Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

southwest usa

Expand Messages
  • aumsparky@earthlink.net
    most will admit that the rocky mts are a relatively new range, it just a matter of how recent. we are led to believe they uplifted more than 50 mya. our lads
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 2, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
         most will admit that the rocky mts are a relatively new range, it just a matter of how recent.  we are led to believe they uplifted more than 50 mya. 
         our lads seem to also believe that the green and colorado rivers are responsible for all of the water erosion in az and utah.  if someone has better info, plz offer it.  is it not true, that these rivers began after the rockies arose?   so, new mts have new rivers, which should produce less erosion.   yet, check bryce canyon ... 
       
       
         i dont think those rivers caused the erosion evident.  my interest in the history of man has brought an interest in geology, to explain some of the genetic bottlenecks, and migrations of people.  these are just my ideas.  rivers cut canyons in a vee pattern, yet these walls are fairly vertical.  my lay opinion, is that only a raging torrent in a high wall of water, could produce the grand and bryce canyons.  the mesas of az point to a high torrent of water that stripped off hundreds of feet of surface.  the rivers didnt do all that.   
         what event could have caused the damage to the land?  was the water salt or fresh?  was it one event, or several?  what was the date[s]? 
         since its high desert, over a mile above sealevel, we first consider the break of a glacial dam.   at least one geologist agreed that only floodwaters could have caused the erosion, but he was jeered when he couldnt locate the glacial dam that broke. 
         based on my study and travel thru the region, im led to believe the water was from the sea, leaving the salt lakes.  the rocky mts may be less than 52,000 years old, or at least some ranges of it.  if true, those rivers are too new to have cut major canyons.
         it seems likely that the region has had vertical plate movement, not so long ago.  the rockies are on an extension of the same subduction zone that produced the andes.  both ranges probably are prone for the plates to drop or uplift when the earth goes thru an upheaval, brought on by poleshift, when polar icecaps get excessive. 
         the mystics say we are overdue for such an event.  on the bright side, much has been written lately on the reduced ice at the north pole, and huge bergs breaking off the south.  if this keeps up, the poleshift will continue to be delayed.  the less ice, the better.  it dont hurt to be prepared though. 
       
      mike
       
       
    • david collins
      Maybe a reduction in ice cover would be sufficient to create enough of an altered balance in the revolving Earth to cause the upheaval.
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 2, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Maybe a reduction in ice cover would be sufficient to create enough of an altered balance in the revolving Earth to cause the upheaval.
        From: "aumsparky@..." <aumsparky@...>
        To: Ancient-Mysteries@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, 2 October 2011, 11:35
        Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest usa

         
         
           most will admit that the rocky mts are a relatively new range, it just a matter of how recent.  we are led to believe they uplifted more than 50 mya. 
           our lads seem to also believe that the green and colorado rivers are responsible for all of the water erosion in az and utah.  if someone has better info, plz offer it.  is it not true, that these rivers began after the rockies arose?   so, new mts have new rivers, which should produce less erosion.   yet, check bryce canyon ... 
         
         
           i dont think those rivers caused the erosion evident.  my interest in the history of man has brought an interest in geology, to explain some of the genetic bottlenecks, and migrations of people.  these are just my ideas.  rivers cut canyons in a vee pattern, yet these walls are fairly vertical.  my lay opinion, is that only a raging torrent in a high wall of water, could produce the grand and bryce canyons.  the mesas of az point to a high torrent of water that stripped off hundreds of feet of surface.  the rivers didnt do all that.   
           what event could have caused the damage to the land?  was the water salt or fresh?  was it one event, or several?  what was the date[s]? 
           since its high desert, over a mile above sealevel, we first consider the break of a glacial dam.   at least one geologist agreed that only floodwaters could have caused the erosion, but he was jeered when he couldnt locate the glacial dam that broke. 
           based on my study and travel thru the region, im led to believe the water was from the sea, leaving the salt lakes.  the rocky mts may be less than 52,000 years old, or at least some ranges of it.  if true, those rivers are too new to have cut major canyons.
           it seems likely that the region has had vertical plate movement, not so long ago.  the rockies are on an extension of the same subduction zone that produced the andes.  both ranges probably are prone for the plates to drop or uplift when the earth goes thru an upheaval, brought on by poleshift, when polar icecaps get excessive. 
           the mystics say we are overdue for such an event.  on the bright side, much has been written lately on the reduced ice at the north pole, and huge bergs breaking off the south.  if this keeps up, the poleshift will continue to be delayed.  the less ice, the better.  it dont hurt to be prepared though. 
         
        mike
         
         


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.