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

Re: Announcing The Atlantic Conference

Expand Messages
  • Susan
    All, Terry, you seem to be a person who knows how to get things done over there---our good fortune at Ancient Waterways to have you as a member of our small,
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 17, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

       All,

      Terry, you seem to be a person who knows how to get things done over there---our good fortune at Ancient Waterways to have you as a member of our small, sometimes quiet web site...but very dedicated association of explorers and researchers.

      My role as an interconnector, I like to pass on  related information which  further brings together  other well-mannered  correspondants and groups. Non-competitive, amicable writers and  associations mutually enhance all of us.  From Terry's Profile, I have inserted  the link to a Yahoo group where messages may be read without becoming a member.  "NSExplore·Exploring Nova Scotia":

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NSExplore/

      Rick, if you and others in your states are planning on going to Nova Scotia at that time, perhaps we might find a common meeting place. I'd probably camp a couple of days before and afterward. Wouldn't want to miss one of Terry's field trips. Who are members of NEARA that are members here or members of AAAPF, THOR/Ohio Rock group, PreColumbian Inscripions, & Ancient Vikings in America groups? The August conference looks like a fine opportunity for excellent interaction among international groups.

      Thanks for the information and for future updates, Oz and Terry.

      Oz, Terry and members of the 300+ Nova ScotiaExplore group might make a fascinating Oopa Loopa Cafe Radio program or two prior to the event.
      William/THOR and Steve/Ancient Vikings groups would be intersted in the conference and that significant ancient global passageway area of the world..."waves upon waves" of cultures which were engaged in intercontinental navigation, trade.

      Susan English

      In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com "Terry J. Deveau" <aa376@...> wrote:

      last summer I did conduct a number of field trips for a
      Special NEARA Event in Nova Scotia. You can look at this
      web site for an overview of what that was all about:

      http://www.neara.org/pastcon.htm#Nova
       
      And there are some photos from it here:

      http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=5028&l=7c1a5&id=525626073
       
      Terry

    • bigalemc2
      Hey, Rick - A couple of comments on the article accompanying the Atlantic Conference, if I may. First, though, I wish I could break away from present day
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 18, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey, Rick -

        A couple of comments on the article accompanying the Atlantic Conference, if I may.

        First, though, I wish I could break away from present day responsibilities and head that way then, but all of you absorb all you can without me.  Contribute when you can, too...

        > In August, 2008, Linguists, Archaeologists, Cartographers, DNA experts
        > and thought leaders from many differing fields will gather to share
        > their recent work, their views and their theories regarding early
        > trans-Atlantic contact of peoples of the Americas with those of Europe,
        > Africa and the Middle East .

        DAMN!  Pardon my French (about 30% by blood), but by the gods that is so great that scientists are actually doing cross-discipline connecting.  Of course, there is no other way to do it, is there?  EXCELLENT!
         
        > Recently, NOVA ran a very popular documentary called " America
        > 's Stone Age Explorers." Curator of Archaeology and Chairman of
        > the Anthropology Department at the National Museum of Natural History,
        > Smithsonian Institution, Washington , D.C. was one of the key scientists
        > featured in the documentary. He, Bruce Bradley of the University of
        > Exeter and other experts present a compelling argument that the Clovis
        > spear point is very similar to those carved by the Solutrean peoples who
        > lived in what is now France and Spain during the last ice age.
         
         Without everything else tied in (mentioned in the following paragraph), one could actually attempt to explain this as serendipitous or that the idea could have been just floating around in the breeze at that time.  Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus at the same time (though Newton's fluxions was considerably different in its notation from what we know as calculus).  If something that complex can be co-invented, then one would think that the Solutrean point and Clovis point could have been invented by two separate people.  I mean, they both could have seen broken stones and scratched their heads and with some fiddling around come up with the same means of creating flaked edges and then developed them in their own to a higher state of technology.

        None of that is to say that I disagree that the Clovis points almost certainly came out of the Solutrean points.  But that explanation is certainly feasible.

        One of the things we tend to do is to glomp certain ancient time periods all together into one moment, for example not really appreciating that the 11th centry and the 10th century were basically 100 years apart, with 36,524 days separating their beginnings.  A LOT can transpire in all those days.  And the further back we go, the more we tend to compress times together, thinking that 17,000 BCE is basically just the day after 18,000 BCE.  But it is not fair to the people of those periods to be dumped in a mass non-grave of our mental convenience.  A thousand years is a thousand freaking years!  SIXTY generations or more.  The time from the First Crusade till now.

        Those Solutreans and the Clovis people may have both had geniuses in their midst, 500 or 1500 years apart, who we view as contemporaries, but they were even FURTHER from that each other than we are from Columbus (1500 CE) or the real Clovis, first King of France (475 CE).
         
        Even if Europeans did come over - and indigenous Americans travel to Europe at about those times - they could still have developed Clovis points independently from Solutrean.  I don't think so, but the possibility is one I can't rule out myself.

        I just wanted to get those two points out there... 

        . . . . Steve
      • bigalemc2
        Rick and all - I just got off an email to Steve at the Atlantic Conference. In looking down the list of speakers at the conference, I was half expecting to see
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 18, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Rick and all -

          I just got off an email to Steve at the Atlantic Conference.

          In looking down the list of speakers at the conference, I was half expecting to see
          Paul Chiasson, the author of TheIsland of Seven Cities: Where the Chinese Settled When They DiscoveredAmerica.  It is a very good read, and it sold me on its premise, even though I thought he was barking up the wrong tree when I cracked it open.

          Not finding his name included, I took the liberty to suggest to Steve that he contact Paul Chiasson.

          I included this in the email:
          He lives up near Nova Scotia, on Cape Breton Island, and he may be enticed into presenting his story to the conference attendees.  He has made such presentation before scientific conferences before.  Some people are skeptical of his works, and some are not so skeptical...

          ...I was pretty skeptical about his story going into it, too, because all the legends of The Island of The Seven Cities seemed to put that island more in the Caribbean area, though it was never found there.  But if you read the story, you can get an appreciation for the fact that he in no way wanted to attribute his find to the Chinese, but after eliminating all the other possible explanations he reluctantly looked into that possibility and then found that it held more water than he ever expected. 

          I am posting this here so that if any of you also want to suggest Mr. Chiasson, you now have the thought put into your heads...

          I have emailed Mr. Chiasson myself and he is a very gracious writer, one whom I wish all the good fortune in the world.  And I do think his story would fit into the conference.  Chinese are not Europeans, but somehow the Chinese got to Cape Breton Island, and it wasn't across any other ocean... LOL

          . . . . Steve
        • Susan
          Steve, Good point you made about the tendency to glomp certain ancient time periods altogether into one moment without considering how much time even one
          Message 4 of 12 , Feb 20, 2008
          • 0 Attachment

            Steve,

            Good point you made about the tendency to 'glomp certain ancient time periods altogether into one moment' without considering how much time even one millinnium is in relation to "generations" of human beings. And I'd say, even climactic and geological changes that can occur within a fairly short period of time.

            Re: your other point, as a novice at actually getting into some of this research, I was thinking of cultural development/cross-cultural influence via "diffusion" . then wondered further  if there really is such thing as morphogenic fields. And  any truth to the so called "hundredth monkey principle",  morphic resonance across time and space. Besides  "chance", maybe this possiblity  should also be considered without always assuming direct  diffusionist contact: t contact. The principle further explained:

            theoretically....that after so many people learn a concept, that it is embedded in the morphogenetic field--- a level of Universal Consciousness above our perception--- but available to all of us. Once that knowledge is in the M field, It becomes "Common Knowledge" and no longer has to be struggled with. It's just "known" They call it the "100th Monkey" principle' .

            Anyway, my recent posts have been about skeletons of giants found by the dozens in the Midwest,  now ' morphic resonance' across time and space, maybe I am taking 'considering the possibilities of ' too far. No reply called for  here.

            Susan

            ____________________________

            and deate in advance --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hey, Rick -
            >
            > A couple of comments on the article accompanying the Atlantic
            > Conference, if I may.
            >
            > First, though, I wish I could break away from present day
            > responsibilities and head that way then, but all of you absorb all you
            > can without me. Contribute when you can, too...
            >
            > > In August, 2008, Linguists, Archaeologists, Cartographers, DNA experts
            > > and thought leaders from many differing fields will gather to share
            > > their recent work, their views and their theories regarding early
            > > trans-Atlantic contact of peoples of the Americas with those of
            > Europe,
            > > Africa and the Middle East .
            >
            > DAMN! Pardon my French (about 30% by blood), but by the gods that is so
            > great that scientists are actually doing cross-discipline connecting.
            > Of course, there is no other way to do it, is there? EXCELLENT!
            >
            > > Recently, NOVA ran a very popular documentary called " America
            > > 's Stone Age Explorers." Curator of Archaeology and Chairman of
            > > the Anthropology Department at the National Museum of Natural History,
            > > Smithsonian Institution, Washington , D.C. was one of the key
            > scientists
            > > featured in the documentary. He, Bruce Bradley of the University of
            > > Exeter and other experts present a compelling argument that the Clovis
            > > spear point is very similar to those carved by the Solutrean peoples
            > who
            > > lived in what is now France and Spain during the last ice age.
            >
            > Without everything else tied in (mentioned in the following paragraph),
            > one could actually attempt to explain this as serendipitous or that the
            > idea could have been just floating around in the breeze at that time.
            > Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus at the same time (though
            > Newton's fluxions was considerably different in its notation from what
            > we know as calculus). If something that complex can be co-invented,
            > then one would think that the Solutrean point and Clovis point could
            > have been invented by two separate people. I mean, they both could have
            > seen broken stones and scratched their heads and with some fiddling
            > around come up with the same means of creating flaked edges and then
            > developed them in their own to a higher state of technology.
            >
            > None of that is to say that I disagree that the Clovis points almost
            > certainly came out of the Solutrean points. But that explanation is
            > certainly feasible.
            >
            > One of the things we tend to do is to glomp certain ancient time periods
            > all together into one moment, for example not really appreciating that
            > the 11th centry and the 10th century were basically 100 years apart,
            > with 36,524 days separating their beginnings. A LOT can transpire in
            > all those days. And the further back we go, the more we tend to
            > compress times together, thinking that 17,000 BCE is basically just the
            > day after 18,000 BCE. But it is not fair to the people of those periods
            > to be dumped in a mass non-grave of our mental convenience. A thousand
            > years is a thousand freaking years! SIXTY generations or more. The
            > time from the First Crusade till now.
            >
            > Those Solutreans and the Clovis people may have both had geniuses in
            > their midst, 500 or 1500 years apart, who we view as contemporaries, but
            > they were even FURTHER from that each other than we are from Columbus
            > (1500 CE) or the real Clovis, first King of France (475 CE).
            >
            > Even if Europeans did come over - and indigenous Americans travel to
            > Europe at about those times - they could still have developed Clovis
            > points independently from Solutrean. I don't think so, but the
            > possibility is one I can't rule out myself.
            >
            > I just wanted to get those two points out there...
            >
            > . . . . Steve
            >
          • Susan
            Steve G., MinnesotaStan, Terry, and All, I also wrote to Steve St. Clair from the Atlantic Conference, listed our group s link and received the following
            Message 5 of 12 , Feb 20, 2008
            • 0 Attachment

              Steve G., MinnesotaStan, Terry, and All,

              I also wrote to Steve St. Clair from the Atlantic Conference, listed our group's link and received the following reply. After his reply I  offered to help on the floor during the conference if I am able to attend at  that time. It would be good to see representatives from this group. Perhaps there will be members of the THOR, PreColumbian Inscriptions and Ancient Vikings groups thinking of attending:

              Hi Susan,

              I've seen your Society's website and am completely delighted to have you attending. I'm up to my neck tonight in work. Will write you soon. As to cost, we're not looking to make money on the event. So we'll keep costs of the conference extremely reasonable. We haven't established cost, but will very soon. Given the distance you must travel, if cost of the conference is a concern, let me know.

              In haste,

              Steve

              Here again is the Atlantic Conference web link Oz sent earlier which Terry and Steve Garcia have also been discussing:   http://www.atlanticconference.org/Speakers so far:

              "NEWS


              The Atlantic Conference is already attracting leaders in their area of expertise, and we've only begun

               -Dr. Dennis Stanford is Curator of Archaeology and Chairman of the Anthropology Department at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. He has devoted his career to early American prehistory, and done field work from Alaska to Monte Verde in Chile, where the oldest human remains in the Americas were found. With his Smithsonian colleague Bruce Bradley, he is working on the possibility that Clovis points, first found in North America around 11,000 years ago, derive from similar flaking techniques developed thousands of years earlier in Spain. Dr. Stanford is also one of the eight archaeologists suing the U.S. government to make the Kennewick Man available for study. An article on his theories about the link between European and American flaking technology can be found at this link. -- part of a Smithsonian web site called "Northern Clans, Northern Traces." His recent publications include the book Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies (1992, Boulder: University Press of Colorado). He is working on a book about his theory of an early North Atlantic crossing.
              Click here to learn more >>

              Dr. Benjamin B. Olshin
              is a professor of philosophy, history, and history of science at The University of the Arts in Philadelphia. Initially, his work looked at Greek and Roman texts dealing with cartography and exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. Later, his research turned to early European maps and texts concerning Atlantic exploration, and as a Fulbright scholar, he studied Portuguese navigations and cartography in Lisbon, Portugal. A skeptic by nature, he is nonetheless interested in an open-minded attitude towards evidence, and believes that a "systems" approach is needed to sort out the many claims concerning early ventures into the oceans. Despite his European focus, Dr. Olshin has also written on early Chinese navigation and cartography.
              Gunnar Thompson, Ph.D.,
              an author and anthropologist, has been called "the Sherlock Holmes" of American History. Among his most notable achievements are the discovery of the Omnibus Power Sign—which proved ancient contact between China and Mexico, and the discovery of Albertin di Virga's 1414 Map which includes North and South America nearly a century before Columbus. He is the author of several controversial books including Nu Sun, American Discovery, The Friar's Map, and Secret Voyages to the New World. The Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl endorsed Gunnar's first book about voyages by the ancient Chinese to Mexico in 300 BC. The Smithsonian archeologist, Betty Meggers, called him "the vanguard of a new generation of scholars." In May of 2005, he gave a presentation about Marco Polo's West Coast voyages at the Library of Congress. In March of 2006, he was awarded the Zheng He Trophy in Beijing for his work on the Ming World Map. This map features a Chinese version of North and South America nearly a century before Columbus.
              Click here to learn more >>
              G
              érard Leduc PhD
              earned a PhD in Fisheries from Oregon State University. He worked for the Quebec Wildlife Service and, later, the Department of Biology at Concordia University. He developed a special interest for history and archaeology and took courses in archaeology at the University of Maine at Orono. Later he also studied at the Université du Québec at Montreal, did supervised digs with professional archaeologists in 1988, 1989, 1991 and 1992. and registered in an archaeology field course at the Plymouth State College, NH. Leduc founded the Potton Heritage Association in Mansonville QC. He carried out research on ancient cairns, astronomical alignments and on petroglyphs in the Eastern Townships of Quebec. He has published in the NEARA Journal and has given numerous public lectures. Of particular interest, Dr Leduc obtained radio carbon dates on cairns going back to
              1,800, 1,500 and 600 +/- 60 years ago. He also dated the construction of an ancient water mill near Lake Memphremagog to around 1500 AD.
              Click here to learn more >>
              Edo Nyland,
              a world renowned Linguistic Archaeologist, is digging up artifacts of language. He is a well-known author of such books as Linguistic Archaeology: An Introduction. He identified a subset of the Basque language, the core words of which have come through five millenia in almost unchanged form, as the nearest equivalent of the neolithic universal language which has been spoken in Europe and the Near East before the 'babylonian speech confusion.' His presentation for the Atlantic Conference will be regarding be the translation of a large encoded inscription in West Virginia, written in Basque about 600 AD. Click here to learn more >>
              Scott F. Wolter P.G
              . will be speaking on the Kensington Runestone, carved in 1362. Alice B. Kehoe refers to Wolter as "a hard scientist...who understands the methodology of science and inference, from data, to the best explanation. As Kehoe says, "The notion that the Kensington Runestone is a hoax is not supported by contemporary data." Click here to learn more >>

              Each of our speakers will submit a synopsis of their presentation approximately three months before the Atlantic Conference and make it available to this website for review by all other speakers to allow time for constructive criticism, preparation and debate in advance of the Conference."

              _____________________________________ preparation
              --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
              >
              > Rick and all -
              >
              > I just got off an email to Steve at the Atlantic Conference.
              >
              > In looking down the list of speakers at the conference, I was half
              > expecting to see Paul Chiasson, the author of TheIsland of Seven Cities:
              > Where the Chinese Settled When They DiscoveredAmerica
              > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312361866/sr=8-3/qid=1156700049/ref=p\
              > d_bbs_3/102-6260498-0026549?ie=UTF8> . It is a very good read, and it
              > sold me on its premise, even though I thought he was barking up the
              > wrong tree when I cracked it open.
              >
              > Not finding his name included, I took the liberty to suggest to Steve
              > that he contact Paul Chiasson.
              >
              > I included this in the email:
              > He lives up near Nova Scotia, on Cape Breton Island, and he may be
              > enticed into presenting his story to the conference attendees. He has
              > made such presentation before scientific conferences before. Some
              > people are skeptical of his works, and some are not so skeptical...
              >
              > ...I was pretty skeptical about his story going into it, too, because
              > all the legends of The Island of The Seven Cities seemed to put that
              > island more in the Caribbean area, though it was never found there. But
              > if you read the story, you can get an appreciation for the fact that he
              > in no way wanted to attribute his find to the Chinese, but after
              > eliminating all the other possible explanations he reluctantly looked
              > into that possibility and then found that it held more water than he
              > ever expected.
              >
              > I am posting this here so that if any of you also want to suggest Mr.
              > Chiasson, you now have the thought put into your heads...
              >
              > I have emailed Mr. Chiasson myself and he is a very gracious writer, one
              > whom I wish all the good fortune in the world. And I do think his story
              > would fit into the conference. Chinese are not Europeans, but somehow
              > the Chinese got to Cape Breton Island, and it wasn't across any other
              > ocean... LOL
              >
              > . . . . Steve
              >
            • Rick Osmon
              Steve, How very interesting and appropriate that you mention the supposed simultaneous invention of calculus by both Newton and Leibniz in this context. They
              Message 6 of 12 , Feb 23, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Steve,

                How very interesting and appropriate that you mention the supposed simultaneous "invention" of calculus by both Newton and Leibniz in this context. They both, almost certainly, had access to the then nearly two millennia old surviving works of Archimedes, the real inventor of calculus. So to say that either or both "invented" it is denying that anyone had done any advanced math before their time.

                Ditto for the Clovis points. Somebody, over some long period of time, practiced continual product improvement from simple breaking of stones to the "art" that resulted in the Clovis and similar points. Then "something" happened and the so-called Clovis culture (it's more like a technology that was traded widely than it is a single culture)  up and died. That death coincides with the so called "Younger-Dryas Event" that laid down a thin layer of anomalous carbonaceous material  directly on top of the Clovis artifacts.  This carbon is thought by some scholars to be the "fallout" resulting from an impact event that caused continent-wide wildfires and the carbon is the ash from that and it is thicker in some parts of North America than it is in others, but seems to be thickest in the center (nobody has addressed why it isn't thickest along the east coast).

                To assume that the peoples of NA "invented" what we know as the "Clovis" point is denying that any previous work in the art ever happened. I aint buyin' it.




                --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hey, Rick -
                >
                > A couple of comments on the article accompanying the Atlantic
                > Conference, if I may.
                >
                > First, though, I wish I could break away from present day
                > responsibilities and head that way then, but all of you absorb all you
                > can without me. Contribute when you can, too...
                >
                > > In August, 2008, Linguists, Archaeologists, Cartographers, DNA experts
                > > and thought leaders from many differing fields will gather to share
                > > their recent work, their views and their theories regarding early
                > > trans-Atlantic contact of peoples of the Americas with those of
                > Europe,
                > > Africa and the Middle East .
                >
                > DAMN! Pardon my French (about 30% by blood), but by the gods that is so
                > great that scientists are actually doing cross-discipline connecting.
                > Of course, there is no other way to do it, is there? EXCELLENT!
                >
                > > Recently, NOVA ran a very popular documentary called " America
                > > 's Stone Age Explorers." Curator of Archaeology and Chairman of
                > > the Anthropology Department at the National Museum of Natural History,
                > > Smithsonian Institution, Washington , D.C. was one of the key
                > scientists
                > > featured in the documentary. He, Bruce Bradley of the University of
                > > Exeter and other experts present a compelling argument that the Clovis
                > > spear point is very similar to those carved by the Solutrean peoples
                > who
                > > lived in what is now France and Spain during the last ice age.
                >
                > Without everything else tied in (mentioned in the following paragraph),
                > one could actually attempt to explain this as serendipitous or that the
                > idea could have been just floating around in the breeze at that time.
                > Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus at the same time (though
                > Newton's fluxions was considerably different in its notation from what
                > we know as calculus). If something that complex can be co-invented,
                > then one would think that the Solutrean point and Clovis point could
                > have been invented by two separate people. I mean, they both could have
                > seen broken stones and scratched their heads and with some fiddling
                > around come up with the same means of creating flaked edges and then
                > developed them in their own to a higher state of technology.
                >
                > None of that is to say that I disagree that the Clovis points almost
                > certainly came out of the Solutrean points. But that explanation is
                > certainly feasible.
                >
                > One of the things we tend to do is to glomp certain ancient time periods
                > all together into one moment, for example not really appreciating that
                > the 11th centry and the 10th century were basically 100 years apart,
                > with 36,524 days separating their beginnings. A LOT can transpire in
                > all those days. And the further back we go, the more we tend to
                > compress times together, thinking that 17,000 BCE is basically just the
                > day after 18,000 BCE. But it is not fair to the people of those periods
                > to be dumped in a mass non-grave of our mental convenience. A thousand
                > years is a thousand freaking years! SIXTY generations or more. The
                > time from the First Crusade till now.
                >
                > Those Solutreans and the Clovis people may have both had geniuses in
                > their midst, 500 or 1500 years apart, who we view as contemporaries, but
                > they were even FURTHER from that each other than we are from Columbus
                > (1500 CE) or the real Clovis, first King of France (475 CE).
                >
                > Even if Europeans did come over - and indigenous Americans travel to
                > Europe at about those times - they could still have developed Clovis
                > points independently from Solutrean. I don't think so, but the
                > possibility is one I can't rule out myself.
                >
                > I just wanted to get those two points out there...
                >
                > . . . . Steve
                >
              • bigalemc2
                Rick - Yes, I think we ve talked about the Younger-Dryas a few months ago. One site that came up then - I can t remember who led to it - tied it to the
                Message 7 of 12 , Feb 24, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Rick -

                  Yes, I think we've talked about the Younger-Dryas a few months ago.  One site that came up then - I can't remember who led to it - tied it to the Carolina Bays.  They also pinpointed the impact to the lower basin of Lake Michigan, right off the shore here (I live outside Chicago), but that it impacted the ice cap that lay over/on/in the lake then.  But you all know what I think of that ice age spiel.  Based on the angle of the Carolina Bays and other features, they have some logic behind the location.  If they were created by the splash of the impact, then it had to have hit solid ground or ice, one would think.  A water impact would not have created such elliptical craters.  At the same time, an impact onto solid ground would have created a crater with some depth to it, but as I understand it Lake Michigan doesn't have one.

                  However, one interesting geographic feature of the Great Lakes is how there is a mini continental divide only a few miles from the lake.  I am about 23 miles west of Lake Michigan, but I am in the Mississippi River basin.  The divide is about 4-5 miles west of the lake shore east of me.  It is not high as divides go, but it is there, nevertheless, about 100 feet higher than the lake level.  Though I am about 830 miles as the crow flies from the Gulf of Mexico, the river elevation here is only about 730 feet - less than 10 inches for every mile from here to New Orleans.

                  But that feature is not unique to here.  I also lived east of Cleveland in a similar area.  There they have a similar divide a few miles from Lake Erie.  There are actually three rivers (the Grand River, the Chagrin River and the Rocky River) in that area that start out only a handful of miles from Lake Erie, flowing SOUTH, but which all make U-turns and head north back to Lake Erie - because of that divide.

                  So it seems to me that the evidence is at least a little bit of a mixed bag, and is to me inconclusive for an impact at Lake Michigan.  If I believed in the ice age I would be more thoroughly convinced, though.

                  Somewhere along the line that passes through the Carolina Bays and the south basin of Lake Michigan there is an impact point.  If not at Lake Michigan, where?   Those elliptical 'crater' formations did not create themselves, nor were they formed from below, nor from erosion or any such process.

                  I have to do further reading to see if they are actually dateable to the time of the Younger-Dryas impact.  I believe that someone pegs them to that time, but can't recall well enough to state that here now.

                  As I've said before, it does appear that Y-D killed off the mammoths and the 'Clovis people'.  I agree with the idea that just because the people over a wide area used Clovis technology it does not mean that they were all of one culture.  As time goes on, more and more evidence shows that the people of that era were a LOT more mobile than had been allowed by the academics. 

                  Good for us for pushing the thinking in that direction.  Diffusionists rule!

                  Steve
                  > From Rick:
                  >
                  > How very interesting and appropriate that you mention the supposed
                  > simultaneous "invention" of calculus by both Newton and Leibniz in this
                  > context. They both, almost certainly, had access to the then nearly two
                  > millennia old surviving works of Archimedes, the real inventor of
                  > calculus. So to say that either or both "invented" it is denying that
                  > anyone had done any advanced math before their time.
                  >
                  > Ditto for the Clovis points. Somebody, over some long period of time,
                  > practiced continual product improvement from simple breaking of stones
                  > to the "art" that resulted in the Clovis and similar points. Then
                  > "something" happened and the so-called Clovis culture (it's more like a
                  > technology that was traded widely than it is a single culture) up and
                  > died. That death coincides with the so called "Younger-Dryas Event" that
                  > laid down a thin layer of anomalous carbonaceous material directly on
                  > top of the Clovis artifacts. This carbon is thought by some scholars to
                  > be the "fallout" resulting from an impact event that caused
                  > continent-wide wildfires and the carbon is the ash from that and it is
                  > thicker in some parts of North America than it is in others, but seems
                  > to be thickest in the center (nobody has addressed why it isn't thickest
                  > along the east coast).
                  >
                  > To assume that the peoples of NA "invented" what we know as the "Clovis"
                  > point is denying that any previous work in the art ever happened. I aint
                  > buyin' it.

                • bigalemc2
                  A diatribe takeoff on my last post. . . An irony that comes up time after time - especially since 1994 with Shoemaker-Levi and since 1997 with Monte Verde in
                  Message 8 of 12 , Feb 24, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    A diatribe takeoff on my last post. . .

                    An irony that comes up time after time - especially since 1994 with Shoemaker-Levi and since 1997 with Monte Verde in Chile - is how MANY of the 'scientific' paradigms are proving to be wrong, and how much of ours have proven to be closer to the reality.  Just WHO are the real experts in this field, anyway?  Them?  Us? 

                    Of course, they attribute any correctness on our part as being 'lucky guesses', since only they have credentials and have been taught the proper ways to think.  Our feeble minds are indiscriminate, so once in a while we will come up with a lucky guess.  You all have probably heard of the idea that if you put enough monkeys at typewriters, that, given enough time, they will type out the complete works of William Shakespeare.  I think we are thought of in that vein.  I think it is actually more that, with enough scientists at typewriters and enough time, they will type out, "Help!We are being held captive by our limited minds!"

                    Well, one thing we are NOT being, and that is captive to our limited minds...

                    Susan mentions Morphic Resonance
                    And any truth to the so called"hundredth monkey principle",  morphic resonance across time and space.Besides  "chance", maybe this possibility  should also be considered without always assuming direct diffusionist contact: t contact. The principle further explained:
                    theoretically....that after so many people learn a concept,that it is embedded in the morphogenetic [sic] field--- a level of Universal Consciousness above our perception--- but available to all of us. Once that knowledge is in the M field, It becomes "Common Knowledge" and no longer has to be struggled with. It's just "known" They call it the"100th Monkey" principle' .
                    See Hootennany Editor Ken  Weathersby Talks With Rupert Sheldrakefor a decent description of the 100th monkey principle and morphic resonance.  The example given is just a speculative hypothetical scenario and may or may not actually happen with peoples separated at any point in time.

                    Though the Morphic Field or the 100th monkey principle may be decent ideas about this, they may not be the only ones.  Even a scientist could speculate that from any divergence point in history there are only so many paths available forward from there, and that out there within the next X number of years most all of the near-term possibilities on both paths will be found in their time.  In other words, along both paths within a short time period the likelihood of duplication are fairly high, and will diminish as time goes on - but will not ever diminish to zero.

                    All those are speculation, though.  And speculations - by us or by scientists - aren't worth much without empirical evidence (my own shortcoming).  But without stretching and extrapolating our known out into the vast unknown, we, humans, get nowhere - we are bound by the limitations we think upon ourselves.  Most of what we extrapolate here,as Diffusionists, is based on 'the next connection' as we see it.  We are not projecting things out there to where knowledge will be 500 years from now.  We have far too little information to project more than a little way ahead.  Many discoveries will occur between now and the year 2508 that will throw all that we or scientists think is true now onto the trash heap of ideas.  They will look upon us and today's scientists as amateurs and plodders.  Scientists look back upon even scientists of 10 years ago as people who couldn't be trusted to think clearly or conclude properly.   But they never look ahead to what the scientists of 10 years from now will look upon them as.

                    15 years ago I guessed that within 100 years everything scientists believed to be true then would be proven wrong, and it appears we are on our way to that being more or less true by 2093.  I get a laugh every time I hear, "Well, we are going to have to throw out everything we thought we knew about this subject and start over again."

                    I think their we-academics-in-this-year-and-this-year-only-know-what-it-is-to-be-true-scientists superiority complex is a huge, huge hubris that gets in the way of true science.  Diffusionists suffer their hubris right along past study-ers.  I doubt they will ever come down off their high horse.  Even when they are wrong, they spin it as "Well, we are the only ones fit to pursue this new direction properly, so give us a lot of money to study it!"

                    The more things change, the more they stay the same.
                    > To assume that the peoples of NA "invented" what we know as the "Clovis"
                    > point is denying that any previous work in the art ever happened. I aint
                    > buyin' it.
                    Correct. I completely agree with you.  But it COULD have been that two Cromagnons on both sides of the Atlantic saw a fallen down and splintered boulder and noticed that flaking occurred and had a light goon over their heads.  And that each of them started a guild of stone knappers with an esoteric R&D department.   But being an engineer,I can tell you that almost every development is incremental,just like the scientists like to think.  So, at this stage, who knows which way was the true facts of the history?  For scientists to continually tell the lay population that it happened THIS way and no other is a total boondoggle on their part.  They are 2-10% along the way in all these disciplines, yet they foist off their 'so far' guesses as scientific fact, when they know that it is not settled fact, not among themselves.

                    Back in the 1960s I heard something to this effect: "All the big ideas have been laid out for us, and it is only our place to fill in the details."  Look at the amazing progress in the world since the 60s, and ask, "Is that true?"   Of course not.  There are scientists who have spent entire careers filling in the gaps.  But there are also ones out on the frontiers - who are by far in the minority - who don't accept that dictum, who go out and continue to ask, "Well what if Y ISN'T true?  What happens then?  X?  Z?  A?"  To those extrapolators we owe a lot.  Some among us here are extrapolators, and those will be among the forgers of the next partial understanding.  Good for all of you that are.  (I am not one myself; I am just a kibbitzer...)

                    Science is divided into interpolators and extrapolators; it always has been.  The interpolators are almost never wrong, but they are correct in such small areas that who cares?  The extrapolators are almost always wrong - though they keep most of their failures to themselves - but when they are right, they get noticed.  (But, given that all the older paradigms in history have been proven wrong, even when they are right, they are not correct - they only just point us in a more profitable direction for the time being...)

                    Remember this: History remembers NONE of the interpolators, only the extrapolators.

                    And which do you think had the most fun along the way?. . .

                    So, extrapolate away, my friends. . .

                    Steve

                    (more on the 100th monkey and all that, some day...)


                    --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Osmon" <ozman@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Steve,
                    >
                    > How very interesting and appropriate that you mention the supposed
                    > simultaneous "invention" of calculus by both Newton and Leibniz in this
                    > context. They both, almost certainly, had access to the then nearly two
                    > millennia old surviving works of Archimedes, the real inventor of
                    > calculus. So to say that either or both "invented" it is denying that
                    > anyone had done any advanced math before their time.
                    >
                    > Ditto for the Clovis points. Somebody, over some long period of time,
                    > practiced continual product improvement from simple breaking of stones
                    > to the "art" that resulted in the Clovis and similar points. Then
                    > "something" happened and the so-called Clovis culture (it's more like a
                    > technology that was traded widely than it is a single culture) up and
                    > died. That death coincides with the so called "Younger-Dryas Event" that
                    > laid down a thin layer of anomalous carbonaceous material directly on
                    > top of the Clovis artifacts. This carbon is thought by some scholars to
                    > be the "fallout" resulting from an impact event that caused
                    > continent-wide wildfires and the carbon is the ash from that and it is
                    > thicker in some parts of North America than it is in others, but seems
                    > to be thickest in the center (nobody has addressed why it isn't thickest
                    > along the east coast).
                    >
                    > To assume that the peoples of NA "invented" what we know as the "Clovis"
                    > point is denying that any previous work in the art ever happened. I aint
                    > buyin' it.

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