Cyclical Catastrophes that follows the Precession of the Equinoxes
What if a cycle implies the beginning and end of an equal line put together? What if the natural line continues while the artificial cycle is being held together for as long as the temporary being holding it together has the power to do so? How could holding onto a temporary cycle, while a line continues be precise (neither more nor less than)? Doesn't it take more effort to hold onto temporarily, while the ongoing line lessens (inception towards death) ones efforts (life)?
Euqi (equal) nox (night)...what if only during equal light can opposite differences (night/day) be shaped?
For some reason, you have a pattern of fixating on specific teachers, here Randall Carlson, and attributing no wrong to them instead of reviewing them critically. I've constantly said Jesus is the only person you can do that with.
My comment on chronology of this dryas view showed statistically that Carlson's trying to force 16 arbitrarily dated events into a range of the precession map under the idea of "one-third on two-thirds off", plus (literal quote) "of course 26,000 you consider a figure plus or minus a few centuries" is, well, astrology. Statistically insignificant special pleading. It's also literally astrology because he's saying his four favorite zodiac signs (granted, Biblically significant ones) happen to govern all cyclical cataclysms, except when they don't. The stated reason: (refuses to elaborate).
Without having looked at most of the 16 events, what I've looked at has shown that geologists stretch the past just like all tall tale tellers. Some of these rely on ice cone data, which is exceptionally easy to manipulate. If you want to pick specifics to focus on so as to narrow it down to most salient cases, we can review that. But he just brings these in with uncritically accepted mainstream dates without even attempting to test whether they fit his imagined schedule because he just assumes they do. "The delivery of cosmic material and energy energy pulses that would be affecting earth are non random": no explanation how, just an assumption that these epochs are "high-risk intersections", supported only by innumeracy.
Did the ancients have supernatural help? We believe so. Is there no artifact evidence of their presence for these half-million or more years? We agree there isn't. But to create the compromise with the old-earth cabal by admitting their dates and theology of death, but then to reject their uniformitarianism, falls between both stools. It's not necessary to assume cyclic catastrophe to explain the amount of evidence if the amount testifies to young earth. It's only necessary to assume it if you already bought the cabal lie of old earth.
If there were 16 civilization-wiping events that destroyed everything except the megaliths, the odds are that they would also make humanity extinct. The odds would be that even the scope of Noah's one deluge in 100-200 tellings would be an ELE. One wouldn't believe anyone had survived if there weren't credible testimony of how, which incidentally also agrees with model shipbuilding and scientific practices.
The evidence of OP is mathematically inconclusive, geologically suspect, methodologically bereft, epistemologically credulous, and predictively impotent. Carlson literally wedded the genii of Aquarian Age and Geologic Column and midwifed the cockatrice spawn of this bastard dyad of heaven and earth.
Lol, let us know when you have a model with a better fit for the data.
Uh, Brownian motion. There's no Law that says the earth must be destroyed on Aquarius's schedule, which is what OP amounts to.
OP is proposing a correlation between two sets of data points and not even proposing any explanatory causation. But the correlation itself is math abuse. Ordinarily in science there would be no necessity of correlation of any heavenly events to be synched with the remote stars, that's what astrology teaches. But we do have correlations that objects are more likely to strike the earth during meteor showers, which are mathematically predictable and thus not a conspiracy at all.
Now I'll take just another moment to glance at the actual geologic events proposed, using Carlson's dates and idiosyncratic spelling:
144000 BP Salian climate shift
120000 BP Alika 2 megaslide & tsunami Hawaii
117000 BP terminal substage SE climate shift
~104000 BP Greenland blitz
~84000 BP Odderade event & Osis 21
72000 BP Toba super eruption near extinction of humans
65000 BP Heinreich event 6
52000 BP Heinreich event 5 Osis 14, 15
40000 BP 1st phase Australian megafauna extinction
39000 BP Heinrich event 4
26000 BP final extinction of Australian megafauna
26000 BP onset of late Wisconsin ice age
23000 BP Heinrich event 2
12900 BP onset of Younger Dryas climate catastrophe
10000 BP end of Wisconsin ice age
~4320 BP Burkle crater event & tsunami? (Noah's flood?)
For lurkers, we've already noted that the 4.6kya event is well-correlated with Noah's flood and the other events tied to #16. I dispute #1-#15 being significant.
Oh look, Gerald Bond proposed seriously that Heinrich events happened on a 7,000-year cycle, which again is apophenia on a different scale than Carlson, and nobody believes him either. (Apophenia is seeing faces on the moon.)
As I anticipated, Heinrich events are determined by correlation with the random glaciation phases upheld by the geologists, which are determined by processing of ice cores, which are themselves subject to the same apophenia but one shared by more mainstream scientists. Unlike tree rings (which themselves have a little slippability), many ice cores have no clear annual markers to determine how many years have passed, unless you have a record of a volcanic eruption. Just estimating from this chart, we have H1 16-18, H2 24-28, H3 29-31, H4 38-40, H5 47-48, H6 60-64. So Carlson is fudging to ignore H1 and H3 and to accept H6 when it is less well-attested than the others. He says H2 23, H4 39, H5 52, H6 65, which literally contradicts the chart for all but H4. So there are three events that Carlson says happened perfectly on schedule for his needs that the first chart I find says didn't happen at those times. He is capable of specifying ranges or specifying centuries or decades but he didn't, and so he got #7, #8, and #13 flat wrong, and there's no reason for him to ignore H1 and H3. But then the Heinrich event is not a mass collapse event anyway, it's basically just a big iceberg release, but I see no model that explains that that must necessarily remove all traces of civilization and technology.
But the punchline is the faultiness of ice cores. Here is a quick overview of why the data are unreliable, especially with a flood creating rapid ice accumulation at the poles: "Glaciologists estimate that uncertainties in identification of layers will probably limit the number of countable layers to less than about 8,500 (Hammer, et al., 1978)." Here is Bill Nye causally estimating that ash in an ice core proves a volcanic eruption continuously produced ash for 15-17 years despite this never having been documented as happening, thus showing the likelihood of overcounting from a hostile witness. Other flaws in mainstream ice-core theory include the generic inability to group band differences into years with any objectivity, the consistent stretching the lower half of the core out temporally to represent 5 times as many years as the upper half (despite an equal prevalence of volcanic ash), and the inability to explain the lack of a billion years of predicted erosion in the Antarctic Gamburtsev Mountains. The smoking gun is when mainstream scientists Meese and Gow published that a 2800m core was 85,000 years old and were told by another scientist that his model said the ice at that depth should have been 110,000 years old; so Meese reran the data using resolution of 1 mm instead of 8 mm and, lo and behold, he imagined another 25,000 layers just by changing the resolution! (I heard this report directly from Jake Hebert, the link author; the link gives two other cases of circular reasoning regularly employed by the cabal.) As someone said, since fully half the dates proposed are thrown out, it's a wonder that the other half are yet accepted.
So there's no evidence the Heinrich events happened when they are guesstimated to have happened based on biased analysis of a very small number of ice cores.
You asked me to look into it, I had told you that my previous evidence on the susness of ice cores was sufficient, and it was.
OP proposes the extraordinary (astrological) claim that Aquarius regularly influences global cataclysms, which isn't supported by extraordinary evidence (or even ordinary for that matter).
claim that Aquarius regularly influences global cataclysms
Utter fucking nonsense. The OP outlines the evidence that catastrophes on earth follow a cyclical pattern. The way you try to twist things is just because of the specific stick up your ass of biblical literalism and trying to stuff everything into 6,000 years. Try not to let your mental illness shit up my threads. It’s rude.
The OP outlines the evidence that catastrophes on earth follow a cyclical pattern.
And in that pattern they "only" happen when the sun is in Aquarius or one of the other three Carlson-preferred signs. I have no doubt that if there were 26,000 years the sun would trace a complete precession. What I have doubt about is any mechanism that would create cataclysms at consistent intervals in that period. And astrology has the exact same lack of mechanism for essentially the same reasons.
You do understand how apophenia creates confirmation bias when the bar is so low as matching one out of three periods or relatively close to that, right? Do you want more math demonstration of that?
Or the most likely candidate, nothing about our cosmic environment actually changes, but cyclical shifts in the earth’s magnetic poles simply lower our cosmic defenses.
Do you want more … of that?
No, no one wants to read any further of your intellectual jerking off. How about you just engage with what’s presented while trying to minimize your tendency to argue disingenuously and against evidence not presented.
What if a cycle implies the beginning and end of an equal line put together? What if the natural line continues while the artificial cycle is being held together for as long as the temporary being holding it together has the power to do so? How could holding onto a temporary cycle, while a line continues be precise (neither more nor less than)? Doesn't it take more effort to hold onto temporarily, while the ongoing line lessens (inception towards death) ones efforts (life)?
Euqi (equal) nox (night)...what if only during equal light can opposite differences (night/day) be shaped?
For some reason, you have a pattern of fixating on specific teachers, here Randall Carlson, and attributing no wrong to them instead of reviewing them critically. I've constantly said Jesus is the only person you can do that with.
My comment on chronology of this dryas view showed statistically that Carlson's trying to force 16 arbitrarily dated events into a range of the precession map under the idea of "one-third on two-thirds off", plus (literal quote) "of course 26,000 you consider a figure plus or minus a few centuries" is, well, astrology. Statistically insignificant special pleading. It's also literally astrology because he's saying his four favorite zodiac signs (granted, Biblically significant ones) happen to govern all cyclical cataclysms, except when they don't. The stated reason: (refuses to elaborate).
Without having looked at most of the 16 events, what I've looked at has shown that geologists stretch the past just like all tall tale tellers. Some of these rely on ice cone data, which is exceptionally easy to manipulate. If you want to pick specifics to focus on so as to narrow it down to most salient cases, we can review that. But he just brings these in with uncritically accepted mainstream dates without even attempting to test whether they fit his imagined schedule because he just assumes they do. "The delivery of cosmic material and energy energy pulses that would be affecting earth are non random": no explanation how, just an assumption that these epochs are "high-risk intersections", supported only by innumeracy.
Did the ancients have supernatural help? We believe so. Is there no artifact evidence of their presence for these half-million or more years? We agree there isn't. But to create the compromise with the old-earth cabal by admitting their dates and theology of death, but then to reject their uniformitarianism, falls between both stools. It's not necessary to assume cyclic catastrophe to explain the amount of evidence if the amount testifies to young earth. It's only necessary to assume it if you already bought the cabal lie of old earth.
If there were 16 civilization-wiping events that destroyed everything except the megaliths, the odds are that they would also make humanity extinct. The odds would be that even the scope of Noah's one deluge in 100-200 tellings would be an ELE. One wouldn't believe anyone had survived if there weren't credible testimony of how, which incidentally also agrees with model shipbuilding and scientific practices.
The evidence of OP is mathematically inconclusive, geologically suspect, methodologically bereft, epistemologically credulous, and predictively impotent. Carlson literally wedded the genii of Aquarian Age and Geologic Column and midwifed the cockatrice spawn of this bastard dyad of heaven and earth.
Praise Jesus!
Here’s the full talk:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QxxJkkUiRxw&pp=ygUZUmFuZGFsbCBjYXJsc29uIGZ1bGwgdGFsaw%3D%3D
Glad that 20 minute teaser has gotten you so into the subject
Lol, let us know when you have a model with a better fit for the data.
Uh, Brownian motion. There's no Law that says the earth must be destroyed on Aquarius's schedule, which is what OP amounts to.
OP is proposing a correlation between two sets of data points and not even proposing any explanatory causation. But the correlation itself is math abuse. Ordinarily in science there would be no necessity of correlation of any heavenly events to be synched with the remote stars, that's what astrology teaches. But we do have correlations that objects are more likely to strike the earth during meteor showers, which are mathematically predictable and thus not a conspiracy at all.
Now I'll take just another moment to glance at the actual geologic events proposed, using Carlson's dates and idiosyncratic spelling:
144000 BP Salian climate shift
120000 BP Alika 2 megaslide & tsunami Hawaii
117000 BP terminal substage SE climate shift
~104000 BP Greenland blitz
~84000 BP Odderade event & Osis 21
72000 BP Toba super eruption near extinction of humans
65000 BP Heinreich event 6
52000 BP Heinreich event 5 Osis 14, 15
40000 BP 1st phase Australian megafauna extinction
39000 BP Heinrich event 4
26000 BP final extinction of Australian megafauna
26000 BP onset of late Wisconsin ice age
23000 BP Heinrich event 2
12900 BP onset of Younger Dryas climate catastrophe
10000 BP end of Wisconsin ice age
~4320 BP Burkle crater event & tsunami? (Noah's flood?)
For lurkers, we've already noted that the 4.6kya event is well-correlated with Noah's flood and the other events tied to #16. I dispute #1-#15 being significant.
Oh look, Gerald Bond proposed seriously that Heinrich events happened on a 7,000-year cycle, which again is apophenia on a different scale than Carlson, and nobody believes him either. (Apophenia is seeing faces on the moon.)
As I anticipated, Heinrich events are determined by correlation with the random glaciation phases upheld by the geologists, which are determined by processing of ice cores, which are themselves subject to the same apophenia but one shared by more mainstream scientists. Unlike tree rings (which themselves have a little slippability), many ice cores have no clear annual markers to determine how many years have passed, unless you have a record of a volcanic eruption. Just estimating from this chart, we have H1 16-18, H2 24-28, H3 29-31, H4 38-40, H5 47-48, H6 60-64. So Carlson is fudging to ignore H1 and H3 and to accept H6 when it is less well-attested than the others. He says H2 23, H4 39, H5 52, H6 65, which literally contradicts the chart for all but H4. So there are three events that Carlson says happened perfectly on schedule for his needs that the first chart I find says didn't happen at those times. He is capable of specifying ranges or specifying centuries or decades but he didn't, and so he got #7, #8, and #13 flat wrong, and there's no reason for him to ignore H1 and H3. But then the Heinrich event is not a mass collapse event anyway, it's basically just a big iceberg release, but I see no model that explains that that must necessarily remove all traces of civilization and technology.
But the punchline is the faultiness of ice cores. Here is a quick overview of why the data are unreliable, especially with a flood creating rapid ice accumulation at the poles: "Glaciologists estimate that uncertainties in identification of layers will probably limit the number of countable layers to less than about 8,500 (Hammer, et al., 1978)." Here is Bill Nye causally estimating that ash in an ice core proves a volcanic eruption continuously produced ash for 15-17 years despite this never having been documented as happening, thus showing the likelihood of overcounting from a hostile witness. Other flaws in mainstream ice-core theory include the generic inability to group band differences into years with any objectivity, the consistent stretching the lower half of the core out temporally to represent 5 times as many years as the upper half (despite an equal prevalence of volcanic ash), and the inability to explain the lack of a billion years of predicted erosion in the Antarctic Gamburtsev Mountains. The smoking gun is when mainstream scientists Meese and Gow published that a 2800m core was 85,000 years old and were told by another scientist that his model said the ice at that depth should have been 110,000 years old; so Meese reran the data using resolution of 1 mm instead of 8 mm and, lo and behold, he imagined another 25,000 layers just by changing the resolution! (I heard this report directly from Jake Hebert, the link author; the link gives two other cases of circular reasoning regularly employed by the cabal.) As someone said, since fully half the dates proposed are thrown out, it's a wonder that the other half are yet accepted.
So there's no evidence the Heinrich events happened when they are guesstimated to have happened based on biased analysis of a very small number of ice cores.
What a fucking disingenuous lie
Classic.
You asked me to look into it, I had told you that my previous evidence on the susness of ice cores was sufficient, and it was.
OP proposes the extraordinary (astrological) claim that Aquarius regularly influences global cataclysms, which isn't supported by extraordinary evidence (or even ordinary for that matter).
Utter fucking nonsense. The OP outlines the evidence that catastrophes on earth follow a cyclical pattern. The way you try to twist things is just because of the specific stick up your ass of biblical literalism and trying to stuff everything into 6,000 years. Try not to let your mental illness shit up my threads. It’s rude.
And in that pattern they "only" happen when the sun is in Aquarius or one of the other three Carlson-preferred signs. I have no doubt that if there were 26,000 years the sun would trace a complete precession. What I have doubt about is any mechanism that would create cataclysms at consistent intervals in that period. And astrology has the exact same lack of mechanism for essentially the same reasons.
You do understand how apophenia creates confirmation bias when the bar is so low as matching one out of three periods or relatively close to that, right? Do you want more math demonstration of that?
Seriously? Here’s an easy one that takes two seconds to come up with: our vertical movement wrt the galactic plane. As seen in this image:
https://i.sstatic.net/DfAo0.jpg
Or how about another easy one? The all but confirmed-to-exist now Planet 9/X
https://www.space.com/astronomy/solar-system/evidence-of-controversial-planet-9-uncovered-in-sky-surveys-taken-23-years-apart
Or how about various solar cycles concatenating?
Or the most likely candidate, nothing about our cosmic environment actually changes, but cyclical shifts in the earth’s magnetic poles simply lower our cosmic defenses.
No, no one wants to read any further of your intellectual jerking off. How about you just engage with what’s presented while trying to minimize your tendency to argue disingenuously and against evidence not presented.