> 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.
There seems no interest in even a basic understanding of these events though. If this ALC did exist wouldn't one want to know which possible candidates may have wiped them out? Catastrophism certainly has its place in the grand scheme of the development of civilization which for me the 8.2 kiloyear event of c. 6,000BC and resulting several disasters that followed it as a direct result is overwhelming evidence of such a point in history that fits exactly with the archeological record. Yeah, this was but one of many such cataclysms but its dovetail with historical events and ancient texts seems to make it the most relevant as it pertains to the rise of civilization.
> 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
I am familiar with Velikovsky by way of osmosis, but for some reason never had any interest to read any of his books. I should get a copy of Worlds In Collision.
> 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.
Given the near universal similarities of these tales it seems obvious to me it was not the “flood” that travelled around the world, but rather the story itself. A story with a common origin spread around the globe, retold and culturally adapted across the millennium from one culture to the next, which despite the change of details and actors the basic story remained the same. Therefore, it should be considered reasonable then it was not a flood of the “whole world”, but rather the "known world" of the original storytellers. This is why the 8.2 kiloyear event and the subsequent consequences that directly followed which radically affected specifically the greater Mediterranean world c. 6,000BC fits so nicely. Not just archaeologically, but also textually in that it happened at a time still within human memory. They say after this event kingship was lowered to man by the gods and after the civilization of men begins which is exactly what start to happen in the 6th millennium. Makes sense to me.
> 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?
> overwhelmed myself with bookmarks, written notes
> filling several notebooks and typed google docs
> that I could spend a year just organizing it all.
Lol. Right there with you.
> 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
I have spent at least a grand on books over the years and have marked the crap out of them using a system only I understand. Basically ruined them. I can just imagine the sucker who buys the collection when I die only to open them up and see that mess.
> The hell with the screwed up AE king's lists, it's
> the Sumerian list that is fascinating.
> 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
Very interesting. Drrt. How many times have I seen this at the beach but never thought about it. That's what I'm talking about regarding possibilities of ancient stone work. Not that they used mollusks, but something like that.
RE rock-boring mollusks:
A biomechanical model of rock drilling in the piddock Barnea candida (Bivalvia; Mollusca)
> I feel
> like Dreyfuss trying to make Devils Tower and just
> can't get it right.
Lol. Snap. That is it exactly.
> And that could be the answer. But how would it be
For now the only "evidence" is textual and circumstantial but at least it is something. The thing about the AE for example who supposedly came upon all of this stone work tens of thousands of years after the fact you'd think even if they had no idea who they actually were or when a mythology would have been created to explain it nonetheless. If this was the "gods" they speak of they do not pin them as the creators of all the "stuff" they found.
> Wouldn't that be a trip. And how about
> /holo/]The Holograhic Principle?[/url] Theoretical
> physicists are the coolest.
> > I understand where you are coming from, I
> > do, and honestly I hope you are right.
> Naw, I'm not right. Because I'm not decided.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18-Apr-16 21:26 by Thanos5150.