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

Re: Announcing The Atlantic Conference

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.