireless power grid...;-]

slide on down the rabbit hole...;-]]]]]]]

Jun 07, 2014
@kalopin
You're a troll, sorry I fed you.I promise to simply ignore you from now on and when you get bored from being ignored you can go find another forum to annoy!

Jun 08, 2014
OZGuy,
why don't you explore this for yourself?
once you learn what a pyramid is, you will understand why it is such a joke to think that they would be built where there would be no sun!
the Earth is an electric motor, Tesla coined it as 'telegeodynamics'...
see "Our Electrostatic Earth, Telegeodynamics and the powers of the Pyramids"
and ,
electricity can be created and stored from many different sources, see "A Few Comments on 2011"

it may be much easier for you to stay within your belief system and maybe some of this IS too much to make common knowledge?
fear and ignorance are why we have no idea presently. catastrophe will occur, history will repeat and I will wonder what would have happened had everyone understood the truth... ;-]

Jun 08, 2014
oh yea, Skepticus Rex,
...they used many techniques such as wetting the sand, but there was also less gravity...

why do I know the pyramids and temples were built on Pangaea during the Pleistocene?- when you put the Pangaea puzzle together in the manner I have suggested then the pyramids align with the poles, just as the ones in Bosnia...
The pyramids and obelisks were a wireless power grid...


Complete crankism. The pyramids of Egypt mostly can be and have been dated. They do not date to the Pleistocene. Period. The names of the individuals for whom the pyramids were constructed are known historical personalities and they can be dated. The Maya actually put dates on their temples and monuments, so we also know when many of them were built. None date to the Pleistocene. Like many aspects of your hypothesis, this one falls flat in the face of the evidence. That's all the claptrap I have time for at the moment.... Maybe more later.

Jun 08, 2014
Skepticus Rex,

You and your constituents have what is referred to as 'the allegory of the cave syndrome' in which you have been taught false beliefs until it became reality. The dating is inaccurate. the proof is in everyone's face and the deniers look stupid.

you see- intelligence will always look crazy to blundering idiots.
this is the same manner and the same attitude from the same mindset that every big discovery and invention has and will face.

There are thousands of pyramids, temples, cities,...still buried from this Lunar impact event. Please study the photos- it is quite simple to see that the melt rock covered the already existing stuctures. Understand, much of the carvings came after the cataclysm. They had lost the knowledge of who and how these megaliths were moved and stacked, but many took advantage of this fact and made up stories to command control, never realizing the meaning or the use for these buildings.

know there is no other option!;-]

Jun 08, 2014
search- "Mediterranean, Appalachian, Pangaea Lunar Impact- Image page",

Study the photos. Find the photo of the pipe organ in the cave. Please give close study to the stairs and the melt rock that is covering them. It is obvious that the stairs were not carved into the rock, but that the rock had covered the already existing stairs. It is not even the same type rock! [limestone [mix] covering granite!] It is quite doubtful that the stairs would have been carved in this manner anyway, with the lower steps becoming so narrow.
What would be the mechanism to cause such an effect? You see, there is NO choice!

Jun 08, 2014
you have been taught false beliefs until it became reality
@kalopin
this describes your posts very well
The dating is inaccurate
give EMPIRICAL DATA supporting this
the proof is in everyone's face and the deniers look stupid
you dont look stupid as much as crazy
you see- intelligence will always look crazy to blundering idiots
you are not blundering as much as MISLEAD. perhaps some education in modern physics would help?
Please study the photos
you know, if you studied the EMPIRICAL DATA as hard as you looked at the photo's, you would not be ranting here

As of now, you are just trolling and posting a religion, not empirical data. YOU FIND EMPIRICAL DATA and then we can talk. until then, your posts are likely to be reported as spam and trolling... I know others here dont like it. and I am getting annoyed as you have YET to produce ANY empirical data, only word-chat-salad mixed with NUTS.

POST EMPIRICAL DATA OR GO AWAY. this is not a religion site

Jun 08, 2014
Skepticus Rex,

You and your constituents have what is referred to as 'the allegory of the cave syndrome' in which you have been taught false beliefs until it became reality. The dating is inaccurate.


If you say so but it sounds so much more like you are in that state. You have zero empirical data to support your-"facts" and the dating is not wrong. I am not even talking about carbon dating, or any dating like that, but actual dates written by actual people. The Maya put written dates on many of their monuments, temples, and other structures. We can then take those dates and translate them into modern dating.

Egyptian figures for whom the pyramids were built are known historical personalities--no carbon dating required. We know the general dates and times when they lived. We know the pyramids and the pharaohs who ordered them built. These lived in historical times not the Pleistocene.

...know there is no other option!;-]


There is another option--facts.

Jun 08, 2014
If you scale the model down should you not scale the size of the sand grains too ?

Jun 09, 2014
Kalopin, and others thinking about leaning toward believing his claptrap, may want to consider reading the following:

http://www.usatod...4255097/

No meteors and meteorites, nor comet strikes required to understand the lighting effect that sometimes occurs just before and/or during large earthquakes. The term "meteoric flash," while typically referring to meteorites that explode in the air and never reach the ground, but which light up the sky, it also has been known to be used to describe lightning that lights up the sky.

In either case, whether the atypical meaning or the typical meaning, both terms mean no meteorite strikes the ground. Thus, there is no cause for the 1811/1812 New Madrid earthquakes to be attributed to comet strikes or to meteorite strikes.

One of Kalopin's sources describes a meteoric flash, thus no meteorite nor cometary crash.

Yet another portion of Kalopin's hypothesis bites the dust.

Jun 09, 2014
I do not wish to offend anyone, but I feel it my obligation to point out that if the 'meteoric flash' Skepticus Rex refers to was the one in the link I had posted, then I would like everyone to please note that the 'meteoric flash of light' was seen in Savannah Georgia and that the newspapaer is from Savannah as well.

I hope you all understand that, even if there were plenty of naturally occurrring earthquake lights from all sources [charged rock, quartz crystals, gas pockets, ball lightning,...] that there would be NO WAY that they could have been seen at the distances that were reported.

Do you really think that earthquake lights could be seen in Savannah Georgia all the way to New Madrid Missouri? You know, you can't even see, or hear a fireworks diplay fromm the next town over.

No, hypothesis fine, another one of your interpretations 'bites the dust'

Empirical evidence- a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

empirical by definition- thanks]

Jun 09, 2014
Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Cliffs of Dover [off of 'Cosmos'] "...later NATURE lifted these structures from beneath ancient seas..." [may not be exact quote]

He gives 'nature' as the mechanism?!, and they were NOT 'lifted', as it is obvious they were instantly split apart, and it was by the force of a Lunart impact to the Mediterranean...

Is this the education that you all want to continue, or would you like to be able to teach the truth?
What will the students think? ;-]

Jun 09, 2014
oh yea, I should mention- Skepticus Rex, your link does help to prove one of the energy sources for the pyramids- charged rock- "...seismic waves...,...compresses the rocks...,...creating conditions under which large amounts of positive and negative electrical charges are generated..."

"basalt and gabbro...,...defects in their crystals..."!

do you see all this coming together? ;-]

Jun 09, 2014
I hope you all understand that, even if there were plenty of naturally occurrring earthquake lights from all sources [charged rock, quartz crystals, gas pockets, ball lightning,...] that there would be NO WAY that they could have been seen at the distances that were reported.

Do you really think that earthquake lights could be seen in Savannah Georgia all the way to New Madrid Missouri? You know, you can't even see, or hear a fireworks diplay fromm the next town over.


Fireworks displays do not go miles up into the atmosphere. Earthquake lights sometimes have been known to go into the upper troposphere and/or follow fault lines, which could indeed light up a portion of the sky with a flash. But, we do not even know what the reporter meant by meteoric flash without proper context. Either way, whether lightning or involving a real meteor (the other meaning of "meteoric flash" does involve a meteor but refers to one that never reaches ground), your hypothesis bites the dust.

Jun 09, 2014
Kalopin, if you are going to cite a television show, at least have the decency to cite the episode so I can try to watch it for myself and hear the quote for myself.

From what I know about the geology of the White Cliffs of Dover, however, it was pretty abrupt on a geological timescale but there was no need for a lunar impact for which there is zero evidence. The moon still exists as a moon so we know that an impact did not happen in the Pleistocene. Several close approaches like those you postulate would have reduced the moon to a ring of dust circling around the Earth. Period. Gravitational forces would have ripped the moon to shreds regardless of its composition, and mankind would have ceased to exist.

The cliffs themselves were split by a large lake during the last ice age. Erosion left it in the condition it now exists. Erosion continues to remove large chunks of the cliffs from time to time, between a couple inches of shedding every year on both sides of the Channel.

Jun 09, 2014
oh yea, I should mention- Skepticus Rex, your link does help to prove one of the energy sources for the pyramids- charged rock- "...seismic waves...,...compresses the rocks...,...creating conditions under which large amounts of positive and negative electrical charges are generated..."

"basalt and gabbro...,...defects in their crystals..."!

do you see all this coming together? ;-]


Yet more claptrap. The pyramids did not have energy sources. Static sparks can be generated by a person standing at the top of the Red Pyramid but that is due to the movement of the winds in dry air against the clothing of an individual standing there. It is not caused by energy being transmitted to the pyramids from the ground.

And, once again, they did not originate in the Pleistocene. They are historical structures datable to the historical period. The same goes for your "buried" Maya temples. Many have written dates on them and none of those dates are Pleistocene. Your hypothesis fails.

Jun 10, 2014
http://www.cnn.co...obinsite
http://www.philli...res.html
http://www.mpower...ries.htm

ever get the goosebumps? so does rock. this similar 'shiver' effect between dissimilar rocks, the sun's heat to charge in day, the moon's force to send seismic tidal effect at night, can create massive amounts of electricity in such a structure,
or,
"build me a bigger tombstone!..." ;-]]]]]]]

Jun 10, 2014
this is what telegeodynamics is, using the power of the planet.
Wegener got it right from the start on the continental drift- "...attributed this to the tidal attraction of the Sun and the Moon...": http://ww2.valdos...mple.htm

the "Cosmos" show aired June 9, [yesterday]


Jun 10, 2014
'rolling stones'- Philip Coppens- http://www.philip...res.html

Jun 10, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/28/pyramid.markings/index.html?iref=obinsite

ever get the goosebumps? so does rock. this similar 'shiver' effect between dissimilar rocks, the sun's heat to charge in day, the moon's force to send seismic tidal effect at night, can create massive amounts of electricity in such a structure,
or,
...


Absolute, psychobabble, BS. There are no electrical forces in the pyramids or in any Mayan temple. This is your claptrap of the highest order.

From the article itself: "'Sometimes they identify the work gang (who built the room), sometimes they give a date and sometimes they give guidelines to mark cuttings or directional symbols about the beginning or end of a block,' he said."

This sounds the death knell to your Pleistocene hypothesis. Notice what it says about dates?

Your last link has zero to do with "pyramid power" and differing kinds of rock. And, Wegener was wrong about the causes of continental drift.

Jun 10, 2014
Skepticus Rex,

all you need to do is explain the pyramids buried in the melt rock, the corroded copper rings, the lack of any burial chamber, the spheres, the internal design, the positioning, the reason for such an effort for just a grave,the dendera lightbulb, Bagdad batteries, uranium mining in Libya, the metallic spheres in South Africa,...

see: http://home.comca...ent.html please read and understand, man and life is much older...

I believe you may be in denial. The electrical instructions help to inform of dissimilar metals, rocks and there energy sources. I am sure you understand how a battery operates, with two strongly dissimilar metals. This is the same in rock.

as I have previously explained- many of the carvings and dates were put on the structures after the cataclysm. Much of what everyone is using to determine the dating is just graffiti.
the great pyramid has no external markings, no wall carvings, only ancient electrical symbols.
thanks

Jun 10, 2014


Absolute, psychobabble, BS. There are no electrical forces in the pyramids or in any Mayan temple.
Your last link has zero to do with "pyramid power" and differing kinds of rock. And, Wegener was wrong about the causes of continental drift.

as I have explained the forces to create electricity, my last link is about one of the purposes.
what would be left from our technology after such an incident?
the spheres are from the middle of their flying machines, no, kid you not.
See "Imitating Habitable Planet Interior Design" @linkedin

Wegener was correct- The Moon creates tidal motion and continental drift. This is well known,
or your 'beliefs' ;-]]]]]]]

Jun 10, 2014
Sorry, the link seems to be missing?
You can find the duscussion entitled "Imitating Habitable Planet Interior Design" at Linkedin group- "Space Habitat Structural Design and Dynamics", a subgroup of "Space Habitat"

please feel free to view my linkedin profile and please go ahead and send me an invitation, I will accept. Thanks.

Jun 10, 2014
There are no temples in melt rock. Copper was in use for thousands of years. There is no lack of a burial chamber. It is there. The body was moved after grave robbers hit the tomb and destroyed the sarcophagus case. Even Herodotus talks about the body being moved and hidden on another location to prevent further desecration.

The reason for such an effort would be understood by you if you had even an inkling of genuine Egyptian beliefs and mythology. There is no Dendera lightbulb. That is a misinterpretation of what it represented. It is highly stylized artwork and nothing more.

Uranium ores have been mined for thousands of years. They were used for pigmentation in pottery glazes. They still are today in many places.

And, on and on it goes. The only person in denial in this discussion is you. Unlike you, I actually can read inscriptions. These inscriptions tell the stories and they are not what you say they are. No, it is not the same as in rock. Learn basic chemistry.

Jun 10, 2014
No, the writing is not all graffiti. It is integral to the purposes of the structures. The Great Pyramid has no external markings because the outer limestone casing on the pyramids was stolen and used in construction in later years. Many of the pyramidia also have been stolen over the years. These also contained inscriptions and were placed at the tops of the various pyramids. But, now most of them are gone. Only a very few remain.

You were aware that there are ways to date inscriptions besides paleography and reading the inscriptions themselves, right? How do you think forgeries often are exposed?

The Egyptians did not have flying machines. That is another misinterpretation of the artwork in inscriptions. You're probably one of those cranks who thinks that Akhenaton was part alien, aren't you?

The moon produces tidal forces as a result of its orbit. Wegener was wrong about these tidal forces causing continental drift. We know the mechanism now. It's not the moon.

Jun 10, 2014
I have no intention of sending an invitation to belong to a crank science group. Thanks but no thanks. I have enough real science and other work occupying me than to waste my time hanging out with cranks and pulling hypotheses out of collective rear-ends.

As to denial, you are very much in denial and cannot seem to wrap your head around that fact that if Earth were hit by even a comet fragment the size of those from Shoemaker-Levy 9 all complex life, INCLUDING HUMANS, would have ceased to exist along with most complex life. You have zero evidence of a meteoric impact causing the 1811/1812 earthquakes and aftershocks. Your own source shows that no meteorite hit the ground because the usual meaning of a meteoric flash is a meteor exploding in air before it has any chance of hitting ground. If it hits there is no meteoric flash.

The marks spoken of in the pyramid in your cited article were from the construction, not added later. No human entered where they were found. Claptrap...

Jun 10, 2014
http://en.wikiped...xplorers

the sphinx was buried until Thutmose IV 'restored' it. Napolean really didn't help as the sites were just looted more and I don't doubt that he did shoot the nose off,
and I quote "...Modern Egyptology is generally perceived as beginning about 1822."

Believe me, there is so much more still buried. Just now discoveries are being made that will change mindsets:
http://www.foxnew...se-giza/ {"...found the structures using Google Earth 5,000 miles away in North Carolina..."]

Jun 10, 2014
Kalopin, I have decided to provide a link for your perusal.

http://www.pbs.or...ids.html

Take a close look at the text of the article of the interview with the Egyptologist involved in the excavation of the 'graffiti' left behind by the workmen, particularly the last two questions and paragraphs. I have looked at photos of these writings and definitely the name of Khufu appears on some of the stones, as are dated inscriptions with names of workers. Some of these are in places where no man could go or fit now (between stones!) so they had to have been scribbled on the stones at the time they were laid in place. That puts the Great Pyramid's construction at a terminus ad quem of 2560 BCE.

Not only this, but bits of organic material have been found in the mortar used in construction. This material is dated to nearly around the same time period, meaning that the Great Pyramid was not built in the Pleistocene but in historical times.

Jun 10, 2014
Kalopin, I am well acquainted with the fact that the sphinx predated Tuthmosis IV. Were you aware that there is a subterranean chamber underground and connected with an underground causeway to the sphinx, and that this chamber also was a tomb? Some are referring to it as the tomb of Osiris.

So, of course the sphinx predated Tuthmosis IV. So, what? Evidence of that excavation also shows that it was much later than the Pleistocene, although predating Tuthmosis IV. No Atlantis, no Atlantean records hidden, no Pleistocene construction, no comet fragment impact, no meteor strike causing the 1811 earthquake and aftershocks.

Everything you believe in concerning all this is claptrap. New pyramids? Maybe. It would be very cool if so. Other pyramids have already been excavated from their burials as well. None date to the Pleistocene or show any evidence of being from such an epoch. You need to learn how to read inscriptions, and you need chemistry, physics, and geology education, ASAP.

Jun 11, 2014
so the dating and interpretations mean more than the satellite views, photos, geography, images, original accounts, stories, myths,...

you have yet to account for one single mechanism for any of the structures presented!

Just explain how the Indian plate hit the Eurasian plate so violently.

have you even taken study to the satellite view of the Mississppi embayment?

Every post you make shows even more how little you have looked into this.

how were the Ozarks exhumed?
you haven't a clue!
you should just admit that you do not know...

this is some good advice I just recently received from a friend- "if you don't know, just say- 'I don't know'". I believe that we should all listen and take this advice and from now on, tell the truth, especially when educating, and in every subject admit what we really just do not know.

Study and see how much 'claptrap' has been and is being taught. Study my hypotheses well and see what a wonder has been and is being missed.
o.k.? ;-]

Jun 11, 2014
through your entire link they admit they do not know, but think they found the workers.
of course they will find many skeletons in such a populated place...
quote- {...the pyramid you know, has magic, it has mystery, it is a structure that was built 4600 years ago. there is no accurate book, until now that explains all that..." Hawass postulates this position, yet has no evidence to support his 4,600 year claim. even if the dating was accurate, the 'workmen' could just as easily been 'repairmen' from this time.

what 'magic', what 'mystery'? little does he know...
no, they were not built out of arrogance, as common beliefs have been!

I think you miss the point, there are pyramids in melt rock! ;-]

Jun 11, 2014
Many satellite views form optical illusions for many viewers. Just ask the "face on Mars/Cydonia pyramid complex" believers.

As to dating and translations of actual inscriptions, yes, I trust those more than interpretations of people seeing optical illusions. I'll take geological science over that, too.

As to the so-called "violence" of the Indian plate "hitting" the Eurasian plate, there is no violence involved. It just is happening. It is still happening. The process is known.

As to Ozarks, Oachita Mountains and Mississippi embayment, see the following simplified version:

http://www.grossm...gins.pdf

Looks a lot more plausible to me than your hypothesis. We know these hot spots on the mantle exist, for they leave evidence.

Your hypothesis is claptrap. You cannot explain how humankind survived comet fragment strikes when the evidence shows it isn't possible with the amount of force involved.

Jun 11, 2014
through your entire link they admit they do not know, but think they found the workers.
of course they will find many skeletons in such a populated place...
quote- {...the pyramid you know, has magic, it has mystery, it is a structure that was built 4600 years ago. there is no accurate book, until now that explains all that..." Hawass postulates this position, yet has no evidence to support his 4,600 year claim. even if the dating was accurate, the 'workmen' could just as easily been 'repairmen' from this time.
...

I think you miss the point, there are pyramids in melt rock! ;-]


There are no pyramids in melt rock. Period. Only two times does the person interviewed claim not to know and this concerns the number of workmen and whether some were forced to labor. So? The graffiti are good enough to clinch the dating. The evidence is in the writing and dating of the mortar, as well as location of the writing (IN THE CORE where no one could do it after the stones were placed).

Jun 11, 2014
what's really sad, is this is on a 'physics' forum and everyone is unable to understand how badly distorted current beliefs in physics are.

comets have hit this planet many times and life has thrived.
there is no optical illusion when particular lines are being discussed and the 'lines' are simple to see, running straight from north Slayden to the New Madrid bend- it's easy to see.

this IS geological science, as there has never even been another explanation for any of the structures that would coincide with the observable topography...
translate the writings all you want, then ask everyone to examine the satellite views and match the historical accounts along with my hypotheses...

the Indian plate was 'thrust' upward, against any terrestrial motion by this impact and there has never been any other mechanism suggested. they simply just do not know why.

hotspots do not act in this manner, they form magma chambers, volcanoes, eruptions,...they do not distort an entire tectonic plate!

Jun 11, 2014
first line from the 'Hawass" link: "Egyptologists and historians have long debated the question of who built the pyramids and how..." and read on...
how is this? they find out who and when and still can't find out how?
is there a record of some war to destroy all this information?
is there a record recorded in the geography that may explain? [YES!]

it has all been recorded and is written in the geography!
it was a catastrophe of biblical proportions, as it is the story of the deluge, Gilgamesh, Noah,...
understand that this explains so much more, every single detail concerning geology and history and that there is no other choice. all these events and geological structures could only occur from a Lunar impact at the Mediterranean...

obviously, to think that no life could survive a terrestrial strike by a comet, should show how badly impact physics is flawed. the impact force has been grossly overestimated [which is a good thing]

besides the fact that life comes in on comets-well?;]

Jun 11, 2014
This isn't a Physics forum. This is a science news site.

Comets have not hit this planet while there was complex life on Earth. Asteroids and meteroites are one thing but comets? Nope. Zero real evidence and only optical illusions cast as so-called "facts" by cranks.

The lines of the so-called impacts of the Carolina Bays are optical illusions. The angle of the Mississippi Embayment is the wrong angle for your hypothesized impact, moon or otherwise. All of the details there, however, conform to what is expected from known geological processes. Again, it is far more plausible than anything I have seen from you thus far. The sedimentation agrees.

Again, satellite views are subject to optical illusion and false interpretations of cranks. Satellite views interpreted by cranks is not geological science.

The Indian plate is not thrust upward and hotspots do act in this manner. The mantle also buckles, splits, and causes rises in the crust. Take some geology courses and learn.

Jun 11, 2014
Obviously, you cannot tell the difference between life and complex life. Get some education.

Time destroys information. It is sheer luck archaeologists and paleontologists find anything at all.

No, a lunar impact does not explain what you are trying to say. It nullifies what you are saying. There would be no complex life if the moon came close and contacted the earth in the way you postulate, and would have broken up. The moon would not exist, either, except as dust in a planetary ring and there would have been no humans. Homo Sapiens Sapiens would have been wiped out by the volcanism and tidal forces that would have resulted, which would have been quite extensive.

The impact force has not been underestimated. It was OBSERVED. What part of observation do you not understand? Observation is a big part of real science, not crank science. As an aside, whether life comes to earth on comets still is debated. Evidence is lacking. Components of life? Probably. Life? Not proven.

Jun 11, 2014
the 'arsedale/cox' link is a real joke and is one of the main reasons for such a distorted educational system, as tey are doing exactly the wrong thing by assuming mechanisms and describing false beliefs as if reality, then having the nerve to teach and even grade students on such nonsense!

you all should be angry with such actions. this is why so many that claim to be scientists will look ignorant and easily manipulated...

how could the African plate have formed the Appalachia range? how could it have raised them to the height of the Rockies? when the plates are divergent. they were never pushed together, they were seperated by this impact and Pangaea is not put together in this manner. you must open the strait of Gibraltar and push the Arabian peninsula back together against Africa and Asia. this is obvious and is where the eastern seaboard of the U.S. is supposed to originate.

your physics is flawed and your interpretations are even worse.
these are two that know I am correct!

Jun 11, 2014
please give another example anywhere of a hotspot causing an entire tectonic plate to warp!
hotspots push magma into chambers within a plate, forcing an uplift-volcano and produce eruptions- Hawaii, Iceland,...

stop believing made up nonsense! there is a mountain range of limestone, followed by a deep embayment and mountains of coal on the other side. will you please try and understand that these structures could not have been formed by any other means.

you keep saying the Moon could not do this, then what did?
you keep saying you know the processes, but what are they?
you keep saying the physics is correct, but none of it matches the observable, tangible evidence...

just stop your internal dialogue and admit truth/

the 'kill the messenger' mentality will not change the facts.
I only want to right the wrong!
believe in these hypotheses and help to correct physics, science, geology, history and convince to invest in planetary defense.

extraterrestrial forces are our common enemy!;]

Jun 11, 2014
you say it is "time" that destroys information. "the 'time' within an extraterrestrial impact", is what I say!

this is the biggest issue. if everyone continues to be convinced of such nonsense like the mountains and valleys were formed slowly over long periods and convection was the only force, then there will be a repeat of history. the 'complex life' you speak of will end because it would not listen, it was not intelligent enough to become prepared and it was lost due to the incompetence of the few in charge.

this ignorance and complacency will be the demise...

while all continue to invest in protecting ourselves from each other, there is something on the way!
"...ever since Chicken Little said, the sky was fallin' down upon his head, I told myself- what a wonderful world..."

no, no "Chicken Little" but a legitimate concern.
NO, there was NO mountain range seperating the continental U.S. from the Gulf of Mexico! please make them stop!

history and science need your help! will you

Jun 11, 2014
So, it would appear that you are one of those Gayce/Atlantean Pyramid nutcakes. Either that or your lithium carbonate levels are out of whack. It also would seem that you failed at Geology and Physics. Yes, the Appalachians were much higher than they now are. What they are now are old, eroded mountains. It took millions of years for that erosion to occur.

The Arsdale/Cox article is no joke and gives good explanation for what actually happened. It is much more plausible for what happened there because there is hard geological evidence to support the hotspot theory (including eroded plutons, sediments, and lava tubes containing diamonds in all the right places), unlike with your null hypothesis, which has zero geological support. When hotspots move, portions of the crust can sink, which is what happened to the Embayment. Hawaii resulted from a hotspot. Should it ever move the entire chain could sink below sea level. That is Geology 101. Same process.

Jun 11, 2014
please give another example anywhere of a hotspot causing an entire tectonic plate to warp!


The Embayment ISN'T the entire tectonic plate. Moot point and strawman.

What makes limestone? You should know this. This is Geology 101. What would result in a limestone mountain range? Geological processes over millions of years, typically. Did you even bother to look at the pretty pictures in the simplified article? I cannot make it any simpler to understand for you than the Scientific American article. I am incapable of dumbing it down any further for you.

Yes, time destroys information. This is a well-known, scientific fact. What is so wrong with the idea of millions of years of geological processes? The evidence is all around us AND THE SAME PROCESSES CAN BE OBSERVED. Heard of GIS? Satellite tracking? Isotopic analysis?

You are in complete denial of anything that nullifies your falsified hypothesis. A moon and/or comet strike would have killed most all complex life.

Jun 11, 2014

The Arsdale/Cox article
When hotspots move, portions of the crust can sink, which is what happened to the Embayment. Hawaii resulted from a hotspot. Should it ever move the entire chain could sink below sea level. That is Geology 101. Same process.


wrong, the embayment is folded in on itself,[study a cross section, it comes to a point...] that is what produced the faulting, it did not 'sink'
if a mantle plume generated enough heat to melt such a large portion of tectonic plate, firstly it would have been melted, it would not have caused faults and there would have been massive amounts of volcanic activity. The Ozarks are not volcanic, neither are the Smokys. The few volcanoes in the south were not very active...

Their 'theories' on these structures lack any mechanism and do not explain any details.The only time the Ouachita Mts.touched the Appalachian Mts. is when the Moon folded the plate!

you keep telling me to learn, yet will not investigate?
'complex life'!?;-]

Jun 11, 2014
any habitable planet will resurface itself on a much more regular basis than is presently considered. tectonic plates are broken by impacts and ride atop one another from the spin force. this same force will cause plates to congeal producing another imbalance, affecting orbital elements causing further impacting from moons and near objects. there are several mechanisms with different forms of electromagnetic and weight imbalances.

this is a cycle that every 'goldilocks' planet must go through, at least to some extent, to become a balanced and habitable world.

this research will prove that this is common among solar systems and is how life evolves...

Jun 12, 2014
Flat plutons says erosion. Period. I have looked at a geological cross section of the entire region. The standard model fits quite well and explains far more than your falsified moon/comet fragment crash, ad hoc hypotheses.

It did sink below sea level. Otherwise, there would be no sedimentary layers as can be observed in the region. It did also rise long before that, or there would have been no eroded plutons.

Actually, you are quite wrong about the Ozarks and the region. There actually are igneous rocks buried under layers of limestone and other sedimentary rock.

The mantle plume did not melt the crust. The entire area of the Embayment is laced with rift systems and there are massive faults nearby! The moon did not make contact and fold anything. Part of the Tethys became the eastern Mediterranean. Learn Geology.

You haven't the faintest idea of the meaning of complex life and what would happen if there ever were a comet fragment strike or an oblique-angled, moon collision!

Jun 12, 2014
Actually, you are quite wrong about the Ozarks and the region. There actually are igneous rocks buried under layers of limestone and other sedimentary rock.
@Skepticus_Rex
I applaud your efforts here with Korkypin, but it really doesn't matter if you post that pterodactyl droppings made the Ozarks, as he/she/it is incapable of learning (at least REAL science anyway).

I doubt he/she/it has read any of your links above. it actually seems a bit sad that he/she/it would expend so much energy on such an outlandish fantasy while ignoring empirical data...but that is also the reason psychiatrists/psychologists have studies and watch the loonies.

I hope you manage to convince them of reason and logic, but I remain very skeptical of that.

PEACE

Jun 12, 2014
Actually, you are quite wrong about the Ozarks and the region. There actually are igneous rocks buried under layers of limestone and other sedimentary rock.
@Skepticus_Rex
I applaud your efforts here with Korkypin, but it really doesn't matter if you post that pterodactyl droppings made the Ozarks, as he/she/it is incapable of learning (at least REAL science anyway).

I doubt he/she/it has read any of your links above. it actually seems a bit sad that he/she/it would expend so much energy on such an outlandish fantasy while ignoring empirical data...but that is also the reason psychiatrists/psychologists have studies and watch the loonies.

I hope you manage to convince them of reason and logic, but I remain very skeptical of that.

PEACE


No one is more skeptical of Kalopin's being enlightened than I am. But, for the benefit of others I post what I do. Kalopin just doesn't get it and never will until Geology is learned by him (I am reasonably certain it's a 'he').

Jun 12, 2014
seriously, you all dig your own hole.
it's "HE".
yes, the faults prove the crust never received your amount of 'hotspot' heat.
as the pressure from the convergent Juan de Fuca plate being subdued by the north American plate, the plume, ice sheets, inland seas, spin force,... all had some effects on the design of the embayment, it was originally formed by a Lunar impact, there is no doubt...

the Juan de Fuca plate has been a big problem, as it was a piece left by the Farallon plate stuck beneath north America and is causing excessive tectonic activity.

I am sure you all realize the importance in getting this correct? continued belief in present nonsense will leave this 'complex life', you keep speaking so preciously about, to be vulnerable when history repeats...

problem with the collective psychopathic behavior of the human mind, as it seems to have become an instinct, woven within the genetics- to exist in some false delusionary dreamstate believing what is being dictated as real!

Jun 12, 2014
There was no lunar impact. Had there been there would have been no humans to debate this ad hoc hypothesis of yours. The Embayment is the wrong direction for any kind of impact, lunar or otherwise, and all the evidence of what really happened is in the Embayment and the path of the Bermuda hotspot.

There will be NO history repeating itself with respect to Earth's moon. It is on trajectory AWAY from Earth, moving a few centimeters or so every year. THIS IS MEASURABLE. Not the trajectory of a moon that once was an impactor.

The only delusions we see here are the delusion that the moon impacted the Earth during the Pleistocene and left humans alive, that the 1812 earthquake was caused by meteorite strike, and the delusion that Hudson Bay was caused by a comet fragment strike and yet still left humanity alive.

I call BS on your "faults prove no hotspot heat" quip. There is a large fault northwest of the Hawaiian islands, and rift zones and small faults around Hawaii, like the Embayment.

Jun 12, 2014
if anything the hotspot repaired the embayment, as it is much more likely that after the Moon had left the plate bent upward [the reason the Appalachias were still so high] and it travelled over the heat, the hotspot stretched the plate back out, seperating structures further.

the impact force has been badly overestimated [again]
the embayment IS in the correct position for both impact scenarios [again]
yes, the Moon is currently moving away, but this can easily change from an imbalance. [actually we could just as easily loose the Moon altogether]
and this is what is not being studied by anyone that I am aware of!

apparently we are in agreement that one of us lives in some delusion?
why don't you put together a study group to go through my hypotheses, study each and every detail, and give me an exact reason for the ignorant belief system that one of us has acquired?

You know, there are many working hard to be able to defend this planet from such catasdtrophies, [so you can dream on]

Jun 12, 2014
I hope you realize that crystalized igneous rocks are not only formed by the heat of magma, but can also be formed in an impact and plutons can erode easily in such a time frame [13k yrs]
it very well may be that some of the plutons have a Lunar origin, although these would be mixed impactites, quite difficult to determine.

all this needs to be taken into consideration when studying the Mississippi embayment and its formation scenarios. the chert and quartz throughout the southern states is probably from a few different sources, as even the Chesapeake bay's impact ejecta may still be somewhat present...

this is why certain aspects can not be accurately determined and should not be just assumed to be from one source, and especially not taught in this manner!

until there is definitive proof, all logical scenarios, to any event, must be recognized, discussed, evaluated and determined as to the percentage of possibility.

I give my scenarios about 110% ;-]]]]]]]

Jun 13, 2014
Chesapeake Bay contains a legitimate impact site from about 35 mya. Why not use just real impact sites instead of making them up, if your sole point is to try to get humankind to find ways to defend against such impacts from space?

Impact force has not been overestimated. It can be and has been OBSERVED. The laws of physics apply as do centuries of observable data. But, you expect me to believe that everyone is out of step but Kalopin. Not going to happen. You have zero tangible data.

Plutons from the Moon left on Earth? Take geology courses, please. This has to have been one of the most ignorant statements you have made yet.

Erosion time of plutons depends upon kind of material and external forces involved in erosion. To erode plutons requires elevation above sea level into the erosive forces.

So far, the moon is pretty consistent in its movement away, each and every year--and this has been studied/documented. Isotopic analyses can tell us whence impactites come.

Null hypothesis.

Jun 13, 2014
the entire Moon is crystalized- brown.edu: http://www.planet...1259.pdf nothing but gabbro and basalt- ["...take some geology courses, please..." ;-]]]]]]]

that's funny, Princeton disagrees with your statement that "Impact force has not been overestimated." http://geoweb.pri...lub.html it also disagrees with the hypotheses that Chicxulub impact was the dinosaur killer...

seriously, how long has modern science studied the Moon's position? and why would anyone think that this same orbit has remained stable for millions of years?

'...real impact sites..." is exactly what I am showing you! Just because you do not understand what the appearance may be...

If you study each detail as I have posted, then you will see the markings of three of the largest astroblemes on the planet.

You should all thank Skepticus Rex and I thank you as well! just need a little more curiosity to study the evidence, but this is how to learn. be skeptic!

Jun 13, 2014
http://www.omaha....e41.html

to the one 'on the grass' and the one 'in the hall'-
"...got to keep the loonies on the path..."!;-]]]]]]]

when you get a chance to look up at the full Moon, notice the scar from its last encounter with this planet, you really can not miss it, as it is 'staring you in the face'...

Jun 13, 2014
http://www.mlive....nig.html
'...Super Moon...' ;-]

Jun 14, 2014
The first link you posted concerns only the Bullialdus region and the nearby mare, not the entire moon. Nowhere does the article state that the entire moon is crystallized. That is your misreading of the paper. It would be expected that the Bullialdus region would be primarily of basalt since the entire Mare regions are composed of such basalts. But, there are other minerals on the moon, which you not only would have learned had you actually read the entire paper and extended your research beyond that, such as Anorthosite, Norite, Gabbro, Troctolite, etc., primarily igneous rocks.

I have never wrote that Chicxalub is the sole dinosaur killer, and the page you linked contains the ideas of but one person plus a possible few others, not the entire faculty of Princeton University, much less anybody else.

So far, you have only shown me one legitimate impact site--at Chesapeake Bay. The rest are not verifiable impact sites.

The mares are not impact scars from Earth. Null hypothesis...

Jun 14, 2014
all I am trying to do is tell you the truth. I can understand that you don't like it and I understand that this is a big change, but would you rather believe mistakes?

you see, this loss of history and technology has been the biggest cause of hatred and war. Misunderstanding religous extremists have been subjected to such an ignorant belief system that they want to destroy, not create...
Convince of absurdities/commit autrocities! This is just one more aspect and reason for trying to make everyone understand reality.

If this would have been in your curriculum, then you all would have no problem of being convinced and making a strong score on the tests. It is only because you have never heard this explained in this manner and only because it is from someone with which you have very little/if any respect for- but that's o.k. and I can understand, but I can assure you that, once you have put in the study, there will be no alternative.

help correct history so we can fix the future!;-]

Jun 14, 2014
http://www.newark...ite..htm
http://dictionary...e/norite
http://geology.ab...ite.html

troctolite is a variety of gabbro.
norite is a mixed impactite.
anorthosite is a crystalized granite

so- your point? What would you expect to find on an iron ball being subjected to meteor impacts?

"legitimate impact site"?! I am the only one who has suggested that these three structures are in fact impact craters. so again- what's your point?

the Lunar impact to the mediterranean 12,900 years ago was the 'dinosaur killer', as well as the reason for 'the great die off of the Americas', the loss of megaflora and megafauna and the reason for most of the planet's geology. all one need do is put in the study... ;-]

Jun 14, 2014
all I am trying to do is tell you the truth
@kalopin
NO... you are trying to convince someone else that your DELUSION is the truth... there is a difference. the difference is simple:
Skepticus has given you links to EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, which is based upon not only observation, but REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTATION, as well as KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS, to which your reply has been, and continues to be links to speculation, links to single resource conjecture that is not within the limits of known laws of physics, your own personal conjecture and there has been a DEARTH of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and misrepresentation from your argument
this is the same as:
KAL= I have a bridge to sell in brooklyn
Skept= Can I see the deed of ownership
Kal=but LOOK, its right there! you can see it! all i need is a down payment of...

IOW - your argument is no different than any other con-man pseudoscience crackpot TROLL spamming here. no evidence means NO EVIDENCE

Jun 14, 2014
Why is phys.org so inept as to allow such obvious cranks to post?

Jun 14, 2014
@Captain Stumpy,

'posting a religion'? this is what 'modern science' has become- a religion, unable to accept facts and any change to the status quo.

"empirical data' is exactly what I have posted. Every single detail in geography and history backs these hypotheses.

There was initially plenty of evidence for the pyramids being built during the Pleistocene, even after the catastrophe, some of the technology and devices were still in use. French and Spanish 'explorers/conquerors' did much of the damage,
but plenty happened through ealier years: Ramesses had finally allowed the Israelites to leave, until he discovered they had taken the reactor, manna machine and 'voice coil' from the great pyramid...

all you need do is point out where I am mistaken...
where do my 'interpretations' not agree with the geography or history?
Believe- there is so much more that people may never know or understand by the actions of ones stuck in passed on ignorance

No, this is NO congame-THIS IS SINCERE!

Jun 14, 2014
If you all are serious about science and history and finding the truth, then put in the study. Go through each and every detail concerning these events.

I am not the only one to consider these impacts, all the evidence has, is and will agree with these interpretations of these events.

If you all decide to fully investigate, I have no doubt that you will find this research to be accurate and then, maybe, hopefully this will become known, we can finally adjust the future from knowing and understanding the past.

Thank you all for your time!;-]

Jun 14, 2014
Kalopin, you aren't telling us the truth. You are trying to impose upon us ad hoc, null hypotheses that have little to no basis in fact. Those of us who understand the subject matter aren't falling for it. If any of this had been in my curriculum, I would have sued to get my money back and gotten my education elsewhere.

An iron ball being subject to meteor impacts? Really??? It would still be an iron ball with dents. My point was that the Moon is composed of far more than you claimed because you misread the paper, as you do a lot. Chesapeake Bay and Chicxalub are the only real impacts you have talked about thus far. All others are fanciful, at best. The moon is composed of igneous rock because it came from Earth's mantle.

There was no lunar impact. Period. We know because the Moon still is there and isn't a ring of dust. We know this because humankind is still here. We know this because the Moon's orbit is fairly stable even though it gets further away each year, and no 1000 ' waves.

Jun 14, 2014
The Mediterranean resulted from several processes, the eastern portion of which once was the Tethys Sea. Your null hypothesis of a moon impact also has one of several fatal flaws, not the least of which is that the Moon and Earth are going the wrong direction to support it!

You claim that the Moon glanced the Earth during the Pleistocene, pulling on the Arabian plate, gouging out the Mediterranean, and then touching down again in what would later become the US. The Moon is going the wrong direction for this to have happened even if it could have happened and both humans and the moon managed to survive it! Are you not even aware that the Earth turns anti-clockwise, as is the Moon's orbit?

If the moon did gouge out the Mediterranean it would have pushed the Arabian plate and forced it in the way of the Indian plate, preventing the uprising of the Himalayas. And you haven't any understanding about any of the science behind this, do you?

No Pleistocene pyramids in Egypt or Mesoamerica.

Jun 14, 2014
Oh, man! You are delusional. No Maya pyramid or temple was built in the Pleistocene. No Egyptian temples or pyramids were built during the Pleistocene. There is zero evidence for it and there always was, because they date to historical times. Must have been those French and Spaniards who put up the written dates on the Maya and Egyptian temples. Must have been those pesky people who squeezed in between stones with only a two inch gap and painted the Egyptian texts naming those involved in the construction.

Manna machine? Voice coil? Reactor? Ramesses being the holder of such technologies until the Israelites stole it? Claptrap all of it. Not only did these technologies not exist at the time, there is no truth to the existence of any of it. This is why you need to learn to read Egyptian texts, so you won't fall for this sort of claptrap and continue to spread it around. There is no Egyptian text, anywhere, that claims or depicts these sorts of technologies.

Claptrap, all...

Jun 14, 2014
'modern science' has become- a religion
@kaloopa
nope. religion si based upon faith (a belief in something without proof) whereas SCIENCE is based upon EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
unable to accept facts and any change
FUNNY! the only way to actually make a name in science is to either prove something RIGHT or prove something WRONG (see: Einstein)
"empirical data' is exactly what I have posted
you have posted NO empiricla data. You've posted YOUR INTERPRETATION of your delusional visions and a philosophy which is only substantiated by your own opinion
There was initially plenty of evidence for the pyramids being built during the Pleistocene
delusional conjecture based upon blatant stupidity (you've already been corrected, so this is NOT ignorance)
even after the catastrophe, some of the technology and devices were still in use
conspiratorial delusional conjecture based upon even WORSE stupidity... with ZERO evidence

to be continued

Jun 14, 2014
French and Spanish 'explorers/conquerors' did much of the damage
@kookaburra
and I suppose they stole the entire city of gold too, right?
until he discovered they had taken the reactor, manna machine and 'voice coil' from the great pyramid
this is even worse than the other BS! this delusion is based upon fantasy and has no basis in reality at all
all you need do is point out where I am mistaken
Skepticus has already done that. you just don't believe it, mostly because your meds are not stable yet
where do my 'interpretations' not agree with the geography or history?
re-read all your posts above
No, this is NO congame-THIS IS SINCERE!
the best con men truly believe in what they are saying... makes it easier to convice the others

I suggest psychological as well as psychiatric medical assistance. your delusions have ZERO basis in reality

I will not respond to your TROLL posts anymore. it's too stupid to even reply to... no empirical evidence at all! NONE.
bye

Jun 15, 2014
What I'd like to hear from Kalopin is how he figures that the Moon managed to lift back up into space when its orbital velocity is nowhere near escape velocity from Earth (assuming it could even survive multiple trips to within the Roche limit much less surface brushes/oblique impacts). Did it bounce like a billiard ball even with pangaea?

Why is the Moon still 1:1 tidally locked with Earth? If it made contact at the disparate speeds between rotation of Earth and orbital velocity of the Moon, it should not be 1:1 tidally locked as it now is.

And, when will there be another alleged "pangaea imbalance" that gravitationally will pull the moon back down again into brushes with Earth so as to be worth worrying about?

No matter how much I try I cannot put the pieces together to make anything Kalopin postulates work. Everything falls apart on even simple analysis. There are too many fatal flaws to move even from hypothesis to theory. Ad hoc, null hypotheses are all I see thus far.

Jun 15, 2014
Have you ever even studied Chicxulub and Chesapeake bay craters? You can't hardly make out any circular depression at all! My proposed craters are much more obvious than most craters, especially those two!

just to straighten facts- YES, the Moon IS going in the correct direction for this impact! It comes in from the east, the Earth turns toward the west. It did not 'pull' on the Arabian plate, This impact caused Africa to push the Arabian plate hard against the Eurasian plate, then tectonic rebound caused the African plate to try and fill in the crater, forcing up the Alps.

The Moon released its plasma at the Black sea and impacted east Mediterranean, it did not impact over where the continental U.S. was at the time, as that was the land that was pushed westward.

Do you believe the Moon would just stick? It has its own limit, it bent an entire tectonic plate inward, this release of pressure was enough to send the Moon into a further and more stable orbit. Water weight distribution?

Jun 15, 2014
The Indian plate was beneath the Arabian plate on the east side of Africa. This impact IS the mechanism that pushed the Indian plate upward, against the direction of oceanic currents and against the rotation of the planet, at such an high enough rate to smash into Asia to raise the Himalayas, and, as I have previously stated, there is NO other mechanism available to create such an outcome. Please tell everyone what is commonly accepted to cause this event!

Australia was thrown out to the east and Antarctica was spun out to the south. This, along with the comet forcing Greenland toward the northeast, I believe was imperitive to create a more stable environment and a more balanced orbital path.

It is now the melting ice that may disrupt orbital elements, causing an electromagnetic and physical imbalance to force another near Earth object impact. The Moon is sensitive to these changes and will adjust its orbit accordingly. It is a harmonic balncer.

forcing false beliefs?-who is?;-]]]]]

Jun 15, 2014
I am only suggesting another point of view. I am not forcing anything on anybody, you all have always had your own free will. As you were able to accept such nonsense as has been taught to you, it would appear as if this would be quite easy to understand, as it will bring each and every detail into sync concerning our historical accounts and observable geography.

as it will be your decision what to believe, I can only offer up my interpretations. If you may have any scenario which may give a better explanation, then I would be more than happy to lend an ear! Until then, would you accept the fact that the best scenario with the most likelyhood and the biggest percentage of possibility should be the one that is being taught to our students and graded on in classrooms?

Spend a little time studying these hypotheses, then find another way to explain it all, as it can not be done.
Then- I challenge anyone and the entire scientific community to study these events and to show me ANY error!

Jun 15, 2014
to be clear\; the Earth rotates from the west toward the east, as the Sun and Moon rise on the east and set on the west, it would mean the Moon would impact from the east and would be the correct direction for the break up of Pangaea and the direction in which all the continents were ejected, as each and every tectonic interaction, with the exception of the African plate's normal tectonic rebound effect to try and fill in the crater, emanates out from the Mediterranean sea...

Jun 15, 2014
sometimes there is more than two sides to a story!:
http://www.aquizi...ogy.html

Jun 15, 2014
sometimes there is more than two sides to a story!:
http://www.aquizi...ogy.html


Loads and loads of claptrap on that page. The mechanism dating to the second century BCE is legitimate. Greek fire was real. The rest is all turned into claptrap by faulty interpretations. The Abydos inscription is an actual inscription and the supposed flying machines are characters of Egyptian text not flying machines. The characters are part of the text and are integral to the meaning of the text. In addition, the inscription was usurped and reinscribed with a second set of characters, with the rest filled in with plaster. Once the plaster fell out of the inscription, it left a series of strange characters that look vaguely like flying machines and so forth. But, the inscription is larger than what is often shown on websites like you cited.

http://www.catchp...dos4.gif

You can see this is a usurped inscription; other characters are overwritten as well.

Jun 15, 2014
If the moon were the cause of the sudden push of the Indian plate northward, there would be no enclosed Mediterranean Sea. It would have ripped through and left it open on the east. What is more, the Moon would not be 1:1 tidally locked as it now is. The rotation of the earth would have altered the Moon's rotation to a retrograde motion. The fact that the Moon's rotation is not retrograde but is prograde also is another fatal flaw in your null hypothesis.

It also would have pushed the Eurasian plate against the North American plate and African plate against the southern portion of the North American plate. But, what do we see? We see divergent plate movement with these plates moving away from each other rather than being pushed into each other. Your null hypothesis violates all sorts of laws of physics and so forth.

We have been showing you your errors but you will not listen to reason because you are incapable of even seeing reason. It's become a religion of sorts for you.

Jun 15, 2014
Got some time so wanted to comment more on the inscription. The Abydos inscription is read from right to left. First, I translate the unaltered hieroglyphics of the usurped inscription. At the very right are the characters for "Two Ladies." At the very left are the characters for "Son of Re'." In the middle: "Dual King, Lord of the Twin Lands." Some would translate "dual king" as "King of lower and upper Egypt"; I prefer "Dual King." No need for the usurper to alter these characters; they're common.

Next, the original name in the inscription (between "Dual King" and "Son of Re'") was Menmaatre (Seti I). The inscription was overwritten with Usermaatre-setepenre (Ramesses II).

The inscription after "Two Ladies" is difficult to make out with the covering plaster missing but was altered from "who subjugates the nine bows" to "who suppresses the nine foreign countries." These are the "Two Ladies" or "Nebty" names of usurped and usurper interposed. No flying machines to see here, folks.

Jun 15, 2014
After posting, I wanted to find pictures to link to show how the hieroglyphics overlap. Working with the 1000 character limit also made it necessary to omit some words from the full Nebty names until the next post in order to preserve logical units of thought. I found a photo that shows how the two names overlap. The photo is correct. However, since the links to the photos contain plus signs, the links would be broken. So, here is the link to the webpage containing the photos for people to consult for themselves. Readers will find the fuller Nebty names on this page.

http://raincool.b...ned.html

I also wanted to offer a minor correction and clarify that on closer inspection that the "Two Ladies" characters were also part of the alteration on the extant portion of the inscription. I needed better photos to see that clearly and the photos on the blog link are clearer than those I was working with a few minutes ago. Definitely overlap.

Jun 16, 2014

Next, the original name in the inscription (between "Dual King" and "Son of Re'") was Menmaatre (Seti I). The inscription was overwritten with Usermaatre-setepenre (Ramesses II).


and then you admit that the inscriptions were overwritten?
There are more logical interpretations:
http://www.hallof...dos.html

the effects from this impact were exactly the correct amount for the results that are apparent
maybe they drew over them again when they dug them up? ;-]]]]]]]

Jun 16, 2014

Next, the original name in the inscription (between "Dual King" and "Son of Re'") was Menmaatre (Seti I). The inscription was overwritten with Usermaatre-setepenre (Ramesses II).

and then you admit that the inscriptions were overwritten?
There are more logical interpretations:
http://www.hallof...dos.html

the effects from this impact were exactly the correct amount for the results that are apparent
maybe they drew over them again when they dug them up? ;-]]]]]]]

oh, and please see what is said in the 'conclusion'... ["...much further back in the mists of time..."] ;-]

Jun 16, 2014
Lots and lots of claptrap in that link you gave. There is nothing logical about this page's portrayal of the inscription. I have looked at really good photos of this inscription, from multiple sources.

Yes, I will state that the Abydos inscription in question has been rewritten once, and the previous inscription remnants were filled in with plaster by the usurper of the inscription. However, contrary to your view, most of the plaster has fallen completely out, leaving pretty much just the stonework. I see only two inscriptions interposed.

Both inscriptions are ancient and neither are from the Pleistocene. Both persons named in the mixed inscription are known historical persons. There is no mystery about the inscription.

Plus, there are other inscriptions at Abydos that also help to put the lie to the flying machine shown in inscription hypothesis. There is zero evidence that those who found the inscription themselves did anything to the inscription at Abydos. It is as they found it.

Jun 16, 2014
Here is a photo of another part of the Abydos temple containing the Nebty name of Seti I:

http://www.mdw-nt...bows.jpg

Compare carefully the characters in the inscription with the ones shown in the above linked inscription. You can see the remnants of the bowstring form what looks like the "helicopter blades" in the Abydos inscription religionists like yourself like to point to in order to give evidence of Egyptian flying machines. Please remember that denial isn't a river in Egypt.

Jun 16, 2014
I would think denial would be believing a mountain range existed where there was no mechanism and no available tangible evidence.

denial would be accepting that all these structures and all these events just happened with no answer as to how, when and why-
"Re-carving of the inscriptions was a common phenomenon in ancient Egypt..."
because it was all lost and refound!

what about Karnak and the temple ofAmon-Ra?:
http://www.ask-al...nak.html
http://www.lightf...t-battle
there is more than just one example...

really a plethora of links describing ancient flight and all the obvious building technology that no one can seem to understand- because there was advanced intelligence!
What other possibility?

every detail backs the hypothesis that there was a major catastrophe to destroy all this knowledge.
Is it difficult to accept that there were [more] advanced civilizations prior to this one?


Jun 16, 2014
The trouble with your belief about the Egyptian temple at Abydos is most problematic because both inscriptions, original and usurped were from historical times. Two known historical personalities built the temple containing the Abydos inscription. It was started by Seti I and finished by Ramesses II. Both of their names are stated as being involved. Ramesses II usurped the inscription debated because he finished the work and the temple.

Neither of these persons dates to the Pleistocene. Period. Only claptrap religionists would believe that that temple was constructed during the Pleistocene or that it really does depict flying machines when the mechanism for usurping inscriptions is known and the two individuals in the inscription both are known.

Karnak's Temple of Amon-Ra also was built in historical times. The names of the builders of elements therein were all historical persons. That last site was really funny with flying pyramids depicted. Claptrap. Show me the Karnak inscription.

Jun 16, 2014
As to denial about mountain ranges and no tangible evidence, that is entirely untrue. The remains of the ancient mountains are right there, and the mechanism is known. That is why Plate tectonics are considered Theory and your hypotheses will never leave hypothetical and become theoretical.

In point of fact, we can observe the forces that make mountains at work today by monitoring the movements of tectonic plates using GIS, GPS, and other modern technologies.

We also can replicate the processes involved both with computer and with practical models. The evidence of Pangaea is there, and that the positioning of the plates into that configuration would have created mountain ranges at several crucial points, the remnants of one mountain range surviving to the present in the Appalachians and Ouachita mountains.

The Indian plate still is pressing into and subducting under the Eurasian plate, causing the Himalayas to grow around 6.1 cm every year. You're the one in denial; not me.

Jun 17, 2014
So, Kalopin, why doesn't the Moon have a retrograde rotation? It would have if your hypothesis of a moon impact had any validity. The standard models, on the other hand, fully explain and account for the Moon's 1:1 tidal locking and current prograde orbit.

What is more, I ran a few examples on the Purdue "Impact:Earth!" site and found no scenario wherein humankind could survive either the shockwave or the starvation from the trees being stripped to the trunks (vegetation would be ripped from ground). Even from 20,000 km away, the winds resulting from the shock wave from a moon-sized impactor at even 1 degree inclination to ground would exceed a maximum wind velocity of 9,000 mph. Serious land slides would have resulted all over that would have covered and suffocated to death humans hiding in caves, never mind the numbers of humans sandblasted to death on the surface. We would not be here to debate this.

Play around with the scenarios yourself at: http://www.purdue...ctearth/

Jun 17, 2014
Play around with the scenarios yourself at: http://www.purdue...ctearth/
@Skepticus_Rex
cool page. thanks for that link
really a plethora of links describing ancient flight and all the obvious building technology
@Kookoo
and just because there is a link on-line does NOT mean it is legitimate, nor does it mean proof. in fact, unless it has empirical data, it is worth the same as used toilet paper as evidence... case in point: if you search for "proof of fairy turds" on google https://www.googl...7t7pC8a8
you get
About 4,650,000 results (0.30 seconds)
this is NO WAY proves that there are fairies, fairy turds or anything like it, only that someone is willing to write about it.

you've provided ZERO evidence
Skepticus has DEBUNKED you
SCIENCE WINS
you lose

Jun 17, 2014
How would you or anyone know the amount of spin, reverse or forward, of the Moon 13k yrs ago? It was probably still spinning somewhat in the oppositie direction as it impacted!

the 'impact site' is nice but badly flawed in not taking in to consideration all the variables.
the amount of links is proof to how much this has been discussed.
there is zero evidence for mountains lining the gulf coast...

as there are many aspects yet to discuss, there is one more that is important, then I MAY leave you to study a while;
this may also be difficult for some to fatham-
the technology we have today- almost every single bit was derived from studying the pyramids and temples and these depictions and writings. DeVinci, the Vril, Tesla, Einstein, Edison, Bell, Leedskalnin,... all had studied the designs and technologies of the ancients and they, in turn, received this knowledge from their predecessors. This goes back many millions years...

well, did you really believe that we were the first? ;-]

Jun 17, 2014
Prograde rotation is the expected direction for the Moon. Retrograde rotation is what would have resulted had the Moon survived entry into the Roche limit multiple times. The Earth is rotating in a prograde rotation, or anti-clockwise. The rotation velocity of the Earth at the equator is 1,070 mph. If the Moon hit the Earth and skidded across the Earth for 2,400-plus miles, the friction would have reversed the rotation direction of the Moon to retrograde, or clockwise. The Moon, however, is spinning prograde, as the standard models dictate it should.

Please do be specific and detailed as to which variables are not covered on the Impact site.

I would love for the Egyptians to have had technologies like those we use today but there is zero evidence for any of it, just crank info written by those who don't know better and can't read Egyptian.

There is evidence in the geology of the region. Study it in legitimate detail.

So, where is the Karnak inscription I asked you to show to me?

Jun 17, 2014
So, where is the Karnak inscription I asked you to show to me?
@Skepticus_Rex
better yet... ask him to explain THIS
the technology we have today- almost every single bit was derived from studying the pyramids and temples and these depictions and writings
I mean... WOW!
WHY, given the level of technology Kaplop claims, we have uncovered none of it (I am sure he will have some excuse... maybe the ninja-sky-fairie-aliens from alpha centauri took it all home with them, and not one single little TV remote or motherboard was missed...) I mean, the desert has kept hemp ropes from the Egyptian boat-building efforts of their day... why not more important tech?
If the tech had been around that long ago, there would be SOME evidence http://www.academ...p._40-43
but I think he is a few million ants short of a picnic...

Jun 17, 2014