ABC news ? Wiki ? are you kidding …
Patrick Geryl has theories on 2012 based on a far superior knowledge of science know by the Mayans & egyptians..
The ignorance of thinking we know more now than they did is lain stupidity..
next you'll be claiming that over unity motors do not exist, yet the one i built works using Radiant energy Tesla was talking of decades ago !! The universe is ELECTRIC , plasma is the best conductor, your equations dont take any electromagnetic phenomena into account.. if Patrick is right about the message from the past then he may be wrong about the science.
aetha way something is changing on a massive scale !
Of course, silly me - the only reason we sent man to the Moon was due to Egyptian space technology and Mayan concepts of gravity…
Regardless of whether or not you think ancient humans knew more than us mere modern humans, the claims Geryl has made and continue to make are wrong, and demonstrably so.
Except there's no hard evidence for this so-called knowledge. None. At all. Here, let me play the same game Geryl does with you.
Let's look at some ancient egyptian text that neither you nor I can read. I will then claim that it proclaims that I will become a God in 2012. You immediately believe me because I am automatically right, since you can't read it.
Next, I read from a Mayan codex and claim it says much the same thing, worded slightly different. You are now entirely convinced.
And now, here's the kicker: I had no idea what I was reading and just pulled crap out of my ass.
So now while the Mayan's have had some advanced (I hate this term, they weren't advanced at all) astronomical capabilities for their day and age, to say they were far superior to our modern-day science, as well as the egyptians being superior, is ludicrous.
Please, read ALL of the Mayan History and not the BS Geryl claims is truth. You know, the stuff where the Earth is carried on the back of a frog. Sacrificing virgins and drinking blood to appease their gods? The stuff the modern-day Mayans kind of cringe over?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Geryl totally speaks to modern-day Mayans about their heritage. Yeah. They're >really< sick and tired of claims like his. No, seriously. Go ask them. When they're done face-palming due to your questions, you'll get a pat on the back and told to go away and enjoy New Years 2013.
But, hey. Who am I to say I know what I'm talking about? Either believe the modern-day Mayans, or believe Geryl. Believe the ACTUAL PEOPLE or believe the GUY THAT IS CALLED A NUT.
And now, I touch on something you said about an overunity motor and Radiant Energy. Okay, let's describe these things.
1) Radiant Energy has been given so many names that it's obnoxious at this point. To dumb it down the basics, the process of harnessing Radiant Energy is through heat.
2) An overunity motor runs off heat, thus effectively 'heat'.
Now, the fact you mentioned Tesla is what makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about. Tesla himself knew what 'Radiant Energy' was and wasn't after experimenting with it. To call it any type of 'universal' or, aether, energy would be what he was sad to discover was not the fact.
But regardless to all this, how do you know for a fact that all of the scientists that debunk Geryl's claims do NOT account for electromagnetic phenomena, that you use as an excuse? No, seriously, give me proof that every scientist in the world that calls Geryl a pseudoscientist, and that's being generous, has not taken into account everything he claims.
Oh, and I call bull on any relation of the Egyptians and 2012 via Scott Creighton. In fact, Geryl's so obsessed with being right that he uses Scott's own BADLY CITED… wait, he doesn't cite ANY of his information… regardless, Scott's own bogus translation of the Giza pyramids to 'prove his case'. And yet every other historian of legitimate standing goes "WTF?"
and I spit on Geryl's expedition for such. You can read ANYTHING as ANYTHING you want if you REALLY try. It's STUPID.
So, yeah. Whatever man.
No it's more along the lines of the Ignorance of people thinking the Mayans no any more about doomsday and when it would be then we did is utterly ridiculous. As Moo pointed out The Mayans don't even believe that 2012 is the end of anything so that blows that whole ship out of the water. Also after seeing a video on Patrick Geryl it seems like this guy isn't all that sane so how could he possibly know that that is going to happen.
plasma cosmology is at best a fringe theory. It is not accepted by the vast majority of cosmologists.
It is also not applicable to this website, as we are here to discuss 2012. If you have to 'prove' 2012 by resorting to plasma cosmology, you are in a lot of trouble already.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
wow congrats. youve managed to prove geryl's theories wrong with…..more theories?
the concept of quantum mechanics alone makes all those numbers you just spit out meaningless.
we are constantly rediscovering reality, and to believe this is as good as its ever been is ridiculous.
yes they sacrificed people, and here we are murdering no less than 1.5 million innocent iraqis.
they undoubtedly knew the stars better than we do today.
geryl makes no false claims about his education.
he did however predict things that almost noone else did.
they called him a 'crazy' then and here you are now wasting your time debunking this crap with more crap.
show us some PROOF that hes wrong or shut the hell up.
Show us some PROOF that he's right or shut the hell up.
No, seriously. Don't show me his math. Don't show me his books. Don't show me any of that crap. Give me hard, physical evidence. No, don't give me questionable crap used in other theories, because I WILL just turn it right back around on you to prove you wrong and prove me right.
Show me right now that his theory that a freaking Solar Flare can catch the 'magnetic poles' of the Earth and flip it over and cause global devastation. Where is the proof of this? The physical evidence suggesting this event is possible. Don't give me his math or his work, because I will laugh at you and laugh at you hard.
There is physical evidence supporting the claims AGAINST Geryl's claims. You can't deny this. Don't even try. Don't EVEN give me that "Fake, Corrupted Physics!" crap either. I will find a way to break the laws of this universe to reach through this monitor and drag you out from your end.
The fact here stands. Geryl is making outrageous claims with outrageous math and outrageous theories. He has no physical evidence to support his claims.
The legitimate scientists and such field experts who call him a quack DO have physical evidence and the beautiful Laws of Physics to support them. Geryl DOES go against these laws.
With out a doubt, you will likely say that our Laws of Physics are not set in stone, just to back Geryl up. The problem is, you can't PROVE they're wrong because they've proven over the generations they're RIGHT!
So, who the hell are YOU going to believe? The man who is honestly trying to convince people that the magnetic poles of the earth can be grabbed and thrown around, an event that for millions of years has no shred of physical evidence of being remotely possible?
Or the people who are presenting the facts on how the observed nature of both the ancient history of our planet, and the modern information of how the Earth and the Sun interact work?
Whatever. True believers bore the shit out of me. So, I say it again.
Show us some PROOF that he's right or shut the hell up.
wow congrats. youve managed to prove geryl's theories wrong with…..more theories?
No.
Geryl's ideas (I refuse to honor them with the word 'theory') are wrong because they contradict the facts.
the concept of quantum mechanics alone makes all those numbers you just spit out meaningless.
That is complete and utter nonsense. Quantum mechanics describes interactions at very small scales. But please, inform us on how quantum mechanics can overcome the simple newtonian physics we have described above. There are physicists who read these comments, so don't be afraid to delve into the advanced math. I assume you know LaTeX notation?
we are constantly rediscovering reality, and to believe this is as good as its ever been is ridiculous.
Interesting. How does this well known fact1 contradict what we say above? How does it help Geryl's case? We should believe Geryl is right because…. ?
yes they sacrificed people, and here we are murdering no less than 1.5 million innocent iraqis.
First of all, we don't mention in this page that the Maya sacrificed people. That was a comment by another poster, so that is a straw-man argument to begin with. Second, Moo did not say that Geryl is wrong because the Maya sacrificed people, he says that Geryl is incorrect about the Maya, and that he glosses over the pieces of their history that contradict Geryl's ethnocentric vision of the ancient Maya as descended from a technologically advanced people.
they undoubtedly knew the stars better than we do today.
On what basis do you draw that amazing conclusion? Show me an ancient Mayan telescope, and you might have a case.
geryl makes no false claims about his education.
So?
he did however predict things that almost noone else did.
So he says… after the fact.
they called him a 'crazy' then and here you are now wasting your time debunking this crap with more crap.
I agree with you that Geryl's ideas are crap.
show us some PROOF that hes wrong or shut the hell up.
Did you read the page? In particular did you read and understand the section titled "Problems with Geryl's ideas"?
Simply invoking 'quantum mechanics' is not addressing the arguments we make against Geryl's claim. It is just hand-waving.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
The universe is ELECTRIC
This claim only shows that you have no clue about electricity or charge or you will be ashamed to even think this to be true.
What do you even mean? If you believe Geryl, then where will you hide?
Are you familiar with esoteric numerology? That's how he and his buddy "decode" everything. If you're a scientist like you pretend to be, you should be put off by it.
http://historia-antigua.com/egipto/albert-slosman/
This is a review in Spanish of much of Albert Slosmans work on Egyptology. Geryl practically takes everything on his knowledge of Egypt from this guy. The page is in Spanish, but can be easily translated via Google Translate.
I'll work on an English Version later this Month. If you can read Spanish, go for it and let me know what you think.
Is it true that Alber Slosmans books were written for entertainment purposes? Is it science fiction, or was he writing non-fiction?
Is he correct in his conclusions about the ancient egyptians?
If I google his name, all I get is loads of 2012 websites saying that his books are the truth and it proves all of Geryl's claims correct. Does anyone know anything else about this guy?
I did some research on the subject before, and if I recall correctly the books are either bogus in their claims (It's easy to fake what something translates into!), or they are strictly fiction.
I really can't find this information again, but it honestly seems Albert Slosman's books are just slogged down by this 2012 crap. If his books were so groundbreaking in translating something so major like Giza Pyramid or Book of the Dead stuff or whatever the hell people claim they do… why are they pretty much unknown outside of a few insane 2012 conspiracy theories?
The information of the books has, iirc, been debunked anyway into being bogus. Of course some people may claim our astrological knowledge fails to the Ancient Egyptians (And Maya!) and thus our space-movement projection programs are inaccurate and flawed and BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!
Fake books.
I think it was meant to be non-fiction, but it's impossible to know because he died in 1982.
Geoff Stray, who reviewed Geryl's Orion Prophecy, found that Geryl had made gross mis-translations. Here is the link:
http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/orp.htm
Pretty much that. The 2012 and astrological connections with the Egyptians are pretty much phony at that. As for the Book of the Dead and recounting cataclysms… I call BS. The Book of the Dead was not designed as such. People claiming it has 'secret codes' about 'cataclysms' are either full of it, or have their own unique way to decode ancient Egyptian.
Like Geryl and his unique numerology to prove his theories!
Raise the Bullshit Flag, people.
Can you look at this and review Geryl's claims again? He explains his claims in a lot of detail here.
What exactly happened in 9792 BC? I didn't even know there was a mass extinction then, but as it turns out…everyone is using this time for proof that the Egyptians can predict it and that they were able to predict when it would happen again. Reading his claims in this article, they kind of sparked my fears of him again thinking that he found something that we may have all missed?
Everything in that article, including the rehash of Geryl's ridiculous claims, has been addressed on this website and forum.
Reading his claims in this article
Which ones? There's nothing new.
“Recently this phenomenon has been observed and confirmed in several suns. During several hours and days they exhibited an explosive activity, after which they returned to their normal state. Astronomers were wondering if this were one-time event or if it could occur more often. They can be sure it will occur again! Our sun is also showing this kind of pattern."
“In his book "The Orion Mystery", Bauval proved that the pyramids were built according to the Orion constellation of 12,000 years ago. Together with Gino Ratinckx and with the help of a recently developed astronomical software program, I could prove that the construction of the pyramids is related to the precession of the Orion constellation in 9792 BC, the year of the previous catastrophe."
“In those times the Sphinx was looking at its celestial counterpart. As you know from my previous book, the last pole reversal took place in the age of the Lion. Therefore we are here confronted with a sky-earth dualism, a serious warning about what happened then and what is awaiting us now. Even worse, the precession of those days is identical to the one of 2012, the year of the next pole reversal."
“This is not the only similarity. Venus meant everything for the Maya. Just like it did in 9792 BC, Venus will make in 2012 a perfect circular retrograde loop above the Orion constellation behind Gemini. In the Egyptian Book of the Dead this code is denoted as the movement that anticipates the end.”
Ok those are some of the paragraphs that worried me. I think I worry most about how he relates refers to ancient texts and sculptures to 'prove' his claims. But I am actually curious as to what happened in 9792 BC that makes him believe it was both predicted or known to ancient egypt and the mayans, how he deciphered ancient texts to come to the conclusion that they new the sun spot cycle, how he believes that the magnetic field will be overloaded… It worries me sometimes that skeptics are too skeptical and could miss something like this. I don't know if thats a realistic worry or not…
Hi Tony,
All those paragraphs are is one claim piled on top of another. Articles like the one you linked will reduce a person to running around in circles, too afraid of his own shadow to function, unless he starts insisting that the claimants answer questions like these:
1. Here is a set of diagrams showing the five types of paths that Venus follows through the sky. Which of them shows a perfectly circular loop?
2. How did the authors manage to date the catastrophe so precisely? (i.e., to one year out of almost 12,000)
3. What values did Gino Ratinckx and the author use for precession rates? They vary considerably with time. Has the astronomical program they used been validated by comparison with others, and with historical data? In other words, how accurately do they know whether the claimed alignments actually occurred on given certain date, 12,000 years ago?
4. What, exactly, do they mean by "the precession of those days is identical to the one of 2012 …"? Where's their evidence?
Regarding the first question, the ancient Maya were positively obsessed with recording Venus's path through the sky, and therefore would have been the first to laugh in the face of anyone who claimed that Venus will follow a perfectly circular loop in 2012.
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
Recently this phenomenon has been observed and confirmed in several suns.
Not in stars like our Sun. Most of the violent eruptions seen in other stars occur between close-proximity binary systems, like II Pegasi. I'm not aware of any stars of similar mass and size and circumstances to our Sun that have been observed producing such "killer" activity.
Astronomers were wondering if this were one-time event or if it could occur more often.
Which astronomers?
They can be sure it will occur again! Our sun is also showing this kind of pattern.
No, it isn't.
“In his book "The Orion Mystery", Bauval proved that the pyramids were built according to the Orion constellation of 12,000 years ago.
Robert Bauval is not an archaeologist, and just about everything he proposes about the ancient Egyptians is dismissed as crap by actual historians and archaeologists.
9792 BC, the year of the previous catastrophe.
There's no evidence that any such catastrophe happened. It seems the most common claims are:
- a worldwide flood, which is impossible without invoking magic;
- a magnetic pole shift, which last occurred about 780,000 years ago, not in 9792 BCE;
- a rotational pole shift, which is impossible.
Trying to Google that particular date produces nothing but a string of woo websites referencing one another.
As you know from my previous book, the last pole reversal took place in the age of the Lion.
And, as usual, his book was completely wrong.
Therefore we are here confronted with a sky-earth dualism, a serious warning about what happened then and what is awaiting us now. Even worse, the precession of those days is identical to the one of 2012, the year of the next pole reversal.
There was no pole reversal in 9792. There will be no pole reversal in 2012, because pole reversals don't just happen. They take hundreds to thousands of years. Even if one did just happen, the worst we'd see is our navigation equipment pointing south instead of north. There's no reason to expect such an event in the near future, and there's no reason to think they're dangerous.
This is not the only similarity. Venus meant everything for the Maya. Just like it did in 9792 BC, Venus will make in 2012 a perfect circular retrograde loop above the Orion constellation behind Gemini. In the Egyptian Book of the Dead this code is denoted as the movement that anticipates the end.
Here is Venusian motion as it appeared in 9792 BCE:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a97/insanebluejay/Venus_9792BC.jpg
Here is Venusian motion as it will appear in 2012 CE:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a97/insanebluejay/Venus_2012.jpg
I'll leave it to you to determine whether you think the motion in 2012 will be "just like" the motion in 9792 BCE.
If the Egyptian Book of the Dead makes a "code" of Venusian movement in 9792 BCE to "denote the end," it obviously will have nothing to do with 2012.
Even if these two paths were identical, it would be completely irrelevant. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood or pole shift in 9792 BCE, so this house of cards can't stand under its own weight. Geryl is just trying to make you think he has something important to say, when he actually has nothing to say that isn't b.s., and he's making a living at it.
Why do you persist with reading such garbage?
I think I worry most about how he relates refers to ancient texts and sculptures to 'prove' his claims.
Nobody who actually knows anything about ancient societies agrees with Patrick Geryl.
But I am actually curious as to what happened in 9792 BC
As far as I can determine, nothing.
how he deciphered ancient texts to come to the conclusion that they new the sun spot cycle
He didn't. He just made it up.
how he believes that the magnetic field will be overloaded…
Because he is an idiot.
It worries me sometimes that skeptics are too skeptical and could miss something like this.
What does "too skeptical" mean? Either Geryl's claims are consistent with reality, or they aren't. What do you think, and why?
I don't know if thats a realistic worry or not…
I'm going with "not."
JuJu,
I really thank you for your answers regarding this subject. For some reason though, I can't seem to shake this.
Take this for example (which is from a link that I clicked on from a users comment on this site):
"In his first published book on astronomy ("A new Space-Time Dimension", 1979),
he launched an attack on the world famous relativity theory: he predicted several spectacular things that were connected to the universe. His predictions were confirmed in the last ten years, getting a lot of publicity in the Belgium press and television.
Within three years time he hopes to present his book in the USA, but first he has more important things to do. Through his astronomical knowledge, he discovered a trace leading to a high-developed civilization that was destroyed by a polar reversal. The descendants of this civilization, the Maya and Old Egyptians, predict a similar disaster for the year 2012. Noticing the urgency of this warning, Patrick started an intensive research and wrote three books on this subject."
I did not go actively searching for this, it was something I thought that debunked his ideas but instead it was something that supported them. But anyways, what predictions were confirmed of his?
This is honestly the worst thing I have ever gone through in my life. This person is slowly ruining my future. I just don't have much to clutch onto to believe this guy is fake… He sounds so sure and legit to me
I think that part of Geryl's draw is that he sincerely believes what he is saying. It's impossible to dissuade him from his ideas. He is rock-solid in his self-assurance.
That can be intimidating.
However, I have some serious questions about the veracity of the claim you quote above. Specifically:
- "… he predicted several spectacular things… " - were these things that nobody else had predicted? Because his claims regarding egyptology were not new or unique. They were just wrong.
- "… that were connected to the universe …" - a more vague and meaningless statement I can't imagine.
- "… getting a lot of publicity in the Belgium press and television." - in that case there shouldn't be a problem in producing examples of this publicity. I don't care what language they are in.
- "Through his astronomical knowledge…" - What "astronomical knowledge" would he be referring to? He needs to be specific.
- "… he discovered a trace … " - of what?
- "… leading to a high-developed civilization that was destroyed by a polar reversal." - wow! from astronomical knowledge! Imagine that!! Well, actually, I can't, which is why I want specifics.
etc., etc., etc.
I can understand why you find him difficult to shake. I find him difficult to believe.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Here are some good ones on him.
http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/orp.htm By Geoff Stray.
http://haecceities.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/2012-prophet-of-nonsense-3-patrick-geryl-and-the-reversal-of-common-sense/#comment-1777 by Johan Normark.
He has bothered me quite a bit as well Tony. I've been where you are today.
I think maybe I just need to ask the right question.
I found this guy which I think started this whole thing. Charles Bourbourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_%C3%89tienne_Brasseur_de_Bourbourg) way back in the 1800s who was actually very educated in the mesoamerican culture. He was the one who translated the Popol Vuh I believe. But he also believed in Atlantis, and he also believed that there were 4 Cataclysms starting at around 10,500bc. All were rotational pole shifts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataclysmic_pole_shift_hypothesis). He got this all from Mayan mythological stories.
This is probably where it all started, but the fact that it came from an actual scholar doesn't help my anxiety any.
How are scientists so easily able to shrug off Patrick Geryl when the basis for his claims dig so deep into original claims made by scholars over a hundred years ago?
Did you notice that the "cataclysms" are always RIGHT at the point we have no historical records of anything? 10,500 BC is pretty much that point. We can't 'prove' these things didn't happen.
We, however, can't prove they DID happen.
The fact a 'scholar' believes in something is not significant enough to add additional worry or evidence to Geryl's claims. The fact someone believes in Atlantis is enough for me to roll my eyes. Again, if Atlantis existed, we'd have found it by now with our given technology. Unless it sunk beneath the ocean AND beneath the earth… but no. No. No.
Now, what's this about Mayan mythological stories? There's so very few Mayan books that I find that to be hard to believe there's actual 'mythological stories' to be aware of.
Key word, by the way, is "Mythological", or "Myth".
I'll also note now, why do we put so much emphasis on Mayan Mythological Stories and not, say, Greek? Hell, the greek pantheon has a hell of a lot more recorded stories and such, but they are taken for what they are: Mythological Stories.
Regardless, there is evidence against their claims of 'Cataclysmic Pole Shift'. While there is evidence of more 'sudden' shifts, this does not mean the ENTIRE shift was sudden, it just means the shift suddenly sped up, or suddenly slowed down, throughout it's course.
What does this all mean? It means the only way to validate the Codex Chimalpopoca (the codex Charles based his entire claims on) is to believe in the Maya 'Pantheon'. This means you need to accept ALL their myths, including the one that the Earth is carried on the back of a giant frog.
If you believe this to be a fact, kindly smack yourself in the face repeatedly until you realize that to accept Charles theory, is to accept ALL of the Mayan Mythology.
"Did you notice that the "cataclysms" are always RIGHT at the point we have no historical records of anything? 10,500 BC is pretty much that point. We can't 'prove' these things didn't happen.
We, however, can't prove they DID happen."
This doesn't really help because I am just going to start asking why we don't have historical records during that time period. The fact that people are dedicating their lives to tell everyone what may have happened during that time period is scary in itself.
"The fact someone believes in Atlantis is enough for me to roll my eyes. Again, if Atlantis existed, we'd have found it by now with our given technology. Unless it sunk beneath the ocean AND beneath the earth… but no. No. No."
Unless nobody is looking for it. I mean, why would we look for something so overly ridiculed?
"Now, what's this about Mayan mythological stories? There's so very few Mayan books that I find that to be hard to believe there's actual 'mythological stories' to be aware of."
There is a whole Wikipedia entry on Mayan myths. I'm sure several myths today are created based off of life experiences.
"Regardless, there is evidence against their claims of 'Cataclysmic Pole Shift'. While there is evidence of more 'sudden' shifts, this does not mean the ENTIRE shift was sudden, it just means the shift suddenly sped up, or suddenly slowed down, throughout it's course."
Never heard this claim before about speeding up or slowing down. The wikipedia entry says that other planets have undergone pole shifts before. What prevents ours from having one?
"This means you need to accept ALL their myths, including the one that the Earth is carried on the back of a giant frog."
I don't need to accept their myths. But I am just afraid that there is a kernal of truth buried in them.
I have tried to find some debunking of the ancient egyptian pyramids, and past cataclysms but there is just nothing. In fact, I just keep finding people trying to support the idea. Its really not a comfortable feeling. I hate this.
Sigh. Because stone-carved records decay with age, Tony. Even the Maya Scriptures we have are heavily damaged and hard to decipher in many cases. Do you want me to believe a cataclysm occurred then, too?
Age decays written records. Nothing more.
As for not searching for Atlantis, uh… think about it, Tony. If it actually existed, an ancient, massively advanced, MAGICAL (Note: MAGICAL) civilization? We'd be all over it. The problem is Atlantis is spoken in myth and nothing more. People will believe in anything they think sounds shiny.
To present the logic "I mean, why would we look for something so overly ridiculed?" invokes me to ask "I mean, why would Benjamin Franklin nearly kill himself for the sake of electricity advancement?"
Because we can. And the fact is, this 'lost civilization' has never been found for a reason: It never existed outside of fantasy.
As for this…
"Never heard this claim before about speeding up or slowing down. The wikipedia entry says that other planets have undergone pole shifts before. What prevents ours from having one?"
Uh… our planet has undergone pole shifts before. Multiple, IIRC. Are you saying the reason why the other planets in our solar system are as they are is due to pole shifts? That's ludicrous.
The Earth HAS gone through pole shifts before. Do you honestly think it never has prior to a potential 2012 "LOLYOUALLDEAD" shift? That would be just as ludicrous. We have geological evidence showing it has happened. Many times. Earth still exists as a life-supporting (for the most part) mudball.
Anyway, as for this…
"I don't need to accept their myths. But I am just afraid that there is a kernal of truth buried in them.
I have tried to find some debunking of the ancient egyptian pyramids, and past cataclysms but there is just nothing. In fact, I just keep finding people trying to support the idea. Its really not a comfortable feeling. I hate this."
Yes, you do. You do need to accept their myths. You can't cherry pick their myths to decipher "hidden messages". That logic is flawed. There are no hidden messages. You only come to these conclusions because you ignore everything but a few choices words you wish to see.
The same stupidly flawed logic is constantly applied to the Bible. Cherry pick words and ZOMG CONSPIRACY! Either accept the text as a whole, or accept none at all.
Finally… what Ancient Egyptian Pyramid debunking? That they were built by aliens or something? You mean the thing we have historical proof that the Ancient Egyptians DID have the 'technology' needed to build the pyramids? Cause we has it. It's simple. Basic machinery. Archaic, but effective.
Uh… yeah. You're kind of digging into ancient conspiracy theories pretty hardcore now. Do you believe Atlantis and the Pyramids were alien-created and governed?
tony;
You have to be careful to distinguish between the kinds of pole shifts that people are talking about. A significant shift in the axis of rotation of the earth is pretty much impossible, except in the case of an impact of another planet. In that case, where the new equator would be would be the least of our worries.
The 'pole shifts' that have occurred on the earth are magnetic pole shifts.
I'm not sure what kinds of pole shifts that have occurred on other planets. We know that Uranus is spinning at an angle of 89 degrees from the ecliptic, and this might be due to a collision early in its history.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Bill,
I am not really speaking at all of the magnetic field. I get how that works for the most part. I am talking strictly about the rotational shift. These people say that this has happened before, scientists have just missed or ignored the evidence and replaced it with a different theory. I appreciate your responses though, I feel like you, bikenbeer, greatjuju, elliott, and jim smith probably have the answers that I am looking for…i'm just not asking the right questions.
As for Moo…you're starting to put words into my mouth. You are asserting that I am saying something about conspiracies, and aliens. If you would have read my posts carefully or even my links, you would know that the pyramid claim that I am talking about refers to the fact that they were built around 10,500 bc rather than 2000 bc. As for Atlantis, I don't know if it existed or not…nobody has really given me a solid debunking other than "we haven't seen it." But to me, that doesn't answer why it couldn't have existed.
See, that's how I work. I force ideas into your head to rationalize what is fiction and what is reality. It's just how I invoke recovery. If it offends you… well, it's worked so far so eh.
As for Atlantis, can you PROVE it existed? Because we kind of got a good idea of how the world and it's layout works. There's no place Atlantis could be beneath the sea that would make geological sense. Unless, as I said, it SOMEHOW sunk beneath the 'surface' of the earth's crust. And then you're just pulling the ultimate "LOL YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THIS" excuse.
Anyway, Tony. I already answered why they could not have been built in 10,500 BC vs. 2000 BC. You can tell how old something is via. scientific process. Additionally, I DON'T remember what the name of this process is, but it MIGHT be carbon data digging. Don't quote me on this, I don't know. Archaeology is NOT my thing.
Regardless, there is evidence through science that can clearly tell us how long something has been around. If you want to believe that the process of doing this is flawed/a lie, you're free to do so, and so are the other people who may believe this.
Ultimately, you have to go by either the opinion of a handful of people that believe a magical, massively advanced city existed and then mysteriously vanished and destroys all modern day logic of geography, as well as believe that the current process of analyzing the age of any given structure is a flaw…
…
Or go by the nearly worldwide opinion. But someone might go "ILLUMINATI!" over this and then I stop caring.
To each his own.
Hi Tony;
If I were you I would ask them to back up their claim.
The geologic evidence does not show that the rotational pole of the earth has shifted significantly. There are some known minor wobbles, but those cause the angle of the axis with relationship to the ecliptic to change, they don't cause any significant change in the relationship between the axis and the earth itself.
One of the things about science that can be frustrating for people is that sometimes "there is no evidence for…" is as good as we can get. It is very difficult to "prove" a negative (i.e., Atlantis doesn't exist). However, I think we can show that this is the case by reviewing this link where Plato tells Socrates that he's making the whole thing up.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
These people say that this has happened before, scientists have just missed or ignored the evidence and replaced it with a different theory.
Why do you think that, yet you're so willing to trust Geryl?
JuJu,
Do you mind extending those venus motions through the end of december? He claims that they are behind gemini, and the second one doesn't show it far enough. I'm not skeptical of your work, I just want to know for myself. Thank you.
Tony, there's really no point in me doing that, because the screen-caps already show the path well beyond the point of retrograde. You see clearly that the movement in 2012 will be within Taurus, which is indeed "above the Orion constellation and behind Gemini." It's very easy to determine this. However, neither year shows anything resembling "a perfect circular retrograde loop," and the apparent motions in those two years (2012 CE and 9792 BCE) bear no resemblance to one another.
Apparent retrograde motion is an effect of Venus catching up to Earth and passing it. When this happens, Venus appears to stop and then temporarily move backward in the sky. Once this happens, it will not happen again until the next time Venus overtakes Earth. The point at which Venus is closest to Earth (while passing) is known as inferior conjunction, and this occurs every 584 days. As such, Venus will not go retrograde again until this much time has passed.
See here: http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/retro/retro.html
Therefore, you don't need me to run the simulation again. The posts by Jim and myself from earlier in this thread are all you need to show that Geryl (or anyone else making such claims) is wrong. There is no "perfect circular retrograde loop," and the apparent motions in 2012 CE and 9792 BCE are not even remotely similar. Even if they were, there is no evidence of a cataclysm in 9792 BCE, let alone a "pole reversal," nor is there any evidence that such an event is on the brink of happening now.
Geryl is not a crack scientist or thinker. He's a crackpot.
Thanks JuJu!
So will venus even be in naked eye view in december 2012? That would kind of put a damper on his conclusions if not.
What worries me is stuff like this: http://www.world-mysteries.com/achronology.htm
Anybody have time to take a look at that? Specifically the paragraph where he says that CME's have often changed or slowed the Earth's rotation.
Who are these authors? They seem to be very skeptical of the scientific community.
Help?
The folks they used as references such as:
Charles Hapgood, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings; Philadelphia: Chilton, 1966.
Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision; New York: Doubleday, 1950.
John White, Pole Shift; Virginia Beach: A.R.E. Press, 1996
are considered the fringe. Many of these references are either disproven or considered junk by reputable scientists and archeologists. Therefore, their information is faulty to begin with.
That is the problem with a lot of the fringe people - they quote each other, and set up the paradim - don't trust the establishment since they have an hidden agenda. Also these fringe people *are not* trained scientists.
Tony:
Regarding the ability of a CME to affect the rotation of the earth: That is total bunk.
Please review the Patrick Geryl page where we compare the masses of a typical CME and the earth. If we took a CME a million times larger than 'typical', it would still be a miniscule fraction of the mass of the earth.
The article above says:
One such effect is that these behemoths of power can cause a change in the Earth's rotational speed[2]. Dr. A. Danjon announced that in July of 1959 that there was an instantaneous change in the rotational speed of the Earth. He was ignored by the scientific community due to the lack of instrumentation to prove such. But following a great flare in August of 1972, there was no doubt as to the effect of CME's on Earth's rotation. A significant change was seen to actually occur.
(Emphasis added). Notice the utter lack of anything resembling supporting evidence. There is just this claim, with a reference.
The reference goes to "The Jupiter Effect", a book in the popular press, published in 1974. Not having a copy handy, I'm not sure what event they are trying to refer to, but the wikipedia page on the book is interesting:
The Jupiter Effect was a best-selling book by John Gribbin, Ph.D., and Stephen Plagemann (pub. 1974) that predicted that an alignment of the planets of the solar system would create a number of catastrophes, including a great earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, on March 10, 1982.[1] The predicted catastrophes did not occur.
And farther down that short page:
In his book, The Little Book of Science (pub. 1999), Dr. Gribbin admitted about his "Jupiter Effect" theory "…I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
The ability of a CME to do anything to the rotation or orbit of the earth must be related to its mass. As we discuss above, the disparity in mass between the two objects is staggering.
The earth routinely sweeps up these blobs of solar plasma and turns them into spectacular light shows at the poles. As far as I can tell that is the only effect a CME will typically have. Very large ones can create a geomagnetic storm and cause other issues (such as power outages), but will not do anything to the rotation of the earth.
In short, the page fails miserably to support its claim.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Bikenbeer mentioned that it was like a mosquito running into a train and derailing it. Is it really that much of a different in mass between a gigantic CME and Earth?
Lets say, hypothetically, that this CME is just insanely large. One that is not known to science. Would a gigantic CME have enough magnetism to spin the Earth's field?
I just recently read a debunking of 2012 that mentioned that there are only two ways a rotational shift is possible. Impact with a large body, or a sudden shift in the magnetic field of the earth.
I also emailed a geologist on this, and she said that there is sparse evidence that a sudden shift happened 800 million years ago but the continents are spread out now so it is unlikely. She said that a rotational shift today is possible, but unlikely. Why would she say that its possible at all, when NASA and everyone else keeps saying its impossible? Contradictions just confuse me more…while Geryl spends every day on this theory, how could he possibly just ignore the simple physics? I would think that the physics would be the first thing he would take into consideration.
Average mass of a CME works out to 1 trillion, 600 billion kilograms. So you wouldn't want one to step on your toe. But then the mass of the Earth works out to 5 septillion, 973 sextillion, 600 quintillion kilograms.
For every 1 Earth, you would need 3 trillion, 733 billion, 500 million 'average' CMEs in order for the scales to balance.
Perhaps even the mosquito analogy is generous to CMEs, but even with these seemingly ridiculous numbers, that's what we've got to work with. CME's just aren't the solution for wanting something to knock the Earth about.
Alright, what about the magnetism that these CME's carry? Would it be nearly enough to flip the magnetic field of the Earth if it were large enough?
Most of my questions are hypothetical…I am just having so many problems believing that Geryl's conlusions about everything is false for some reason. A global catacalysm seen by the Mayan and Egyptian civilization around 9700bc, CME's, magnetism, magnetic pole shifts, rotational shift of the core, etc. I think the fact that he shows no shred of doubt is my soft spot. How can someone so certain, be so wrong? blah…
Hi Tony,
I have been thinking bout this 2. What do you think of these ancient cities and HOW did they get there? There are also others.
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/oldcity.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070919-sunken-city.html
http://www.s8int.com/water1.html
Would had to have been one hell of a earth event to make it happen!
This site seems to collate most of them:
If there has never been any earth altering event of any magnitude then how do you think these cities are now found under so much water?
Maybe the ancient ones were on to something?
I thought it was the NWO that bothered you Casey?
To be quite honest. If those are indeed examples of Geryl's theory, how are the cities in such good shape? Geryl is advocating that the rotation of the earth stop instantly and begin to rotate in the opposite direction. Everything not attatched to bedrock would go flying into the atmosphere.
CMEs have nowhere near the magnetic strength needed to flip the Earths magnetic field, the best they can do is interact with it to produce aurora's and the like.
It's almost the MythBuster approach, but a good thing to do sometimes is to work out how to make a nonsense claim actually work, but as you've seen the numbers here get pretty high pretty quickly, and so the stuff you need to make it all happen reaches towards 'absurd'.
hi Jason,
yes the one world government stuff does worry me lots but since there is no space in this forum to discuss the links between what is happening now (2012ish) and that agenda it can be left for another time.
As for ancient cities - there are lots and lots.
Being afraid of anything is a lot cooler, really.
Anyway, let's poke at this a bit. These 'ruins' underwater near Japan are roughly 30 meters down. This isn't a 'small' amount, but it's not something that proves some sort of cataclysm struck at one point or another.
Additionally, reading the Discovery article you listed, it's argued that there's a possibility the entire structure, the so-called city/monument near Japan, is entirely natural. IE: Not man made. To the point that even the Japanese Government does NOT care about the ruins. Says a lot.
Moving on, the other examples you've given are 'cities' built at what appears to be the very edge of their respective, connected landmasses. This can be explained with out a "ZOMG NOAH'S FLOOD!" theory being used. If data-mining back to the point some of these are believed to be nearly 5,000-10,000 years old, with emphasis on nearly 10,000. If you consider this, that would be roughly when our last Ice Age ended, and thus when the glacial ice and polar caps would have melted to their normal levels.
This ultimately means these 'cities' were not sunken by a cataclysm or by some God-Made Flood. They were simply too close to the 'edge', and were submerged when water levels returned to 'normal'. This is a better theory than 'Noah's Flood' or 'A Great Cataclysm'. Neither have any sort of proof supporting them.
You have to remember that these 'cities' are right off the coasts of major landmasses. And, I'm just going to bite this in the butt right now. A global flood could NOT have happened. It's impossible. Glacial records and tree-ring records do not support this possibility, at all. In fact, if it were to happen, all life on the planet would have ceased to exist. Period. Including Noah, he would have been BOILED ALIVE.
Do you need proof? Here. This is an awesome article debunking the entire Global Flood Cataclysm down to the wire.
Educate yourself! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
I have been thinking bout this 2. What do you think of these ancient cities and HOW did they get there?
Surely you don't think sea levels have remained constant all throughout history….
Would had to have been one hell of a earth event to make it happen!
Nope, just changing sea levels. Happens constantly (on geologic time scales).
If there has never been any earth altering event of any magnitude
There have been many earth-altering events of various magnitudes throughout this planet's history, so you're swinging at a straw-man. What I actually said was this:
'…there is no evidence of a cataclysm in 9792 BCE, let alone a "pole reversal," nor is there any evidence that such an event is on the brink of happening now.'
Cataclysmic events of the kind imagined by Patrick Geryl are not necessary to explain ancient cities now below sea level.
yes the one world government stuff does worry me lots but since there is no space in this forum to discuss the links between what is happening now (2012ish)
There's little point in worrying about something that isn't real. I think you know fully well that attempts to link the "NWO" to 2012 have been disingenuous, at best. Mighty strange how so many users have suddenly appeared on this board, all with the same off-topic agenda, eh?
So are you saying that it was the tide going up slowly over time that caused these various cities to now be under water?
Also I am not mentioning NWO, i am commenting on the 'one world government' agenda that has been linked to Project Bluebeam and enoch but that would will require another thread.
I had a search through the threads and could not find much at all on what you just said juju. could you give me the links please. Would save me talking about stuff that concerns me if it has already been discussed.
More ancient cities underwater - one of them at a depth of 2000 feet:
http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/Atlantis/bimini.htm
http://www.heralddeparis.com/previously-undiscovered-ancient-city-found-on-caribbean-sea-floor/65855
http://www.disclose.tv/forum/race-to-preserve-the-world-s-oldest-submerged-town-t11572.html
also flood stories coinciding in the middle east:
The famous story about the Great Flood is best known from the Bible (Genesis 6-9). It has always been known that there were similar stories from Greece and Rome (like the ones by Apollodorus, Ovid, and Hyginus), but in the nineteenth century, several texts from ancient Iraq were added. The first discovery was Tablet XI of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgameš (in 1872), the second the Sumerian original, now called the Eridu Genesis (1914), and the third the Epic of Atrahasis (1956). It is now clear that the Biblical account stays close to a Babylonian model.
So are you saying that it was the tide going up slowly over time that caused these various cities to now be under water?
No, I'm talking about changing sea levels over time, through a variety of mechanisms.
Also I am not mentioning NWO, i am commenting on the 'one world government' agenda that has been linked to Project Bluebeam and enoch but that would will require another thread.
Oh, don't play coy, and don't think I've forgotten your massive cut-and-paste under the guise of asking questions.
I had a search through the threads and could not find much at all on what you just said juju. could you give me the links please. Would save me talking about stuff that concerns me if it has already been discussed.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
More ancient cities underwater - one of them at a depth of 2000 feet:
Welcome to the reality of life on a geologically active planet.
Your Herald de Paris link describes an alleged discovery made by a team of "explorers" who refused to be identified.
S8int.com is a woo site, and the "discovery" near Cuba is completely unreferenced.
The Spirit of Ma'at looks like a woo site ("…a central clearinghouse of undistorted information in the areas of spirituality, human potential, and new science…"). The article about the Indian city references pseudoscientist Graham Hancock, makes little mention of actual scientists' views on the matter, and completely distorts the state of mainstream archeology and paleontology by claiming, "This news completely contradicts the position of most Western historians and archaeologists, who (because it did not fit their theories) have always rejected, ignored, or suppressed evidence of an older view of mankind's existence on planet Earth." In other words, a conspiracy is invoked, when the reality is simply that science works on the basis of such discoveries.
A somewhat more reliable media coverage of the discovery can be found here, with a date of 7500 BCE, not 9500 BCE. Even if we accept a date of 9000 or 9500 BCE, the Geryl cataclysm is off by nearly 300 years at least, so it can't explain the flooding. Moreover, all of the articles describe the carbon-dating age of artifacts from the site, but none of this says when the settlement was actually submerged. It could have happened hundreds or thousands of years later.
In any case, the fact that underwater city remains exist is not surprising, as I've already explained to you.
also flood stories coinciding in the middle east:
There are flood tales from all over the world, because floods are extremely common. Natural disasters of myriad types as themes in ancient literature are only slightly less surprising than love and war as common themes. That doesn't mean a global flood in 9792 BCE wiped out a bunch of cities all at once. In fact, save for the one from India, none of the dates in your links are even close to that year. For example, the first paragraph in the article about the Japanese city says:
"Submerged stone structures lying just below the waters off Yonaguni Jima are actually the ruins of a Japanese Atlantis—an ancient city sunk by an earthquake about 2,000 years ago."
On the Greek city:
"It has remains dating from 2800 to 1200 BC, long before the glory days of classical Greece."
Emphasis added. Did you even read your own sources?
Just to echo what Jim and JuJu said, Geoff Stray( New Ager that is relatively decent with 2012 stuff) checked Geryl's stuff fairly in-depth in regards to Venus in particular. The closest match he found for Venus in 9792BC was 1609 AD…..that's 403 years off. And the best match he could find for 2012 was 96 years off. And this is all assuming there was any proof both a magnetic and rotational reversal…..and there is none.
Here's another little read on a 2012 site showing Geryl's bad Geology.
How to Survive 2012
On page 32 Patrick Geryl writes in the chapter: 'Electrocution on a Planetary Scale'…“This is also the power from which most of the heat formed rocks were created. Gigantic currents raged through the sediments, changing their composition instantly. Clay sediments metamorphose into slate at 100 to 200 degrees Celsius. At higher temperatures, they become liquid and can flood across hundreds of kilometers. Depending on the existing minerals in the clay layers, other sorts of rocks can form. With sufficient heat, limestone will crystallize into marble, while pure sandstone will change into quartz. Even granite is made of heat re-crystallized sediments. Something caused this heat. And that something is a changing magnetic field. Therefore, at the moment of a forthcoming pole reversal, masses of lightening will be seen raging in the sky.”
Actually: Slate is a metamorphic rock. Slate is actually shale that had low heat and not very much pressure put on it. Slate is mostly formed in mountain areas. It takes thousands of years for slate to change. Slate can be any color but is mostly found in gray or black. When it is broken, it splits into layers. It can have quartz, muscovite, hematite, graphite, and other minerals in it.
http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00461/slate.htm
http://www.artistictile.net/frameset%20 … Slate.html
Most slate is formed below the earth's surface by changes in the makeup of shale, a sedimentary rock. Shale primarily consists of clay minerals and of fine particles of quartz. When shale is buried in the earth's crust, heat from deep in the earth or nearby magma (molten rock) changes the clay minerals in shale to mica and chlorite. Downward pressure caused by burial and deformation due to crustal movement squeezes the mica and other platy (flaky) minerals and forms them into parallel layers.
Actually: Marble is formed from limestone by heat and pressure in the earth's crust. These forces cause the limestone to change in texture and makeup. This process is called recrystallization. Fossilized materials in the limestone, along with its original carbonate minerals, recrystallize and form large, coarse grains of calcite. Impurities present in the limestone during recrystallization affect the mineral composition of the marble that forms. At relatively low temperatures, silica impurities in the carbonate minerals form masses of chert or crystals of quartz. At higher temperatures, the silica reacts with the carbonates to produce diopside and forsterite. At extremely high temperatures, rarer calcium minerals, such as larnite, monticellite, and rankinite, form in the marble. If water is present, serpentine, talc, and certain other hydrous minerals may be produced. The presence of iron, alumina, and silica may result in the formation of hematite and magnetite. The minerals that result from impurities give marble a wide variety of colors. The purest calcite marble is white…
http://www.artistictile.net/frameset%20 … arble.html
Actually: Sandstone is formed from quartz, not quartz from sandstone.
Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed mainly of sand-size mineral or rock grains. Most sandstone is composed of quartz and/or feldspar because these are the most common minerals in the Earth's crust. Like sand, sandstone may be any color, but the most common colors are tan, brown, yellow, red, gray and white. Since sandstone beds often form highly visible cliffs and other topographic features, certain colors of sandstone have been strongly identified with certain regions. http://www.artistictile.net/frameset%20 … stone.html
Actually: There is no heat involved in the formation of quartz.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/.../quartz.html
Quartz 'forms' like icicles or stalagmites from a solution of silicon and oxygen and grows on top of itself, usually against or at 30-45 degree angles to the center of the Earth. It does not require pressure or temperature to form.
"Quartz is silicon dioxide, SiO2. Quartz is abundant in the Earth's crust, being the chemically simplest form of the silicates. It appears in many forms. " … (varying in color) …
"Clear crystal quartz forms naturally when silica rich solutions occur in underground cavities" … "The smooth planar surfaces reflect the symmetry of the crystal lattice, but do not represent cleavage planes. When the hexagonal symmetry is exhibited by the crystals, it represents the pattern formed by unobstructed growth."
Actually: Granite is an igneous rock that is composed of four minerals. These minerals are quartz, feldspar, mica, and usually hornblende. Granite forms as magma cools far under the earth's surface. Because it hardens deep underground it cools very slowly. This allows crystals of the four minerals to grow large enough to be easily seen by the naked eye.
— Excerpt from: Volcano World Website, July 2001, USGS/NPS Geology in the Parks Website, 2003
http://www.artistictile.net/frameset%20 … anite.html
Granite is an igneous rock and is formed from magma. Granitic magma has many potential origins but it must intrude other rocks. Most granite intrusions are emplaced at depth within the crust, usually greater than 1.5 kilometres and up to 50 km depth within thick continental crust. The origin of granite is contentious and has led to varied schemes of classification. Classification schemes are regional; there is a French scheme, a British scheme and an American scheme. This confusion arises because the classification schemes define granite by different means. Generally the 'alphabet-soup' classification is used because it classifies based on genesis or origin of the magma.
Ssshhh, you're ruining Geryl's business by debunking his stupidity! :O!
PS: http://www.endlessyoutube.com/watch?v=bMo-VN8QM20 Rock on, kids. Life is to be enjoyed, and YouTube is only useful for finding hard to find music. Like this.
Hey Moo I had a look at your flood link. It covered a lot of ground quite quickly. I am not sure if the flood myth should be taken literally though as it has in that article you posted.
It didnt mention anywhere that the flood event that became legend that became myth was based on a much earlier book that was talking about an event that happened earlier still. In 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' the book states that there was a city state king that took his people up hill and away from the coastline because there was going to be a big wave type event and even then the story was old.
I suppose the abrahamic patriachal faith power groups then grabbed on to whatever pieces of the story that fit their power mongering agenda to make the peasent pagans follow thier god.
Anyway all i am saying is that it would be very unlikely that anyone would ever consider putting pairs of all animals onto a boat and wait out until the water went down. Most of the old religious documents comment in parables and metaphors, or so my theologian scholar at Sunday school said.
Casey;
I think you have a few of the details wrong on the Epic of Gilgamesh, but otherwise, that is a nice summary. However… you ignore the fact that a large percentage of American Protestants do take the flood myth literally. The intent of the article was to show that a literal interpretation of Genesis leads to inherent contradictions with the known facts.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Casey, regardless of whether you agree with a literal interpretation of the biblical flood myth addressed by the author, that remains the angle of interest in the link Moo provided. It's also the most popular flood story that people still believe in. The author of the article is not addressing other flood myths, of which there are many, with the biblical version being perhaps derivative of some of them. The Epic of Gilgamesh is one such example (and btw, it wasn't a book, but a series of poems preserved on clay tablets in the 7th Century BCE).
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
Also, regardless of whether you agree with a literal interpretation of the biblical flood myth, it remains a simple fact that there is no geologic evidence of a global flood and mountains of evidence (pun intended) against such an event occurring. This is true whether you subscribe to the biblical literalist global flood or another one.
There are around 315,000 cubic miles of Water on Earth1. I doubt one lake bursting through an ice dam, unleashing a measly 500 cubic miles of water is a global megaflood…
Yeah, Ben, really.
I'll ask you what I asked our other proponent above: Did you even bother to read your own source?
"About 15,000 years ago, in the waning millennia of the Ice Age, a vast lake known as Glacial Lake Missoula suddenly burst through the ice dam that plugged it at one end. In the space of just 48 hours, geologists believe, the collapse sent 500 cubic miles of water cascading across the Pacific Northwest, creating overnight such unusual landscapes as the scablands of eastern Washington."
Key phrases for you to consider:
"…Glacial Lake Missoula…"
"…the space of 48 hours…"
"…500 cubic miles of water cascading across the Pacific Northwest…"
Read that carefully, then point out for me where you see any mention of "global flood."
Incidentally, I happened to see that episode of Nova, oh, a few years ago I guess. It doesn't propose a global flood, either, because there's no geologic evidence of any such event. If something like that had ever happened, we would see a completely different Earth today.
So according to you guys, all of his conclusions are laughable and there is absolotutely no chance of something like this happening. There have been no 180 degree rotational pole shifts in the past, and there will never be one? There is nothing other than a large planet that would be able to see the Earth to shift to that extent, and if it had done so in the past…there would be evidence everywhere?
So according to you guys, all of his conclusions are laughable and there is absolotutely no chance of something like this happening.
Pretty much.
There have been no 180 degree rotational pole shifts in the past, and there will never be one?
Well, no, we didn't say either of those things. There have been no 180 degree rotational pole shifts in the past that we know of. Such an event would have to have been the result of a massive impact with another planetary body, and as such would erase all of the geologic record (by melting the entire planet). So, we can see back about 4.2 billion years in the geologic record, therefore we can say with absolute certainty that such an event has not happened since then.
As far as future rotational pole shifts, we can also say with absolute certainty that Geryl's proposed method is laughable, impossible, and completely made up nonsense. In addition, his proposed mechanism (if it were possible, which it is not) would not be survivable.
There is nothing other than a large planet that would be able to see the Earth to shift to that extent, and if it had done so in the past…there would be evidence everywhere?
Yes. That is correct.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Let me follow up with this: We think that the earth has been impacted by planet-sized bodies in the past. Why? Because we see evidence of it.
What would evidence of a past massive impact look like? How about a 23 1/2 degree tilt of the axis of rotation, an over-sized iron core making the Earth the densest body in the solar system, and an over-sized moon that is tidally locked with the earth, and is 'stealing' angular momentum from the earth, pushing the moon's orbit out by about 3.8 cm/yr? How about a moon that is composed of a higher proportion of lighter silicate materials, that has the same radiometric dates as earth rocks, and shows evidence of those rocks being 'baked' at extremely high temperatures?
So, you see, when geologists and planetary astronomers look at these things, they can infer quite a bit about the past history of the planets, and about the past history of our planet.
Geryl's ideas are wrong not just because they are impossible, they are wrong because they don't match the evidence.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
I am a fence sitter on this one let me point out. I am of the understanding that a magnetic pole shift could create changes in the earths weather patterns that can set off extreme cooling (and heating) events but that the timeline between events was more spaced than 10,000 years
What does interest me is juju's assertion that sea displacement (in relation to cities that are now under water as evidence) is a slow and gradual process.
Now if that were the case what caused the younger dryas period which loosely aligns with the period of some of the ancient monuments going underwater and why do ice ages generally happen very quickly?
This also does not account for human structures under water that are underneath projected sea movement solely caused by glaciation and subsequent melting.
Now I am sure there is never just one answer for these events but since we are postulating here why not give it a crack. Some wiki suggestions:
[text from wikipedia removed, and replaced with a link to the relevant section - astrogeek]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#Causes_of_the_Younger_Dryas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
and
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/4/383.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
From what I can read into it is that there is still no agreed upon reason for the Younger Dryas event??
So stealing a line from Conan Doyle - 'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'
In comment to the links I posted, I was highlighting ancient cities underwater not ancient cities underwater that correlate with Geryls timeline.
I am of the understanding that a magnetic pole shift could create changes in the earths weather patterns that can set off extreme cooling (and heating) events but that the timeline between events was more spaced than 10,000 years
From where do you obtain this understanding? What would be the mechanism by which these "extreme cooling and heating events" could occur? They do not appear to be reflected in the geologic record, as far as I am aware.
What does interest me is juju's assertion that sea displacement (in relation to cities that are now under water as evidence) is a slow and gradual process.
Does he assert that? I glanced over his posts and I see him arguing against a global flood, and I see him arguing against the correlation of some of the dates you provided, but I don't see him saying that sea displacement is "a slow and gradual process". I do see him saying that sea level changes happen constantly on a geologic time scale. That's not the same thing.
Now if that were the case what caused the younger dryas period which loosely aligns with the period of some of the ancient monuments going underwater
The cause and effect relationship between climate changes and various things like sea level changes, the draining of Lake Agassiz, the desertification of North Africa, etc., are not clear cut. You can point to correlated events all you want, but all you have done is point out that they are correlated. Climate is a very complex feedback system. Confusing correlation and causation is a classic fallacy.
… and why do ice ages generally happen very quickly?
Define "very quickly", and support that claim.
Please don't copy and paste that much stuff from other sites here. You can quote a sentence or two, or even a paragraph, but pulling multiple paragraphs like that sets a bad precedent. I would prefer not to run into future issues with copyright, and I don't have time to run down every copyright notice. Therefore I don't want huge block-quotes.
So stealing a line from Conan Doyle - 'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'
That works in fiction, but not so much in science. Sometimes in science "there is no good answer for this question" is as good as it gets, at least for the present. A lack of an answer in science doesn't automatically make the speculations of the ancient civilization crowd valid.
BTW, the Lake Agassiz drainage probably only amounted to 1 to 3 meters of total sea level rise.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
busy for now to answer all your questions Astro but an easy start with copyright -
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
How Current is This?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
You've missed the point.
I realize that wikipedia allows quoting.
I am saying I (as the founder and operator of this website) do not want extensive quoting to become the norm in the forums. In that role I am telling you not to do it.
Is that clear?
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Let's get down to business, to defeat… the HUNS!
Did they send me daughters, when I asked… for sons?!
You're the saddest bunch I've ever met! But you can bet, before we're through… mister I'll, make a man, out of youuu!
There you go, Astrogeek. Now Disney is gonna open a can all over your face! >:O!
PS: Do kindly respect Astrogeek's wishes and rules. He'll yell at you if you don't. Additionally, stop being a conspiracy theorist :|
I rarely yell.
I do sometimes delete or edit posts. I try not to, however.
Perhaps I should begin some passive-aggressive moderation tactics, like 'enborkifying' posts from people who piss me off. Bork! Bork! Bork!
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Du nut pust lerge-a qooutes frum oozeer vebseetes. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Oozeerveese-a I veell begeen toorneeng yuoor pusts intu svedeesh meetbells. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Can't really add much to Astrogeek's response, but you did say this….
Now if that were the case what caused the younger dryas period which loosely aligns with the period of some of the ancient monuments going underwater and why do ice ages generally happen very quickly?
The Younger Dryas — like we haven't heard that before.
Let's note here that only one date you mentioned is even remotely close to that time period (for the Indian city) — and that is simply the radiometric age determined for the recovered artifacts, not the date of the submerging.
I have no idea what you mean by "ice ages generally happen very quickly." If by that you mean tens of thousands of years, sure. In general, ice ages tend to be long-term events over geologic time. I think you are confusing glacial and interglacial events within ice ages (like the Younger Dryas), with the ice ages themselves.
None of this has anything to do with a global flood, and Geryl et al. are still completely wrong.
In comment to the links I posted, I was highlighting ancient cities underwater not ancient cities underwater that correlate with Geryls timeline.
Backpedaling, because now you realize none of the dates match.
So I think I have really progressed as of late, trying to get away from Geryl.
I still have some questions though. How well known is the internal structure of the Earth? The wikipedia article has a lot of probably and if's in it…which is a little unsettling. However, I don't think the Mayan culture could have possibly known that there even was a magnetic field or what the core of the Earth was composed of. I'm not even sure they thought it was round, as mentioned by Neil Tyson Degrasse.
I am still worried about his assurance of his claims. How can someone be so wrong by current science, yet be so sure that he has come up with something that nobody else knows about. If he has dedicated so much time to his claims, how could he possibly get the basic sciences wrong?
Hey Tony,
I understand where you're coming from. It's crazy just how sure of it he is. But more often than not, the ones that are the surest are wrong while the ones with doubts are often correct.
I really recommend looking into Professor Aldana's work on the Mayan Calender GMT correlation. If you type in Archeological Haeccitties on google, a blog by Dr. Johan Normark will come up. He has been researching the calendar GMT for years and has made a strong case for the date being way off.
If something as simple as the calendar date is off, where does that put Geryl's theory?
Just some thoughts.
Talk to you soon,
Jason
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
Bertrand Russell
The scabs lands were cut by a 2000 feet wall of water. of 500 cubic miles volume. This tsunami would not have stooped at the West coast of America, It would have gone circum global. Japan would not have been safe but at this tsunami height nowhere would have been. The world sea levels did not have to rise all at once or for any significant length of time. But an approx 0.7 km wall of water would certainly have been recorded as a flood by world cultures. The 2004 Iindonesian tsunami was 100 th this size at its highest.
"This tsunami would not have stooped at the West coast of America, It would have gone circum global."
And your evidence for this assertion is … what?
Would there have even been enough of a push in the ocean to create a "[circum-global]" tsunami? Most of the water cut across the Pacific Northwest, which is kind of the whole point. I think you're making something up out of thin air.
Regardless, the series of flooding events from Lake Missoula occurred between 13,000 and 15,000 years ago, placing them well outside the time frame needed to comport with Geryl's claims, and there are no geologic records of similar events1 since the last glacial advance period ended. Also, even if there was a magical "[circum-global]" tsunami during that time period, that is still not the same thing as a global flood.
Say what you will, Ben/Ban, but you're just making claims. If you want to make an argument, you need to provide evidence.
Actually, the water from Lake Missoula would have stopped, at least temporarily, in the area of Portland, where it filled up the Portland basin, which then drained out to the Pacific in a more leisurely manner. 2000 feet was the height of the ice dam, not the height of the discharged water as it exited the hills. That was probably more like 500 feet high, and once it reached flat land it spread out and slowed rather quickly. Due to the size of the gap that the water was funneled through, it would have taken about 48 hours for Lake Missoula to drain. It would have taken several weeks for the temporary Lake Lewis to drain out of the mouth of the Columbia river.
The Lake Missoula flood was not a Tsunami, and does not come close to the volume of water displaced by (for example) the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. It also does not come close to the volume of water discharged by Lake Agassiz, which covered a good portion of the Canadian shield between the Great Lakes and Hudson Bay.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_lake_missoula.html
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
"13,000 and 15,000 years ago" that number 13,000 years ago keeps turning up. Considering the myths state that "the waters receeded" (after 150 days in one case) they must have receeded back to the sea. It seemed 'everywhere was flooded' to them as it was everywhere they could see. IE. the whole earth was not under water just everywhere they could see was water. How far a tsunami would go inland could be hundreds of miles if he terrain was flat.
I am not convinced by the 'which then drained out to the Pacific in a more leisurely manner" admittedly the flow probably setteld down after a while but 500 cubic miles of water in eg 48 hours is going in one direction. Any where it wants to go. Its the dynamic state of the water that gives it its power. Think of a fire hydrant. You do not blow a candle out by filing the room with air very quickly.
Considering there are so many stories of massive floods I would assume there was one (most of the cultures had never met each other) and I would also conclude that it was a flood that could receed.
This by the way, this does not suggest that global floods/inundations are cyclic (13000 years) just that one happened in the distant past at the end of the last ice age.
they must have receeded back to the sea.
No, they did a combination of things, including dispersing and evaporating, being absorbed, and flowing into the Pacific as Astrogeek described above.
It seemed 'everywhere was flooded' to them as it was everywhere they could see.
Unless you can show otherwise in direct contradiction of existing evidence, 500 cubic miles of water bursting from Glacial Lake Missoula had no chance of displacing enough ocean water to create a "[trans-global]" tsunami, because the initial rush was not even directed toward the Pacific. The water was channeled. That was the whole point of the hypothesis in the first place — explaining the origins of the Pacific Northwest scablands. Also, the lake erupted from north to south and had thousands of square kilometers over which to disperse and decelerate. You're dwelling in a fantasy land, and it's anyone's guess as to why.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Map_missoula_floods.gif
the whole earth was not under water just everywhere they could see was water.
On what basis do you make this claim?
How far a tsunami would go inland could be hundreds of miles if he terrain was flat.
Except you're just making it up. There is no evidence of any such tsunami.
I am not convinced by the 'which then drained out to the Pacific in a more leisurely manner"
You need to provide some evidence in support of your own claims, then.
admittedly the flow probably setteld down after a while but 500 cubic miles of water in eg 48 hours is going in one direction.
Can you support that assertion?
Any where it wants to go.
Can you support that assertion?
Its the dynamic state of the water that gives it its power. Think of a fire hydrant. You do not blow a candle out by filing the room with air very quickly.
Can you support that assertion?
Considering there are so many stories of massive floods I would assume there was one (most of the cultures had never met each other) and I would also conclude that it was a flood that could receed.
Floods are extremely common events. Do you have any evidence supporting your implication that these cultures all referred to the same event?
You are aware that the scablands were not formed in one event, but in recurring glacial lake outbursts over some 2,000 years (15,000 to 13,000 years ago), aren't you? Can you support your implication that all of these cultures are referring to that time period?
This by the way, this does not suggest that global floods/inundations are cyclic (13000 years) just that one happened in the distant past at the end of the last ice age.
There was no global flood. Even a magical "[trans-global]" tsunami (which is not possible under the conditions at issue) is not a "global flood."
By the way, supporting your claims with evidence is not the same thing as getting more imaginative with your scenarios, nor is being incredulous a valid argument for your position.
Lets recap:
Also, regardless of whether you agree with a literal interpretation of the biblical flood myth, it remains a simple fact that there is no geologic evidence of a global flood and mountains of evidence (pun intended) against such an event occurring. This is true whether you subscribe to the biblical literalist global flood or another one.
To which you replied:
Really?
http://blog.artfahrt.com/2010/01/scablands-created-by-megaflood.html
Now, the point of your posting this still eludes me, as the link describes the Post-glacial flooding events of Lake Missoula, and not a 'global flood'. JuJu's point still stands: There is no evidence of a global flood.
JuJu then did a very smart thing in asking you to justify your statements based on the link you provided. I'll ask again: Can you find any mention of a global flood in the text of the link you posted? I'll point out that we are not arguing that there have been no floods, and if you are looking for a source for the Gilgamesh/Utnapishtim/Biblical flood story, the post-glacial re-filling of the black sea seems to be better positioned both temporally and in location to fulfill that role (although there are questions about the nature and extent of the flooding).
It was against this backdrop that you posted these claims:
The scabs lands were cut by a 2000 feet wall of water. of 500 cubic miles volume. This tsunami would not have stooped at the West coast of America, It would have gone circum global. Japan would not have been safe but at this tsunami height nowhere would have been. The world sea levels did not have to rise all at once or for any significant length of time. But an approx 0.7 km wall of water would certainly have been recorded as a flood by world cultures. The 2004 Iindonesian tsunami was 100 th this size at its highest.
I have already pointed out the contradictions between your claims above and the information provided in your link.
So, now we have your latest response:
"13,000 and 15,000 years ago" that number 13,000 years ago keeps turning up.
Yes. It corresponds to an inter-glacial warming period.
… Considering the myths state that "the waters receeded" (after 150 days in one case) they must have receeded back to the sea.
Well, in the case of the Lake Missoula floods, they drained to the Pacific ocean through the Columbia River gorge. They also left their fingerprints all over the area, including the Columbia River bar, which has the deposited evidence of the scouring that occurred upstream.
It seemed 'everywhere was flooded' to them as it was everywhere they could see. IE. the whole earth was not under water just everywhere they could see was water.
Given the habit of ancient authors toward hyperbole, why do you seem to be insisting on a global event? Consider the floods in Pakistan, and how they would have appeared to an ancient people.
How far a tsunami would go inland could be hundreds of miles if he terrain was flat.
Well, miles perhaps. I have seen reports of boats in the 2004 tsunami being carried as much as 2 miles inland, and a ship was carried about 1/2 mile inland in California in 1812.
I am not convinced by the 'which then drained out to the Pacific in a more leisurely manner" admittedly the flow probably setteld down after a while but 500 cubic miles of water in eg 48 hours is going in one direction.
All of the water from Lake Missoula wound up sitting in the Portland and Pasco basins, while it drained through Wallula gap and into the Columbia river gorge. The constricted outlet means that it would have taken weeks for these transient lakes to drain.
Any where it wants to go.
Well, that's true to a certain extent. It's not going to flow uphill very far, but it certainly would have accounted for the flood features of Western Washington and Oregon.
Its the dynamic state of the water that gives it its power.
This is true, but you are not supporting your claim that the Missoula floods caused or were caused by a tsunami.
Think of a fire hydrant.
… ok, and… ?
You do not blow a candle out by filing the room with air very quickly.
What is this supposed to mean?
Considering there are so many stories of massive floods I would assume there was one…
I assume that floods are common. I see no need to link the flood stories of various cultures to a single event.
(most of the cultures had never met each other)
I'm assuming they all had water.
and I would also conclude that it was a flood that could receed.
So?
This by the way, this does not suggest that global floods/inundations are cyclic (13000 years) just that one happened in the distant past at the end of the last ice age.
«rumble rumble rumble»
That sound is the signature call of Goalpostius Mobilitas, the Greater Goalpost Mover. This is the reason why I quoted so much of the back conversation… you provided a link in rebuttal to a post by JuJu, who said that there is no evidence of a global flood. You have not addressed how this regional flood is evidence of a global flood. You also apparently have a serious misunderstanding of the Lake Missoula floods.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
I am not sure what physical evidence of a global tsunami would exist after 13,000 years. I doubt there will be any evidence of the Idonesian tsunami in 500 years. Therefore trying to tie all the flood myths down to one occurance at one time would be nion impossible. But that is the problem, if evidence for such an event is removed by time, that neither supports or negates any claims and puts it outside the capabilities of physical evidence driven science. or as a scientist once put it, "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist" At this point the rest of the population leave scientists behind and look for other ways to make sense of the past, with no physical evidence and of course get in a mess. I think they are called thought experiments.
The problem is that people are interpreting ancient sagas and myths with their own biases. Consider the Norse Sagas - most of them were written when Christianity was becoming the majority religion or by Christians wanted to record old myths. It has been argued that the Norse ideas of Raganok comes from the Christian End of Days, and that the Norse really did not see an end to the world as presented in the Sagas. Then there is the problem of the myth of Baldar and Loki which often gets interpreted in terms of Christ and his death.
Trying to discover what ancient peoples thought and experienced is difficult. The basis of this website is to expose Western mis-interpretations of ancient Mayan thoughts. The Mayans had different reasons for their calendar and living. However, various people have taken the Mayans and recast them as Westerners in disguise.
You can collect flood stories, try to tie them to the landscapes, but would you have a global flood? Also, what is the point of the myths - what are the ancients saying? What did they leave out which they considered to be common knowledge to them, that we have no concept of? Why did they tell these stories, who wrote them down or orally learned them, and who translated them, and when?
What are you not sure of?
A global event would leave evidence, assuming it happened the way Geryl says it happened. In addition, Geryl states it was 11,803 years ago and happens regularly every 11,500 years. There would be salt deposits in different areas.
Please, support your ideas.
This is to Ben, not Snorks.
Ben, as usual, you completely refuse to address the responses you've received, instead resorting to yet another round of backpedaling, goalpost-moving and hand-waving.
Never mind that your proposal defies existing evidence and is utterly impossible. You're content with simply asserting things and letting them linger in obscurity, because applying actual science to your claims makes them look really, really ridiculous, and I think you know it.
JasonLaz — No. No salt deposits would have survived thay would hve been washed out many years ago.
Snork— you are absolutely correct. The problem with all historical information is that it has been translated and interpreted with a western Christian mindset. I suspect that the 2012 claims ALL fall into this catagory i.e. they are subconsciously looking for the ''judgement". But we have to live with this 'mindset'. So I still maintain that we can use inductive logic. eg If there is no evidence of a 26000 year 'event' then even with a 13000 year event (end of ice age), there is no basis for a repetition of said event. But knowing why the ice age ended "and caused scablands) would be a good start.
No. No salt deposits would have survived thay would hve been washed out many years ago.
Support this assertion.
So I still maintain that we can use inductive logic. eg If there is no evidence of a 26000 year 'event' then even with a 13000 year event (end of ice age), there is no basis for a repetition of said event.
Even if there was a "[26,000-year] 'event'," on what basis would you assert the likelihood of "repetition?"
The "end of ice age" was a glacial retreat that occurred over thousands of years, starting with the Last Glacial Maximum between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago. Technically, we're still in the ice age. You continue confusing glacial advances and retreats with the ice ages themselves.
Even if these changes can be considered "sudden" in geologic terms, we're dealing with time scales over which world inhabitants would not have noticed any significant changes.
But knowing why the ice age ended "and caused scablands) would be a good start.
The "ice age" (Quaternary) didn't end. There was a glacial retreat, as occurs routinely over millions of years within any ice age.
Even if we knew nothing about "why the ice age ended," that would in no way justify your wild claims about magical tsunamis and floods.
Astrogeek
I have read your info and come to the conclusion that you are correct. The mountain range and the flood plain would have absorbed the waters energy from the ice dam failure. However I would suspect that these ice dam failures were not a one off event and what we have is physical evidence of one occurring over a land mass. Any occurring directly into the pacific or atlantic would have given rise to the numerous flood stories. I would be easy for there to be no physical evidence of such an occurance except for historical texts. The idea that the Canadian ice dam failure to be an isolated incident seems less likely than for such failures to be a characteristic of the retreating ice sheet.
JuJu
The assertion that salt deposits would be leached/washed out after 13000 years? Common sense.
IF there was a 26000BP year event (of which I know non) then it would become more pertinent to look for a 13000 year event cycle as it would seem related to the Earths precession period. (which all the 2012 theories claim inspite of dreaming up mechanisms which are totally unrelated to the earth precession) As it stands, all we have is a severe climate shift 13000 years ago. This gave rise to at least the Canadian ice dam failure. (and flood stories, even if they were just American stories)
So what DID cause this 13000 BP climate shift? Or do youclaim that there was no sudden climate shift 13000 years ago?
The assertion that salt deposits would be leached/washed out after 13000 years? Common sense.
Not even close, padawan.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/saltcaverns/usdeposit/index.htm
I repeat: support your assertion.
IF there was a 26000BP year event (of which I know non) then it would become more pertinent to look for a 13000 year event cycle as it would seem related to the Earths precession period.
Why?
You can look back 13,000 or 26,000 years from literally any point in time, find an "event," and then assert that it has some significance.
(which all the 2012 theories claim inspite of dreaming up mechanisms which are totally unrelated to the earth precession)
Kind of like how you dream up mechanisms of your own which are totally unrelated to anything in reality.
As it stands, all we have is a severe climate shift 13000 years ago.
We have a glacial retreat that occurred over a period of 10,000 years or longer.
This gave rise to at least the Canadian ice dam failure.
There were multiple floods from Glacial Lake Missoula over thousands of years.
(and flood stories, even if they were just American stories)
As has already been explained to you, floods are extremely common, and you have provided absolutely no reason to assume that any particular group of flood tales necessarily reflects a single flood event (i.e. Missoula).
So what DID cause this 13000 BP climate shift?
It didn't just suddenly happen. It took 10,000+ years, and ultimately even featured the anomalous cooler period called the Younger Dryas. We're still in the Quaternary ice age, which is something you don't yet seem to understand. As for what specifically caused the change, I don't know, and I'm not even sure that scientists have resolved the issue. We do know it has happened at least half a dozen times or so, which obviously rules out the relatively brief precession cycle as a causal mechanism, and you yourself admit that this is tantamount to "dreaming up mechanisms."
Or do youclaim that there was no sudden climate shift 13000 years ago?
"Sudden" relative to what? Relative to millions of years, sure.
Even if we knew nothing about "why the ice age ended," that would in no way justify your wild claims about magical tsunamis and floods.
Not even close, padawan. (salt ref.)
NO NO NO! Those salt deposits in your ref are formed over millions of years, not a four month tsunami flood which receeded back to the sea.
Anyway that is irrelevant if your assertion is true that there was no 10,000 BP event. But if there was no 10,000 BP event then I don't understand the basis for ANY of the 2012 literature apart from the Mayan calendar used precession of the equinoxs.
OR b) you have no idea what you are talking about and are ill informed
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62U44D20100331
I suspect the latter.
Ben wrote:
But if there was no 10,000 BP event then I don't understand the basis for ANY of the 2012 literature apart from the Mayan calendar used precession of the equinoxs.
You mean the predictions or our writings? Actually that is the point - there is NO basis for the 2012 literature in fact. It is a *meme* that was started by some of the people listed in the side bar and picked up by New Agers, and later the media. They had no training in archeology or science either, just their own thoughts.
NO NO NO! Those salt deposits in your ref are formed over millions of years, not a four month tsunami flood which receeded back to the sea.
Padawan, how do you think salt gets there in the first place? Why would sea salt deposits necessarily disappear? You still haven't supported your assertion. Could it be that you simply can't?
Anyway that is irrelevant if your assertion is true that there was no 10,000 BP event.
Padawan, I did not make any such assertion. I said there were multiple events over a 10,000+ year period, and the Missoula floods in particular were routine over a period of about 2,000 years. Shortly thereafter was the Younger Dryas, and we are still in the Quaternary ice age. Are you even paying attention?
But if there was no 10,000 BP event then I don't understand the basis for ANY of the 2012 literature apart from the Mayan calendar used precession of the equinoxs.
We don't have any clear evidence that they Maya had any knowledge of precession [1].
OR b) you have no idea what you are talking about and are ill informed
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62U44D20100331
I suspect the latter.
Yet again, you pull a link from your metaphorical backside that doesn't even remotely support what you're saying. That article directly refers to the Younger Dryas cooling, which I have only mentioned to you over and over and over again. Maybe you missed this part:
"The finding has confirmed past theories about the likely cause of a sudden cooling period called the Younger Dryas when temperatures in Europe, similar to today's, quickly returned to ice age conditions. The cooling lasted for about 1,400 years."
This was the "sudden" change that disturbed the interglacial for multiple centuries, before the retreat resumed and settled into a global climate somewhat similar to today's.
There still was no global flood, and I see you're doing your damnedest to dodge this issue now. Maybe it's time for you to just admit that you were mistaken and move on.
Ben,
In what way does that article remotely prove Patrick Geryl's theory?
Scotland and many land areas were under the sea in the past but they are not covered in salt deposits due to precipitation. The lack of salt deposits does NOT prove a tsunami has not occurred. But it does not prove they all occurred at the same time. ie There could have been a global flood (hence stories) due to ice dam failures, without any evidence. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Which bit of common sense don't you get Padawan.
Jason
Geryl claims that : the earth's magnetic field and solar activity is related to precession (and uses this a a cause of Youger Dryas, I don't know why and neither does he). But until science can come out with a cause of Younger Dryas then everyone is having a go with theories. He has no basis for his speculation but that is what happens when scientists don't know.
While absence of proof is not proof of absence, proof of absence is proven by proof.
In other words, you are trying to convince people that something happened, but lacks the concrete and acknowledged staples of it happening. This is difficult for you to prove, and you so far can not do so. As expected (and everyone placed their bets on it), you used a general defense for your claim, being "absence of proof is not proof of absence".
However, absence of proof hurts you far more. Adding on the second half of that sentence is simply done to try to turn the situation into a more favorable position for yourself. Sadly, considering your claims are not simply just 'unlikely', but flat out contradictory to everything we know as fact? You can't use that line to defend yourself.
Return with solid geological evidence, Padawan. Not articles from people with no true merit.
"Not articles from people with no true merit."
In your eyes that is. If the scienists have failed to explain the slow magnetic field decline and the younger dryas then speculation will run rife outside of the scientific community. That is the failure of the science community.
"Sadly, considering your claims are not simply just 'unlikely', but flat out contradictory to everything we know as fact?"
What is 'unlikely' about more than one ice dam failing around the same time causing a pacific and/or atlantic tsunami. We have the evidence for a land indundation, what is so unilkely about a sea based inundation? What 'known facts does this contradict?
Generally, the scientific community has explained these things. The difficulty is that most of the general public does not read the scientific community's output (i.e., peer reviewed journals) but rely on secondary or tertiary reporting of that output.
In addition, a certain amount of uncertainty will always exist in scientific theories, and this is one of the concepts of the scientific method that most of the general public simply doesn't understand. They want nice neat packages, pronouncements of 100% solid iron-clad cause-and-effect. That simply isn't the case in science.
Your claim that global tsunamis can be generated by a land-based ice-dam failure don't appear to match what we know about such failures. The drainage of a land-based body of water necessarily converts to a run-off across land, which slows and spreads the water, making a tsunami appear to be an impossible effect.
Tsunami are generated by sudden displacements of oceanic water, caused by earthquakes or landslides. The volume of water displaced has a strong effect on how large the tsunami is. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was generated by the sudden displacement of water along a substantial fault line. I have not found any place that estimates the volume of water displaced (so far) but I would hazard to guess that it is substantially larger than Lake Missoula.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Scotland and many land areas were under the sea in the past but they are not covered in salt deposits due to precipitation.
Indeed, salt mines are a very common enterprise the world over for this very reason. Flooding is common, therefore mineral deposits of myriad types are common. Thousands, tens of thousands and millions of years of flooding and other activity, yield corresponding levels of sedimentary deposition. If you lack a particular type of deposit, relative to a particular flood over a particular area, it's a strong indicator that something is wrong with your hypothesis (not that your claims even remotely resemble an actual hypothesis) or that you need another satisfactory explanation as to why the sediments aren't there, along with evidence of that event.
The lack of salt deposits does NOT prove a tsunami has not occurred.
If true, it would be telling evidence that nothing cataclysmic occurred within a particular time frame, especially when we can look at other deposits that do exist and infer a lot about the region's history.
But it does not prove they all occurred at the same time.
I don't have any idea what you mean by "they." Since scientists can date all manner of deposits with a fair degree of accuracy, something of this nature would be a relatively straightforward determination. If there was a global flood some five-figure number of years ago, we would see all kinds of contemporary sedimentary deposits the world over reflecting this event. The sedimentary and fossil landscapes across the planet would look completely different.
There could have been a global flood (hence stories) due to ice dam failures, without any evidence.
Oh, you mean like the scablands, which you originally posited as evidence of a global flood, but now you're backpedaling and waving your hands in sheer panic. Since there is no evidence of such an event, and the link you provided initially doesn't even remotely support your claims, well, golly gee, it must have happened and left behind no evidence at all.
Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Can you provide some mechanism by which the entire world flooded and left behind no evidence?
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Often, it is, as is the case here.
Which bit of common sense don't you get Padawan.
You haven't offered any "common sense." Everything you have said, padawan, completely ignores it, in fact.
You still haven't supported your claim. You can't do it, can you? All you can do is post a link that doesn't support you seem to think it does, vigorously defend a completely wrong position, pull baseless claims out of your backside under color of "common sense," then change your tune to "could have been … without any evidence" instead of admitting your error. Ben, that is pseudoscience.
I did not post the scablands as evidence of a global flood, I posted it as a possible mechanism for a global tsunami which does not require the entire Earth to be underwater (volume wise).
Mined salt deposits do take millions of years of flooding (exactly) and evaporation to build up but must also occur in rock basins which are impervious to salt water eg granite to prevent the salt from washing out with water. But millions of years not 10,000.
"a global flood … would see all kinds of contemporary sedimentary deposits" True but not salt. It may be that sand should be present in this layer (not fossil layer after 10,000 years by the way). I am just not sure how much should be looked for but Such deposits SHOULD be found around the world unless you are suggesting that NO tsunamis have occurred over the last 10,00 years. Do you get my point, the lack of sedimantary evidence for ANY tsunamis should raise eyebrows and indicate that we are not finding evidence for ANY tusnamis at all. ie we must be missing it.
"You still haven't supported your claim." My claim is that there is a mechanim for global flooding "ice dam failures" which does not need the the world to be under water aAND that evidence for tsunamis SHOULD be found all over the world even just to agknowledge that tsunamis exist at all.
I did not post the scablands as evidence of a global flood, I posted it as a possible mechanism for a global tsunami which does not require the entire Earth to be underwater (volume wise).
Let's recap.
—
TheGreatJuju:
Also, regardless of whether you agree with a literal interpretation of the biblical flood myth, it remains a simple fact that there is no geologic evidence of a global flood and mountains of evidence (pun intended) against such an event occurring. This is true whether you subscribe to the biblical literalist global flood or another one.
Ben:
Really?
http://blog.artfahrt.com/2010/01/scablands-created-by-megaflood.html
—
Hmm.
Mined salt deposits do take millions of years of flooding (exactly) and evaporation to build up but must also occur in rock basins which are impervious to salt water eg granite to prevent the salt from washing out with water. But millions of years not 10,000.
You're missing/ignoring the point. Salt sediments are a constant in the deposition process. On one hand, you pretend that the relatively brief formation of the scablands by Lake Missoula flooding supports whatever your claim is (though your waffling on this has been a constant in this discussion). On the other hand, when shown that your claims are wrong, you want to pretend that salt deposits can only form over millions of years, and that they require special conditions that can only be met over millions of years.
In any case, that's wrong. Salt deposits can build fairly quickly via evaporation. They might take millions of years to reach a particular size. The point, which you're missing/ignoring, is that these deposits have existed, in whatever form, for millions of years, thereby refuting your claim that such deposits from such a massive flooding event would necessarily disappear and conveniently leave you to invoke your magical mechanism without evidence.
True but not salt.
Why not? Support your… ah, hell. Forget it. You can't support your claims, and we both know it.
It may be that sand should be present in this layer (not fossil layer after 10,000 years by the way).
Fossils are found in sedimentary layers, padawan.
I am just not sure how much should be looked for but Such deposits SHOULD be found around the world unless you are suggesting that NO tsunamis have occurred over the last 10,00 years.
They are. You also have to realize the following: 1) sedimentary deposits are not exclusive evidence of a tsunami, and 2) tsunamis rarely travel more than a few hundred meters inland, and the evidence for them is commonly in the form of displaced rock formations along the coastline, much of which can be concealed by human development over time. But we aren't talking about just a tsunami and, despite your waffling, neither are you. We're talking about a global flood, for which there is no evidence. Incredibly, this has become your main talking point, but you're confusing (or deliberately conflating) the two.
Do you get my point
Yes, you can't support anything you've claimed, so now you have to waffle on your original point and pretend you've been saying something else all this time, despite the lack of ambiguity in your original post.
the lack of sedimantary evidence for ANY tsunamis should raise eyebrows and indicate that we are not finding evidence for ANY tusnamis at all. ie we must be missing it.
What do you think would be "[sedimentary] evidence" for a tsunami?
But that wasn't your original claim. You claimed that a Missoula flood magically triggered a trans-global tsunami, which resulted in a global flood. (Actually, you originally confused the ice dam breakage with a tsunami, but never mind….)
You wrote:
"The scabs lands were cut by a 2000 feet wall of water. of 500 cubic miles volume. This tsunami would not have stooped at the West coast of America, It would have gone circum global. Japan would not have been safe but at this tsunami height nowhere would have been. The world sea levels did not have to rise all at once or for any significant length of time. But an approx 0.7 km wall of water would certainly have been recorded as a flood by world cultures. The 2004 Iindonesian tsunami was 100 th this size at its highest."
Stupidity, as has been shown to you several times.
My claim is that there is a mechanim for global flooding "ice dam failures"
And you have not supported this claim.
which does not need the the world to be under water
Waffling, and you still have not supported this claim.
AND that evidence for tsunamis SHOULD be found all over the world even just to agknowledge that tsunamis exist at all.
More waffling. Tsunamis rarely travel more than a few hundred meters inland, and the evidence for them is commonly in the form of displaced rock formations along the coastline, much of which can be concealed by human development over time. But we aren't talking about a tsunami and, despite your waffling, neither are you. We're talking about a global flood, for which there is no evidence.
Even if we assume there would not be any remaining evidence of this magical trans-global tsunami impact, this does not change the fact that evidence of the resulting magical global flood, per your claim, would be present in enough concurrent sedimentary layers to conclude that something worldwide occurred at the same time. We don't see this in the geologic record. Whether you come from a biblical perspective or not, this goes all the way back to the link Moo posted early in this ridiculous back-and-forth.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
Ben, how convenient it must be for you to show up here, make an absurd claim, then spend I-don't-know-how-many posts insisting that your insane ideas make sense because there is no evidence in support of them.
The possible Indian ocean impact was brought up by someone else in the forums a while ago. Even an impact tsunami such as this would not have been global, although it would have made the 2004 tsunami look like small potatoes.
The BBC article looks like fluff to me.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
An asteroid isn't an ice damn. A large one would likely release many times the energy of a glacial flood, not to mention displacing exponentially more water in the event of an ocean impact. Even if you could point to something roughly in line with your make-believe geology, this ain't even remotely the same thing that you've been claiming heretofore.
Notice from the third paragraph, in direct contradiction of your backpedaling: "The wave carried the huge deposits of sediment to land." You're so confused and desperate, Ben, it's almost sad. Also, that's an older pop-sci article that is completely and utterly inconclusive. Can you point to any peer-reviewed papers confirming any of this? Amusingly, the time-line here isn't even close to anything you've crowed about previously (4,800 years, as of Nov. 2006).
As for the ad hoc Atlantis…. An earthquake and tsunami? Geologically, those happen all the time. What does that have to do with anything?
Where's your evidence of a global flood? Not in anything you've posted; that's for sure.
Nothing here but more Goalpostius Mobilitas.
(I originally posted this as a reply to the wrong conversation… sorry)
By the way, the acceptance of these chevrons as evidence of impact-related tsunami is not universal. University of Washington geologist and tsunami expert Jody Bourgeois does not accept these as tsunami relics, but says that they are more consistent with aeolian (wind-borne) deposition.
http://www.physorg.com/news160212894.html
So, although the idea of an impact-related tsunami is intriguing, the jury is still out.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
[post removed by Astrogeek]
Ben,
Then what is your suggestion then with Geryl? He makes no mention of Ice Dam failures. His basis for a global flood is that this Coronal Mass Ejection with enter through the south pole with "southern polarity" and turn the inner core 180 degrees. Sure, the ice dams melted might have been unconsciously incorporated into the theory(if that's what you want to call it). However, he makes no mention of it.
Its related to the younger dryas period. For some reason the ice age retreat suddenly stopped and the earth was plunged into a 'severe cold snap' prior to (or at the same time) as that the younger dryas layer shows a burnt layer (juju claims they happen all the time which is OK) but with rare mineral deposits and ice core rare mineral deposit (eg iridium). So his theory is that the mag field failed (solar inundation) and then reestablished itself far more powerfully. This would give the effects of 1) burnt layer with rare metal deposits (not from earth) sudden ice pack melt (multiple ice dam failure ie global flood) followed by sudden freeze (see extinction, well high mortality and survival stress levels). 10,000 BC. He claims that these are 180 deg (precesssion) ago and that the precession and events are related. SO he concludes that the Mayan calander (180 deg precession later must be related to these events). He then goes of on one and suggests that therefore the mag field is the cause and that it it related to precession.
He is not making any stupid claims UNTIL this point unfortunately it is the only point that links youger dryas to the mayan calendar. I wasjust pointing out that one does not have to deny everything (floods/younger dryas layer deposits etc) to question his conclusions. He is probably wrong but if scientists fail to explain the mag field fluctuations than as I say…everyone and his brother and his priest will have a go.
Yea but according to Geryl, there is no such thing as true precession. In the "Orion Prophecy," he says that true precession cycles do not actually exist due to the fact that Earth's rotation changes every 11,500 years. His second issue is something that he takes from Greg Braden. It's in regards to to the magnetic field drop over the last 12,000 years or so.
I found this to be a pretty good video on Magnetic Reversals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CG62lSLrzk
How can earth's rotation change?
Earth is a big Gyroscope!
Oh, according to Geryl. It turns the opposite way every 11,500 years.
You should calculate how much force it is required to change Earth's rotation.
Gyroscopes, just like Earth is resist any change in direction big time.
We are not talking some fluid here, but about the big static crust!
With regard to Geryl's claims, a magnetic field failure (which, as far as we know, has never happened, by the way) would not cause iridium deposits, and probably would not cause a 'burnt layer'. The earth's magnetic field protects us against the charged particles of the solar wind, but the earth's atmosphere is also protection.
Let me explain what I mean about a magnetic field failure. I take that term to mean a complete loss of the magnetic field of the earth. As far as we can tell, the magnetic field fluctuates in strength, but never drops to zero, not even in the middle of a reversal. What happens during a polarity reversal is that the field becomes more complex, where the earth may have two or three sets of magnetic poles that will wander around the planet for a while (hundreds or thousands of years) before settling down into a reversed configuration.
If you look at the Magnetic Pole Shift page, there is a chart on the right side that shows the field strength of the earth since the last reversal. Note that the earth has a measurable field strength at the last reversal.
So again, Geryl's claim fails on the evidence.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
You may 'join in' once you have apologized to everyone for trolling the site, pretending you are an astrophysicist, making various claims and refusing to back them up, refusing to address criticisms of your claims, and refusing to engage in an open and honest debate.
You can use the contact form at the top of the site to email me. Until you have done these things, you are not welcome here.
I will not allow you to continue to hijack discussion threads.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Yes, I openly apologize for lying about being an astro physicist. I apologize for not adressing direct questions posed to me. Most of those question were completely over my head. But, I would say that 90% of what I said is what I actually believe. Since I dont have the education to answer technical questions, I simply avoided them. I was seriously trying to talk about Nibiru. The trolling thing I really dont understand, because I was seriously here to talk about Nibiru. But I can see how it would have been taken as trolling. So, I do sincerly apologize for highjacking threads, because I do agree thats what was going on. I try to debate about these things to the best of my ability. The truth is, I wanted to find out about Nibiru, to see if it really was possible for this to be real. Something makes me want it to be real and thats why I was siding on the side that believes. I just want to know the truth like everyone else. Im also very immature.
Well, that's a start.
Here's what I want from you.
1) Do not post again in the next 24 hours. I need this time to confer with the other moderators/admins and think about whether we want you back in the forums.
2) Use the contact form at the top of the site and give me an email address that I can use to contact you. I need this in order to give you our decision.
3) You have posted a small apology, which is a start, but the injury you have caused is much greater. A lot of time and energy has been wasted on dealing with your nonsense. Use the 24 hours to think about this. If I decide to allow you back on the forums you will be presented with a list of your claims. I will require you to address those claims, whether it is by admitting you were lying, or saying that you saw it on youtube, etc.
4) You will agree to not troll here again. Since you don't appear to understand this term, a troll is someone who posts provocative messages in order to garner a response, which is essentially what you just admitted to doing.
All of this is if we decide to allow you back on.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Wise words of the admin!
Maybe in the 24 period ghost could try to read and understand the "Universal Law of Gravitation", having some basic astronomy physics knowledge.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html
If he is willing we can happily help him understand if he has question after this 24 hour period of silence. All he needs is a scientific calculator, Windows has one standard.
Alright obaeyens,
here is my first task for you lol.
The google translate isnt very good on it. Also, can you translate the video as well.
I dont have too much time to translate this
But the translated bad English text:
zonneactiviteit = Sunspot activity
magnetic breaking loose follows = Solar erruption
Poland = Poles
ground = Earth
zondvloed = Noahs flood
It is basically the same copy cat of all other typical Mayan end of the world scenarios, solar flare, world flips upside down and blahblahblah.
In the video clip he sounds like a businessman with a lot of guts trying to bluff the audience before they ask questions.
The moment he gives the books to the professor telling that he has to do the homework to check his facts. Both people think he is a nut but try politely not to show it.
No one in the room actually takes him seriously, most people would probably laugh at him because of his nonsense.
But he is there to promote a book.
Also prior before he hands out the books, he claims he predicted the infra red quasars, he predicted that the universe is expanding faster and he claims that Einstein is wrong but astronomers are afraid to admit it since that would mean that they had to admit that other things in science is all wrong.
Correction,
In this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U5VO3j3NWI&feature=related
He claims that Earth will stop rotating and star to turn the other way all in one day. So it is not flipping upside down.
He wants to restart civilisation by finding a shelter 100 km from the closest volcano.
Wahaha, he needs 300.000 euro to by the ground for the shelter! He asks in the clip for volunteers.
He estimates 10.000 to 15.000 euros per person is needed. At 2:53 the guys pointing up their finger are volunteers.
At 3:06 the interviewer asks if nothing happens, are you disappointed?
He answers: partially yes or not, but he is very very sure that it will happen.
I found the original article:
http://www.filosofie.be/blog/detail/16569/
It is a critical analysis why Patrick Geryl his claim is wrong.
The article is debunking his claims.
For example scientifically, if an Earth rotation would happen, then there would not be a Noahs flood at all.
The energy released would heat earth so that all water vapourish and no human would have survived that.
No Atlantis and no Noahs flood could have caused by a rotation change as he claimed.