MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Atlantis, the Great Flood & all that (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

OK Leon we are all convinced.... Can you stop the rain now?
Send private message
Leon



View user's profile
Reply with quote

nemesis8 wrote:
OK Leon we are all convinced.... Can you stop the rain now?
Convinced of what? And who are "we all"?

The rain has stopped, if you mean the succession of posts. That's the theory. Nothing to add except maybe to correct the idea that Norse colonists might have gone to Britain in the mid-3rd millennium: more likely mid-2nd, not that long before the Goidelics came up from Spain.

If it's all too boring for you, don't let me keep you, there are several dozen other threads to read.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Loess is very important and should be critically taken on board by everyone. First question: why isn't it found everywhere?
Send private message
Leon



View user's profile
Reply with quote

No, Bernie, I don't have direct evidence that Britain was unpopulated at the beginning of the 3rd millennium. It's a logical conclusion from the theory outlined above: if tidal waves reached a height of 2000 metres in the Atlas Mountains, there would have been no survivors in Britain, where the highest peak I see on the map, Ben Macdui, reaches 1309 metres, nor in Ireland obviously. Exactly when these islands began to be repopulated is a matter of speculation.

Does Stephen Oppenheimer have evidence that Britain was populated 14,000 years ago from the Basque Country? Does it seem logical that people would have migrated from northern Iberia to Britain toward the end of the Ice Age, when the ice reached down to what is now London?

Well, might have been a tourist trip to see the glaciers and they missed the boat back.
Send private message
Leon



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Loess is very important and should be critically taken on board by everyone. First question: why isn't it found everywhere?
Otto Muck's theory, critically commented by Freksa, is that some 5,000,000,000,000,000 (five thousand billion) tonnes of magma was thrown up from the opening along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, about 2000 by 150 kilometres, produced by the destruction of Atlantis. Most of it fell back into the ocean or directly onto the land, and a part, some 250,000,000,000,000 (250 billion) tonnes in the form of fine volcanic ash, remained in the atmosphere, where carried by the currents it circulated over the lowlands of Europe between Scandinavia and the Alps, and was deposited on the earth over a period of nearly two millennia.

Muck was a missile researcher, an expert in explosive force, who calculated those enormous numbers from studies of the volcanic explosion of Krakatoa in the 1880s.

Answer: Because such a destruction is very, very rare.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Otto Muck's theory


He's got a theory about Loess and his name is Muck? You're having a laugh!

And you say that 250 trillion tonnes (only a pedant tries to hang onto the old billion) of fine ash falls to Earth over 2,000 years but doesn't land everywhere? That's even funnier than Herr Muck
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
It's volcanic soil. Isn't that what I said? Why don't you google it for more details.

A couple of sites that I looked at say that loess is a residue of glaciation, not volcanic at all.
Send private message Send e-mail
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Loess is very important and should be critically taken on board by everyone. First question: why isn't it found everywhere?


I suppose it's simple - Loess must be the sediment deposited at the bottom of ancient seas? Nothing to do with glaciers or volcanoes.
Send private message
Leon



View user's profile
Reply with quote

He's got a theory about Loess and his name is Muck? You're having a laugh!
Rhymes with book.

And you say that 250 trillion tonnes (only a pedant tries to hang onto the old billion) of fine ash falls to Earth over 2,000 years but doesn't land everywhere?
Pardon the pedantry, didn't realise how americanised things had become in Britain, thought that was only in high finance. I'm an Americanadian myself, just trying to make things comprehensible to the locals. In the American system trillion is 9 zeroes, 12 is quadrillion.

Question of where wind currents go. I'm not an expert myself, but I assume Muck knew something about them. Can you provide a more thorough explanation?
Send private message
Leon



View user's profile
Reply with quote

A couple of sites that I looked at say that loess is a residue of glaciation, not volcanic at all.


Then why isn't it where the glaciation was heaviest?
Send private message
Leon



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I suppose it's simple - Loess must be the sediment deposited at the bottom of ancient seas? Nothing to do with glaciers or volcanoes.

Is loess found everywhere that ancient marine fossils are found?
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
A couple of sites that I looked at say that loess is a residue of glaciation, not volcanic at all.

Then why isn't it where the glaciation was heaviest?

Sorry about that. The sites actually say that loess has a tiny granual size, the smallest of any type of soil; that it was originally a residue of glaciation; and that it was subsequently windblown to its present locations.

Now that does seem to me to be a rather fanciful story but nevertheless it seems clear that the geologists are pretty definite that it ain't volcanic. My sense is that we should trust the geologists in this even if we don't trust the geographers.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
I suppose it's simple - Loess must be the sediment deposited at the bottom of ancient seas? Nothing to do with glaciers or volcanoes.

Is loess found everywhere that ancient marine fossils are found?

No, sorry. No fossils. Can't have fossils in wind-blown stuff. That would change the paradigm !
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Loess is very important and should be critically taken on board by everyone. First question: why isn't it found everywhere?


???The wind bloweth where it listeth????
Send private message Send e-mail
Leon



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well, I have to admit that my two previous posts were rather lame. Googling the matter I find that geologists describe loess originating in glaciation and of volcanic origin, as well as from erosion of dunes, desert and playa lakes (don't know exactly what they are: playa means beach in Spanish). This suggests that there are different types of soil having various characteristics in common, which are given the same name.

If you want to argue the sediment of ancient oceans theory, take it up with the geologists, I really don't know.

I'll just google a little more and see what else I can find: like a map of the European loess tongue.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group