"The Earth was divided", and Biblical truth from the time just after Noah.

[RelutantPuppet]

Couple of questions.
What sort of device was in use 24,000 years ago that measured glacial melt?
Who was doing the measuring and why?

As I comprehend it a variety of techniques are used in the determination of ancient sea levels that involve taking sediment, glacier, and coral samples and using certain known levels at which they alter per year in various situations in order to approximate their past states. Locally for example I can estimate the sea levels were once significantly higher due to the fact that my city is surrounded by plateaus of sandstone on the tops of which you can still discover fossilized sealife.

Here's a synopsis the internet gave me:

1. Geological Evidence: Scientists study geological features such as sediment layers, coral reefs, and fossilized marine organisms to determine past sea levels. For example, coastal sediments can contain different layers representing different periods, and by analyzing the depth and composition of these layers, scientists can estimate past sea levels.
2. Isotopic Analysis: Isotopic analysis involves examining the ratios of certain isotopes (variants of elements with different numbers of neutrons) in geological samples. Oxygen isotopes in fossilized marine organisms, ice cores, or even cave formations can provide insights into ancient sea levels. The ratio of oxygen isotopes changes with temperature, and by analyzing the isotopic composition of these samples, scientists can infer past temperature and therefore sea levels.
3. Sea-Level Indicators: Scientists also study various indicators in coastal regions, such as salt marshes, lagoons, and tidal flats. These areas are sensitive to changes in sea level, and the presence of certain plant or animal species can suggest different sea levels in the past.
4. Coral Reef Analysis: Coral reefs grow near the ocean surface, and their vertical growth patterns can provide clues about historical sea levels. By studying the age and depth of coral reefs, scientists can estimate past sea levels by considering factors like reef growth rates and subsidence of the land.
5. Ice Core Analysis: Ice cores extracted from polar regions contain layers of ice that have built up over thousands of years. By analyzing the isotopic composition of these layers, scientists can infer past temperature changes and indirectly estimate past sea levels. Changes in sea level can influence the extent of ice sheets and glaciers.

 

[Jd755]

As I comprehend it a variety of techniques are used in the determination of ancient sea levels involve taking sediment, glacier, and coral samples and using certain known levels at which they alter per year in various situations in order to approximate their past states. Locally for example I can estimate the sea levels were once significantly higher due to the fact that my city is surrounded by plateaus of sandstone on the tops of which you can still discover fossilized sealife.

Here's a synopsis the internet gave me:

1. Geological Evidence: Scientists study geological features such as sediment layers, coral reefs, and fossilized marine organisms to determine past sea levels. For example, coastal sediments can contain different layers representing different periods, and by analyzing the depth and composition of these layers, scientists can estimate past sea levels.
2. Isotopic Analysis: Isotopic analysis involves examining the ratios of certain isotopes (variants of elements with different numbers of neutrons) in geological samples. Oxygen isotopes in fossilized marine organisms, ice cores, or even cave formations can provide insights into ancient sea levels. The ratio of oxygen isotopes changes with temperature, and by analyzing the isotopic composition of these samples, scientists can infer past temperature and therefore sea levels.
3. Sea-Level Indicators: Scientists also study various indicators in coastal regions, such as salt marshes, lagoons, and tidal flats. These areas are sensitive to changes in sea level, and the presence of certain plant or animal species can suggest different sea levels in the past.
4. Coral Reef Analysis: Coral reefs grow near the ocean surface, and their vertical growth patterns can provide clues about historical sea levels. By studying the age and depth of coral reefs, scientists can estimate past sea levels by considering factors like reef growth rates and subsidence of the land.
5. Ice Core Analysis: Ice cores extracted from polar regions contain layers of ice that have built up over thousands of years. By analyzing the isotopic composition of these layers, scientists can infer past temperature changes and indirectly estimate past sea levels. Changes in sea level can influence the extent of ice sheets and glaciers.

So no 24,000 year old device then and no clue as to who if anyone was doing the measuring nor why.
Fair enough.

 

[JimDuyer]

This more or less checks out.

The 6th week under which all the living were blinded and a great many fell under the yoke of the sovereign house. This was the period from 8070 BC thru to 5550 BC - although the process of Enclosure began around 13110 BC.


The most recent Water Flood Initiated near the end of the 2nd week circa 15500 BC according to enoch. This is substantiated by archaeological records concerning the meltwater pulses. Around the time the rise in sea levels slowed is when we see the rise of recorded history.

View attachment 28915​

Nice bit of research, thanks. Natural dams held back the floods for centuries in some areas. For example, the Black Sea did not flood most of Anatolia (Turkey) until about 7300 BC, when the Bosphorus opened its land bridge and Med. waters flooded the fresh-water lake that then became the Black Sea, and our scientists tell us that this are is now 270 ft higher than earlier.
Not one but three teams over the years have proven this - and this is the flood that the Sumerians speak of - one of them at least, as another was about 2750 BC.
There are caves with Cro-Magnon paintings in them, in France, that are now under 130 feet of water, for example. All thanks to this same climatic turmoil known as the thawing.

So no 24,000 year old device then and no clue as to who if anyone was doing the measuring nor why.
Fair enough.

Someone could have been around, and noticed, but we have no "official" reports of it, as of today.
This information comes, as most of it does, from measurements of the frozen ice in Greenland and the Arctic region. Trapped gasses and some captured bits of fauna led them to date the events using much more sophisticated means than Radio isotopes.

 

[Jd755]

Someone could have been around, and noticed, but we have no "official" reports of it, as of today.

Always possible.

This information comes, as most of it does, from measurements of the frozen ice in Greenland and the Arctic region.

Quite funny actually. It comes from people guessing and is impossible to prove hence the use of the following.

scientists can estimate past sea levels.

by analyzing the isotopic composition of these samples, scientists can infer past temperature and therefore sea levels.

Sea levels up and down on temperature of where and what exactly?
The sea, the air, the land, all three, and locally or universally?

the presence of certain plant or animal species can suggest different sea levels in the past.

and their vertical growth patterns can provide clues about historical sea levels. By studying the age and depth of coral reefs, scientists can estimate past sea levels

By analyzing the isotopic composition of these layers, scientists can infer past temperature changes and indirectly estimate past sea levels.

Call me a cynic, idiot or whatever you want but these people are bloody guessing and making shit up on the back of their guesses.
Its truly pathetic.

 

[JimDuyer]

Always possible.


Quite funny actually. It comes from people guessing and is impossible to prove hence the use of the following.




Sea levels up and down on temperature of where and what exactly?
The sea, the air, the land, all three, and locally or universally?





Call me a cynic, idiot or whatever you want but these people are bloody guessing and making shit up on the back of their guesses.
Its truly pathetic.

Yes they are, and these are our top "wizards" of today.

 

[Otherlane]

Thanks for the link. Interesting - that area was home to both ideas of Vampires and Werewolves.
Found this on wakipedia:

Mircea Eliade attempted, in his book From Zalmoxis to Genghis Khan, to give a mythological foundation to an alleged special relation between Dacians and the wolves:

• Dacians might have called themselves "wolves" or "ones the same with wolves", suggesting religious significance.
• Dacians draw their name from a god or a legendary ancestor who appeared as a wolf.[51]
• Dacians had taken their name from a group of fugitive immigrants arrived from other regions or from their own young outlaws, who acted similarly to the wolves circling villages and living from looting. As was the case in other societies, those young members of the community went through an initiation, perhaps up to a year, during which they lived as a "wolf".
• The existence of a ritual that provides one with the ability to turn into a wolf. Such a transformation may be related either to lycanthropy itself,

So maybe that’s where the Remus and Romulus coming from wolves myth comes from (raised by the lupa)…if the original Romans were Dacians and emperor Hadrian (I believe it was him) referred to their land as the original homeland of the ancient Romans. Never made sense why it would be called Romania because the Romans conquered it. They supposedly conquered many lands so why would that one specific land take the name? Also from Romania are many Roma gypsies who have supposedly been wanderers for centuries

 

[Feck]

So maybe that’s where the Remus and Romulus coming from wolves myth comes from (raised by the lupa)…if the original Romans were Dacians and emperor Hadrian (I believe it was him) referred to their land as the original homeland of the ancient Romans. Never made sense why it would be called Romania because the Romans conquered it. They supposedly conquered many lands so why would that one specific land take the name? Also from Romania are many Roma gypsies who have supposedly been wanderers for centuries

the real city of troy is in Romania. it is called iarcuri and its bigger than Rome. the founder of Rome [Aeneas] came from there.

peace

 

[JimDuyer]

the real city of troy is in Romania. it is called iarcuri and its bigger than Rome. the founder of Rome [Aeneas] came from there.

peace

The link you posted takes me to a scientific paper that has this in the conclusions:
[[The absolute chronology places the group between the
fifteenth and eleventh centuries BC (Szentmiklosi 2009).
Three samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from burnt beams belonging to the
later construction. The results provide a clear indication of construction between 1450 and
1200 cal BC (Table 1 and Figure 9) combined to give a construction date of 1393–1314 (at
68.2% probability), and 1411–1270 (at 95.4%)]]

So by their own results, unless they uncover earlier remains at some point, this is too late, historically speaking, for Troy. But it could have been an outpost of Troy in Turkey since the
waterways empty from the Romanian location into the Turkish one.
What did they do with the pottery containing markings or language on them? Kick them back under the dirt?

 

[Feck]

The link you posted takes me to a scientific paper that has this in the conclusions:
[[The absolute chronology places the group between the
fifteenth and eleventh centuries BC (Szentmiklosi 2009).
Three samples for radiocarbon dating were taken from burnt beams belonging to the
later construction. The results provide a clear indication of construction between 1450 and
1200 cal BC (Table 1 and Figure 9) combined to give a construction date of 1393–1314 (at
68.2% probability), and 1411–1270 (at 95.4%)]]

So by their own results, unless they uncover earlier remains at some point, this is too late, historically speaking, for Troy. But it could have been an outpost of Troy in Turkey since the
waterways empty from the Romanian location into the Turkish one.
What did they do with the pottery containing markings or language on them? Kick them back under the dirt?

trojan war was 1184bc so wiki says. construction date seems quite perfect. destruction date too.
outpost of anatolia? how many hisarliks fit in iarcuri?
what waterways? the ones somehow the greeks could not find troy on which was just across the aegean?
sometimes I wonder if you get up and drink rum cocktails all day.

 

[Jd755]

Have a listen, or not.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xNgIj_4VzCU
​

 

[JimDuyer]

trojan war was 1184bc so wiki says. construction date seems quite perfect. destruction date too.
outpost of anatolia? how many hisarliks fit in iarcuri?
what waterways? the ones somehow the greeks could not find troy on which was just across the aegean?
sometimes I wonder if you get up and drink rum cocktails all day.

Last first - I don't drink alcohol nor smoke nor sniff nor snort. Haven't for 15 years.

We're not speaking of comparing the Trojan war with your site are we? Shouldn't we decide which was earlier and thus perhaps, only perhaps, an outpost of the other? That would seem to make sense. I'd love to give you Troy in Romania - just point out something from before 3600 BC as a candidate.

I was being more than normally diplomatic when I pointed out your dating dilemma and then suggested that it might have been an outpost - I feel that you have a good idea here, and a good site, just not Troy.

Why do I say that?

Troy was repeatedly destroyed and rebuilt during its 4000 years of occupation. As a result, the site is divided into nine archaeological layers, each corresponding to a city built on the ruins of the previous.

Troy was first settled around 3600 BC and grew into a small fortified city around 3000 BC (Troy I). Among the early layers, Troy II is notable for its wealth and imposing architecture. During the Late Bronze Age, Troy was called Wilusa and was a vassal of the Hittite Empire.

And the Hittites had language and writing and they can be dated by their use of certain forms of Cuneiform and writing styles in the Anatolia region. In other words, we can prove the Hittites occupied the site of Troy much later after its founding. But it is still earlier - the Hittite occupation, than your site above, according to the article that you furnished.

The final layers (Troy VIII-IX) were Greek and Roman cities which served as tourist attractions and religious centers because of their link to mythic tradition. Troy 0 or earliest layer, is dated at c. 3600–3500 BC

So the Romanians were wandering around as hunter gatherers, if they were on the scene at all since it can easily be conjectured that others made the site you speak of, while Troy flourished, and 2000 years Later they made the site you speak of. Perhaps influenced by Troy or the Hittites and thus an outpost?

Now, apparently you might need to look at your geography a bit as well. And I am speaking of the waterways. What is one of the major sources of the Black Sea? The Danube. And where does the Black Sea empty into? The Aegean and Mediterranean. Can you take an early river craft and travel through Romania and reach Turkey and then the Greek islands - sure, and many did.

The Danube is the second-longest river in Europe, after the Volga in Russia. It flows through much of Central and Southeastern Europe, from the Black Forest into the Black Sea. The Volga, by the way, is a main source for the Caspian sea but in ancient times it also fed a large lake called the Black Lake, before flooding turned it into a sea (about 7300 BC). And of course the Danube flows through Romania and bisects it from West to East before it dumps into the Black Sea which in turn connects to the Mediterranean. And the Aegean Sea is flush with the history and epic stories of the Greeks I should add.

Troy was not a Greek outpost - it's earlier than even the Greeks. In fact the Greeks were probably looking on the ground for fallen apples along with your Romanian suggestions and
at about the same time.

Now that we have that clear - kindly show me something to change my mind about your site, and by that I mean something archaeologically significant and not just hopeful thinking. I believe that your site is a fantastic find and worthy of further exploration. I further believe that Romania has an important part of human history locked up inside its present borders.
Just not Troy.

 

[Feck]

Last first - I don't drink alcohol nor smoke nor sniff nor snort. Haven't for 15 years.

We're not speaking of comparing the Trojan war with your site are we? Shouldn't we decide which was earlier and thus perhaps, only perhaps, an outpost of the other? That would seem to make sense. I'd love to give you Troy in Romania - just point out something from before 3600 BC as a candidate.

I was being more than normally diplomatic when I pointed out your dating dilemma and then suggested that it might have been an outpost - I feel that you have a good idea here, and a good site, just not Troy.

Why do I say that?

Troy was repeatedly destroyed and rebuilt during its 4000 years of occupation. As a result, the site is divided into nine archaeological layers, each corresponding to a city built on the ruins of the previous.

Troy was first settled around 3600 BC and grew into a small fortified city around 3000 BC (Troy I). Among the early layers, Troy II is notable for its wealth and imposing architecture. During the Late Bronze Age, Troy was called Wilusa and was a vassal of the Hittite Empire.

And the Hittites had language and writing and they can be dated by their use of certain forms of Cuneiform and writing styles in the Anatolia region. In other words, we can prove the Hittites occupied the site of Troy much later after its founding. But it is still earlier - the Hittite occupation, than your site above, according to the article that you furnished.

The final layers (Troy VIII-IX) were Greek and Roman cities which served as tourist attractions and religious centers because of their link to mythic tradition. Troy 0 or earliest layer, is dated at c. 3600–3500 BC

So the Romanians were wandering around as hunter gatherers, if they were on the scene at all since it can easily be conjectured that others made the site you speak of, while Troy flourished, and 2000 years Later they made the site you speak of. Perhaps influenced by Troy or the Hittites and thus an outpost?

Now, apparently you might need to look at your geography a bit as well. And I am speaking of the waterways. What is one of the major sources of the Black Sea? The Danube. And where does the Black Sea empty into? The Aegean and Mediterranean. Can you take an early river craft and travel through Romania and reach Turkey and then the Greek islands - sure, and many did.

The Danube is the second-longest river in Europe, after the Volga in Russia. It flows through much of Central and Southeastern Europe, from the Black Forest into the Black Sea. The Volga, by the way, is a main source for the Caspian sea but in ancient times it also fed a large lake called the Black Lake, before flooding turned it into a sea (about 7300 BC). And of course the Danube flows through Romania and bisects it from West to East before it dumps into the Black Sea which in turn connects to the Mediterranean. And the Aegean Sea is flush with the history and epic stories of the Greeks I should add.

Troy was not a Greek outpost - it's earlier than even the Greeks. In fact the Greeks were probably looking on the ground for fallen apples along with your Romanian suggestions and
at about the same time.

Now that we have that clear - kindly show me something to change my mind about your site, and by that I mean something archaeologically significant and not just hopeful thinking. I believe that your site is a fantastic find and worthy of further exploration. I further believe that Romania has an important part of human history locked up inside its present borders.
Just not Troy.

so because troy in anatolia has a timeline then its the real place? do I read in some greek myth about it being built in 3600bc? that says it was built by a man, some slaves and cows he won in a wrestle only a few generations before the war. and its only a cows wander away from the phyrigian capital [that's still there too].
and what's with pasting most of wiki? is quantity of "stuff" now a proof? what would change my mind there?
troy in anatolia was originally a cucuteni trypillian outpost... I will give you that.

iarcuri is monumental [mythical] in size and construction. 5000 hectares. nothing else like it [troy in anatolia is 15-30 hectares??]. the roman colosseum can sit on one of its 4 walls. and it was attacked by greeks [via arrow heads] with huge sling shots [possible with the first catapults since the shot are so large]. there was a real war at iarcuri and all surrounding huge sites [like Santana].

also the big catastrophe at the greek camp caused by Poseidon seems pretty real... see old dirt over newer dirt?

Dartmouth university
"Perhaps more significant is the fact that the "Coarse Ware" of Troy VIIb1, a class of pottery which makes its first appearance at Troy immediately after the destruction of Troy VIIa, is very closely related to the handmade and burnished pottery which appears in more or less contemporary contexts of the early LH IIIC period at a number of sites on the Greek Mainland as well as in Cyprus, southern Italy, and Sicily. In none of these areas does this pottery have local antecedents, and it has been argued by Deger-Jalkotzy that such pottery is to be derived ultimately from ceramic traditions at home in the Middle Danube area of central Europe. The "Coarse Ware" of Troy VIIb1 may be interpreted as identifying the sackers of Troy VIIa, a population group who crossed the Hellespont at the end of their journey from the Middle Danube through Rumania to Turkish Thrace. Similar groups may have been involved with the sacking of numerous major Mycenaean sites in the Peloponnese at the end of the LH IIIB period."

so after the real trojans left the real troy... they went to new troy... and took it over
5000 hectares @ 100 people per hectare [mortimer wheeler] is alot of migration...

 

[JimDuyer]

Have a listen, or not.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xNgIj_4VzCU
​

Is this the same Torbay found in Great Britain? Still sticking with the Jerusalem in Britain crowd, I see. I do agree with one detail - the flood that caused Doggerland to go under the waves for good about 7300 BC, off the coast of southern England, is indeed the same flood with the same dating as the flood recorded as being of Noah.

so because troy in anatolia has a timeline then its the real place? do I read in some greek myth about it being built in 3600bc? that says it was built by a man, some slaves and cows he won in a wrestle only a few generations before the war. and its only a cows wander away from the phyrigian capital [that's still there too].
and what's with pasting most of wiki? is quantity of "stuff" now a proof? what would change my mind there?
troy in anatolia was originally a cucuteni trypillian outpost... I will give you that.

iarcuri is monumental [mythical] in size and construction. 5000 hectares. nothing else like it [troy in anatolia is 15 hectares??]. the roman colosseum can sit on one of its 4 walls. and it was attacked by greeks [via arrow heads] with huge sling shots [possible with the first catapults since the shot are so large]. there was a real war at iarcuri and all surrounding huge sites [like Santana].

also the big catastrophe at the greek camp caused by Poseidon seems pretty real... see old dirt over newer dirt?

Dartmouth university
"Perhaps more significant is the fact that the "Coarse Ware" of Troy VIIb1, a class of pottery which makes its first appearance at Troy immediately after the destruction of Troy VIIa, is very closely related to the handmade and burnished pottery which appears in more or less contemporary contexts of the early LH IIIC period at a number of sites on the Greek Mainland as well as in Cyprus, southern Italy, and Sicily. In none of these areas does this pottery have local antecedents, and it has been argued by Deger-Jalkotzy that such pottery is to be derived ultimately from ceramic traditions at home in the Middle Danube area of central Europe. The "Coarse Ware" of Troy VIIb1 may be interpreted as identifying the sackers of Troy VIIa, a population group who crossed the Hellespont at the end of their journey from the Middle Danube through Rumania to Turkish Thrace. Similar groups may have been involved with the sacking of numerous major Mycenaean sites in the Peloponnese at the end of the LH IIIB period."

so after the real trojans left the real troy... they went to new troy... and took it over
5000 hectares @ 100 people per hectare [mortimer wheeler] is alot of migration...

Well I read your post twice and I'm still not sure what you are saying. Sorry, it's me I'm sure.
Troy, again, was not Greek. The Greeks stole history from everyone they met - and claimed it as their own. But because they were European, history books attribute great deeds to them.
Yes, there was a lot of migration, and much of it was from the Fertile Crescent into Europe, witnessed by the influx of wheat, first cultivated in Turkey and later appearing in first East and later in West Europe.

 

[Feck]

Is this the same Torbay found in Great Britain? Still sticking with the Jerusalem in Britain crowd, I see. I do agree with one detail - the flood that caused Doggerland to go under the waves for good about 7300 BC, off the coast of southern England, is indeed the same flood with the same dating as the flood recorded as being of Noah.

Well I read your post twice and I'm still not sure what you are saying. Sorry, it's me I'm sure.
Troy, again, was not Greek. The Greeks stole history from everyone they met - and claimed it as their own. But because they were European, history books attribute great deeds to them.
Yes, there was a lot of migration, and much of it was from the Fertile Crescent into Europe, witnessed by the influx of wheat, first cultivated in Turkey and later appearing in first East and later in West Europe.

who says troy was greek? attacked by greeks I think I said. yup I did.
so the folks migrating from the real troy in Europe to fake troy in anatolia is like wheat?

sorry if I question whether you have read anything.
founding of troy
Ilos, in Greek mythology, the founder of Ilion (Troy). Ilos (or Zacynthus, a Cretan name) has been identified either as the brother of Erichthonius or as the son of Tros and grandson of Erichthonius. According to legend, the king of Phrygia gave Ilos 50 young men, 50 girls, and a spotted cow as a wrestling prize, with the advice that he found a city wherever the cow first lay down. The animal chose the hill of Ate, where Ilos marked out the boundaries of Ilion. After praying for a sign from Zeus, Ilos was sent the Palladium, a statue of Pallas Athena, for which he built a temple. As long as the Palladium was kept in the temple, Troy was invincible. (It was eventually stolen by Odysseus and Diomedes.) Ilos’s son Laomedon succeeded him as ruler of the city. His daughter, Themiste, was Aeneas’s grandmother. His grandson Priam was the last king of Ilion.

this is neat

troyes france


iarcuri...

 

[Jd755]

Is this the same Torbay found in Great Britain?

Watch and listen when you get the time. I realise you are engaged in getting a book ready to publish so time is of the essence but if you can find the time all to the good.

 

[JimDuyer]

Watch and listen when you get the time. I realise you are engaged in getting a book ready to publish so time is of the essence but if you can find the time all to the good.

Fair enough, I am taking your advice. Thank you. I'm downloading it now, will watch tonight and report tomorrow. I would love to be as startled by new information as the youtube poster says he was, and I never leave doors closed to fresh knowledge.

 

[Otherlane]

the real city of troy is in Romania. it is called iarcuri and its bigger than Rome. the founder of Rome [Aeneas] came from there.

peace

That makes perfect sense

 

[JimDuyer]

Watch and listen when you get the time. I realise you are engaged in getting a book ready to publish so time is of the essence but if you can find the time all to the good.

OK watched it.
First I wish to say that there is no evidence that I have found, read or translated that would preclude a Flood, a Noe, a Hanock, and a boat or Ark, in Great Britain, very early in history.

There is of course a however. However. As the lady speaking on the video mentioned fleetingly, the scholarly idea of a comet strike and associated flood in 7100 BC (I find it at 7300 but I won't argue with 7100 either) is understood and agreed among many scientists.
The nice lady has a problem of focus. She, like many others before her, are not thinking outside the box. She is trying to stretch the flood of the Bible to match an English geography. Then she discards the 7100 and finds sources that conform more to the biblical timeline of 2300 BC or so.

And she attempts to rope the people of early India into the equation.
How about this?
There were floods reported all over the world, not just in the Middle East.
Some, however, such as South America, were floods of fire and not water.
And Native Americans recall flood mixed with ice covering their lands and
ruining the hunting. (Don't let them snow you that they had no written languages - they
most certainly did).

But no flood in Egypt, at least none that was reported in their many, many symbols.

The Flood in England was in 7100. It covered Doggerland for good, mostly, with only
some small parts left above water. Doggerland was rich in people, and those people had writing as well. I have translated the stone markings at Skara Brae (spelling?) for instance,
and they were made by those people. The ones on the stone bedpost for example and the fence posts outside the circular site.

So, England had their Noe and Flood and Ark. Let's be proud of it.
The Hebrews used stories from all over the Middle East to fill in the historical parts
of their Bible. But none of those stories begin with "The Lord God said" so they are
merely human stories and we can discard them or amend them as we wish.
They were ignorant sheep herders and thieves, with some murderers for hire thrown in,
and were called vermin that walks by their neighboring civilizations such as the Sumerians
and Egyptians. So, they "borrowed" and rewrote some of the tales from the Sumerians and
others. And Solomon was in Spain in 1000 BC or so, and he probably met people from England who told him of their Noe and the Flood. So when they added the flood narrative to their bible they used that version instead of the Sumerian version.
Most of the OT was written about 600 BC or so, and this fits that idea very well.

So don't try to force the holy lands into England - celebrate the great deeds of our
ancestors and publish this as the first and great story of the flood.

Indian texts were not understood and thus not translated until the 1800s. They still are not sure about most of the texts. They are worse than the early Hebrew without vowels - they often can be read any way you wish. And with tourist dollars and archaeological interest, those poor Hindu folk will translate any UFO or rocket or whatever you wish. So please, don't rely on nor rope them into this deal.

Basically, much of the flood story may have been copied from the Anglo-Saxons and English people and taken back to the Levant. We know that the Black Sea flooded in 7300 BC and it caused most of Turkey to go underwater, and changed the exit routes of the Tigris and Euphrates. Perhaps this was the same one the English were reporting.

I like that she quotes Godfrey Higgins - my extended ancestry is Anglian and Scots mixed from near Nottingham, so the Yorkshire folk have a soft spot in my heart. Although his book Celtic Druids would never have been published today because everyone now knows that to be true, and in that regard he was a brave pioneer.

If you can contact her, please suggest that she refocus on local events rather than trying, as others have done without success, to shoehorn the biblical flood into England.

Thanks for the suggestion - it made for a good diversion. Jim

 

[Jd755]

Oh thank you for your kind comment. Though why you would think I have contact details for the lady or be in touch I know not.
But as long as you had an interesting diversion then alls well.

Anyway here's my take on things.
We all see our world through our beliefs and knowing. You for example say you receive transmissions from aliens, believe in planets, you say you can translate ancient texts.
There is no way for you to show us how you developed your translation skill nor is there anyway for us to check the veracity of your translations for ourserlves. This means we individually either believe what you claim or we don't.
Same goes for alien transmissions and decoding of the content.
For me my beliefs are that dating of any physical artifact is impossible. The calendar and chronology based on it are not trustworthy things. There are no such things as aliens in space.
Contained water always presents a level surface where it meets water vapour. I live on a level plane in water.

In light of that I find looking into tales and stories be they in myth, legends, books, documents, translations, oral retelling based in my experience of the physical world I walk in and its processes needs some measure that can apply to all.
I have found the logistical aspects are my and I emphasise my, best way to establish likely veracity of any of the of stories to my satisfaction.
I guess in a word my ruler is objective where many other people on here use a subjective ruler.

So here's the objective problems I see with the ark story.

As I have already shown there is no methodology or process for establishing when events if they occurred at actually occurred.
No matter whether its you, Marchell or anyone else, hypothesising dating is simply guessing.
In the matter of possible locations unless the stories contain unique topographical detail of some kind putting the event in a specific location cannot be done. More guessing.

Even if the story does contain topographical evidence it might simply be indicative of where the originator of the story was when they sat down recorded an event in a sound aka poem or song or written script or even just the place where the person listening to the story actually transcribed it into text.
There are so many variables in play not least the different translation and the probable mishearing and mispronunciation that its inevitable with stories that can change within every retelling.

In the case of the ark every man and his dog assumes ship and a ship made of wood. Literally everyone assumes it was a wooden vessel built to hold people and animals and survive floodwaters that covered the land.

We are all familiar with zoos and how the animals within them are kept apart so the predators don't eat the prey and in then we are meant to believe in a story of these same animals loaded together in a wooden vessel that is then carried of by a rising flood subjected to wind, wave and current action over various periods of time and various distances depending on the alleged sources of the story.
Not only that these creatures and the people are in the dark inside the vessel for the entire voyage unsure of where and if they will make shore or how long they may be afloat let alone how long their finite supplies they will last.
Apart from the inevitable bodily functions of all inside creating a foul odour, soiled bedding, large volumes of faeces, gallons upon gallons of urine with no apparent mechanism to clear such things overboard there is the question of potable water and food for all.
Yak to take one example die once they get below a certain elevation so how would an ark of wood mere feet above the rising sea level prevent them from dying?
And any animal or man which died on the voyage how would they be removed from the ark?
How would any man collecting the animals, an endeavour that is simply ignored and yet taken for granted, know the animals chosen weren't carrying a disease that could pass to others on board?
And the fishes how were they accommodated in their multitude?
Who went and got the whales?

Then there is the building of the thing itself to consider. Build it in the wrong place and the flood will overwhelm it. Build it from the wrong mix of woods and its doomed. Build it with weak structural timber and again failure. Get the design wrong for the seas it will encounter and it will sink.
It is claimed to have had no propulsion, no rudder or steering mechanism and it was designed to just float on the rising waters coming to rest where it may.
Pure fantasy quite honestly.

Where the flood arose would have a direct action on where it would eventually float. As would the topography of wherever the thing was built and not to mention the source of the water be it from underground, from the sky or a wave caused by something big, really big, falling in the ocean or something big on the ocean floor sinking or exploding.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how people would know in advance that any catastrophic event would set of a specific set of circumstances to enable them to have the time to establish the things needing to be saved is animals and man. Invertebrates, fungi, plants be damned. Getting the design sorted, sourcing the expertise and materials then bringing them all together to build the thing takes planning, time and skilled effort. The people doing the construction are doing so in the knowledge they and their families are not going to survive the rising waters yet instead of looking to themselves and their families they labour on for "the greater good" so to speak.
Common sense and especially direct experience flies out the window when it comes to religious books, stories and dates, beliefs and opinions hold sway.

Land inundated with salt water does recover its fertility remarkably quickly. This speed of recovery depends on how long the land remains under inundation. However land that has been under the sea for mere days is not land you could turn out grazing animals on. Without grazing animals predatory animals have nothing to eat.
Also absent is fresh potable water as the flood swept all surface water away and into its salt water. The springs could begin flowing again after the water receded but due to possible pressure of the floodwater they may have been contaminasted by the salt water so the first flowing after recession could well be brackish for a few days.
Any standing bodies of water be they inland sea, lake, or pond would be salt not fresh water.
And let's not forget the stink of wherever the dead people and animals taken by the flood and the sea creatures stranded by the flood receding. The volume of corpses is incalculable but they all end up at the point where the water stops moving and goes calm before it starts dropping and this point is not uniform. Any floating corpses gather together in pools left by the referring water and the ark floats.
You can see it in action on any tide on any tidal shore.

And the stories of the ark being found up mountains this of course happens all the time in real life where storm surges or tidal waves pick the boats and ships up and deposit them on the nearest high ground. But of course this doesn't happen. They are deposited wherever the moving power of the water ebbs enough so the things its carrying and moving simply stop moving and remain wherever they are, and they do get some distance from the point at which the water gets them moving, but never are they left on the tops of the highest ground and rarely are they left in good condition. Sometimes they are quite upright more often they aren't.

This is easy to observe and it is demonstrated twice a day with the tides however we are told to ignore the reality of demonstrable repeatable events and accept this fully loaded ship was taken by the flood to the top of high ground and left so perfectly the passengers both human and animal could disembark with ease and repopulate the new but devastated world created by the flood.

As for migrations by sea of unknown numbers of people with their baggage and presumably animals.
The QEII and Canberra were two large steel hulled motorships and each carried just over 3000 troops and their kit, water, food, medical teams, and the ships own crews to the Falklands from Britain in 1982. No animals of course, no families no non essentials Their navigators also had charts of the route they were taking and how long the voyage would take.

The quickest way to get people and animals embarked is to have them walk on. This is best done on a ship moored to a jetty. Another method is loading from boats by gangplank or cranes, onto ships moored in open water. Finally there is loading onto beached ships.
The ships themselves have a great part to play as they have to be ballasted for the intended load and the load spread equally throughout the ship. Ships built for the sea states in the Med and Aegean, the seas where Brutus is said to have sailed from, are built to withstand Mediterranean sea states not the Atlantic. True the ships operating through the straits of Gibraltar and into the Atlantic will be stronger built but in any migration by sea from the Med into the Atlantic the majority of ships by necessity would be lighter built Mediterranean ships.
It is claimed in the video Brutus turned up in Torbay and his ships anchored there for three weeks which was the time it took them to disembark the Trojan people, their belongings and animals.

Once again all the logistical requirements of the ark are present in the ships of Brutus. Any severe movement of load on a physically small ship or movement in ballast and it becomes unseaworthy another fact that applies to both ark and migration story ships.

So as much as I am intrigued by the tale of the ark and the tales of migrations logistically they are fantastical.

 

[JimDuyer]

Oh thank you for your kind comment. Though why you would think I have contact details for the lady or be in touch I know not.
But as long as you had an interesting diversion then alls well.

Anyway here's my take on things.
We all see our world through our beliefs and knowing. You for example say you receive transmissions from aliens, believe in planets, you say you can translate ancient texts.
There is no way for you to show us how you developed your translation skill nor is there anyway for us to check the veracity of your translations for ourserlves. This means we individually either believe what you claim or we don't.
Same goes for alien transmissions and decoding of the content.
For me my beliefs are that dating of any physical artifact is impossible. The calendar and chronology based on it are not trustworthy things. There are no such things as aliens in space.
Contained water always presents a level surface where it meets water vapour. I live on a level plane in water.

In light of that I find looking into tales and stories be they in myth, legends, books, documents, translations, oral retelling based in my experience of the physical world I walk in and its processes needs some measure that can apply to all.
I have found the logistical aspects are my and I emphasise my, best way to establish likely veracity of any of the of stories to my satisfaction.
I guess in a word my ruler is objective where many other people on here use a subjective ruler.

So here's the objective problems I see with the ark story.

As I have already shown there is no methodology or process for establishing when events if they occurred at actually occurred.
No matter whether its you, Marchell or anyone else, hypothesising dating is simply guessing.
In the matter of possible locations unless the stories contain unique topographical detail of some kind putting the event in a specific location cannot be done. More guessing.

Even if the story does contain topographical evidence it might simply be indicative of where the originator of the story was when they sat down recorded an event in a sound aka poem or song or written script or even just the place where the person listening to the story actually transcribed it into text.
There are so many variables in play not least the different translation and the probable mishearing and mispronunciation that its inevitable with stories that can change within every retelling.

In the case of the ark every man and his dog assumes ship and a ship made of wood. Literally everyone assumes it was a wooden vessel built to hold people and animals and survive floodwaters that covered the land.

We are all familiar with zoos and how the animals within them are kept apart so the predators don't eat the prey and in then we are meant to believe in a story of these same animals loaded together in a wooden vessel that is then carried of by a rising flood subjected to wind, wave and current action over various periods of time and various distances depending on the alleged sources of the story.
Not only that these creatures and the people are in the dark inside the vessel for the entire voyage unsure of where and if they will make shore or how long they may be afloat let alone how long their finite supplies they will last.
Apart from the inevitable bodily functions of all inside creating a foul odour, soiled bedding, large volumes of faeces, gallons upon gallons of urine with no apparent mechanism to clear such things overboard there is the question of potable water and food for all.
Yak to take one example die once they get below a certain elevation so how would an ark of wood mere feet above the rising sea level prevent them from dying?
And any animal or man which died on the voyage how would they be removed from the ark?
How would any man collecting the animals, an endeavour that is simply ignored and yet taken for granted, know the animals chosen weren't carrying a disease that could pass to others on board?
And the fishes how were they accommodated in their multitude?
Who went and got the whales?

Then there is the building of the thing itself to consider. Build it in the wrong place and the flood will overwhelm it. Build it from the wrong mix of woods and its doomed. Build it with weak structural timber and again failure. Get the design wrong for the seas it will encounter and it will sink.
It is claimed to have had no propulsion, no rudder or steering mechanism and it was designed to just float on the rising waters coming to rest where it may.
Pure fantasy quite honestly.

Where the flood arose would have a direct action on where it would eventually float. As would the topography of wherever the thing was built and not to mention the source of the water be it from underground, from the sky or a wave caused by something big, really big, falling in the ocean or something big on the ocean floor sinking or exploding.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how people would know in advance that any catastrophic event would set of a specific set of circumstances to enable them to have the time to establish the things needing to be saved is animals and man. Invertebrates, fungi, plants be damned. Getting the design sorted, sourcing the expertise and materials then bringing them all together to build the thing takes planning, time and skilled effort. The people doing the construction are doing so in the knowledge they and their families are not going to survive the rising waters yet instead of looking to themselves and their families they labour on for "the greater good" so to speak.
Common sense and especially direct experience flies out the window when it comes to religious books, stories and dates, beliefs and opinions hold sway.

Land inundated with salt water does recover its fertility remarkably quickly. This speed of recovery depends on how long the land remains under inundation. However land that has been under the sea for mere days is not land you could turn out grazing animals on. Without grazing animals predatory animals have nothing to eat.
Also absent is fresh potable water as the flood swept all surface water away and into its salt water. The springs could begin flowing again after the water receded but due to possible pressure of the floodwater they may have been contaminasted by the salt water so the first flowing after recession could well be brackish for a few days.
Any standing bodies of water be they inland sea, lake, or pond would be salt not fresh water.
And let's not forget the stink of wherever the dead people and animals taken by the flood and the sea creatures stranded by the flood receding. The volume of corpses is incalculable but they all end up at the point where the water stops moving and goes calm before it starts dropping and this point is not uniform. Any floating corpses gather together in pools left by the referring water and the ark floats.
You can see it in action on any tide on any tidal shore.

And the stories of the ark being found up mountains this of course happens all the time in real life where storm surges or tidal waves pick the boats and ships up and deposit them on the nearest high ground. But of course this doesn't happen. They are deposited wherever the moving power of the water ebbs enough so the things its carrying and moving simply stop moving and remain wherever they are, and they do get some distance from the point at which the water gets them moving, but never are they left on the tops of the highest ground and rarely are they left in good condition. Sometimes they are quite upright more often they aren't.

This is easy to observe and it is demonstrated twice a day with the tides however we are told to ignore the reality of demonstrable repeatable events and accept this fully loaded ship was taken by the flood to the top of high ground and left so perfectly the passengers both human and animal could disembark with ease and repopulate the new but devastated world created by the flood.

As for migrations by sea of unknown numbers of people with their baggage and presumably animals.
The QEII and Canberra were two large steel hulled motorships and each carried just over 3000 troops and their kit, water, food, medical teams, and the ships own crews to the Falklands from Britain in 1982. No animals of course, no families no non essentials Their navigators also had charts of the route they were taking and how long the voyage would take.

The quickest way to get people and animals embarked is to have them walk on. This is best done on a ship moored to a jetty. Another method is loading from boats by gangplank or cranes, onto ships moored in open water. Finally there is loading onto beached ships.
The ships themselves have a great part to play as they have to be ballasted for the intended load and the load spread equally throughout the ship. Ships built for the sea states in the Med and Aegean, the seas where Brutus is said to have sailed from, are built to withstand Mediterranean sea states not the Atlantic. True the ships operating through the straits of Gibraltar and into the Atlantic will be stronger built but in any migration by sea from the Med into the Atlantic the majority of ships by necessity would be lighter built Mediterranean ships.
It is claimed in the video Brutus turned up in Torbay and his ships anchored there for three weeks which was the time it took them to disembark the Trojan people, their belongings and animals.

Once again all the logistical requirements of the ark are present in the ships of Brutus. Any severe movement of load on a physically small ship or movement in ballast and it becomes unseaworthy another fact that applies to both ark and migration story ships.

So as much as I am intrigued by the tale of the ark and the tales of migrations logistically they are fantastical.

The animal problem gives me pause as well. I find it difficult to believe would be an understatement.
Now, I have to take issue with one part of your comment:

There is no way for you to show us how you developed your translation skill nor is there anyway for us to check the veracity of your translations for ourselves. This means we individually either believe what you claim or we don't.
Same goes for alien transmissions and decoding of the content.

Did you not download the book I put in the library for free? Read the symbols, check them against the Sumerian dictionary published online at the Univ. of Penn - by all means confirm everything I have said. Surely that should be sufficient?

Yes there is a way for you to know how I developed my translation skills and more. The radio messages were intercepted at Arecibo by NASA scientists. They have been peer reviewed many times. All of them agree that they are not only from space but from very very deep space. Did the Voyager become sentient and begin broadcasting the messages? No - they come from much further than Voyager even.
I will provide the template to allow anyone to follow along and translate both those and others, since I quit after about eight. There are newer ones that I have not yet looked at. I just haven't published these yet because I have three books that are more important that I need to get out first.

To be fair I also put up part of a message that even I am not positive what it means and guess what? I got zero answers, zero comments. So, you want me to do the heavy lifting - I will. But I reserve the right to choose which to publish first.

By the way, the one I am working on includes the template to translate ancient Hebrew such as the Bible text into Sumerian, a 7300 BC map of Eden, and both my translation and how I do it for the markings at Gobekli Tepe. Oh, and the text of the bible which provides a 96.40% and better measure of the circumference of both the Earth and the Moon. So that might be important to some of us.