Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Thanks, I already ate at McD's

 

Oh ?

 

They have a new menu with rat on it  ?

 

 

 

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsz70aQ39f2nZsrIQGtwJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lost in Translation said:

I still can't tell the difference between a "Sweet Potato" and a "Yam." I think the guy at Whole Foods is pulling my leg.

 

Probably he is .

 

You do it by asking them  "What are you ?"  A sweet potato , being a simpler vegie will respond  " a sweet potato '

 

But a yam, being more  deeper will respond   "  I  yam what I yam   "  .

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nungali said:

a yam, being more  deeper will respond   "  I  yam what I yam   "  .

 

Must... resist... urge...

 

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Oh ?

 

They have a new menu with rat on it  ?

 

 

 

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsz70aQ39f2nZsrIQGtwJ

Actually those look pretty goodn meaty.. But , I got a Publix rotisserie chicken n finished cooking it , and that was nice and easy, so I think I will incorporate those instead. I'm tired of cutting my own up and having the remnants in the garbage disposal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must... resist... urge...

 

 

 

 

ratatouille-MED106010_0_horiz.jpg?itok=X

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

posting youtubes with no text now are we    :) 

 

 

-  better hide the 'Irish language '  ...

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nungali said:

posting youtubes with no text now are we    :) 

 

 

-  better hide the 'Irish language '  ...

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D   

 

mea culpa.  I was chatting to Michael and Hancocks new book came up - so I posted it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Publisher Advertising agent are you ?

 

The lies / false info start in the first sentence of that vid !

 

 " Nth America peopled 130,000 years ago -  this is 10s of 1000s of years before human settlements  where established in Europe and Asia."

 

" Prehistoric humans ‚ÄĒ perhaps Neanderthals or another lost species ‚ÄĒ occupied what is now California some 130,000 years ago, a team of scientists reported on Wednesday. "

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/science/prehistoric-humans-north-america-california-nature-study.html

 

Prehistoric humans - perhaps Neanderthals , have been living in Europe and Asia long before that !   Neanderthals been around, at the latest , 50,000 years before  that date .

 

AND  Handcock is comparing   ' north America being peopled ' with  " human settlement in Europe and Asia  "

 

Chalk and cheese !  This is how he scams the ignorant or the  careless reader . I can destroy each of his points one by one . But I rarely bother any more .

 

I will address the Australian Aboriginal genetic link though, as scammers keep using this and its misinterpretation , or lack of any interpretation or explanation , as some type of proof of some type of theory .   If people understood how genetics work, they wouldnt get sucked in. And Handcock knows that. They are they people he harvests money from.

 

Common genetics means people where once  genetically associated through  past  ancestors.  And then different descendent travelled in different directions and became other more finely adapted people to that area they ended up in.  It doesnt mean Aboriginals went to Sth America or a world civilisation or anything like that .

 

Indian Nationalist party says Aboriginals came from India as there are some similar genetics with some groups in India . of course there is !  They are descendants of Australoids in India and Aussi Aboriginals are the  Australoids that went to Australia . This info was used in the past to show that, at some stage, Indians migrated to Australia , which has now shown to be not the case . Even the dingo indian dog theory has been shown to be false .

 

These genetic findings DO NOT indicate what Handcock is touting, thay are about how many different groups came into a country and what makes up its genetic range of peoples .

 

" The DNA that links these groups had to come from somewhere. Because the groups have about as much in common with Australians as they do with New Guineans, the researchers think that they all share a common ancestor that lived tens of thousands of years ago in Asia but that doesn‚Äôt otherwise persist today. One branch of this family tree moved north to Siberia, while the other spread south to New Guinea and Australia. The northern branch likely migrated across the land bridge in a separate surge from the Eurasian founders. The researchers have dubbed this hypothetical second group ‚ÄúPopulation y‚ÄĚ for ypyku√©ra, or ‚Äúancestor‚ÄĚ in Tupi, a language spoken by the Suru√≠ and Karitiana. "

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nungali said:

 Publisher Advertising agent are you ?

 

The lies / false info start in the first sentence of that vid !

 

 " Nth America peopled 130,000 years ago -  this is 10s of 1000s of years before human settlements  where established in Europe and Asia."

 

" Prehistoric humans ‚ÄĒ perhaps Neanderthals or another lost species ‚ÄĒ occupied what is now California some 130,000 years ago, a team of scientists reported on Wednesday. "

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/science/prehistoric-humans-north-america-california-nature-study.html

 

Prehistoric humans - perhaps Neanderthals , have been living in Europe and Asia long before that !   Neanderthals been around, at the latest , 50,000 years before  that date .

 

AND  Handcock is comparing   ' north America being peopled ' with  " human settlement in Europe and Asia  "

 

Chalk and cheese !  This is how he scams the ignorant or the  careless reader . I can destroy each of his points one by one . But I rarely bother any more .

 

I will address the Australian Aboriginal genetic link though, as scammers keep using this and its misinterpretation , or lack of any interpretation or explanation , as some type of proof of some type of theory .   If people understood how genetics work, they wouldnt get sucked in. And Handcock knows that. They are they people he harvests money from.

 

Common genetics means people where once  genetically associated through  past  ancestors.  And then different descendent travelled in different directions and became other more finely adapted people to that area they ended up in.  It doesnt mean Aboriginals went to Sth America or a world civilisation or anything like that .

 

Indian Nationalist party says Aboriginals came from India as there are some similar genetics with some groups in India . of course there is !  They are descendants of Australoids in India and Aussi Aboriginals are the  Australoids that went to Australia . This info was used in the past to show that, at some stage, Indians migrated to Australia , which has now shown to be not the case . Even the dingo indian dog theory has been shown to be false .

 

These genetic findings DO NOT indicate what Handcock is touting, thay are about how many different groups came into a country and what makes up its genetic range of peoples .

 

" The DNA that links these groups had to come from somewhere. Because the groups have about as much in common with Australians as they do with New Guineans, the researchers think that they all share a common ancestor that lived tens of thousands of years ago in Asia but that doesn‚Äôt otherwise persist today. One branch of this family tree moved north to Siberia, while the other spread south to New Guinea and Australia. The northern branch likely migrated across the land bridge in a separate surge from the Eurasian founders. The researchers have dubbed this hypothetical second group ‚ÄúPopulation y‚ÄĚ for ypyku√©ra, or ‚Äúancestor‚ÄĚ in Tupi, a language spoken by the Suru√≠ and Karitiana. "

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

 

 

 

I enjoy Hancock for the same reason you seem to loathe him.  Although I do recall throwing Fingerprints of the Gods across the room in exasperation.  But I'll still watch him on Rogan when he appears.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loathe him  !  ? 

 

Just because I have his face on a dart board  .... 

 

 

... I still waiting to see how this  ice age and Atlantis thing fits together .

 

Although I did see stuff on tv the other night about a secret location, a big pyramid, a mix of ancient  cultures coming from a primal original one, an ice  environment  (under the ice) ,  and its discovery .

 

I nearly never watch stuff like this, so I have not seen it before .   Due to this thread I watched  it  ....  it even had a neat little logo ;

 

 

162941_avp_256x256.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently I am looking at the Bahama Archipelago as a possible location for Atlantis. We know that the so-called Bahama Mega-Bank was an exposed land mass larger than Florida prior to the end of the last glacial epoch. This article describes the dramatic events that came to pass about 12.000 years ago:

 

https://www.newsmaker.com.au/news/5646/ice-age-megaflood-shaped-bahamas#.XJva49-1K2d

 

Besides what looks like a submerged street off the shore of Bimini (well-known to anybody with a basic knowledge of our subject), also a number of other possibly man-made structures have been sighted underwater in the area. See Andrew Collins' Atlantis in the Carribean for more on this and check out the following link:

 

https://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/article/ice-age-civilization-in-the-bahamas/

 

An advantage of supposing this region to be the location of Atlantis: We don't need to invoke any fringe geology. We already know for sure that a large land mass has been covered by the sea there right around the time suggested by Plato.

 

Moreover, this rise of local sea-level did not happen gradually over a long period of time, but in a singular cataclysmic event (see first article linked above). So again reminiscent of Plato's narrative.

 

Numerous species of animals became extinct in the Bahamas at that time. This scholarly study provides detailed information:

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/44/E5963.full.pdf&hl=en&sa=T&oi=ucasa&ct=ufr&ei=a-ybXPjAGca1mAGzubMg&scisig=AAGBfm05jQ3zYjXRY24WcglIGUrhcQOAcg

 

Drawback of our hypothesis: Despite its impressive size, the Bahama Mega-Bank is yet  considerably smaller than the Atlantic Island as described by Plato. If it is in fact identical with the latter, either the information regarding its enormous size was exaggerated somewhere on the way of transmission, or (as Donnelly suggested) we need to read it as including the whole territory that once belonged to the Atlantean empire.

 

Then again, Plato seems to describe coconut trees as part of the vegetation of Atlantis, which supports a location fairly close to the equator. In fact,  he mentions that the island possessed all kinds of natural riches, again suggesting at least a subtropical place. in previous posts, we have already encountered examples of such locations that were neither significantly colder than today during the ice age, nor were they subject to the erratic climatic fluctuations that affected most other areas.

 

Last but not least, the West Indies are remnant isles of what used to be Atlantis also in the vision of Edgar Cayce.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem to fit a large portion of Plato's descriptions , as I posted earlier .   Outside the 'pillars', in the Atlantic ,  islands with a continent behind it .

 

Also its the fav Cayce  spot   ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is also an interesting read  on the flood/s effects on the Caribbean

 

https://old.world-mysteries.com/mpl_10_atlantis_asmith.htm

 

It might be the 'paper' sited in above  link  ?    On this site ^  it gives a link to  " JUST THE SCIENCE http://www.losthistorypublishing.com/Catastrophy.html  "  ...   doesnt work      ? 

 

Is this  ' World Mysteries.com'  Amy Smith article what you have been reading Michael ?

 

 

I found   A   paper on it

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMEP51E..02W

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nungali said:

Found this    (  but the link to the 'paper' doesn't work for me  )  ;

 

https://repeatingislands.com/2010/10/21/ice-age-megaflood-shaped-bahamas/

 

 

 

Well, following the first link in my previous post will take you to another version of the same article (posted on an Aussie website). But the 'paper' seems to be no longer retrievable even with the help of Google Scholar etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Well, following the first link in my previous post will take you to another version of the same article (posted on an Aussie website). But the 'paper' seems to be no longer retrievable even with the help of Google Scholar etc.

 

This could be it

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMEP51E..02W

 

Cant seem t get more than an extract though  ?

 

This seems to be the guy on it '

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Cq8vqR8AAAAJ&hl=en

 

' Characterizing Deep-Marine Sediment Waves in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Using 3D Seismic Data '

&

 

Evidence for late Pliocene deglacial megafloods in the Gulf of Mexico

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Nungali said:

This is also an interesting read  on the flood/s effects on the Caribbean

 

https://old.world-mysteries.com/mpl_10_atlantis_asmith.htm

 

This is awesome! Good job, mate. :)

 

One critical comment, though... Amy Smith advocates a hypothesis that a sudden shift of the tilt of the Earth axis relocated the glacial ice sheet of North America into a more temperate zone and thus led to its sudden melting.

 

Well, there is no mention of when Smith's article was published, but in 2007 Firestone et al published their groundbreaking paper (no pun intended!) on the supposed impact of a comet on the arctic sheet around 10.900 BC:

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full

 

A hypothesis that found strong support by last year's discovery of a 19 miles wide impact crater beneath Greenland's ice layer:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/14/impact-crater-19-miles-wide-found-beneath-greenland-glacier

 

According to Firestone (as quoted in my February 17 post), the impact (actually, more likely a series of impacts over several days by the comet's fragments) led to a dramatic glacier meltdown with consequences right of the kind Smith describes so vividly in her article.

 

While this to be more plausible explanation than a shifting of the Earth axis as suggested by Smith, testimonies of the latter may indeed have come down to us via certain myths talking about "the stars suddenly changing their position" etc. Also, says Smith, that event drew Russian Sibera right up into the frigid zone - and yes, the shock-frozen Mammoths found there (with Summer flowers in their stomachs) require an explanation!

 

There are even people going as far as stating that the comet's impact may have been directly linked to a supposed axis tilt.

 

Some good links on all that can be found in Smith's article. However, we may want to come back to this particular topic when we are going to look at Hyperborea in another thread I am intending to start in the near future.

 

Whatever may have triggered it, glacier melting and consequent dramatic flooding of the kind discussed in Smith's article is well evidenced anyway. With her own words:

 

Quote

As the onrushing water ripped away at the land between Cuba and Yucatan, hundreds of trillions of metric tons of water poured through and hit the lower Caribbean land mass with the force of an explosion. Everything in the path of this unstoppable force was snatched from its foundations and was ground into a mass of liquid land and carried out into the Atlantic Ocean or piled up on the southern side of the Caribbean Basin.

 

Didn't Plato say that the sea became hard to navigate where Atlantis had vanished because of all the mud there?

 

Smith adds:

 

Quote

Cuba and the other Carribean Islands of today are but the leftover pieces of the Caribbean Basin that this Ice Age Caribbean Mega Flood could not dissolve.

 

If Smith is correct, it may be difficult to get an exact idea of the extent of the land mass that once comprised Atlantis, because so much land was swept away by the onrushing water.

 

At any rate, Smith's hypothesis seems right in line with Proclus' Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, which we may read as stating that the Greater Antilles being remnants of Atlantis (see my second February 24 post).

 

That being said, the now largely submerged Bahama Archipelago is another good candidate. The following is a picture of the Bahamas from NASA on Wikimedia Commons. The light blue shallow water zone is congruent with the carbonate shelf that was exposed during the Last Glacial Maximum!

 

480px-Bahamas_2009.jpg.b0425fcb74e0fa0fa41715156da4dae2.jpg

 

 

Quote

It might be the 'paper' sited in above  link  ?    On this site ^  it gives a link to  " JUST THE SCIENCE http://www.losthistorypublishing.com/Catastrophy.html  "  ...   doesnt work      ? 

 

Is this  ' World Mysteries.com'  Amy Smith article what you have been reading Michael ?

 

 

I found   A   paper on it

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMEP51E..02W

 

That paper talks about megafloods in the Gulf of Mexico at the end of the Pliocene though, while Smith is looking at the later Pleistocene-Holocene transition. That said, the paper may be relevant insofar similar occurrences must have come to pass at both of those times.

Edited by Michael Sternbach
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading a longer pdf on mega floods all over the earth and comparing them to the Mars landscape.  The author thinks Mars landscape  doesn't just show past water presence and erosion but evidence of super mega flood erosion.  Interesting theory. .

 

What stuck me was the   amount of water released over such a short period of time.  The author talks about so much fresh cold water being dumped in the ocean in such a short period, the flood swept out into the ocean, down off the continental shelf and then uprising in the ocean  to such an extent that it disrupted the main ocean current and bought about a mini ice age / 'younger dryas' . 

 

Thats a LOT of water !

 

Interesting stuff !    Jökulhlaups or Eyjafjallajökull ?

 

:)

 

here is a 'small '  one ;

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This lists a ton of data and info  and the links to research work well. It also dates several events of flooding into the Gulf of Mexico  ...  so, take your pick for the best date   :) 

 

 

" A succession of five principal meltwater events consisting of single or clustered superfloods of variable duration and magnitude and separated by four pauses are clearly discerned in the LOUIS record between 16 and 8.9 ka. Four of these MWF events reached maxima at 14.9, 13.4, 12.6 and 11.9 ka; the last MWF event in the Gulf of Mexico occurred immediately after the Younger Dryas pause and consists of four individual floods centered at 9.9, 9.7, 9.4 and 9.1 ka.¬† ...¬† MWF‚Äź2 and MWF‚Äź4 reached unprecedented proportions ... No meltwater outflows occurred in the Gulf of Mexico after 8.9 ka¬† "

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002PA000840

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Another mystery is how they arrived at Luzon, a large island that has never been connected to the mainland by a land bridge. One possibility is that the early humans set out to sea intentionally on some form of raft; another is that they were washed there in relatively large numbers due to a natural event such as a tsunami.

 
 
 

‚ÄúArrival by accident ‚Ķ is favoured by many scholars, but this is mainly because of arguments like¬†‚ÄėHomo erectus¬†were not clever enough to cross the sea on purpose‚Äô,‚ÄĚ said D√©troit. ‚ÄúBut the fact is that we have now¬†more and more evidence¬†that they successfully settled on several islands in the remote past in south-east Asia, so it was probably not so accidental.‚ÄĚ

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/10/new-species-of-ancient-human-homo-luzonensis-discovered-in-philippines-cave

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites