Newsgroup sci.archaeology 52224

Directory

Please people.  The first organic thingamadoodle is not the subject of
anthropology or archaeology.  The only way to stop the groups from being
completely overrun by this drivel is to pay close attention to the
cross-posting and the followups, and not continue the discussion in
inappropriate groups.
Todd

>...in 10,500 BC the Milky Way as seen from the Giza Plateau
>appeared to be a celestial extension of the Nile simultaneous with
>the belt stars reaching meridian transit at their lowest point in the
>26,000 year precessional cycle...and may have led to the pyramid
>builders positioning the three major pyramids in the same
>relationship to the Nile as the belt stars then bore to the Milky Way.
>Therefore, if it can be established that the belt star angles were the
>same (within, let us say, 1/4 degree, which is about the limit of the
>eye to resolve) as the pyramid angles, it seems to me that it would be
>difficult to argue that this is just a coincidence.
Throughout their book (Message), Hancock and Bauval use the terms
"precise", "exact" to describe the pyramid/belt match in 10,500 BC. 
But "precise" and "exact" are relative terms.  How precise? How exact? 
Within 30 arc seconds?  Within 10 arc minutes?  Within 5 degrees? 
What are the exact (degrees, minutes, seconds) angles the belt stars
made in 10,500 BC?  I may have missed it, but they never say.  (This
seems to me very revealing, given that they have the confidence to cite
the slopes of the pyramid shafts down to the minute, and the
culminations of the stars they pointed to in 2500 BC, also to the
minute.  Why did they not do this for the pyramid/belt angles as well?)
Given the tiny changes in the angles of the belt stars to the meridian
over time, this seems to me an important question.  If you allow room
for error in the angles match, then you have to allow a correspondingly
larger time window for the match.
You suggested a 1/4 degree variance as noticable to the eye.  But
you're forgetting that we're talking about circles here, and whether a
point's change in position on a circle is noticable depends on the size
of the circle.  A 5 degree turn of the bicycle wheel is easily seen on the
outer wheel, but harder to see close to the hub.  Standing on the
Earth's equator, in 1 day you'll move some 25,000 miles around a
circle, but standing next to the North Pole, in 1 day you'll move only a
few feet or inches; yet both equal 360 degrees (once around the circle).
Yes, for a star moving along the circle of the horizon or the ecliptic or
the meridian, which swing completely around us, with us at the center,
a 1/4 degree movement (about half the width of the full moon on these
circles) would be noticable (as in the case of Al Nitak rising 1/4 degree
higher at culmination).
But that's not what we're talking about here.  We're talking about the
angle of the other 2 belt stars to Al Nitak when it's on the meridian. 
The belt stars are close together, and the 2 circles they draw around Al
Nitak are consequently small.  Stick a mental thumb tack in the
leftmost belt star and swing the belt around it to see what I mean.  In
this case, 1/4 of a degree is *not half the size of the full moon, it's
infinitesimal. I doubt a 2 or 3 degree turn of the circle could be
detected, let alone 1/4 of 1 degree (1/1440 of a full turn).
As for the Milky Way and the Nile meeting on the horizon, again, the
Milky Way is wide, and this configuration would hold for centuries as
precession occurs.  There's nothing in it that would point to "exactly"
10,500 BC.  (Compare to if the Nile seemed to be emptying into a
point, like Sirius, which *would pinpoint a small time window.)
>Finally, with respect to your point about the original angles of the
>apexes of the three pyramids to one another, there is more than
>enough remaining of the pyramids to determine these angles quite
>accurately.  In their book L'Architettura Delle Piramide Menfite,
>Italian archaeologists Vito Maragioglio and Celeste Rinaldi state that
>the azimuth of the Great Pyramid to the Second and Third Pyramids
>is respectively, 223 degrees and 217 degrees; i.e, the Second Pyramid
>is 47 degrees to the southwest of the Great Pyramid and the Third
>Pyramid is 53 degrees to the southwest of the Great Pyramid.
Again, what does "accurately" mean?  These figures are degrees only.
Is the lack of minutes and seconds significant (are the minutes and
seconds all 00)?  I doubt it. Yet to match star angles to pyramid angles
for "precisely" 10,500 BC we'd need both these angles down to the
minute, if not the second, something that can't be done. My point is if
Bauval and Hancock are going to claim a "precise" match of star angles
to pyramid angles in a certain year centuries ago, they will need to
back it up with "precise" measurements, down to minutes/seconds of
arc, that work only for that year, and not for, say, 1,000 years before or
after (ok, I'll grant them a 25-year leeway either side). Otherwise, they
will need to admit that the match is only "approximate", tell us how
much leeway they're allowing, and accept the consequences.
Joe
armata@vms.cis.pitt.edu

In article , larryc@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) writes:
|> In article , dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes) wrote:
|> > From these results it is not suprising that a people who have spent a long 
|> > time living exclusively in rain forests would develop a decrease in height. It 
|> > would seem that if Ruff's analysis is valid that it is an example of parallel 
|> > evolution - with two groups of people adapting to similar environmental 
|> This whole discussion is based on the proposition that height is determined
|> by genetics.  This is not true.  The average caucasian height was 5'4" only
|> a century ago, and has varied up and down with diet for centuries. It
|> takes at least two generations of changed diet to express fully, probably
|> because of maternal influences.
|> 
|> Put them on a beefsteak and bean diet for two generations and then measure
|> their height.  Until then, you have no data whatever.
Dietary variations *do* confound the data somewhat, but there can be 
no question of the fact that the pygmy and negrito people are shorter
than other races. You could argue that the difference is exagerated
due to dietary deficiencies among the forest dwellers, but based on
the descriptions I've seen of the african pygmy lifestyle, it appears
that the pygmies are actually better fed than their bantu neighbors. 
We don't have perfect data, by any stretch, but the data availible
appears sufficient to show that the size of the pygmies is a physical
adaptation to forest life.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=----   Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf

I am seeking solid research oriented sites on Mayan studies on the web. 
So far, the best I've found is at www.maya-art-books.org
If anyone knows of other sites like this one, I'd love to hear about it
directly via email to dhester@ravensloft.com.  Also, does anyone know of
any Mayan studies related (or epigraphy related) lists that I could
subscribe to?  Thanks in advance.

In article , dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes) writes:
|> In article <58sf76$dtl@news.sdd.hp.com>, geroldf@sdd.hp.com says...
|> >I'm wondering about your second point: why would you expect sexual
|> >selection to play a role?
|> It was just a side point really but it is known to have affected melanin levels in 
|> Tazmania and the Andes.
Interesting - I've never heard of this. Can you explain exactly how
sexual selection affected melanin levels in tazmania and the andes?
|> >Right, though the relative importance of temperature regulation and
|> >mobility in tangled overgrowth is unclear to me; both seem to be
|> >significant.
|> But (esp. with the last point) difficult to test for - I would have thought.
Certainly, though perhaps useful analogs can be obtained by looking at
how other species react to rainforest adaptation. I believe that the
forest races of elephants are also smaller than their savanna cousins;
I would think that thermoregulatory constraints would be relatively
less important for an animal of that size. Mobility, and perhaps also
predator-resistance (there are no lions in the rainforest), would seem
to be more significant.
|> >The question then would be, from which ancestral
|> >population did the negrito evolve? 
|> I would assume they evolved from African ancestors.
Ultimately, we all evolved from african ancestors. In the case of the
negrito, however, where did the rainforest adaptation take place? In
africa, or asia? Did the ancestors of the negrito migrate to asia as
rainforest-adapted pygmies, or are we looking at parallel evolution,
where an asian population converged on a similar bodyplan? It's a very
intriguing problem either way.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=----   Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf

.  I don't think 
>you need to understand the origin of sin to know that sin exists (much 
>like you don't need to know the origin of, say archaeopteryx, to know 
>that it exists).
Does sin exist do you think?  Other than as a label I mean,  and even
then it's not a label everyone uses.
This is a  totally misplaced thread,  perhaps better not to post!
David Knowles.
UK

larryc@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
>In article , dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes) wrote:
>> In article <584qot$p0j@news.sdd.hp.com>, geroldf@sdd.hp.com says...
>> >andaman islands, and possibly india as well. Average height for men
>> >ranged from around 4 1/2 feet to just under 5, leading to the name
>> need. From these results it is not suprising that a people who have spent a long 
>> time living exclusively in rain forests would develop a decrease in height. It 
>> would seem that if Ruff's analysis is valid that it is an example of parallel 
>> evolution - with two groups of people adapting to similar environmental 
>This whole discussion is based on the proposition that height is determined
>by genetics.  This is not true.  The average caucasian height was 5'4" only
>a century ago, and has varied up and down with diet for centuries. It
>takes at least two generations of changed diet to express fully, probably
>because of maternal influences.
>Put them on a beefsteak and bean diet for two generations and then measure
>their height.  Until then, you have no data whatever.
Actually (in addition to what was said) start exposing them to milk
products and beign to develop selective lactose tolerance) then
increase the amount of milk products (as well as having doses of FDA
approved vitamin D) in the diet. This could take more than two
generations.  This will probably add a couple of inches.  In addtion
a\eliminate all debilitating childhood diseases, and a whole host of
factros which interfere with _OPTIMAL_ growth.
In gerald's defense I must add that there are groups of peoples who
are, despite their diets, shorter in stature. This does probably
relate to regional selection. But let's make the comparison of human
size and shape with a common regionally (albeit artificially) selected
animal (the household canine)  and the relataive range of human size
and shape should be considered minimal. The point is that alterations
in size and shape do not make a species.  There is another issue which
gets waxed over in these arguments is that skeleta does not = form. To
the bones are added cartilage, muscle, hair color, skin textures,
color patterns, etc. While the bone structure of asian erectus may
have been similar to sapiens, no qualifications can be made whether
this animal might be recognized as human by humans at that time. 
The question might be germane is that after 300 KYA of separation
between toy poodle and great dane would (could) such a cross produce
viable offspring. 
   Then, the real question is be looked for. The canine example above
does not take into account a very important parameter,  time. As time
progresses genetic and chromosomal drift between isolated populations
may result in a partition to interbreeding. Domestic dogs have been
worked on for about 12,000 years whereas we have no instance for
out-of-africa-derived H.S.  outbreeding for 200,000 years. Supposedly
there are now two instances were the possibility could have occured
but if so interbreed is not evident in the results. A second phenomena
is the presence of neaderthals separating asian erectus and african
erectus>sapiens, and presents a scenario that neaderthals may have
inhibited (or created isolation barrier) for more >400,000 years. Not
to mention that neaderthalensis and sapiens are more similar than
sapiens and erectus (still with no evidence of crossing).  I have
created some controversy before but I think the best explanation that
comes from the current set of data is that erectus>sapiens line which
developed in africa began to fully partition from the extra-subsaharan
african population sometime between 1M and 400KYA and may have been
subpartitioned with the SSA region before 150 KYA.  The reason I say
this is that the genetic data really only points to when the last
major bottleneck event occured in the extant lineage, the bottleneck
may have existed for a time but was obscured by the population size
(resticting the interval between the present and the exidous from the
bottleneck).
To add to this the current data suggests that the subsaharan african
population did not expand very rapidly, suggesting that this
population was contained in size by reasonably competitive adjacent
homind forms  for a long period of time. Secondarily there are these
two other hominids which at 100 KYA neaderthal and humans don't
interbreed yet current humans which are related by >120KY apparently
can. Thus, in all likelyhood we are looking at typical species
divergence times in genus homo of probably > 300KY. Thus if the
assumption is made that african is the cradle of modern human
evolution for > 400KY then events in eurasia are demonstrative of
regional evolution which occured in those areas with varying degrees
of intertype interbreeding which faded overtime.
   I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in the future, the fossile
record demostrates that several likely species/ regional varients
existed over the last 400 KY, with each more progressed (toward
sapiens) form of homo radiates from its african core and this flux
results in the rearrangement (displacement) of hominids both in and
out of africa, eventually resulting in extra-african populations vying
for territories by regional selection, alas the final form comes forth
and in turn wipes all these out. If the modern period had not
developed this process might have continued still, and, if so, it begs
the question about what so special about africa that it  
it seems to be producing all these more-competitive lineages?  Does
this have something to do with the great variation of animals which
live in africa, or because of climate and humans long existance there
that this region has/was conditioned as a site for optimal hominid
evolution. Even if one looks at socialization patterns, the birthplace
of modern human civilization seems to be rooted in africa (although
SSA association is debatable), even though there seems to be areas
much more suitable for its development (indus valley, northwestern
medditeranean). 
Philip 

gkloos@cyberacc.com wrote:
: I recently heard of discoveries that were made in
: 1995 of 800 Predynastic graves near Suez (?) and
: the tomb of King Scorpion in Abydos.
: Does anyone have anymore information on this?
Can't say anything about Sues(?) finds, but there 
hasn't been anything new out of Abydos in the last
three-four years.  
David O'Connor found the remains of a proto-pyramid c. 1990.  
Two years later he found what he thought was a second, 
but it turned out to be 12 boat graves.  There are conservation
problems which need to be addressed before they can continue.
There are a couple of other UPENN teams at Abydos doing 
surveys, etc.  If they had found a tomb, we would have
heard about it before most people.
C.E.S. Boulis
UPMAA

In article <32b64b5b.125756538@news.ezo.net>,
SteveB  wrote:
>
>But don't fool yourself.  Science is not as honest as you make it to be.
>Science also proclaims what it believes to be "truth,"  often with
>religious fervor.  Take evolution, for example.  Science proudly declares
>this to be absolute fact, even though there are gaping holes in the
>evidence and serious logical flaws with the theory.  Why does science take
>such a position?  Simple -- to admit that evolution might not be true would
>tear down the foundation of the world view that science has built for
>itself.  Rather than risk such a great crash, science takes the position
>that evolution is unshakable fact...  and the curious missing details will
>somehow be worked out in time.  That, my friend, is religion... not
>science.
Would you care to share these "gaping holes" and "serious logical flaws"?
All the problems about evolution claimed by creationists have been
dealt with and only strengthen evolution as a theory. These "claims"
made by creationists are never presented in scientific journals since
they know they are distorting science or even lying. They are intended
to fool the ignorant masses.
The theory of evolution passes ALL scientific tests perfectly. NO
scientific evidence challenges it. The main argument in evolution
is the process (gradual or in spurts). There is no argument that
it occurred (except among the ignorant or greedy). Evolution has
been subjected to more challenges than any other theory during
the last 100 years and it has passed all tests. 
Creationists want scientists to have every transitional fossil for
every creature that existed. Of course that is not possible since
their were millions of species and even more transitions. Many of
these were likely not preserved in locations where we can find them.
Its not like there are millions of people digging up fossils.
Creationists can't even find cities that existed thousands of years
ago. Where are the bones of the huge race that produced Goliath?
If they can't even find these recent things you can't expect every
piece of the evolutionary puzzel to be found. Many of those pieces
will never be found and many were likely distroyed.
Steve
>(1 Cor 1:19-25 NIV)  For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the
>wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." {20} Where is
>the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?
>Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? {21} For since in the
>wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was
>pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who
>believe. {22} Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, {23}
>but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness
>to Gentiles, {24} but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks,
>Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. {25} For the foolishness of
>God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than
>man's strength.
Even the authors of the bible knew that someday the wise would see
through this crap, that's why to put in statements like this to
continue to fool the ignorant. If the Bible was the word of God 
then it would be very clear and accurate and consistant. None
of this is true in the Bible so it is not the word of God. 
>
>You see, Morris, the foolishness you see in those who believe in Christ is
>nothing new.  God's power remains strong even 2000 years after this was
>written.  Take heed lest you find yourself on the wrong end of that power
>someday.
Another threat inspired by God. This is one of the major flaws in the
Bible, everlasting torture from a "loving God"? 
>
>We Christians acknowledge that what we believe appears foolish to those who
>mock and reject God.  But guess what?  We don't care!  There is far more
>satisfaction in the glory of God than there is in the opinions of doubting
>men.
How did you chose your religion? How can a logical man chose among the
religions when they all say their holy books are the word of God and
none of them has any supporting evidence.
>To an outside observer, gnats just might have more intelligence than
>humans.  Gnats do not kill each other for fun and profit.  Nor do they
>destroy their own environment in the name of "progress."  Gnats just do
>what they were created to do, which is faithfully being gnats.  Pretty
>smart critters.
Gnats are not religious, they are not Christians. If they were then they
might do the above things.
>BTW, with all of your knowledge and proud achievement, can you create a
>gnat?  
Neither can your God since he doesn't exist. At least we don't claim we
can.
>
>> We have done a whole lot better than Gnats..I do not see any 
>>Gnat footprints on the Moon!.  
>But you see the very fingerprints of God when you look at the moon and the
>stars and the infinity of all of creation.  We have hopped from one speck
>of dust onto another and planted a flag.  Good.  We're mighty!
>Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!
I see the fingerprint of the Big Bang...No God. If I could go back
2000 years the primitive writers of the Bible would think I was a
God.
Steve

>BTW, I just heard on the radio that a Federal Gov't study recommends 
>doing away with the 12th grade...given the general scientific
ignorance 
>epitomized by Ed, that is a truly terrifying thought.  I guess 
>the Feds figure that high school grads generally aren't stupid enough
yet.
>
>Cheers,
>Rebecca Lynn "HA HA!  I ain't got no exams this term!" Johnson
>Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
>
>
>Hatrack ratcatcher to port weapons...brickbat lingerie!!
>                                       -- Cdr. Susan Ivanova, B5
>
Well, all the US government and the ruling class behind it want is a
working class that knows just enough to work everyday and live long
enough to raise children for their replacements.  Does that really
require a 12th grade?
                        Dr. Doug

solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert) wrote:
[. . .]
>Martin, I'm not clear about this. Are you suggesting that the shafts have a 
>purely geometric meaning or are you in agreement with the star-shaft theory?
I'm defending the star-shaft theory.  I'm suggesting that the observed
altitudes were encoded as sekhed values, accurate to the nearest finger.
The minor rounding errors entailed would by themselves account for the
small variation in calculated dates.
Gantenbrink's figures are very close to what we'd expect if such sekhed
values were used.  Presumably the individual figures he produced were
means.  I'd like to know more about his data - could you help with this?
>I personally find no inconsistency in the idea that both are correct. It seems 
>to me that the Egyptians built the pyramids as a "tour de force" of all their 
>sciences: Engineering, Mathematics, Astronomy and indeed Astrology. The slight 
>deviations that people are noting concerning the angles between the individual 
>stars of Orion's Belt and the alignment of the three pyramids of Giza I would 
>account for by saying that compomises had to be made between two ideals: the 
>mathematical model they were adhering to and the actual pattern of the stars 
>in the sky. I would compare this with the way Egyptian sculpture follows a 
>canon of proportion that though distorted from a representative point of view, 
>brings out certain mathematical relationships. The angles of the square and 
>double square seem to have had some sort of deep religious importance, note 
>the near double cubic King's Chamber.
- the KC south shaft and the Descending Passage exemplifying those angles.
I wouldn't discount the possibility of the sekheds being adjusted to more
`fitting' values, but for present purposes I've bracketed that possibility.
The discrepancy in dates is explicable without it.
>However, the alignment of the shafts towards certain stars is also clearly
>not an accident either in my view. What do you think?
I too doubt it was accidental.  One reason for saying this is the textual
evidence of the importance of these stars to the ancient Egyptians; some
people seem to be overlooking this.  The theory makes sense in the context
of ancient Egyptian culture, and in KOG Bauval still relies on Egyptian
funerary texts to make cultural sense of his astronomical correlations.
On that basis, I find his stretching of the theory to 10,500 BC more than
a little problematic.
>As you righly say, the 10,500 date is another issue and should 
>not be confused with the date of building of the pyramids at C.2500 (we think 
>2450 BC is probably nearer the truth). Also I hope you don't think "The Orion 
>Mystery" is cod-archaeology. Whatever might be said about the conspiracy 
>theories of Bauval and Hancock's joint effort in "Keeper of Genesis", the work 
>in "The Orion Mystery" is based on as exact measurements, datings etc. as we 
>could find. The theory is serious.
On the basis of TOM I take it seriously.  There were some things about the
book - and the `packaging' of the book - I didn't like, but by and large
it presented fresh ideas, at least prima facie cogent, was mercifully free
of the usual Pyramidological cliches, and had plenty of interesting stuff
in it.  That's why I find the Hancock link-up and KOG/MOS so disappointing.
>Best wishes
>             Adrian Gilbert.
Regards,
Martin Stower

steiner@best.com (Michelle Steiner) says:
>arkangl@indirect.com wrote:
>>On 13 Dec 1996 07:39:21 GMT, mg655321@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> : > Ever hear of the "Shroud of Turin"?
>>>>> 
>>>>> : Hate to tell you Hesp, but that one has yet to be disproven.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You mean *except* for the fact that carbon dating has shown that
>>>>> the shroud was fabricated in the 15th century?
>>>>
>>>>That's when it had caught fire (I think) and singed the corners. 
I didn't hear that but I did hear that there is a microorganism 
living on the fibres that has been fixing carbon which results in 
a later date for the Shroud than is actually the case.  This was 
in the Dec. '96 Popular Science magazine.  Are there any real 
science journals reporting on this?
>>>>Where'd you hear about the carbon dating results? 
>>>
>>If i remember correctly, carbondating isnt reliable as a source of
>>dating for items less than a thousand years old, since carbon 14 has a
>>medium long half life (something like one hundred years i think)
>
>Actually, there is a maximum age for carbon dating; there may also be a
>minimum one; I don't know.  I do know that I read that fibers from the
>shroud of Turin was subjected to more than one dating technique.
What other techniques were used?
Dave Greene

In article 
           shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk "Shez" writes:
>In article <850619388snz@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, Dunkin' John
> writes
>
>>godless will be swept into the ocean depths and Vegas will fall into the dirt 
>>whence it came and the millenium of the LORD will begin!
>>
>What a nasty person you are, you wish death on millions for your own
>ego, and the glory of your god.
No, ye have me wrong. God does not wish death on the godless Californians 
and neither do I. If they will but repent and turn unto the LORD they will
be rewarded richly with life everlasting.
> No you will continue to prey on peoples fears and worries like a
>vampire. a beast feeding on insecurity and fear.
Nor do I pray on fears for I pray for their wellbeing and redemption 
because of my certainty of the goodness of the LORD.
>If the millenium of your lord starts in such horror for millions of
>people, then I personally would deny him, and call him a murderer to his
>face.
Read Job 2:9,10 and see your folly in print.
--
The voice of one sobbing in the Wilderness; Matthew 3:3

More than the Sumerians left colorful pictures of themselves.  Lots
of Egyptian antiquities clearly show the influence of the negroid
Pharoahs and the Persians clearly depict themselves as quite dark
skinned.  But what's the point?  Decendants of Ham who included
the Caananites were quire "fair skinned."  Who really cares?
Brown skin doesn't mean a thing, everybody descending from Ham
wasn't brown.
But just so that I'm ethnically correct and don't want to step on
any black toes, please let me know when Afro-American swicthes
over to Egypto-American.  Thanks.
Dave McD

David B. Greene  schrieb im Beitrag
<1996Dec16.212121.26246@atl.com>...
> >>>>> : > Ever hear of the "Shroud of Turin"?
Curiously, the blood on this shroud is of type AB.  So I guess the
Universal Donor was a Universal Recipient, too.  ;)
-- 
-matthew Priestley
priestle@uiuc.edu
Evaluate the fossils for yourself!  See:
http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~priestle/aa/index.html

In article <850672687snz@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, Dunkin' John
 writes
>
>That is all that is important. The rest is irrelevant.
>
>Time is running out. Better stick to the real problem, man's ignorance
>of his fate.
>
>--
>The voice of one sobbing in the Wilderness; Matthew 3:3
>
You deserve to be sobbing in the wilderness,
-- 
Shez                                      shez@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady               http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------

Douglas Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 9 Dec 1996 13:32:46 GMT, Martin Stower  wrote:
: 
: >alford@dial.pipex.com (Alan Alford) wrote:
: >
: >[. . .]
: >
: >>The details of this theory are being serialised in AA&ES; magazine,
: >>beginning this month. The full text of the articles is being published on
: >>the World Wide Web at
: >>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/aaes/quest/henge/stellar.htm
: >
: >Be careful not to notice his reference to AA&ES;, or the prominent AA&ES;
: >logo on the page.  If you do, you'll be accused of paranoia.
: >
: >Be careful also not to notice his characteristic claims of `definitive'
: >proof and `conclusive' identification of the designers of Stonehenge.
: 
: Yes, good point.
: Actually there is an interesting archaeological argument here. Alan does claim
: to have definitely proven that Stonehenge is a scientific observatory, not a
: religious site. What proof would people see as necessary to prove such a
: claim?
What definition of "scientific" would apply here at the time in
question?
    ----- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

Marc Line (marc@bosagate.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, at 14:14:33, Richard Ottolini cajoled electrons into
: this
: 
: >Multi-story buildings and elevators were in use in the ancient world.
: >Ancient multi-story buildings probably look about the same as modern
: >small town and village multi-story buildings in the Mediterranean.
: >The 19th century C.E. saw improvements in the *reliability* of tall
: >buildings- steel could make structures taller than six stories-
: >and the reliability of elevators with Otis' saftey mechanism-
: >a mechanical failure usually doesn't result in a fatal fall.
: 
: How Tall were these stories?
Oh yes, yes, yes!
     ------ Paul J. Gans   [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

In article <593f7g$4dc@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, 
rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel) wrote:
>Paul V. Heinrich (heinrich@intersurf.com) wrote:
>[...]
>: The meteorite theory for the extinction of dinosaurs owes
>: nothing to Velikovsky.  This theory is based upon the initial
>: insight of Alverz and innumerable geologists who actually 
>: took the time and trouble to form hypotheses about this 
>: theory and then go out into the field and look for evidence
>: either supporting or contradicting this theory.  Again, if
>: anything, Velikovsky made life much harder for these geologists
>: because he gave the concept of catastrophes in Earth history
>: such a bad name.  In a way this was a blessing, because the
>: people advocating the meteorite theory were forced to come
>: up with better arguments and evidence for their ideas.
>[...]
>
>I think I can recall reading something about this theory having
>been pulled into severe doubt a few years back. 
>
>Part of the initial reasoning was apparently that there is a
>layer of dust on top of the dinosaur fossil carrying layers,
>which seems to originate for huge fires (over most of the
>world) allegedly caused by a meteorite (similar to a nuclear
>winter). A chemical analysis apparently showed an unusually
>high concentration of iridium in this dust, which was taken
>as evidence for a meteorite. However, as I understand it this
>chemical analysis has been proven to be wrong. The iridium
>was found, but not as part of the sample, but as a result of
>the chemist wearing a platinum ring (with iridium as an alloy
>metal) and slightly improper procedures.
>
>Has anyone got more information on this?
There is overwhelming evidence that catastrophic impact likely
did occur at the Cretaceous / Tertiary boundary.  First, there is
a huge, 300 km in diameter crater that lies beneath the Yucatan
Peninsula, Mexico.  Not only have iridium anomalies been found
at the Cretaceous / Tertiary boundary, but also shocked quartz,
possible tsunami deposits, identifiable impact glasses, e.g.
tektites and microtektites, and their alteration products, and
recently, a possible ejecta blanket.  This evidence and alternative,
nonimpact interpretations of it, are summarized in Claeys (1995).
An on-line version of this paper is given at:
http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/claeys00/claeys00.html
At the Albion Quarry near San Antonio, (northern) Belize,
a quarry exposes the distal edge of the ejecta blanket about 
315 km south of the edge of the Chicxulub Crater beneath
the Yucatan Peninsula.  There it consists of a 16 meter thick
diamictite containing boulders up to 8 meters in diameter
and an abundance of dolomitic and clay spherules.  The latter
appear to be altered spherules of impact glass (King 1996).
I have also, heard about the problem with the iridium analyses.
Unfortunately, I cannot remember exactly at which section this
contamination problem occurred.  My best guess is that the
contamination of samples with material from a platinum ring
occurred at the Brazos River sections in Texas.  However, that
is just my guess and might be wrong.
The question now is not so much whether the impact happened,
but what effects did it have on the dinosaurs, other animals, and
the plant life.  The relationship between the extinctions at the
Cretaceous / Tertiary boundary and the impact is still very
controversial.  For an example of this controversy, see:
http://www.nsf.gov/nsf/press/pr9577.htm
References Cited
Claeys, Philippe, 1995, When the sky fell on our heads:
Identification and interpretation of impact products in the
sedimentary record. Rev. Geophys. Vol. 33 Suppl., 
American Geophysical Union
King, D. T., 1996, Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary Stratigraphy
near San Antonio, Orange Walk District, Belize, Central America.
Transactions of the Gulf Coast association of Geological Societies.
vol. 56, pp. 213-217.
Other References (a few of many in Claeys (1995))
Bohor B. F., 1990, Shocked quartz and more; Impact signatures in
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary clays. in Global catastrophes in Earth
history; an interdisciplinary conference on impact, volcanism and mass
mortality, Sharpton, V. L. and Ward P. D., eds., Geol.Soc. Amer. Spec.
Paper, no. 247, pp. 335-342.
Hildebrand A. R., Penfield G. T., Kring D. A., Pilkington M., Camargo
Z. A., Jacobsen S. B. and Boynton W. V., 1991, Chicxulub crater:
a possible Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatan
Peninsula, Mexico, Geology, vol. 19, pp. 867-871.
Lyons J. B. and Officer C. B., 1992, Mineralogy and petrology of
the Haiti Cretaceous/Tertiary section, Earth Planet.Sci. Letters,
vol. 109, pp. 205-224.
Stinnesbeck W., Barbarin J. M., Keller G., Lopez-Oliva J. G., Pivnik
D. A., Lyons J. B., Officer C. B., Adatte T., Graup G., Rocchia R. and
Robin E., 1993, Deposition of channel deposits near the Cretaceous-
Tertiary boundary in northeastern Mexico: Catastrophic or normal
sedimentary deposits? Geology, vol. 21, pp. 797-800.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich           All comments are the
heinrich@intersurf.com     personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA            do not constitute policy and/or
                           opinion of government or corporate
                           entities.  This includes my employer.
"Afterall, if the present is *not* the key to 
the past, it is at least *a* key to the past."
   -Flessa (1993) in Taphonomic Approaches to
   Time Resolution in Fossil Assemblages (The
   Paleontological Society)

The origins of the Anglo-Saxon Races have never been agreed upon by
historians.  The English, of course, came from England, but conventional
archaeological wisdom has always decreed that the Saxons came here from
across the North Sea in gigantic Rowing Boats such as those that have
been discovered on the shores of the Baltic - TOTALLY IGNORING the fact
that no other great Rowing Civilization has ever been able to cross the
perilous twenty-mile stretch of water between Dover and Calais.  The
Inuits, for example, whom my Mercator Projection atlas tells me once
occupied a region of northern Greenland ten times the area of the Roman
Empire, never dared to venture near the British Isles in their War
Dayaks.  In order to cross the Channel, it is necessary to either be a
Sailing Civilization, or a fat man smothered in Chip Fat, and Alfred the
Great was neither.  Such controversy has prompted scholars to ask the
Question: Where did the Saxons come from?  The conventional answer is,
of course, that a Mummy Saxon and a Daddy Saxon Love Each Other Very
Much.  However, scholars have pointed out that the coast of Europe is
not straight but Crinkly, and that Early Saxon Navigators, who were
forced to Hug the Coast with Great Affection, would have had great
difficulty negotiating these Crinkles, particularly since, on a
microscopic scale, the Crinkles become still more complex and difficult
to Hug in a thirty-foot longboat*.  This is one of the tenets of Chaos
Theory.  Chaos theory also states that Fierce Storms are caused in the
English Channel by Butterflies flapping their wings across the Ocean in
New York.
2. THE GIANT BUTTERFLIES OF NEW YORK
These butterflies are huge and muscular, and mathematically Cannot Fly.
Of course, this is also what Mathematics said of the S.S. Titanic.  One
must remember, furthermore, that as a Butterfly's Mass increases one
thousand times, the area of its Wings will increase a hundredfold.  What
does this prove? That BIGGER BUTTERFLIES have BIGGER WINGS.
LET US RETURN TO THE SAXONS OF FIFTH CENTURY ENGLAND, PROFESSOR
Ah, yes.  Those Saxons.  It is a fact that all Saxon Boats to date HAVE
BEEN DISCOVERED UNDERGROUND.  Rather than shave bravely about the
Hirsute Genitalia of Theory using Occam's Razor, however, blinkered
Archaeology goes on to imagine that 'the Saxons Put Them There' for some
farcical reason.  Why, indeed, would anyone want to bury a boat
underground?  What conceivable use would it be down there?  No, the
Saxon boats are Underground because THIS WAS THE MEDIUM OF THEIR
EVERYDAY USE, and the Saxons used them to Row Underground between Saxony
and England, being possessed of an in-depth knowledge of Underground
Water Courses.  The vessels possessed oars instead of sails - Why?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO WIND UNDERGROUND.  I myself buried a feather in my
back garden only a week ago, and when I unearthed it today it had not
moved from that very spot.
However, one counter-argument remains.  If these Saxons all rowed here
all those years ago, WHY ARE THEY NOT STILL HERE?  My dear friend
Professor Heridoth claims to be a Saxon, but is in fact only an
Englishman who Cross-Dresses in Figure-Hugging Chainmail at Weekends and
'hangs out' in the Company of Like-Minded Saxons, 'quaffing' and
'wassailing'**.
Yours
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon. 
(Oklahoma)
* Historical sources agree that it is, indeed, Difficult to Hug in a
Thirty-Foot Longboat; the death of Ealdorman Blostmdeaw in a crowded
vessel full of Fyrdsmen in the Ninth Century is attributed by the Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle to a failed attempt to instigate a Group Hug.
** The activities of 'Quaffing' and 'Wassailing' are, for the
inexperienced reader, defined in 'Doctor Alex Comfort's Joy of Saxon
Sex', pages 17-18, with diagrams.  The horned helmets, however, are a
1970's fiction and should not be copied for fear of death or serious
injury unless the Horns are Made Safe with prophylactics as one Quaffs
one's partner.

Bud Jamison wrote:
> 
> AM> > said: "I haven't read anything by Velikovsky, ...I think he might be a
I didn't write the above.  That was a quote from Ian who was quoting
someone else.
> AM> What does the whole quote say, Ian?  How about something that
> AM> is not out of context?  You've presented one quote from a
> AM> newspaper from one scientist and not even the full context.
> AM> How many Velikovskians excoriate scientists constantly and say
> AM> things like: "Do you think it might have something to do with
> AM> the 'open-minded' scientists of the day" or spout anti-science
> AM> garbage like Conrad and Holden?
> 
> With a direct quote of "I haven't read anything by Velikovsky,..", 
>how can ANYthing he says afterwards be relevant?
Kind of a pot/kettle/black argument.
Without seeing a full quote in context, including what was deleted by 
the ellipses, how can you know what he really said?
Regards,
August Matthusen

Does any one know of software that archaelogists use in the field or in the office to log, map, catalog and otherwise record their work, that is not the usual off-the-shelf staff like MSWord, Corel or AutoCadd, but is written specifically for archaelogists.
Any and all info will be greatly appreciated. You may replay directly to my e-mail address.
Thanks in advance
Ted

In article <591or4$m6t@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) writes:
>piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) wrote:
>>There had been attempts by 
>>Cavalli-Sfortza and his colleagues to map DNA distribution and modern 
>>languages in order to try to figure out ancient linguistic distribution.  This 
>>was highly ahistorical to start with and I remember reading that some recent 
>>research had undermined their findings.  Perhaps someone can help with this.  
>I don't know if it helps, but I can repeat what I said about Merritt
>Ruhlen's use of Cavalli-Sforza's data in support of his Proto-World and
>similar theories (from my review of Merrit Ruhlen "On the Origin of
>Language" on sci.lang some time ago):
>|As a final argument for the validity of the "Greenberg method" in 
>|general and Amerind and Na-Dene in particular, Ruhlen again discusses 
>|Cavalli-Sforza's human genetic taxonomy, and its relation to linguistic 
>|classification, as he did in "Volume 1".  The same figure is reproduced, 
>|and I really don't know why...  Mapping Cavalli- Sforza's results 1-to-1 
>|unto linguistic "groupings" (and ignoring the really clever [misleading 
>|might be a better word] way in which the graphic was composed), the 
>|classification of the world's languages should be:
>|
>|1. Pygmy                       [no such language family]
>|2. Niger-Kordofanian           [does not include Bantu]
>|3. Nilo-Bantu                  [Bantu goes with Niger-Kord.]
>|4. Koisan-Cushitic             [Cushitic goes with Afro-Asiatic]
>|5. Afro-European               [European goes with Indo-]
>|6. Sardinian                   [no such language family]
>|7. Indo-Dravidian              [Indo- goes with European]
>|8. Saami (Lappish)             [Saami goes with Uralic]
>|9. Ural-Altaic                 [not generally recognized]
>|10. Tibetan-Korean-Japanese    [Tibetan goes with Sino-]
>|11. Ainu                       [Ainu goes with Kor/Jap?]
>|12. Turkic-Chukchi-Eskimo      [Turkic goes with Altaic]
>|13. Amerind
>|14. Na-Dene
>|15. Sino-Austric               [Sino- goes with Tibetan]
>|16. Nesian                     [Nesian goes with Austro-]
>|17. Papuan-Australian          [not generally recognized]
>|
>|In fact, the ONLY linguistic groupings correctly identified are Na-Dene 
>|and Amerind, and even here I don't really believe it applies to 
>|Apache-Navajo, does it?
><>
>The above is a somewhat malicious assessment, but it stresses the fact
>that 1-to-1 correspondences between language and DNA should not be
>expected.  For instance, the title of this thread ("Out of India")
>refers to one such discrepancy (item 7. in the above list).
The close association between Cavalli-Sforza at Stanford and the Joseph 
Greenberg school (including Merrit Ruhlen) at Stanford makes it necessary to 
take the C-S interpretation of the genetic findings with a grain of salt.  He 
does have lots of interesting data, though, such as finding that the 
population of Kuwait is a distinct outlier, with the speculation that they may 
be the descendants of the ancient Sumerians. 
[snip re Afro-Asiatic]
>The Greenberg-Ruhlen school opts for "Eurasiatic", a language phylum
>consisting of (from right to left):
>Eskimo-Aleut, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, Gilyak, Ainu, Japanese, Korean,
>Altaic, Yukaghir, Uralic, Indo-European.
>Ruhlen argues for Amerind as a sister language of Eurasiatic, while
>Starostin for his part argues for Dene-Caucasian as a sister language of
>Nostratic.
>This Dene-Caucasian family is a construct built on Starostin's
>connection of Yeniseian (Ket) and North-Caucasian [itself linked to
>Hurrian and Hattic in other proposals] (which seems plausible to me),
>combined with Sapir's old idea of a connection between Na-Dene and
>Sino-Tibetan (I'm not convinced by what I've seen).  Ruhlen et al.,
>despite what Piotr says above about caution, have added to
>Dene-Caucasian such diverse items as Burushaski, Nahali, Sumerian and
>Basque.  The evidence adduced is completely insufficient, in my opinion.
Your opinion is very interesting.  Later in this post you make a reference to 
'Dene-Caucasian' as if you accept it.  Have you examined Starostin's evidence 
for 1) linking North Caucasian to Sino-Tibetan; or 2) linking such a construct 
to Na-Dene?
[snip of general conclusion]
Regards,
John Halloran

In article <591l8h$qfg@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
[snip]
>You could go on to say  in the period between the start of the 
>Neolithic and the start of written language people made as much 
>progress in 5,000 years as in the entire preceeding  22,000 years.
[snip]
>If you will allow that people in the Neolithic made as much 
>linguistic progress as in the entire preceeding 22,000 years,
>and that the advanced hunters who preceeded the Neolithic and 
>painted the walls of caves in France c 30,000 BC had similarly
>progressed over the Homo Sapiens who first developed the capacity
>of speech, would you go on to say that people continued to advance
>their linguistic skills?
A well-researched article from a linguistic point of view by Bernard H. 
Bichakjian has in fact found strong evidence of unilinear evolution or 
improvement in human languages over the last 5,000 years.  I quote his 
conclusion, "The preceding discussion of some of the salient features of 
Indo-European was aimed at reaching one objective: showing that in the course 
of the last four or five millenia an evolution has taken place in this 
language family, and presumably in all human languages.  To meet that goal it 
was necessary to show that the main features of the protolanguage were 
primitive in comparison with their subsequent reflexes, i.e. more cumbersome 
(laryngeals and stops), less developed (vowel system, "set" of fricatives, the 
consonantal shells of roots), limited in their potential for expressing 
grammatical values (impersonal verbal forms), nonrecursive (correlation), and 
ill-suited for complex constructions (left branching)."  "evolution in 
language will be recognized when linguists will set aside the *myth* that all 
linguistic features are equal and that all changes are pendular. [my 
emphasis]"  The Primitive Features of a Protolanguage, in Geneses of Language, 
ed. Walter A. Koch, 1990, pub. Bochum, pp. 251-252.
Here is one linguist who does not accept the linguistic paradigm which says 
that languages in all places and times are equally competent and 
sophisticated.  He argues that languages have become more efficient over time.
[snip]
>> Perhaps someone can help with this.  The interesting fact is 
>>that it looks now as if we have to deal with major, relatively 
>>quick linguistic replacement in antiquity rather than with slow 
>>diffusion (this would go against Steve's slow amoeba model),
>No. Sorry Piotr, but I favor the rapid replacement model. What
>I don't think works is the long slow tedious wave of advance
>model proposed by Renfrew. The reason I used the organic
>analogy was that I see many small independently invented
>attempts at language coalescing into one unified consensus.
Rapid replacement is most likely when the new language is spoken 
by a more open, less excluding society, as mobile pastoralists are 
reputed to have been (versus the closed society of settled farmers), or when 
the language is significantly superior to the inhabitants' existing means of 
communication.
Perhaps Piotr can elaborate on what phenomena he is looking at when he says he 
sees relatively quick linguistic replacement in antiquity.
[snip]
Regards,
John Halloran

David B. Greene wrote:
> 
> steiner@best.com (Michelle Steiner) says:
> >arkangl@indirect.com wrote:
> >>On 13 Dec 1996 07:39:21 GMT, mg655321@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> : > Ever hear of the "Shroud of Turin"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> : Hate to tell you Hesp, but that one has yet to be disproven.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You mean *except* for the fact that carbon dating has shown that
> >>>>> the shroud was fabricated in the 15th century?
> >>>>
> >>>>That's when it had caught fire (I think) and singed the corners.
> 
> I didn't hear that but I did hear that there is a microorganism
> living on the fibres that has been fixing carbon which results in
> a later date for the Shroud than is actually the case.  This was
> in the Dec. '96 Popular Science magazine.  Are there any real
> science journals reporting on this?
Yep.
Kouznetsov, D. A., Ivanov, A. A., Veletsky, P. R. 1996.
"Effects of Fires and Biofractionation of Carbon Isotopes on Results 
of Radiocarbon Dating of Old Textiles: The Shroud of Turin,"
_Journal of Archaeological Science_, JAN 01 1996, v 23, n 1, 
pp. 109-121.
However, there were so many problems with this paper that the
journal took the extraordinary step of having a comment in the 
same issue: Jull, A.J.T, Donahue, D.J., and Damon, P.E, 1996,
"Factors Affecting the Apparent Radiocarbon Age of Textiles: A
Comment on 'Effects of Fires and Biofractionation of Carbon 
Isotopes on Results of Radiocarbon Dating of Old Textiles: The 
Shroud of Turin,' by D.A. Kouznetsov et al.," _Journal of 
Archaeological Science_, JAN 01 1996, v 23, n 1, 
pp. 157-160.
Jull et al. tried to replicate the work experimentally and 
found that their replication resulted in no age change.  
There are also questions about where Kouznetsov had his AMS
radiocarbon dating done; he acknowledges a researcher in 
Protvino, but as Jull et al. note: "The remaining radiocarbon 
work was all performed at a laboratory which is new and not generally
known to Russian scientists or the international AMS community."  
They note that this work should contain AMS C-14 data on internationally 
accepted standards, known-age samples, and blank measurements.
Jull et al. note that in Kouznetsov's paper, a heat treated 
sample suposedly gave a C-14 activity which was 150% of modern 
but a date was derived to 700-800 BP; something which is impossible.  
A calibration curve is shown in a figure but does not bear 
any relation to the cited reference, etc. etc.  See the
Jull et al. paper for much more.
You may also want to vist the web page in the talk.origins
archive on Kouznetsov at:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/kouznetsov.html
It appears that he is a creationist who seems to
cite journals which do not exist.
Regards,
August Matthusen

Eliyah (elijah@wi.net) wrote:
[...]
: Interesting thought I just had.
: In recalling the 12 day difference between
: 1554 BC and 46 BC
: (what 12-day? as in Julian Jan 4 = Dec 21 Greg being -14
: but in 46 BC Julian Dec 23 = Dec 21 Greg being -2)
: This is why the 12 days of X-mas is Dec 25 to Jan 6
: not merely because a Jan 6 moon is 12 months to a Dec 25 moon,
: but because of that 12-day precession of the Earth from
: Moses til Julius. 
That's a hype of semi-scientific bovine excrements. That shift has nothing to 
do what so ever with precession. 
One full precession of the earth axis takes ~26 000 years. So you loose or gain 
a single day every 26 000 years.
The shift you're talking about can only have one origin: unfortunately one run 
of our planet round the sun does not match a full number of revolutions of the 
earth around its own axis. The Julian calender takes account of that to some 
degree, the Gregorian is a refined version (also linked with some re 
adjustment - there were some days (12???) in the 1500s I think which never 
were! Did you take account of those days in your calculations, or is that the 
source of this misalignment?
: is that the 3 of them chose a Jew contrary to the choice of all other
Intersting. Where do you get that number from??? To my knowledge there was 
never any mention of numbers - just of wise men. 
Anybody know when and where the number 3 (and the alleged names) came from?
: Zoroaster Magis. However, God anointed Jesus thru John not thru these Magi,
: nor their false 2808-year star 
False 2808-year star? What are you talking about?
Ralf

Bud Jamison (bud.jamison@thekat.maximumaccess.com) wrote:
: 
: AM> > said: "I haven't read anything by Velikovsky, ...I think he might be a
: 
: AM> What does the whole quote say, Ian?  How about something that
: AM> is not out of context?  You've presented one quote from a
: AM> newspaper from one scientist and not even the full context.
: AM> How many Velikovskians excoriate scientists constantly and say
: AM> things like: "Do you think it might have something to do with
: AM> the 'open-minded' scientists of the day" or spout anti-science
: AM> garbage like Conrad and Holden?
: 
: With a direct quote of "I haven't read anything by Velikovsky,..", how can 
: ANYthing he says afterwards be relevant?
What does reading Velikovsky have to do with being a scientist?
One can add to the list of his stupidities his ignorance of
chemistry (confusing carbohydrates with hydrocarbons) and 
of astrophysics (planetary pinball violating the law of conservation
of energy).
There's more, but we went through this in detail in talk.origins,
as Ian well knows.  He doesn't post there much any more.
     ------- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

R. Gaenssmantel (rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Paul V. Heinrich (heinrich@intersurf.com) wrote:
: [...]
: : The meteorite theory for the extinction of dinosaurs owes
: : nothing to Velikovsky.  This theory is based upon the initial
: : insight of Alverz and innumerable geologists who actually 
: : took the time and trouble to form hypotheses about this 
: : theory and then go out into the field and look for evidence
: : either supporting or contradicting this theory.  Again, if
: : anything, Velikovsky made life much harder for these geologists
: : because he gave the concept of catastrophes in Earth history
: : such a bad name.  In a way this was a blessing, because the
: : people advocating the meteorite theory were forced to come
: : up with better arguements and evidence for their ideas.
: [...]
: 
: I think I can recall reading something about this theory having been pulled 
: into severe doubt a few years back. 
: 
: Part of the initial reasoning was apparently that there is a layer of dust on 
: top of the dinosaur fossil carrying layers, which seems to orriginate for huge 
: fires (over most of the world) allegedly caused by a meteorite (similar to a 
: nuclear winter). A chemical analysis apparently showed an unusually high 
: concentration of iridium in this dust, which was taken as evidence for a 
: meteorite. However, as I understand it this chemical analysis has been proven 
: to be wrong. The iridium was found, but not as part of the sample, but as a 
: result of the chemist wearing a platinum ring (with iridium as an alloy metal) 
: and slightly improper procedures.
: 
: Has anyone got more information on this?
Yes.  Your informant was incorrect.  The theory is alive and
well.  The chemical analysis involved has been repeated a 
number of times by a number of different research groups 
using samples from a number of different places.
      ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

TQCattus (tqcattus@aol.com) wrote:
: Saw an articel some years ago in a hunting or knife magazine I was leafing
: through at a newsstand, about a person who'd analyzed an old Frankish
: throwing axe (700-800 AD?: about the time of Charles Martel, before
: Charlemane).  Apparently, was perfectly balenced for a smooth throw, one
: turn in about 30 feet.  Anyone out there know more about it?
Yes.  Try on soc.history.medieval.  The short of it is that
many of the Germanic tribes used throwing axes for a long time.
By 700-800 AD they were going out of fashion and swords were
becoming the weapon of choice.  
These axes are well-known and several varieties are known.
The (Anglo-)Saxons continued to use axes for a long time
after this.  Depictions of Harold's Shield Wall with his
warriors wielding axes occur in the Bayeux Tapestry.
      ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

Douglas Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 21:13:41 GMT, ian@knowledge.co.uk (Ian Tresman) wrote:
: 
: >
: >On 19 March 1973 the General Faculties Council of the University of
: >Lethbridge passed a motion unanimously recommended "that Dr Immanuel
: >Velikovsky be granted an Honourary Degree Doctor of Arts and Science
: >at the Spring Convocation of 1974". (Confered 10 May 1974)
: >
: What is the University of Lethbridge? I've never heard of it.
It is the official state university of Kookistan, which 
used to be located well to the north of Norway, but when the
earth's crust slid south, it ended up in the Sahara, where
it is now a little-known oasis catering mostly to North
American tourists.
    ----- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

In article <01bbe930$de83c420$c8c4b7c7@tekdiver>, "Paul E. Pettennude"
 wrote:
> Group,
=====snip all your qualifications=======
Paul,
Why bother to respond to this guy? He is a megalomaniac in re: this
subject matter. He just wants to poke and provoke professionals such as
yourself.
There must be a way of getting rid of him. Silence is my suggestion.
Regards.
Michael
-- 
Michael Paine
gmp@lamg.com
Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens.

Bertelse:
.
>What evidence have we of the occurences in the bible ?
.
     Huge quantities, much too much to cover here.  But, for 
example, we know that Gen. 5 records the lives of dynasties (not 
individuals) because we have been able to reconstruct the Genesis 
360-day and 365-day calendars, and how those were synchronized to 
the solar year.  Then we find that each dynasty ended when it was 
not renewed at a "Renewal Festival" and those festivals all jibe 
with calendar cycles.  The system was copied in early Egypt, and 
noted by Sir Wm. Flinders Petrie, except that in Egypt a regency 
or co-regency started (instead of ended) with the same calendar 
cycles.
     If there are any particular events for which you would like 
the evidence, let me know.
                                                      Suds

DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS

rcarlsen@macconnect.com (Robert S. Carlsen) writes:
>How about photosynthesis for starters.
No, photosytheis came later.  The current theory is that the first life
forms got energy from chemical reactions; the oldest "domain" of living
things, Archaea (sp?) includes the microbes that live in sea-floor volcanic
vents and are sometimes found deep in bedrock.  It is a lot easier to
come up with ways that life could have gotten OUT of the volcanic vents
than to come up with ways that life could have gotten IN.

The organic thingamadoodle probably "survived" by oxidising highly 
reduced molecules that were floating around at the time.  As these got 
used up, the thingamadoodles started to make their own and the electron 
transfer chain evolved.  Things get yet more scarce and we get such 
exciting biochemical pathways as glycolysis, Krebs', and Calvin cycles in 
simple single celled organisms.  These are sequestered by larger cells 
and we have the first eukaryotes.  A few billion years later Ed appears 
and denies any of it ever happened - living proof that evolution doesn't 
always move towards higher complexity.
B.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bill Burnett             bbur@dml.ac.uk
Scottish Association for Marine Science
P.O.Box 3, Oban, Argyll, Scotland

bud.jamison@thekat.maximumaccess.com (Bud Jamison) writes:
> AM> > said: "I haven't read anything by Velikovsky, ...I think he might be a
> 
> AM> What does the whole quote say, Ian?  How about something that
> AM> is not out of context?  You've presented one quote from a
> AM> newspaper from one scientist and not even the full context.
> AM> How many Velikovskians excoriate scientists constantly and say
> AM> things like: "Do you think it might have something to do with
> AM> the 'open-minded' scientists of the day" or spout anti-science
> AM> garbage like Conrad and Holden?
> 
> With a direct quote of "I haven't read anything by Velikovsky,..", how can 
> ANYthing he says afterwards be relevant?
Suppose someone wrote a book claiming pi was *exactly* 3.14159268. Would
I have to actually read the book to know it was nonsense? No. Suppose 
someone wrote a book claiming to show how to square the circle with compass
and ruler. Would I have to actually read the book to know it was nonsense?
No. While these aren't completely accurate analogies since they deal with
mathematical theorems, it's still the case that given an accurate summary
of the thesis advanced, it is more than possible to put forward reasons
it is rubbish without reference to the specific arguments made in V's books.

rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
>> Ach, Robbie, the Archaeology of the Haggis being in the sad state that it is, 
>
>Question is, would archaeohaggal analyses fall under the purview of 
>faunal analysts?  Personally, I think the analysis of archaeohaggises 
>should belong to the coprolysts.
>
Ektually Rebecca, there is a scientifically correct term for the 
haggial morphology ranging from the primitive but physiologically
cladian relative, Pizzarchae appiania to the far more sophistocated and 
evolved Centrachidae omatica effluvia.  
Ah lassie, I do wax poetic!  I may jus havta retire for a short
sip o' the highlands best t' truely do justice t' a description o' tha'
phylial relationships here!  You have a bonnie day there lassie!
and pass the Haggis and double malt!
Regards
bk