| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
THE GREAT RAFT: PART I
I am saddened to report that I have, once again, become convinced of a rather crazy and unhinged proposition. Worse still; it is popular.
That crazy, unhinged, and popular proposition, is that much of the continental USA---and indeed, perhaps the entire world---suffered a major, catastrophic event, accompanied by flooding and inundation, sometime prior to 1812: An event completely missing from our books of history.
This event is referred to by its adherents, of which I am now reluctantly one, as The Mud Flood (though there is speculation that there were a number of these mud floods throughout "history").
When this Mud Flood occurred (or the most recent one) is widely debated. However; it could not have occurred prior to the rise of certain near-modern architectural styles, as there are countless buildings (even entire city districts) in existence today which are said to have been built prior to this mud flood.
What finally convinced me of this event---at least its manifestation in the USA---is the prior existence of a "natural wonder" in the USA, now long gone, called, "The Great Raft."
You can watch a YouTube video on that subject here. Though this video is perfectly mainstream and has nothing to do with the Mud Flood conspiracy theory, it was this video that convinced me the event is real.
I'll have more to say on this later.
-----
p.s. I really should finish outlining one hypothesis before presenting another. But I just watched this video and, too often, I make the mistake of saying to myself, "I'll post about it later," and then never getting round to it. Then I forget all about my brilliant idea and it's lost to time.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| THE GREAT RAFT: PART I I am saddened to report that I have, once again, become convinced of a rather crazy and unhinged proposition. Worse still; it is popular. |
We all have our crosses.
| That crazy, unhinged, and popular proposition, is that much of the continental USA---and indeed, perhaps the entire world---suffered a major, catastrophic event, accompanied by flooding and inundation, sometime prior to 1812: An event completely missing from our books of history. |
I came across this too. I can confirm it is both crazy and popular. Though relatively so in both cases.
| This event is referred to by its adherents, of which I am now reluctantly one, as The Mud Flood (though there is speculation that there were a number of these mud floods throughout "history"). |
I was about to say that when I came across it, it didn't seem particularly associated with America.
| When this Mud Flood occurred (or the most recent one) is widely debated. However; it could not have occurred prior to the rise of certain near-modern architectural styles, as there are countless buildings (even entire city districts) in existence today which are said to have been built prior to this mud flood. |
You've got me as confused as I was when I first encountered the theory.
| What finally convinced me of this event---at least its manifestation in the USA---is the prior existence of a "natural wonder" in the USA, now long gone, called, "The Great Raft." |
O Gawd!
| You can watch a YouTube video on that subject here. Though this video is perfectly mainstream and has nothing to do with the Mud Flood conspiracy theory, it was this video that convinced me the event is real. I'll have more to say on this later. |
Likewise after my YouTube siesta. I have taken to unwinding with it before my early and late bouts of hard work. I hope this one won't be hard work.
| p.s. I really should finish outlining one hypothesis before presenting another. |
You growing old or something?
| But I just watched this video and, too often, I make the mistake of saying to myself, "I'll post about it later," and then never getting round to it. Then I forget all about my brilliant idea and it's lost to time. |
I never watch anything without my trusty notebook by my side so I can spend quality time the following day trying to work out what I've written and why.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
A fascinating YouTube. Highly recommended. What a dude! What a log jam! This is quite an important (new, to me) factor in physical geography which has all kinds of implications for various of my/our theories.
Though how it relates to Mud Flood Theory escaped me as much as, it seems, it did you. But at least I'm aboard. Next stop: Shreveport!
PS Did you spot the geezer believes in the Western Effect?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | A fascinating YouTube. Highly recommended. What a dude! What a log jam! This is quite an important (new, to me) factor in physical geography which has all kinds of implications for various of my/our theories. |
It sure does.
If we accept the conventional dating of the log-jam, it supports my recent proposal that the goal of plants is the total destruction of rivers. Trees appear to be engineered such that, as the final part of their life-cycle, they may act as means by which to block rivers and divert the water into the surrounding soil, making it available to transpiration.
| Though how it relates to Mud Flood Theory escaped me as much as, it seems, it did you. |
Note that the native population has an oral tradition of the flood that caused the log-jam. The conventional wisdom has it that this oral tradition is one thousand, two-hundred years old!
I suggest it is more likely that log jam has a far more recent origin.
Alone, this evidence is intriguing but not convincing. It is only in combination with other evidence (particularly ecological evidence) that a revolutionary model emerges.
I had been familiar with the other evidence for some time---evidence which points to a massive, continental flood during the so-called "early colonial" period. I found that evidence intriguing but, after learning of this log-jam, I found the totality, convincing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| PS Did you spot the geezer believes in the Western Effect? |
What? No! Can you give me a time-stamp for the relevant portion of the video?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| If we accept the conventional dating of the log-jam, it supports my recent proposal that the goal of plants is the total destruction of rivers. |
I like that very much. With or without beavers.
| Trees appear to be engineered such that, as the final part of their life-cycle, they may act as means by which to block rivers and divert the water into the surrounding soil, making it available to transpiration. |
You've got a teensy problem there:
1. Trees fall down remarkably infrequently
2. Even more infrequently near rivers
3. As the largest natural things around there is nothing to transport them
4. They can't even roll since they fall with branches attached.
But a cull en masse could be made to work. (Though not wildfires.)
Though how it relates to Mud Flood Theory escaped me as much as, it seems, it did you.
Note that the native population has an oral tradition of the flood that caused the log-jam. The conventional wisdom has it that this oral tradition is one thousand, two-hundred years old! |
I would not hold much store by anthropologists discovering a log jam and chatting with natives about it. "And it all happened c. 1150 to 1250 years ago according to our elders."
| I suggest it is more likely that log jam has a far more recent origin. |
I agree this kind of dynamic reworking of the landscape can happen with remarkable speed.
| Alone, this evidence is intriguing but not convincing. |
White man does not speak with forked tongue on this one.
| It is only in combination with other evidence (particularly ecological evidence) that a revolutionary model emerges. |
It's already a revolutionary model in my book, but I'm all ears.
| I had been familiar with the other evidence for some time---evidence which points to a massive, continental flood during the so-called "early colonial" period. I found that evidence intriguing but, after learning of this log-jam, I found the totality, convincing. |
It's the bit between the ears that might get in the way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | You've got a teensy problem there:
1. Trees fall down remarkably infrequently
2. Even more infrequently near rivers
3. As the largest natural things around there is nothing to transport them
4. They can't even roll since they fall with branches attached. |
The bugs are features.
Trees falls down infrequently---indeed, virtually never---excepting the one circumstance their falling down will serve to prevent: Flooding.
The branches are, in part, designed to prevent them from rolling and insure that they become snagged and anchored to the riverbed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I know we have to be supportive of--or at least not vexatiously oppositional to--new theories but this has to be addressed.
I don't understand this. Bugs reduce fallen trees to mulch in short order. I am getting an unfortunate image of armies of driver ants taking logs away and falling into a river.
Except trees do appear to be strangely susceptible to new bugs and whole species can disappear in a few years. In nature, they are left precariously standing before falling down, somewhat bereft of adornment. I suppose this could be worked in, in extremis.
| Trees falls down infrequently---indeed, virtually never---excepting the one circumstance their falling down will serve to prevent: Flooding. |
Again, I don't know what you are saying. Beavers contribute to this but I don't think that's what you are saying. Trees can be swept away by flooding, is this it? Give the precise sequence you have in mind.
Modern logging operations have a technique of floating logs down river en masse with people (nutters, if you ask me) hopping around on them with large poles. They produce spectacular log jams but I can't see native Americans going in for this.
| The branches are, in part, designed to prevent them from rolling and insure that they become snagged and anchored to the riverbed. |
Maybe so. I am not aware of an example of this happening but I see it might do. Then what? It snags another tree-near-a-river falling in upstream? There are whole mangrove forests in rivers--or at any rate estuarial water--so maybe you can look to these for real-time current examples of the phenomenon. But I think you'll have your work cut out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
I don't understand this. |
Computer programming speak.
A "Bug" is a word for a Problem or Error.
You pointed out apparent "bugs" in my thesis. I claim the "bugs" are actually features (positive attributes) of my thesis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Yes, I've noticed you software aces have different values from the rest of us. But let's get down to cases. Can you come up with a realistic scenario for a natural logjam with such epic implications. After all, you are breaking an AE convention:
| No recourse to regular cataclysmic events from the undocumented past that is unrecorded in documented times. |
It seems to me you have to produce a scenario that involves trees being felled simultaneously over a small area in a short period of time. This could be, say, a tornado. Or, I suppose, a wildfire in some circumstances, except that would leave unmistakable evidence in the logjam.
It could even be a flood--though since that happens regularly, it would be hard to argue. The Tunguska Event produced millions of logs but I don't think that would fit the bill.
PS I was so impressed with your YouTube dude I watched some others of his, and ended up writing to him proposing a hook-up. He has too many million followers for me to expect a reply.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
