XPost: sci.archaeology, alt.archaeology
From: eric.stevens@sum.co.nz
On 13 Nov 2006 20:48:51 -0800, "Tom McDonald"
wrote:
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On 13 Nov 2006 08:23:24 -0800, "Tom McDonald"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >> On 12 Nov 2006 12:02:35 -0800, "Tom McDonald"
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >sag_giganospam@yahoo.de wrote:
>> >> >> Tom McDonald schrieb:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > sag_giganospam@yahoo.de wrote:
>> >> >> > > Well it has been debated but maybe we can discuss this again ?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Some very very troubling coincidences :
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > More apparent than real, so not so troubling.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For you maybe.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, you might be more susceptible to twitching at shadows than I. You
>> >> >have put together a list that gives the appearance of much big stuff
>> >> >happening at about the same time. (And of course your title suggests a
>> >> >single, massive, nearly world-wide catastrophe; or at least a series of
>> >> >unusually catastrophic natural events.) The facts show that that
>> >> >appearance does not bear out, and therefore is not so troubling as if
>> >> >there had been a real synchronicity of disaster.
>> >>
>> >> What are these facts?
>> >
>> >I gave them in the previous post, and in this post. I'm open to
>> >disagreement on my interpretation, and I'm open to being corrected if
>> >I've mistaken something. (NB: I admitted two such mistakes in the
>> >second post.)
>> >
>> Those aren't 'fact's. They are merely an assertion of what you don't
>> know.
>
>OK.
>
>> >> >> > > Stonehenge were built around 3200 BC.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A henge was begun around then. It went through much rebuilding over
>> >> >> > time. The stones that make the henge a 'stone-henge' came later. So,
>> >> >> > no, Stonehenge was not built at that time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The earliest phase dates back to about 3100 BC. (Stonehenge 1)
>> >> >
>> >> >There were circles and earth works in the area up to four thousand
>> >> >years earlier. Over time, the nature of the monuments changed. The
>> >> >original henge (ditch and wall) appears to have been built around the
>> >> >end of the 4th century BCE, the time you favor.
>> >> >
>> >> >As I pointed out, there was a change in monument style then, but there
>> >> >had been an in situ evolution of monument forms for thousands of years
>> >> >before that time, and a continuation of that evolution for another
>> >> >thousand or more years.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why do you pick one point in that long evolution as particularly
>> >> >significant? Why not ca. 2500 BCE, when the first stones for the henge
>> >> >were installed? Why not ca. 8,000 BCE for the first monument on that
>> >> >site?
>> >>
>> >> Because there is not the synchronicity of dates he has already
>> >> described?
>> >
>> >I was hoping he would answer. It was a real question. The synchronicity
>> >of dates is something to be demonstrated, not assumed.
>>
>> There are two problems. First, as I have recently pointed out, if two
>> events occurred simultaneously on opposite sides of the world 5200
>> years ago, there is no way that we could establish simultaneity to
>> better than +/- several centuries.
>
>Thank you for an assertion of something you do not know.
You are wrong. It's an assertion of something I know. It's an
assertion that something is unknowable. That it is unknowable can be
shown to be the case from first principles.
>
>> The second is that while I a
>> worldwide flood might bring about a truly simultaneous collapse of
>> civilizations, a marginal climate change might cause the collapses to
>> be spread over centuries.
>
>Ah. "Might." I am impressed by the range of your assertions of things
>you do not know.
I do know that marginal climate changes have the potential to cause
the slow collapse of civilizations over a period of time. Under these
circumstances there is no reason why the collapse of multiple
civilisations should be simultaneous. Whether or not the collapse of
the civilizations actually was spread over centuries is something I do
not know. Nevertheless the potential remains for a marginal climate
change to cause the gradual collapse of multiple civilizations with
the final collapses of each to be spread over centuries.
>
>> Then there is my favourite - a cometary bombardment. I don't think
>> anyone is proposing that the whole world was bombarded with equal
>> severity all at once. But if there are several centuries of severe
>> bombardment (and the evidence suggests there might have been several
>> millenia) then one part of the world gets a clobbering one time,
>> another is on the receiving end of a Tunguska like impact 120 years
>> later, a city gets beaten flat and tens of thousands people are killed
>> five years after that. It's all part of the same ongoing astronomical
>> bombardment but not everyone gets hit all at once.
>
>Yet these interesting assertions, which you do not know happened, are
>amenable to archaeological investigation. (Other sciences, too; but I'd
>sure like to see the archaeology in these assertions.)
You may remember that I have for nearly ten years been pointing out
that what archaeologists conventionally put down to war or civil
insurrection may have another explanation altogether. It is possible
(note that qualifier) that archaeologists have been looking at the
evidence for cosmological catastrophe for more than a century and not
recognising it when they see it. In fact, it is more than possible. It
is virtually inevitable if the astronomers are correct on this matter.
--- snip ----
Eric Stevens
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
