Shenan's Corner

Sorry, but only administrators can read topics in this forum.
​

shenan


shenan

Posts: 2
Join date: 2015-12-17
Location: LA

• Post n°1

Hi all!

shenan Today at 1:56 am
Hi all!

Cool forum!

I am shenan from LA. I am a zerg queen!
Are they real, well are the Borg??

Felicitas in Vitae - be!

Creatorum revenit initium - The beginning of all created things returns.​

 

Sanicle


Sanicle

Posts: 1717
Join date: 2011-02-28
Location: Melbourne, Australia

• Post n°2

Re: Hi all!

Sanicle Today at 6:20 am
Hi Shenan. Welcome to the forum! Um, I don't know what a zerg queen is, but I hope it's friendly.



_________________

How can you make the most of free will if you don't know what all the choices are?
Learn all you can about what's hidden.
We are not our bodies.​

Carol


Carol
Admin

Posts: 15785
Join date: 2010-04-07
Location: Hawaii

• Post n°3

Re: Hi all!

Carol Today at 7:13 am
Welcome to the Mists.



_________________
What is life?
It is the flash of a firefly in the night, the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset.
With deepest respect ~ Aloha & Mahalo, Carol

SophiasChoice


SophiasChoice

Posts: 61
Join date: 2015-05-01

• Post n°4

Re: Hi all!

SophiasChoice Today at 8:18 am

Hi there..

Zerg Queen??


With Love
Eelco


shenan


shenan

Posts: 3
Join date: 2015-12-17
Location: LA

• Post n°5

Re: Hi all!

shenan Today at 8:21 pm
SophiasChoice wrote:


Hi there..

Zerg Queen??


With Love
Eelco

Not quite!

​

Carol


Carol
Admin

Posts: 15829
Join date: 2010-04-07
Location: Hawaii

• Post n°6

Re: Hi all!

Carol Yesterday at 3:24 pm

Sorry Shiloh/Tony (shenan) but the door is shut and you won't be allowed back in.

I'm also well aware that you give your password to Raven via some of her posts, so neither of you will get an opportunity to remain here at Mists no mater how many "new" membership name accounts the two of you generate.

In addition, I will be moving some of your Thuban treads into the admin section of the forum for the time being where they are out of public view.



Last edited by Carol on Wed Dec 23, 2015 4:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

​

_________________
What is life?
It is the flash of a firefly in the night, the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset.
With deepest respect ~ Aloha & Mahalo, Carol


JesterTerrestrial

JesterTerrestrial
Posts: 1747
Join date: 2010-04-11
Location: INNOVATION STATIONS !SCHOOL

• Post n°7

Re: Hi all!

JesterTerrestrial Yesterday at 4:58 pm

Kinda makes you wonder who some people are working for! EH!

LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE BECOME!!! A BUNCH OF GOD DAMN MONSTERS!!!

MAYBE YOU SHOULD MEDITATE AND REFLECT ON ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE!!!

Dose it even matter to find out what the hell your talking about?

regards

ADMIN


Carol


Carol
Admin

Posts: 15829
Join date: 2010-04-07
Location: Hawaii

• Post n°8

Re: Hi all!

Carol Yesterday at 10:21 pm
Since this thread was generated by a banned member it will shortly be moved to the admin section.



_________________
What is life?
It is the flash of a firefly in the night, the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset.
With deepest respect ~ Aloha & Mahalo, Carol

 

shenan


shenan

Posts: 4
Join date: 2015-12-17
Age: 33
Location: LA

• Post n°34

Re: The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

shenan Today at 1:50 am

​

 

shenan


shenan

Posts: 5
Join date: 2015-12-17
Age: 33
Location: LA

• Post n°35

Re: The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

shenan Today at 3:28 am

​

 

shenan


shenan

Posts: 6
Join date: 2015-12-17
Age: 33
Location: LA

• Post n°36

Re: The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

shenan Today at 4:52 am

​

 

Scientists: Geological evidence shows the Great Sphinx is 800,000 years old
December 19, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell ​

INCREDIBLE PAPER TO BE PRESENTED AT ARCHAEOLOGY CONFERENCE IN ...

Posted on December 19, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell • 18 Comments

Ms. Kelly M. shared this article with me, and given my fascination for all things Egyptological, I simply am compelled to blog about it, because as the title of this blog indicates, I was simply stunned at the dating now being proposed, and oddly, somewhat satisfied. I'll explain the satisfaction in a moment, but first the article itself:
http://www.ancient-code.com/scientists-geological-evidence-shows-the-great-sphinx-is-800000-years-old/

Now as the article itself indicates, the redating of the Sphinx became a subject of considerable controversy when Dr. Robert Shoch, a geologist, examined the weathering on and around the monument, and concluded that the structure showed signs of water erosion, a fact first suggested by the renowned esotericist and "alternative Egyptologist" Rene Schwaller DeLubicz:
The starting point of these two experts is the paradigm shift initiated by West and Schoch, a ‘debate’ intended to overcome the orthodox view of Egyptology referring to the possible remote origins of the Egyptian civilization and, on the other, physical evidence of water erosion present at the monuments of the Giza Plateau.
Because of these water weathering and erosion features, Dr. Schoch concluded that the Sphinx had to be a far older structure than standard Egyptology was willing to grant, for significant rainfall could only be dated to its most recent period in that region of the world, the so-called sub-pluvial period, and thus the Sphinx had to be approximately 8000-10,000 years old. In other words, it was older than ancient Egypt itself(at least, by standard Egyptological chronologies). Needless to say, Dr. Shoch's conclusions were met with a storm of denunciation from the "science" of Egyptology.

But the re-dating being proposed exceeds Shoch's by an order of magnitude:
Manichev and Parkhomenko propose a new natural mechanism that may explain the undulations and mysterious features of the Sphinx. This mechanism is the impact of waves on the rocks of the coast. Basically, this could produce, in a period of thousands of years the formation of one or more layers of ripples, a fact that is clearly visible, for example, on the shores of the Black Sea. This process, which acts horizontally (that is, when the waves hit the rock up to the surface), will produce a wear or dissolution of the rock.
...
Manichev and Parkhomenko firmly believe that the Sphinx had to be submerged for a long time under water and, to support this hypothesis, they point towards existing literature of geological studies of the Giza Plateau. According to these studies at the end of the Pliocene geologic period (between 5.2 and 1.6 million years ago), sea water entered the Nile valley and gradually creating flooding in the area. This led to formation of lacustrine deposits which are at the mark of 180 m above the present level of the Mediterranean Sea.
According to Manichev and Parkhomenko, it is the sea level during the Calabrian phase which is the closest to the present mark with the highest GES hollow at its level. High level of sea water also caused the Nile overflowing and created long-living water-bodies. As to time it corresponds to 800000 years.

What we have here is evidence which contradicts the conventional theory of deterioration caused by Sand and Water, a theory already criticized by West and Schoch, who recalled that during many centuries, the body of the Sphinx was buried by the sands of the desert, so Wind and Sand erosion would not have done any damage to the enigmatic Sphinx.
However, where Schoch clearly saw the action of streams of water caused by continuous rains, Ukrainian geologists see the effect of erosion caused by the direct contact of the waters of the lakes formed in the Pleistocene on the body Sphinx. This means that the Great Sphinx of Egypt is one of the oldest monuments on the surface of the Earth, pushing back drastically the origin of mankind and civilization.

Some might say that the theory proposed by Manichev and Parkhomenko is very extreme because it places the Great Sphinx in an era where there were no humans, according to currently accepted evolutionary patterns. Furthermore, as it has been demonstrated, the two megalithic temples, located adjacent to the Great Sphinx were built by the same stone which means that the new dating of the Sphinx drags these monuments with the Sphinx back 800,000 years. In other words, this means that ancient civilizations inhabited our planet much longer than mainstream scientists are willing to accept. (Emphasis added)

Now why do I find this both stunning and somewhat satisfying? Well, I've long been on record as having suspected that the other famous monument of the Giza plateau, the Great Pyramid itself, is a far older structure than even most "alternative" research is willing to entertain. Years ago, the late George Ann Hughes of the Byte Show asked this question of my, and I responded that the structure might be quite old, and proposed various dates in this range. If one recalls the arguments Alan Alford which I reviewed in The Giza Death Star Deployed, he discerns three different chronological layers of construction at Giza: (1) the oldest layer, with the most precise construction, represented by the Great Pyramid, (2) a more recent, but still very ancient and pre-ancient-Egyptian layer, represented by the Sphinx, the various Giza temples, and the Second Pyramid, and finally (3) the most recent and purely ancient Egyptian layer, showing a distinct decline in construction. Thus, if one combines the paper of Manichev and Parkhomenko redating the Sphinx to ca. 800,000 years ago, with Alford's "three chronological layers of construction" hypothesis of the plateau, then one ends with an age for the Great Pyramid considerably older than that.

Of course, I don't expect for a moment that Manichev's and Parkhomenko's paper will be met with anything but extreme derision in the Egyptological community, any more than Shoch's was, and there's every possibility that it will be too much and too extreme even for the alternative research community. But if it eventually should be corroborated by some other finding or research, then it does perhaps constitute a kind of loose corroboration of Mr. Christopher Dunn's machine hypothesis - and let it be noted that Mr. Dunn, to my knowledge, has never advanced such an extreme antiquity for the Great Pyramid - and more importantly, such extreme antiquity would seem to corroborate the types of hypotheses I was advancing my Giza trilogy and in The Cosmic War.

See you on the flip side...

Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".

Why Are So Many Interested Now in a 2008 Claim about the Sphinx's Age?
10/24/2015
50 Comments

I was all set to review the newest episode of True Monsters for today’s blog post since it was supposed to deal with a topic near and dear to my heart: Indo-European mythology. However, I was surprised to see that the History Channel abruptly pulled the series following its disastrous performance in the ratings against rival Discovery’s Gold Rush franchise. True Monsters failed to attract more than 300,000 viewers in the adults 18-49 demographic against viewership of just 1.06 million viewers. In its last outing, the series lost more than 28% of its Ancient Aliens rerun lead-in audience of 1.48 million viewers, and crucially it lost more than a quarter of the lead-in audience under the age of 49. Ancient Aliens performs reasonably well against Discovery’s Bering Sea Gold and Gold Rush, but True Monsters did not. History plans to burn off the last two episodes of the series next week, on the little-watched pre-Halloween Friday.

So, in lieu of that, I’d like to talk about Ancient Code again, not because I really want to but because the site’s owner, Ivan Petricevic, managed to create an internet flap based on recycling old material that few realized wasn’t new.

A few weeks ago Petricevic posted an article claiming that two Ukrainian geologists had declared that the Great Sphinx of Egypt was 800,000 years old based on their analysis of the weathering pattern on the monument. Vjacheslav I. Manichev and Alexander G. Parkhomenko claimed that water erosion of the Sphinx indicated that the monument was already standing at the beginning of the early Pleistocene, around 750,000 years ago. Yes, Petricevic got the date wrong, and most of those who are reacting to him followed suit.

Manichev is a nuclear geochemist who specializes in metals; Parkomenko is listed as working in the field of geography, but I can find no other information about him in English.

Over the next weeks, both conspiracy theorists and skeptics expressed varying degrees of excitement and outrage over the claim, but so far as I can tell, few people have noted that this is not a new claim. It was not, as Petricevic implied, news in the sense of being recent. As with most articles appearing on the Ancient Code website, it was a recycled rewrite of material first published seven years ago in Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy, the proceedings of an October 2008 international conference held in Sofia, Bulgaria.

​

This material is so well-known that it has appeared already in a number of fringe books, including one by Robert Schoch, the originator of the claim that the Sphinx was eroded by water. In Forgotten Civilization: The Role of Solar Outbursts in Our Past and Future (2012), Schoch notes the two Ukrainian scientists’ findings and notes that they are based on his own work. “Personally, I am not convinced that the Great Sphinx is anywhere close to the age postulated by Manichev and Parkomenko,” Schoch wrote in defense of his own proposed date before the start of dynastic Egypt.

For what it is worth, the two authors did not conduct any field testing to reach their conclusions. Instead, they say that they re-dated the monument based on a “visual investigation” (i.e. visiting the Sphinx and looking at it) and “reading the literary sources.” They based their conclusion on a comparison of the Sphinx, in a desert environment, with rock walls around the Black Sea, in an environment that differs in pretty much every conceivable way. Nevertheless, they argue that the undulating pattern of erosion on the Sphinx is not the work of wind and sand working differentially on rock layers of different hardness but rather the work of waves that accomplished the same task in a time when Giza was flooded.

They conclude that when the Sphinx was carved, Giza must have been like the Black Sea is today, and therefore this could only have occurred 750,000 years ago. The argument runs thus: If we assume that waves were necessary to create the erosion pattern (because it looks similar to the erosion pattern on the Black Sea coast), then we would need a water level at least 160 m higher than the current sea level to flood the Sphinx; therefore, this could only have occurred 750,000 years ago, the last time the sea was so high. As you can see, the problem is the initial if, based as it is on a “looks like therefore is” line of reasoning, without geochemical or any other type of proof to substantiate it.

They also do not explain how the Sphinx, which continues to deteriorate and erode in the desert environment to this day, survived 750,000 years almost intact while undergoing much more damaging erosion in historical times except that they feel that sand erosion, which is known to have occurred, was much more damaging than their proposed hundreds of thousands of years of water erosion.

When you drill down into their paper, it becomes clear that they never considered alternative hypotheses, nor did they attempt to find proof that only submersion in a giant lake could achieve the erosion they describe. It’s also disturbing that almost all of their sources on geology were Soviet texts published in the 1960s. Surely there have been updates to geology since then. Worse, their paper takes as its foundation the Secrete Doctrine of Helena Blavatsky, which they refer to in their own English re-translation of the Russian translation, citing Book 2, Part 2, Stanza 5, which I give in the original: “Behold the imperishable witness to the evolution of the human races from the divine, and especially from the androgynous Race—the Egyptian Sphinx, that riddle of the Ages!” They argue that the lines place the Sphinx at 750,000 BCE, though in context it is not at all clear that this is what she meant. But anyway the point remains: The whole claim is inspired by Theosophy... and the part of Theosophy (as we can see from her footnotes) directly inspired by the Book of Enoch and the myth of the Fallen Angels!

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/why-are-so-many-interested-now-in-a-2008-claim-about-the-sphinxs-age

NEW STUDIES CONFIRM VERY OLD SPHINX:

by Dr. Robert M. Schoch © 2000​

As many readers of ATLANTIS RISING are aware, for the past ten years I have been working closely with John Anthony West on the redating of the Great Sphinx of Giza. The traditional date for the statue is circa 2500 B.C., but based on my geological analysis, I am convinced that the oldest portions of the Sphinx date back to at least circa 5,000 B.C. (and John West believes that it may be considerably older still). Such a chronology, however, goes against not just classical Egyptology, but many long-held assumptions concerning the dating and origin of early civilizations. I cannot recall how many times I have been told by erstwhile university colleagues that such an early date for the Sphinx is simply impossible because humans were technologically and socially incapable of such feats that long ago. Yet, I must follow where the evidence leads.

My research into the age of the Great Sphinx led me to ultimately question many aspects of the "traditional" scientific world view that, to this day, permeates most of academia. I got to a point where there were so many new ideas buzzing around in my head that I felt I had to organize them on paper, and this led me to author the book VOICES OF THE ROCKS: A SCIENTIST LOOKS AT CATASTROPHES AND ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS (by Robert M. Schoch, with Robert Aquinas McNally. New York: Harmony Books, 1999).
The manuscript for VOICES was completed in August 1998. Since that time I have learned of two independent geological studies of the Great Sphinx and its age. These studies go a long way toward both supporting my analysis and conclusions and rebutting the inadequate counter arguments of the critics. In both cases they corroborate the primary conclusions of my original studies of the Great Sphinx, namely that the Sphinx and Sphinx enclosure show evidence of significant precipitation-induced weathering and erosion (degradation), and the core body of the Sphinx and the oldest portions of the Sphinx temple predate the pharaohs Khafre (ca. 2500 B.C.) and Khufu (Khufu or Cheops, a predecessor of Khafre, reigned about 2551-2528 B.C.).

The first study was undertaken by the geologist David Coxill ("The Riddle of the Sphinx" published in the Spring 1998 issue [Issue 2, pp. 13-19] of the journal INSCRIPTION: JOURNAL OF ANCIENT EGYPT). After confirming my observations on the weathering and erosion of the Sphinx, and pointing out that other explanations do not work, Coxill clearly states (page 17): "This [the data and analysis he covers in the preceding portions of his paper] implies that the Sphinx is at least 5,000 years old and pre-dates dynastic times." Coxill then discusses very briefly the seismic work that Thomas Dobecki and I pursued and my estimate of an initial date of 5,000 to 7,000 B.C. for the earliest parts of the Sphinx based on the seismic data. He neither supports nor refutes this portion of my work, but simply writes (page 17): "Absolute dates for the sculpturing of the Sphinx should be taken with extreme caution and therefore dates should be as conservative as possible -- until more conclusive evidence comes to light." I can understand that he could take this stance, although perhaps I feel more comfortable with, and confident in, the seismic analysis we did. Coxill, in the next paragraph of his paper (page 17), continues: "Nevertheless, it [the Sphinx] is clearly older than the traditional date for the origins of the Sphinx -- in the reign of Khafre, 2520-2490 BC."

Bottom line: Coxill agrees with the heart of my analysis and likewise concludes that the oldest portions of the Sphinx date to before dynastic times; that is, prior to circa 3000 B.C.

​

Another geologist, Colin Reader (he holds a degree in Geological Engineering from London University), has also pursued a meticulous study of weathering and erosion (degradation) features on the body of the Sphinx and in the Sphinx enclosure. This he has combined with a detailed analysis of the ancient hydrology of the Giza Plateau. Although as of this writing, his research has apparently not been formally published in journal or book form, Reader has been circulating his work as an illustrated paper entitled "Khufu Knew the Sphinx" (the copy I have is dated July 1998). Like Coxill, Reader points out the problems and weaknesses in the arguments of my opponents. Reader notes (quoted from the summary of his paper; no page number) that there is "a marked increase in the intensity of the degradation [that is, weathering and erosion] towards the west [western end] of the Sphinx enclosure." Reader continues, "In my opinion, the only mechanism that can fully explain this increase in intensity is the action of rainfall run-off discharging into the Sphinx enclosure from the higher plateau in the north and west . . . However, large quarries worked during the reign of Khufu [as noted above, a predecessor of Khafre, the "traditional" builder of the Sphinx] and located immediately up-slope, will have prevented any significant run-off reaching the Sphinx." Thus Reader concludes (page 11 of his paper) that "When considered in terms of the hydrology of the site, the distribution of degradation within the Sphinx enclosure indicates that the excavation of the Sphinx pre-dates Khufu's early Fourth Dynasty development at Giza." Interestingly, Reader also concludes that the so-called "Khafre's" causeway (running from the area of the Sphinx , Sphinx temple, and Khafre Valley temple up to the mortuary temple on the eastern side of the Khafre pyramid), part of "Khafre's" mortuary temple (which Reader refers to as the "Proto-mortuary temple"), and the Sphinx temple predate the reign of Khufu.

As is discussed in the text of VOICES, I have come out strongly in favor of not only an older Sphinx, but also a contemporaneous (thus older) Sphinx temple (at least the limestone core being older than the Fourth Dynasty). Independently of Reader, John Anthony West and I have also concluded that part of "Khafre's" mortuary temple predates Khafre, but I had not published this conclusion or spoken of it at length in public since I wanted to collect more corroborative evidence first. Reader has now come to the same conclusion concerning "Khafre's" mortuary temple. I am pleased to see his confirmation. I believe that there was much more human activity at Giza in pre-Old Kingdom times than has previously been recognized. I even suspect that the second, or "Khafre Pyramid," may actually sit on top of an older site or structure. According to the Egyptologists John Baines and Jaromír Málek (ATLAS OF ANCIENT EGYPT, 1980, New York: Facts on File, page 140) the Khafre Pyramid in ancient times was referred to as "The Great Pyramid" while the Khufu Pyramid (referred to in modern times as "The Great Pyramid") was known in antiquity as "The Pyramid which is the Place of Sunrise and Sunset." Does the ancient designation of "The Great Pyramid" for the "Khafre Pyramid" indicate that the site, if not the pyramid itself, was of supreme importance and pre-dated many other developments and structures on the Giza Plateau?

Reader tentatively dates the "excavation of the Sphinx" and the construction of the Sphinx temple, Proto-mortuary temple, and "Khafre's" causeway to "sometime in the latter half of the Early Dynastic Period [page 11]" (that is, circa 2800 to 2600 B.C. or so) on the basis of "the known use of stone in ancient Egyptian architecture [page 8]." I believe that Reader's estimated date for the excavation of the earliest portions of the Sphinx is later than the evidence indicates. I would make three general points:

1) In my opinion, the nature and degree of weathering and erosion (degradation) on the Sphinx and in the Sphinx enclosure is much different than what would be expected if the Sphinx had not been carved until 2800 B.C., or even 3000 B.C. Also, mud brick mastabas on the Saqqara Plateau, dated to circa 2800 B.C., show no evidence of significant rain weathering, indicating just how dry the climate has been for the last 5,000 years. I continue to believe that the erosional features on the Sphinx and in the Sphinx enclosure indicate a much earlier date than 3000 or 2800 B.C. In my opinion, it strains credulity to believe that the amount, type, and degree of precipitation-induced erosion seen in the Sphinx enclosure was produced in only a few centuries. Reader points out in his paper, as I have previously, that even the Egyptologist Zahi Hawass (one of the most ardent "opponents" when it comes to my redating of the Sphinx) contends that some of the weathering and erosion (interpreted as precipitation-induced by Reader, Coxill, and me) on the body of the Sphinx was covered over and repaired during Old Kingdom times - - thus we can safely assume that the initial core body of the Sphinx was carved out much earlier.

2) In his July 1998 paper Reader never addresses the seismic work that we pursued around the Sphinx, which is in part the basis I used to calibrate a crude estimate for the age of the earliest excavations in the Sphinx enclosure. In my opinion, the date estimate based on our seismic work is compatible with the type and amount of erosion and weathering seen in the Sphinx enclosure, and also nicely correlates with the known paleoclimatic history of the Giza Plateau. Some of my critics have suggested that our seismic studies simply recorded subsurface layers of rock rather than weathering per se. Here I would point out that the differential weathering pattern that we recorded in the subsurface cuts across the dip of the rock layers and parallels the floor of the enclosure (as is to be expected of weathering). Furthermore, the dramatically shallower depth of the low-velocity layer immediately behind the rump of the Sphinx is totally incompatible with the notion that the seismic data simply records original bedding in the limestone.

3) I do not find dating the Sphinx on the basis of "the known use of stone in ancient Egyptian architecture" convincing. I would point out that massive stonework constructions were being carried out millennia earlier than circa 2800 B.C. in other parts of the Mediterranean (for instance, at Jericho in Palestine). Even in Egypt, it is now acknowledged that megalithic structures were being erected at Nabta (west of Abu Simbel in Upper Egypt; discussed in the text of VOICES) by the fifth millennium B.C. and the predynastic "Libyan palette" (circa 3100-3000 B.C.), now housed in the Cairo Museum, records fortified cities (which may well have included architectural stonework) along the western edge of the Nile delta at a very early date. I find it quite conceivable that architectural stonework was being pursued at Giza prior to 2800 or 3000 B.C. Bottom line as far as I am concerned: Reader is one more geologist who has corroborated my basic observations and conclusions. The oldest portions of the Sphinx date back to a period well before circa 2500 B.C.

It is not only concerning the age of the Sphinx that there have been significant developments since the original publication of VOICES. In June 1999, I participated in an amazing conference organized by Professor Emilio Spedicato of the University of Bergamo entitled "New Scenarios for the Solar System Evolution and Consequences in History of Earth and Man" (7-9 June 1999, Milan and Bergamo). I was invited to speak on the age of the Sphinx.

A number of scientists and researchers attended this conference, representing many "alternative," heretical, and "catastrophic" viewpoints. In particular, the University of Vienna geologist Professor Alexander Tollmann was there discussing the work pursued by him in conjunction with his late wife Edith Tollmann. The Tollmanns accumulated a mass of evidence supporting cometary impacts with Earth at the end of the last Ice Age between some 13,000 and 9,500 years ago (between circa 11,000 and 7,500 B.C.).

Another important researcher attending the "New Scenarios" conference was Dr. Mike Baillie, a dendrochronologist (he studies ancient tree rings) at the Queen's University in Belfast. Further supporting themes developed in VOICES, Baillie has documented a series of "narrowest-ring events" in the Irish oak tree-ring chronology at the following dates: 3195 B.C., 2345 B.C., 1628 B.C., 1159 B.C., 207 B.C., and A.D. 540. As Baillie pointed out, these dates mark major environmental downturns and also mark the general time periods of major disruptions and changes in the history of human civilizations. Baillie also noted that some or all of these dates may be associated with cometary activity influencing Earth. Indeed, I believe that these dates, along with the date of A.D. 1178 elucidated by Professor Spedicato and discussed in the text of VOICES, may all represent periods of more or less intense cometary impacts somewhere on our planet. Also note that these dates appear to follow a roughly 500- to 1,000-year cycle.

Looking at each of these dates in turn, we can make a few casual observations and speculations:

3195 B.C.: Possibly this marks the final end of the "Sphinx culture" (the builders of the Great Sphinx and other very ancient megalithic monuments), which, due to its collapse and the resulting cultural vacuum, paved the way for the dynastic culture of Egypt and other Mediterranean civilizations, the development of writing as we know it, and so forth.

2345 B.C.: The early Bronze Age crisis, discussed in VOICES.

1628 B.C.: The end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt; dynastic changes in China.

1159 B.C.: The end of the Bronze Age, discussed in VOICES.

207 B.C.: Social disruption in China and the Far East; decline of various Hellenistic empires in the circum-Mediterranean region which cleared the way for the dominance of the Roman empire.

A. D. 540: Collapse of the traditional Roman empire which ended the ancient world and set off the Dark Ages.

A.D. 1178: Social unrest and turmoil, particularly in the Pacific region and Asia (including the rise of the Mongols under Genghis Khan).

Based on the pattern above, I will not be surprised if our planet experiences another major cometary encounter during the twenty-first or early twenty-second century. This predicated future event may have already been foreshadowed by the 1908 extraterrestrial impact (I believe it was cometary in origin) in the Tunguska region of Siberia (see VOICES).

Extraterrestrial events have recently been acknowledged as also playing a major role in the development of human culture in the very distant past. The March 3, 2000 issue of SCIENCE magazine includes an article on stone tools from southern China dated to approximately 800,000 years ago ("Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like Stone Technology of the Bose Basin, South China" by Hou Yamei, Richard Potts, Yuan Baoyin, Guo Zhengtang, Alan Deino, Wang Wei, Jennifer Clark, Xie Guangmao, and Huang Weiwen). What is particularly interesting about these tools is their association with tektites, glassy fragments of molten rock that resulted from a meteorite impact (the result of a comet or asteroid colliding with our planet). It seems that the impact scorched the landscape, dramatically altered the local environment, exposed the rocks from which the stone tools were ultimately manufactured, and paved the way for early human innovation. In the devastation of the impact and its aftermath, new opportunities for cultural development arose.

Clearly the evidence continues to accumulate that extraterrestrial, and in particular cometary, events have directly influenced the course of human civilization. I stand by the ideas presented, and themes discussed, in VOICES. More than ever, I believe we must learn from the past even as we prepare for the future. Let us hope that we learn in time.

http://www.robertschoch.net/New Studies Confirm Very Old SPhinx.htm

The Truth of the Swarm!​

 

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQirYEU2LOo