> Audrey Wrote:
> > Well not exactly, there is also the argument of
> > nature's catastrophic events obliterating any
> > evidence of ancient civilizations.
> Which is never talked about in a coherent and/or
> specific manner by the most vocal of the
> proponents here of the antediluvian LC, often left
> as whatever nebulous "catastrophes" one might
> imagine. The crux of Graham's latest book is
> regarding a cometary impact that heralded the end
> of the Younger Dryas c. 11,000yrs ago. The
> eruption of Mt Toba c. 70,000yrs ago has
> interesting implications. If one believes in the
> ALC then why is not an effort made to incorporate
> these things into the narrative?
I wonder the same. Maybe it's that Firestone, The Cosmic Winter and anything else by scientists are hard reads that people don't care to get into. Maybe it's easier to read Hancock but that makes discussion limited. And it's hard to repeat what these scientists say, at least for me it is, nanodiamonds-lab tests-black mats-impact patterns, it goes on and on. Velikovsky cranked out a couple of books about the evidence but he gave so much info it makes the head swim and all people can remember are a couple of highlights like frozen mammoths.
> > There are also
> > the myths from around the world that tell of
> > civilizations.
> Which none of the ALC proponents here, except
> yourself on occasion, talk about either, which is
> weird to me, though I assume this is because some
> believe these people are so far removed from the
> ALC that "how could they know".
The myths are a lonely interest. Everyone has read one in some book and it's enough to form a general picture of ancient memories of a flood, but not enough to carry on a detailed conversation. It takes a lot of time to read through the myths from around the globe and who here has looked into them to such an extent that I could have a conversation about the similarities and distinguishing characteristics that make them believable? I've overwhelmed myself with bookmarks, written notes filling several notebooks and typed google docs that I could spend a year just organizing it all. I only own books by 2 alt authors; Sitchin because the library didn't have it, and 4 of Velikovskys which are stuffed with sticky notes in a desperate attempt to mark some of the more interesting facts. I'm lost. I know I read "it" somewhere and made a note but it takes me an hour to find the note!
> Which if the ALC
> was in fact tens of thousands of years old then
> this likely makes sense. I even encouraged
> Origyptian to look at the AE prehistoric king list
> as a guide to give his ideas at least some
> credence but he does not care.
The hell with the screwed up AE king's lists, it's the Sumerian list that is fascinating.
> > But there are the exceptions, and it's the
> > exceptions that throw monkey wrenches into
> > conventional explanations.
> No doubt, but just because conventional
> explanations do not apply then this means anything
> goes? I'm just not wired that way I guess.
No it doesn't mean anything goes, it means convention must go and other possibilities explored. It doesn't bother me a bit to throw out evolution's leg sprouting fishes and turn my attention to the heavens and ETs.
> > If mollusks can do it, it's possible.
> ...? What do mollusks do exactly?
They bore holes in rocks.
No one knows exactly how they do it. Some say they have tee-tiny teeth grinding away and others say they secrete some substance that dissolves the rocks.
> > But not many are cursed
> > with an obsession to know what's happened in
> > bill yrs on this planet.
> Honestly, it does feel like a curse. Like a memory
> just out of reach that is always on my mind. I
> hope there is a point to it all.
That is what we all have in common here, except for the hard core mainstreamers. It is just like a memory on the fringes on consciousness. I feel like Dreyfuss trying to make Devils Tower and just can't get it right.
> > As many people like
> > to say..... "if there was a lost civilization
> > would have found it by now".
> I don't buy that argument either, but it's the
> level of advancement, like one that could build
> the pyramids of Egypt, that I just can't get there
> now. If so, an alien origin is what I would
And that could be the answer. But how would it be proved?
> > As soon as the
> > bottoms of every ocean have been explored,
> > mountain in the himalayas examined, every rain
> > forest raked and every sand dune sifted then we
> > can say "there is no evidence".
> Very true. But the fact they have not does not
> mean it is there.
It just means we ought to keep an open mind about what remains to be explored.
> Is the universe itself artificial? A computer
> simulation? Not as much science fiction as some
> may believe:
Is Our Universe Fake?
Wouldn't that be a trip. And how about The Holograhic Principle? Theoretical physicists are the coolest.
> I understand where you are coming from, I really
> do, and honestly I hope you are right.
Naw, I'm not right. Because I'm not decided.