1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

the genesis of civilization

Discussion in 'BFD' started by Days, Jan 5, 2016.

  1. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    Now what? You disagree the evidence is evidence? LOL

    While I've been writing this thread, evidence has poured in on "pre-historic" history. First of all, if we have evidence, then it isn't pre-historic, we have history, it is just very old history and it takes some effort to piece together the evidence, but that was always the case... ask me, that's what makes it fun. but to pretend that history began 6000 years ago in Sumeria, that's plain stupid, we have ruins all over the world that date back ten thousand and twenty thousand and even thirty thousand years. And we have geologic evidence that matches the archaeologic timeline. I am just commenting on the evidence, not making it up. We know where Mu was, we know where Atlantis was, there were historians in ancient Greece that traveled to Egypt and studied the temples, we have their writings, isn't that history? (the best there is)

    Atlantis... in Mauritania... all along...



    The Lost City of Atlantis - Hidden in Plain Sight - Advanced Ancient Human Civilization
    [​IMG]
    Bright Insight
    Published on Sep 4, 2018



    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    This is How We Know Atlantis Existed…AND Where – Lost Ancient Civilization Hidden in Plain Sight (2)
    [​IMG]

    Bright Insight
    Published on Sep 24, 2018


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Ancient Map PROVES The Lost City of Atlantis is The Eye of The Sahara – Ancient Civilization
    [​IMG]
    Bright Insight
    Published on Oct 30, 2018


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Three reasons BRIGHT INSIGHT is RIGHT about Atlantis!
    [​IMG]
    Charles Kos
    Published on Nov 6, 2018
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  2. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    Now, think about the Carolina Bays being centered on the edge of the ice cap... being located just south of the Antarctic Circle (before the small moon struck the earth). The eliptical shape of the craters are likely the result of what amounted to a grazing angle (like 70 degrees) of impact; hence, the moon traveled through a lot of atmosphere, hence, it exploded multiple times into fine pieces. The explosions happened in the air back over top of the center of the ice cap, then the impact was dead on the edge of the ice cap. Again, this is the evidence. Now look where the tsunami would have hit first... western Africa. Western Africa would have had a climate much like what Europe has today.

    So if we have a global tsunami originating on the edge of the Arctic Circle in the Atlantic Ocean, and it is traveling southeast, where did Noah's ark get built? It ended up in the Ararat Mountain range and he was afloat for 150 days... but was there a current? My feeling is the water kept coming and coming until it overflowed the Ararat mountain range, that's how I read the text, so maybe Noah built his Ark in modern day Georgia, or maybe he started as far away as the western coast of the Black Sea? Remember, the ice cap covered the northern half of Europe. Maybe Noah lived on the southern coast of the Black Sea ... that would match the text perfectly.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  3. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    One more thing... the text says "the fountains of the deep were broken up" (something like that)... I've always looked for those fountains under the oceans. A fountain is water that is pushed up and falls back down. Wells are water from underneath. Artesian wells are water from underneath that push water up like a fountain. So, here, if I'm looking for "fountains of the deep" ... why am I looking underneath the oceans? There are two giant fountains of the deep that are pushed up on the poles... ice caps. Figure those ice caps were building up for hundreds of millions of years, so they were probably larger than what we have today... also the global mean temps were colder, so they had to be larger.

    The cosmic impact that created over half a million craters up and down our eastern seaboard also ripped apart heavy cut interlocked stone walls in Peru, no doubt the entire crust of the earth was affected, the rings of fire were all jostled about, volcanic activity everywhere, especially in the Americas running north and south, and that extends to the south pole, so both poles were, no doubt, volcanic. The text says the fountains of the deep were "broken up" ... sound like both ice caps were broken up? And what happens then? The pieces float out and all this heat added to the system melts them... and when the heat is happening all at once, everywhere, the ice is going to melt pretty fast.

    So, the latest theory is that seas rose in as little as 3 years. That sounds about right, but most of that ice melted in the first 40 days, because a 500 mile diameter moon exploding in our atmosphere is going to be more powerful and hotter than anything you ever imagined. So, the water kept coming at Noah's boat for 40 days and the seas kept rising and eventually he sailed 15 cubits above the Ararat range; again, where does the boat and the water pour through? A mountain pass. Read the text again; here's my interpretation, "the water kept rising and our Ark penetrated the foot hills and then the mountain range itself" ... "as we passed over the mountains I took a sounding and it was 15 cubits". Once he got into the range, he settled, remember, there was no sails, he's just a cork in the water, bobbing along.

    So, now, it makes sense, the idea that a wind blew the water away... from the mountain range ... back into the oceans. The event ended after 150 days, the water receded, and it simply returned to the oceans. The water didn't come from under the oceans and it didn't return to under the oceans. The water came from the polar ice caps breaking up and melting - the north pole probably completely melted - and the water returned to the oceans... mean sea level rose 350-400 feet. The poles refroze (that's what took 3 years) and the extra water in the oceans is the difference between the size of the ice caps before we were struck by the small moon... and the size of the ice caps after they reformed.

    Questions? I'm assuming everyone knows of the Sumerian text that tells us the earth was struck by a small moon... which would create a tsunami ... and tear apart the polar ice caps ... and melt them ... and produce a flood exactly like the one that floated Noah's ark ... and drown Atlantis ... and back fill western Africa with silt as the continent ran off.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  4. Jen

    Jen #walkaway

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    43,193
    Likes Received:
    11,239
    One important person you haven't mentioned and I am trying to work into this is Peleg...... the fourth generation after Noah. Peleg means "division". In the days of Peleg, the earth was divided. Genesis 10:25.

    Now that division could mean a lot of things, but many people take it to mean a continental division.

    A moon explosion such as you've described could also cause a huge tectonic plate movement such as is talked about with the "days of Peleg" (100 years later). How does that Peleg timeline work into this?
     
  5. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    I wrote this in the middle of the night, a lot of these posts were middle of the night. There's a lot in there, if you stop to think about it. The first thing I see is a system that should be cooling back down over the next hundred thousand years, so we may be hot at the moment, but over the long haul, we will cool off. But the earth atmosphere and crust will remain hot while the ice caps reform, because when ice forms, it kicks out heat. So, the ice caps are reforming for the past 10,000 years and it keeps us hot, but eventually, when the caps get back to what they were, then temps will drop again... cuz the atmosphere is a giant cooling machine. This is not terribly complicated.

    The other thing I see happening is that as the ice caps reform, mean sea level should go down. The water should return to being locked in the fountains of the deep at the poles. At the moment, we've had volcanic activity at both poles, so the past century, there's been more melting than freezing, but that is short term behavior, over the long haul, the ice caps will continue to grow and the volume of water in the oceans will continue to drop.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    Haven't put a lot of thought into the land dividing... I always took that to mean that the land was divided up among the tribes of the earth (politically)... it's all how you read the text... here's a great example... remember these lyrics?, "this land is your land, this land is my land"... does that mean we are sharing the land or is that laying out boundaries for your house in the suburbs while the federal government claims most of the western states?

    The ring of fire is probably still active from the small moon striking the earth. I believe the tectonic plates move something like a foot a year. Global repercussions will take a long, long time to play out. But I don't see any evidence of a physical dividing of the tectonic plates, especially not in something as short as a single generation, even if that generation lasted 400 years, the plates might have moved a 1000 feet at the most (assuming they are slowing down, hence, they were moving faster back then) ... what's that? 1/5th of a mile?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    45,989
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    I disagree that most of your videos provide reputable evidence of anything, that the continents have moved much at all since the last glacial period, that there was a bolide impact with the kind of effects you’re positing in historic memory, and that geology, or archaeology, or history works the way you seem to think it does.
     
  8. Jen

    Jen #walkaway

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    43,193
    Likes Received:
    11,239
    I think it's evident that South America and Africa were once connected and the dry earth was in one piece with the Atlantic Ocean not existing.

    Like you I always assumed it took place over thousands of years with slow movement. Something like what you described with the moon could make that separation happen a lot faster.
     
    • Disagree x 1
  9. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    The videos are based upon the evidence, same as my posts, don't confuse the videos with the actual physical evidence. Brien Forrestal videos go right to location and points at the evidence, but he also refers to evidence accrued through history. It is up to you to be knowledgeable enough to know the evidence we are pointing at and talking about. Your ignorance of the evidence does not make my references into fantasy. The evidence exists. The video on the Carolina Bays presents evidence, but the actual evidence exists up and down the eastern seaboard. The 3 videos by Bright Insights are pointing at the presentation of evidence given by a documentary 7 years ago... but the actual evidence is in Mauritania and the whole western Sahara. Climatologists universally agree with me that northern Africa had a different climate 10,000 years ago and it slowly changed. Geologists universally agree with me that the ice sheet covering the northern hemisphere was located where I said it was... I'm just pointing at what they say it was, I'm not changing the location of the ice sheet, neither am I presenting tectonic plate movement, I'm presenting the exact same earth that is spinning today, all I'm saying is, the ice sheets were centered on the poles, so the earth was spinning with Iceland at the North Pole and halfway between new Zealand and Peru as the South Pole.

    The earth was struck by a small moon, that's in the Sumerian texts, the evidence is all over our eastern seaboard. The moon was moving at a strong angle to the earth, so it flew over the north pole and exploded, exactly the same as any giant rock would, and those explosions are enormous, and the heat they generate is enormous. Your ignorance of meteors and impact craters, not withstanding, I am pointing at the evidence, not making it up. Impact craters are always circular, never eliptical... however, if the angle of strike was at a severe tangent to the earth, it might create an eliptical crater, and there happens to be half a million eliptical craters, all identical, so the evidence is there. The other thing that does is it pushes the eastern seaboard southeast as the earth rotates... the earth continues to rotate on its axis, due east doesn't change, the crust of the earth doesn't change either, but the eastern seaboard is going to move south, and when that happened, Siberia moved north, and when that happened, 2 million Wooly Mammoths lounging around in a tropical paradise were frozen ... that's called climate change.

    I don't think you see the picture, I don't think you have caught up with what I'm posting here... and I am moving right along with the information Age, I'm not rogue, I'm weaving together the information as it pours in... I think I am on the front lines of doing that, but hey, 26 years ago I married an information resource (clerk) in the Carnegie Library system, so I got a jump on all this.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  10. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    Like you and everyone else, we all see evidence of a Pangea. But the timeline for such is a lot further back, probably a couple of billion years ago. The earth was struck by a small moon and it did affect the movement of the tectonic plates, but this was roughly 12,000 years ago, the separation of the continents was pretty much in the same place as they are today ... the island of Japan moved six feet in 2011 from that plate movement, I don't think the moon strike had much impact on the tectonic plate movement, enough to rip apart stone walls in Peru, but not much more than a few feet, maybe 50-100 feet at the most, not that it wouldn't have been one hell of an earthquake.

    Early Genesis relates the creation and the gathering of the land together; I still see that as happening hundreds of millions of years ago, if you are looking at post flood tectonic activity, it isn't going to amount to very much. Think about the context of the verses you are reading... what is in there? All the tribes of the earth, right? So, the earth was divided... between all those tribes... politically. This land is your land, this land is my land, unless my armies conquer your armies, then your land is my land.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Jen

    Jen #walkaway

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    43,193
    Likes Received:
    11,239
    That makes sense.
     
  12. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    You know what else makes sense?

    Why hasn't anyone figured that out? The ice sheets were the polar ice caps, duh. They were centered on the poles. duh.

    Obviously, the impact area of those half million craters moved the land southeast in the same direction as the impact. That's going to happen from an impact that is almost tangent to the earth, all the force of the mass is pushing the impact area southeast, so as the earth spins, the impact area should slowly spin southward. The moon hit the earth in the same direction the earth was spinning... it is possible it sped up the earth spin somewhat.

    Well, if you watched the video on the Carolina Bays, that person doesn't believe they are impact craters at all. That's fine, without an opposing argument, we wouldn't have discussion. The impact craters are there, their distribution exactly matches what a 500 mile diameter moon would leave if it struck the earth at a severe tangent angle... the timing of their formation exactly matches historical texts that remember the moon striking the earth and the global flood it produced... all the evidence points to the same event. But, I wasn't there, I didn't see it in person, neither did the person who made that video.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    45,989
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    There is extensive physical evidence that the position of Africa 10000 years ago is pretty much where it is now. Same with Canada, Alaska, etc.
     
  14. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    duh.
    Did you have a point?

    hint: the earth is a ball spinning in space.

    Africa didn't move, the ice caps moved.
     
  15. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    45,989
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    The geographic poles didn’t move. The ice caps are centered on the poles for a reason.
     
  16. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    I didn't say the geographic poles moved, I said the ice caps moved. And yes, the ice caps are centered on the poles for an obvious reason; ice forms below 32 degrees F.

    You either haven't read this thread or you are missing the whole idea.

    The earth is still spinning west to east, and the great pyramid still sits oriented to perfect north, so the geographic poles haven't budged, but the old ice caps were broken up and largely melted, mean sea level rose 350-400 feet, and that's after the ice caps reformed, so it stands to reason that the old ice caps were larger.

    Now, if you look at where the old Arctic ice cap was, it was centered on Iceland.

    capice?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    West coast of America, Alaska, and Florida were all on the same latitude. That's where the ice was not, those parts and Arizona and New Mexico were all ice free. And by the time you worked your way down to Siberia, you was in the tropics. And no maybe about that, all of Siberia was littered with frozen mammoths, like 2 million of them... many of them munching on tropical greens as they froze.

    Ignorance of the evidence scores no points in this thread, this thread requires thinking, just because you is smart, doesn't mean you is thinking... tilt the globe so that Iceland is at the North Pole and build a super big ice cap for hundreds of millions of years... that's what was there, and it definitely all melted, that's what pushed the global tsunami for 40 days, that's why the waters kept rising.

    Southern polar ice cap is a different story. Antarctica was ice free, but got covered with ice cap as it moved south to the pole position. So, maybe half of the southern ice cap melted, while the Atlantic half of it stayed close enough to the pole on the Pacific side to survive, also, it would have broken up slowly and melted slowly. Australia would have gone from a temperate climate to a very hot climate, as it moved north.

    So, here's how this would have played out. The moon exploded into half a million pieces over top of the north pole, melted most of the ice cap, then struck the edge of it in a southeast direction at a heavy tangent, leaving the oval of impact craters overlapping as they are... now the strike would have nudged the earth's crust at the impact point; quite possibly was what produced the New Madrid fault line as it pulled on that plate. The earth then would have continued to rotate but it would have wobbled as it spun and the center of that wobble would have been where it ended up, a spinning gyroscope irons out wobbles, even big wobbles like this would have been.

    Again, precession has nothing to do with the earth wobbling once every 26,000 years, that is ridiculous on steroids. Our sun and Sirius (the dog star, the god Isis, the north star, the star closest to the sun) are dancing in rotation as they circle the center of the Milky Way, that's what produces a corkscrew path for the sun, and that's what produces the precession; it is the orientation of the solar system to the galaxy, and the earth is caught up in that orientation.

    Okay, so let's sum up. Genesis is a myth, likely retold by Noah and it matches creation myths told by other other survivors of the flood. If you lived on the south coast of the Black Sea when the exploding moon melted the ice cap, you better have built an Ark, because the water was coming directly at you; ditto for the city of Atlantis and pretty much all of North Africa and the middle east. Ancient Greek historians got the date of Atlantis sinking into the sea off of an Egyptian temple that was later lost to the flooding of the river valley when they built the Aswan dam. We have global evidence that points to this same date... 9500 BC ... everything started over, high technology vanished, and the entire world remapped their night sky. Civilization - if you want to call it that - slowly started over from scratch, but some records of pre-flood civilization were written down, and things like king's lists (that were etched in stone) recorded a couple hundred thousand years. The Vedas in India survived and they also go back something like 130,000 years... obviously, we have copies.

    To answer Jack's earlier question... about whether Genesis 1:2 is retelling creation or jumping forward to a global flood and a restart... my best answer there is to read it like a myth, read it like it was a story being handed down, read it straight forward the way a person would listen to a story being told... then it is not a do-over, it was a short summary for hundreds of millions of years; a damn short summary, as in one chapter, seven days. But that verse "gathered the land together so it stuck out of the water" (Pangea) ... that one verse is a billion years in the making.

    What came first? Chicken or the egg? How about asking it this way... what came first? The earth or the animals and plants? Your answer is "the earth" obviously. and that's what Genesis records; the animals and plants sprung up from the earth. Any problem with that? Only this: the earth; dirt, is produced from dead animals and plants, so it is the same deal as the chicken and the egg. The real beginning of life on earth was when the spirit of God fluttered over the waters of the deep (Genesis 1:2) ... everything that happened after that, was his doing.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Disagree x 1
  18. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    Let's talk for a moment about climate change. Weather anomalies are not climate change. You only get climate change - real climate change - if your continent has a changed orientation to the sun. And that should never happen. It certainly hasn't happened in the past 6000 years.

    Everyone agrees that all of North Africa - where the Sahara desert is today - experienced a climate change. 12,000 years ago it had a Mediterranean climate, it was a lush green land, rich in agriculture. No one argues that, except possibly ETR, he seems to disagree with all of science on all the evidence, I can't tell what he is disagreeing with if he doesn't explain it in a post. Anyhoo, the thing is, it means something... when the whole of North Africa had a different climate, and the whole of siberia had a different climate, and the whole of North america had a different climate, and the whole of Europe had a different climate... it means something, it means the whole northern hemisphere had a different orientation to the sun than it has today. Let's toss in the whole of Antarctica also.

    Today, the press pretends thatt every weather anomalie points to global climate change. That's utterly stupid. There is no climate change happening, there is no change in the earth's orientation to the sun, everyone has the same climate, has had the same climate for the past 6000 years.

    When the continent of Antarctica goes from ice free to the center of the south pole... that's climate change. That happened because Antarctica changed its orientation to the sun, it used to be at a latitude similar to where Australia is today (latitude, not longitude), but now it is at the bottom of the world, that's what changed the climate.

    Science knows that Siberia, North Africa, North America, Europe, and Antarctica all underwent climate change 12,000 years ago, and lots of scientists understand what that means and are looking for what could have changed the orientation of the surface of the earth. Nothing as simple as a tangential strike from a small moon nudging a single location southeast has been proposed, maybe because the Carolina Bays were never understood to represent a single cosmic strike, it wasn't until 1930 that we got aerial pictures and started to understand what we have there; over half a million impact craters, heavily overlapping each other in the central region, but no one has done a study, no one has even looked at it very hard, all I did was look at how it would affect continental orientation if we nudged the earth's surface southeast ... IOW, I tilted the globe back northwest from the impact point and looked at where everything was situated before the strike... and lo and behold, 5 continents fell into perfect orientation for the climate that science says they had 12,000 years ago. As an added bonus, it also centers the old northern ice cap on the north pole.

    You can't disagree with the evidence. That's like me saying Aliminum melts at 1100 degrees F, and you hitting the disagree button. It makes you look uninformed.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018
  19. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    45,989
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    No, “orientation to the sun” ... which is affected by long term factors involving the position of the Eartj relative to the sun, and not by bolide impacts that leave no trace of evidence (the little meteor strikes you mention are not enough to calculable affect the orientation of the Earth, any more than bouncing a pebble on the ground will tip the Earth in space) ... is not the only thing affecting climate. Scientists KNOW why the Sahara became desert and your answer is incorrect.
     
  20. Days

    Days Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    15,774
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    okay, I can see by this garble that you are starting to grasp that climate change is the result of a change in orientation of the continent to the sun. It isn't perfectly clear to you, yet, but it looks like a kernel of thought is starting to grow there.

    Meanwhile, you are not willing to concede that something as small as a 500 mile diameter moon striking the earth on a heavily angled tangent would be sufficient to produce a directional nudge in the spin of the earth. I think it would, and something did, so I'm probably right.

    The impact craters (bays - they aren't bays by any stretch of the imagination, talk about mislabeling) stretch for a good 800 miles in an eliptical pattern that would reflect a heavily angled strike. I'm guessing 500 mile diameter moon allowing for dispersion from the explosions that transformed the moon into over half a million strikes. I'm overcompensating, the moon was likely much closer to 700 miles in diameter. The force of the strike is mostly determined by the speed of the object...
    speed x mass = force
    how fast was the moon moving? There is a way to get an idea for that. We have rogue planets that make giant eliptical swings outside the solar system and back into it. If we looked at those paths relative to the earth, we might get a feel for how fast this small moon was traveling when it hit our atmosphere.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018

Share This Page