World's oldest marijuana stash totally busted

----- Original Message -----

From: jdaintira@...

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:56 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] a lost city carved into the Andes Mountains by the mysterious Chachapoya tribe

The friend who sent me this did not have a link to the article.  I hope that the photo comes through as it has more complex building structures and designs than usually seen in Chachapoyas ruins. 

 

~ Judith Marie

 

Archaeologists have discovered a lost city carved into the Andes Mountains by the mysterious Chachapoya tribe.

By Jeremy McDermott, Latin America Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:39PM GMT 03 Dec 2008

 

Buildings carved into the Pachallama peak mountainside in Peru, by Chachapoya

The settlement covers some 12 acres and is perched on a mountainside in the remote Jamalca district of Utcubamba province in the northern jungles of Peru's Amazon.

The buildings found on the Pachallama peak are in remarkably good condition, estimated to be over 1,000 years old and comprised of the traditional round stone houses built by the Chachapoya, the 'Cloud Forest People'.

The area is completely overgrown with the jungle now covering much of the settlement but explorers found the walls of the buildings and rock paintings on a cliff face.

The remote nature of the site appears to have protected the site from looters as archaeologists found ceramics and undisturbed burial sites.

Archaeologist Benedicto Pérez Goicochea said: "The citadel is perched on the edge of an abyss.

"We suspect that the ancient inhabitants used this as a lookout point from where they could spot potential enemies."

The ruins were initially discovered by local people hacking through the jungle. They were drawn to the place due to the sound of a waterfall.

The local people "armed with machetes opened a path that arrived at the place where they saw a beautiful panorama, full of flowers and fauna, as well as a waterfall, some 500 metres high," said the mayor of Jamalca, Ricardo Cabrera Bravo.

Initial studies have found similarities between the new discovery and the Cloud Peoples' super fortress of Kulep, also in Utcubamba province, which is older and more extensive that the Inca Citadel of Machu Picchu, but has not been fully explored or restored.

Little is known about the Chachapoya, except that they had been beaten into submission by the mighty Incas in 1475.

When in 1535 the Spanish Conquistadores arrived in Peru, they found willing allies in the Cloud People for their fight against the Incas.

Spanish texts from the era describe the Cloud People as ferocious fighters who mummified their dead.

They were eventually wiped out by small pox and other diseases brought by the Europeans.

The women of the Chachapoya were much prized by the Incas as they were tall and fair skinned. The Chronicler Pedro Cieza de León offers wrote of the Chachapoyas.

"They are the whitest and most handsome of all the people that I have seen in Indies, and their wives were so beautiful that because of their gentleness, many of them deserved to be the Incas' wives and to also be taken to the Sun Temple."

 

---

Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now.

>    cayce connects the event that causes the southwest to flood to major volcanic activities at vesuvius or pelee, and says after the great eruptions begin there may be up to three months to vacate the southwest.  its my opinion that pelee refers to mt pelee on the island of martinique. 

----- Original Message -----

From: Luis Andrade

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:24 AM

Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Fw: [Millennium-Predictions] edgar cayce

Hi Mike,

>    cayce connects the event that causes the southwest to flood to major volcanic activities at vesuvius or pelee, and says after the great eruptions begin there may be up to three months to vacate the southwest.  its my opinion that pelee refers to mt pelee on the island of martinique. 

About "pelee," Cayce may have referred to the goddess Pele who is a volcano deity in the Hawaiian mythology. It that the case, a violent eruption in the Hawaiian islands, other than the damage produced locally, it will most likely trigger a big tsunami towards the west coast of the US. This possibility is much more likely than any eruption in the Caribbean or Europe affecting the west coast of the US.

BTW, the same could happen in the east coast if, for example, the volcano in the Canary Islands erupted

Best,

Luis

----- Original Message -----

From: jdaintira@...

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:44 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] American SW Under the Ocean

In a message dated 12/8/2008 8:33:55 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, infoplz@verizon.net writes:

we have talked of the signs of flooding found in the american southwest

I have been startled when this topic has come up here to realize that some people apparently question this. 

 

I was brought up with this as fact, and my father often spoke of large parts of the US, especially the SW as having been under the ocean and about the seashells and other fossils found.

 

It has been far too many years for me to remember exactly if this was also a part of science class, but had it been directly disputed or denied, I am certain that I would have noticed as it was established fact in my home.

---

Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now.

----- Original Message -----

From: jdaintira@...

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:01 PM

Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Fw: [Millennium-Predictions] edgar cayce

In a message dated 12/8/2008 10:14:54 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, infoplz@verizon.net writes:

imagine how much mass would need to be ejected at vesuvius to cause our southwest to sink significantly. 

Oh, my, I doubt if the historical explosion we are all familiar with at Vesuvius caused this in the American SW.  It is all of far more ancient origin.  It is also not really opposite as they are both north of the Equator, and for that theory to work they would not be.

 

Millennia of wind sheer seems the largest component of the shape of the Mesa tops.

 

I am well to the south of the mesas referenced which are at a much higher elevation, and the mountains and foothills around me are variations of the typical cone shape - wide base, tapering as they rise.  A few are perfect cones and resemble pyramids.

 

It is also possible to see where a glaciation ended near the town (City) of Carefree as the giant rocks and boulders the glacier had been pushing in front of it come to an end, in some cases piled up, and there is one mountain, Black Mountain, that has local vegetation all over the south face, but the north is all bleak and stark and with large rocks as a part of its foundation.

 

~JM

---

Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now.

----- Original Message -----

From: jdaintira@...

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:50 PM

Subject: Re: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] American SW Under the Ocean

In a message dated 12/8/2008 11:19:17 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, infoplz@verizon.net writes:

im talking a few thousand years. 

I know.

 

So, I finally realize why we tend to be at cross purposes on these topics.  You are determined that things are much more recent than the "experts" say and I am determined that many are far more ancient.

 

And, while I do not at all doubt but that sudden catastrophic events have occurred and will again, I believe that something that massive that was that recent would be in the oral record as part of the mythology.  And we have extensive oral records from the Pueblo peoples who are still very much with us and much better organized as a defined group and keep their traditions alive.

 

Just as the less well defined to us Maya are still in Central America and the Chachapoyas are still in the NE of Peru.

 

~JM

---

Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now.

Since the issue of OOPARTS in coal has come up again, I thought I'd
post this message I made at another ancient anomaly site.

Earlier last week one of the readers of my newpaper column dropped in
urging me to go to a new private museum in Bokchito, Oklahoma to
assess a brass bell with unknown ancient inscriptions. The reader told
my wife that Billy Gordon the owner of the museum was a regular reader
of my column and wanted my opinion on the artifact. He warned that Mr.
Gordon was a firm believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible
and was convinced the earth was only 6000 years old. That did not
bother me particularly, though those of you who know me realize my own
view is diametrically different. In the past many of my best leads on
out of place artifacts and anomalies have come from people whose views
are quite similar to Billy Gordon's, so I have learned to view the
evidence without prejudging it on that basis. The notion of an ancient
metal bell with unknown inscriptions found in Oklahoma was
irresistible bait for someone of my ilk, so I made arrangements to go
to Bokchito as soon as possible, which turned out to be today. We were
already planning to take the kids to the Choctaw Indian Pow Wow in
Durant today and Bokchito is just a few miles down the road from
there. The moment I entered the little one room museum, I realized
that I'd made a wise choice.

The first thing I noticed in a display case next to some monstrous
fossil fangs was an Ica stone. As it turned out, it was just a replica
but it hinted at what was to be found in the other cases. There were
an astounding number of rare artifacts and fossils collected locally,
including Clovis, Folsom, Eden, Barber and other Paleoindian points
along with fossil mammoth teeth and dinosaur bones. There were also
gigantic Adena celts, axes and mortars along with other Mound Builder
artifacts from various states. Some were authentic, some were dubious
as Mr. Gordon freely admitted, and some had been hafted by local
Indian artisans. Wahya would appreciate the Bois d'Arc spear shaft
hafting a ten inch stone lance head which had been carved by one of
Billy Gordon's neighbors using only a pocketknife. Stone warclubs and
axes had been similarly hafted with rawhide and various native
hardwoods. Even as modern reproductions they were masterpieces of
stone age art. The other category of objects on display were were out
of place pieces and anomalies such as I have on my website and indeed
several were from locations near where I'd found mine. Proving once
more that both sides of the Red River are veritable treasure houses of
anomalous artifacts and objects. I think Mark would be thrilled to see
some of the evidence for giants that were on display there and I must
return and get some photos to share with you all.

The most astonishing artifact though was shown to me just before I
left due to squawling pressure from the kids and friends who had
already gone to the car eager to be off to the Pow Wow. It was a
casting of the famous OOPART found in a coal mine in Wilburton,
Oklahoma. A small spouted iron pot found embedded in a lump of coal.
It seems that Carl Baugh has the original in a safe in the Creation
Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, home of the infamous mantracks alongside
dinosaur prints. Next to the Wilburton anomaly was a casting of the
equally famous London Hammer, a steel hammer with unfossilized wooden
handle found embedded in limestone in the Brazos River near London,
Texas, east of Austin. That anomaly has been explained to my
satisfaction by none other than Bud Shelton, the geologist who wrote
the analysis of the buried walls at Rockwall, Texas. I won't go into
his explanation here but suffice it to say, I believe Bud to have the
most plausible answer given Baugh's refusal to allow Carbon 14 dating
of the handle of the London Hammer. That would involve sacrificing
about one square centimeter of the handle and answer conclusively
whether the hammer was coeval with the purported Cretaceous limestone
or merely a modern era tool tossed into a leftover batch of burnt
limestone mortar and subsequently dumped into the Brazos channel along
with similar debris to found in abundance there. (This would include
some baffling rhomboidal "cannon balls" which turned out to be
industrial grinding tools commonly used in local clay processing
plants tossed into the Brazos with residual clay batches from the
mixing drums. ) The iron pot in the lump of coal found deep in the
mine along with a cluster of other anomalies such as polished tile
pavements, metallic barrels and repetitive images of an old man's face
are much harder to explain away. Up until now the absence of the
original artifact was a major obstacle but it appears that Carl Baugh
has removed that. The obstacle now, as I see it, lies in Carl Baugh's
unwillingness to submit his evidence to impartial testing. There are
many sincere Christians who have volunteered to foot the bill for the
testing an monitor the process. Testing like any other industrial
process is available for a fee by labs which have no vested interest
in the outcome. If I were a Young Earther with the kind of hard
evidence Carl Baugh believes he has, I would jump at the chance to
make the heathen Darwinists eat a crow banquet. Many, like myself,
with no firm committment to either side, would dearly love to see the
best evidence thoroughly wrung out. That is why I will continue to
look for my own examples and thanks to Mr. Billy Gordon, I now have
some fresh leads.

You may see this extraordinary collection for yourself at:
The Museum of Creation Truth
Billy & Delie Gordon
3290 State Road 22
Bokchito, Oklahoma 74726 (6 miles south of the bank in Bokchito)

----- Original Message -----

From: dcampbell75479

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:50 AM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Wilburton, Oklahoma Anomaly

Since the issue of OOPARTS in coal has come up again, I thought I'd
post this message I made at another ancient anomaly site.

Earlier last week one of the readers of my newpaper column dropped in
urging me to go to a new private museum in Bokchito, Oklahoma to
assess a brass bell with unknown ancient inscriptions. The reader told
my wife that Billy Gordon the owner of the museum was a regular reader
of my column and wanted my opinion on the artifact. He warned that Mr.
Gordon was a firm believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible
and was convinced the earth was only 6000 years old. That did not
bother me particularly, though those of you who know me realize my own
view is diametrically different. In the past many of my best leads on
out of place artifacts and anomalies have come from people whose views
are quite similar to Billy Gordon's, so I have learned to view the
evidence without prejudging it on that basis. The notion of an ancient
metal bell with unknown inscriptions found in Oklahoma was
irresistible bait for someone of my ilk, so I made arrangements to go
to Bokchito as soon as possible, which turned out to be today. We were
already planning to take the kids to the Choctaw Indian Pow Wow in
Durant today and Bokchito is just a few miles down the road from
there. The moment I entered the little one room museum, I realized
that I'd made a wise choice.

The first thing I noticed in a display case next to some monstrous
fossil fangs was an Ica stone. As it turned out, it was just a replica
but it hinted at what was to be found in the other cases. There were
an astounding number of rare artifacts and fossils collected locally,
including Clovis, Folsom, Eden, Barber and other Paleoindian points
along with fossil mammoth teeth and dinosaur bones. There were also
gigantic Adena celts, axes and mortars along with other Mound Builder
artifacts from various states. Some were authentic, some were dubious
as Mr. Gordon freely admitted, and some had been hafted by local
Indian artisans. Wahya would appreciate the Bois d'Arc spear shaft
hafting a ten inch stone lance head which had been carved by one of
Billy Gordon's neighbors using only a pocketknife. Stone warclubs and
axes had been similarly hafted with rawhide and various native
hardwoods. Even as modern reproductions they were masterpieces of
stone age art. The other category of objects on display were were out
of place pieces and anomalies such as I have on my website and indeed
several were from locations near where I'd found mine. Proving once
more that both sides of the Red River are veritable treasure houses of
anomalous artifacts and objects. I think Mark would be thrilled to see
some of the evidence for giants that were on display there and I must
return and get some photos to share with you all.

The most astonishing artifact though was shown to me just before I
left due to squawling pressure from the kids and friends who had
already gone to the car eager to be off to the Pow Wow. It was a
casting of the famous OOPART found in a coal mine in Wilburton,
Oklahoma. A small spouted iron pot found embedded in a lump of coal.
It seems that Carl Baugh has the original in a safe in the Creation
Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, home of the infamous mantracks alongside
dinosaur prints. Next to the Wilburton anomaly was a casting of the
equally famous London Hammer, a steel hammer with unfossilized wooden
handle found embedded in limestone in the Brazos River near London,
Texas, east of Austin. That anomaly has been explained to my
satisfaction by none other than Bud Shelton, the geologist who wrote
the analysis of the buried walls at Rockwall, Texas. I won't go into
his explanation here but suffice it to say, I believe Bud to have the
most plausible answer given Baugh's refusal to allow Carbon 14 dating
of the handle of the London Hammer. That would involve sacrificing
about one square centimeter of the handle and answer conclusively
whether the hammer was coeval with the purported Cretaceous limestone
or merely a modern era tool tossed into a leftover batch of burnt
limestone mortar and subsequently dumped into the Brazos channel along
with similar debris to found in abundance there. (This would include
some baffling rhomboidal "cannon balls" which turned out to be
industrial grinding tools commonly used in local clay processing
plants tossed into the Brazos with residual clay batches from the
mixing drums. ) The iron pot in the lump of coal found deep in the
mine along with a cluster of other anomalies such as polished tile
pavements, metallic barrels and repetitive images of an old man's face
are much harder to explain away. Up until now the absence of the
original artifact was a major obstacle but it appears that Carl Baugh
has removed that. The obstacle now, as I see it, lies in Carl Baugh's
unwillingness to submit his evidence to impartial testing. There are
many sincere Christians who have volunteered to foot the bill for the
testing an monitor the process. Testing like any other industrial
process is available for a fee by labs which have no vested interest
in the outcome. If I were a Young Earther with the kind of hard
evidence Carl Baugh believes he has, I would jump at the chance to
make the heathen Darwinists eat a crow banquet. Many, like myself,
with no firm committment to either side, would dearly love to see the
best evidence thoroughly wrung out. That is why I will continue to
look for my own examples and thanks to Mr. Billy Gordon, I now have
some fresh leads.

You may see this extraordinary collection for yourself at:
The Museum of Creation Truth
Billy & Delie Gordon
3290 State Road 22
Bokchito, Oklahoma 74726 (6 miles south of the bank in Bokchito)

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1837 - Release Date: 12/8/2008 9:38 AM

Sure. www.anarchaeology.com
Best regards,
David Campbell
--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "justice family"
<justice_thunder@...> wrote:
>
> Would you post your website address? Thank you.
>   Jamye
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: dcampbell75479
>   To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:50 AM
>   Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Wilburton, Oklahoma Anomaly
>
>
>   Since the issue of OOPARTS in coal has come up again, I thought I'd
>   post this message I made at another ancient anomaly site.
>
>   Earlier last week one of the readers of my newpaper column dropped in
>   urging me to go to a new private museum in Bokchito, Oklahoma to
>   assess a brass bell with unknown ancient inscriptions. The reader told
>   my wife that Billy Gordon the owner of the museum was a regular reader
>   of my column and wanted my opinion on the artifact. He warned that Mr.
>   Gordon was a firm believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible
>   and was convinced the earth was only 6000 years old. That did not
>   bother me particularly, though those of you who know me realize my own
>   view is diametrically different. In the past many of my best leads on
>   out of place artifacts and anomalies have come from people whose views
>   are quite similar to Billy Gordon's, so I have learned to view the
>   evidence without prejudging it on that basis. The notion of an ancient
>   metal bell with unknown inscriptions found in Oklahoma was
>   irresistible bait for someone of my ilk, so I made arrangements to go
>   to Bokchito as soon as possible, which turned out to be today. We were
>   already planning to take the kids to the Choctaw Indian Pow Wow in
>   Durant today and Bokchito is just a few miles down the road from
>   there. The moment I entered the little one room museum, I realized
>   that I'd made a wise choice.
>
>   The first thing I noticed in a display case next to some monstrous
>   fossil fangs was an Ica stone. As it turned out, it was just a replica
>   but it hinted at what was to be found in the other cases. There were
>   an astounding number of rare artifacts and fossils collected locally,
>   including Clovis, Folsom, Eden, Barber and other Paleoindian points
>   along with fossil mammoth teeth and dinosaur bones. There were also
>   gigantic Adena celts, axes and mortars along with other Mound Builder
>   artifacts from various states. Some were authentic, some were dubious
>   as Mr. Gordon freely admitted, and some had been hafted by local
>   Indian artisans. Wahya would appreciate the Bois d'Arc spear shaft
>   hafting a ten inch stone lance head which had been carved by one of
>   Billy Gordon's neighbors using only a pocketknife. Stone warclubs and
>   axes had been similarly hafted with rawhide and various native
>   hardwoods. Even as modern reproductions they were masterpieces of
>   stone age art. The other category of objects on display were were out
>   of place pieces and anomalies such as I have on my website and indeed
>   several were from locations near where I'd found mine. Proving once
>   more that both sides of the Red River are veritable treasure houses of
>   anomalous artifacts and objects. I think Mark would be thrilled to see
>   some of the evidence for giants that were on display there and I must
>   return and get some photos to share with you all.
>
>   The most astonishing artifact though was shown to me just before I
>   left due to squawling pressure from the kids and friends who had
>   already gone to the car eager to be off to the Pow Wow. It was a
>   casting of the famous OOPART found in a coal mine in Wilburton,
>   Oklahoma. A small spouted iron pot found embedded in a lump of coal.
>   It seems that Carl Baugh has the original in a safe in the Creation
>   Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, home of the infamous mantracks alongside
>   dinosaur prints. Next to the Wilburton anomaly was a casting of the
>   equally famous London Hammer, a steel hammer with unfossilized wooden
>   handle found embedded in limestone in the Brazos River near London,
>   Texas, east of Austin. That anomaly has been explained to my
>   satisfaction by none other than Bud Shelton, the geologist who wrote
>   the analysis of the buried walls at Rockwall, Texas. I won't go into
>   his explanation here but suffice it to say, I believe Bud to have the
>   most plausible answer given Baugh's refusal to allow Carbon 14 dating
>   of the handle of the London Hammer. That would involve sacrificing
>   about one square centimeter of the handle and answer conclusively
>   whether the hammer was coeval with the purported Cretaceous limestone
>   or merely a modern era tool tossed into a leftover batch of burnt
>   limestone mortar and subsequently dumped into the Brazos channel along
>   with similar debris to found in abundance there. (This would include
>   some baffling rhomboidal "cannon balls" which turned out to be
>   industrial grinding tools commonly used in local clay processing
>   plants tossed into the Brazos with residual clay batches from the
>   mixing drums. ) The iron pot in the lump of coal found deep in the
>   mine along with a cluster of other anomalies such as polished tile
>   pavements, metallic barrels and repetitive images of an old man's face
>   are much harder to explain away. Up until now the absence of the
>   original artifact was a major obstacle but it appears that Carl Baugh
>   has removed that. The obstacle now, as I see it, lies in Carl Baugh's
>   unwillingness to submit his evidence to impartial testing. There are
>   many sincere Christians who have volunteered to foot the bill for the
>   testing an monitor the process. Testing like any other industrial
>   process is available for a fee by labs which have no vested interest
>   in the outcome. If I were a Young Earther with the kind of hard
>   evidence Carl Baugh believes he has, I would jump at the chance to
>   make the heathen Darwinists eat a crow banquet. Many, like myself,
>   with no firm committment to either side, would dearly love to see the
>   best evidence thoroughly wrung out. That is why I will continue to
>   look for my own examples and thanks to Mr. Billy Gordon, I now have
>   some fresh leads.
>
>   You may see this extraordinary collection for yourself at:
>   The Museum of Creation Truth
>   Billy & Delie Gordon
>   3290 State Road 22
>   Bokchito, Oklahoma 74726 (6 miles south of the bank in Bokchito)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>   Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1837 - Release Date:
12/8/2008 9:38 AM
>

----- Original Message -----

From: dcampbell75479

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 8:50 AM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Wilburton, Oklahoma Anomaly

Since the issue of OOPARTS in coal has come up again, I thought I'd
post this message I made at another ancient anomaly site.

Earlier last week one of the readers of my newpaper column dropped in
urging me to go to a new private museum in Bokchito, Oklahoma to
assess a brass bell with unknown ancient inscriptions. The reader told
my wife that Billy Gordon the owner of the museum was a regular reader
of my column and wanted my opinion on the artifact. He warned that Mr.
Gordon was a firm believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible
and was convinced the earth was only 6000 years old. That did not
bother me particularly, though those of you who know me realize my own
view is diametrically different. In the past many of my best leads on
out of place artifacts and anomalies have come from people whose views
are quite similar to Billy Gordon's, so I have learned to view the
evidence without prejudging it on that basis. The notion of an ancient
metal bell with unknown inscriptions found in Oklahoma was
irresistible bait for someone of my ilk, so I made arrangements to go
to Bokchito as soon as possible, which turned out to be today. We were
already planning to take the kids to the Choctaw Indian Pow Wow in
Durant today and Bokchito is just a few miles down the road from
there. The moment I entered the little one room museum, I realized
that I'd made a wise choice.

The first thing I noticed in a display case next to some monstrous
fossil fangs was an Ica stone. As it turned out, it was just a replica
but it hinted at what was to be found in the other cases. There were
an astounding number of rare artifacts and fossils collected locally,
including Clovis, Folsom, Eden, Barber and other Paleoindian points
along with fossil mammoth teeth and dinosaur bones. There were also
gigantic Adena celts, axes and mortars along with other Mound Builder
artifacts from various states. Some were authentic, some were dubious
as Mr. Gordon freely admitted, and some had been hafted by local
Indian artisans. Wahya would appreciate the Bois d'Arc spear shaft
hafting a ten inch stone lance head which had been carved by one of
Billy Gordon's neighbors using only a pocketknife. Stone warclubs and
axes had been similarly hafted with rawhide and various native
hardwoods. Even as modern reproductions they were masterpieces of
stone age art. The other category of objects on display were were out
of place pieces and anomalies such as I have on my website and indeed
several were from locations near where I'd found mine. Proving once
more that both sides of the Red River are veritable treasure houses of
anomalous artifacts and objects. I think Mark would be thrilled to see
some of the evidence for giants that were on display there and I must
return and get some photos to share with you all.

The most astonishing artifact though was shown to me just before I
left due to squawling pressure from the kids and friends who had
already gone to the car eager to be off to the Pow Wow. It was a
casting of the famous OOPART found in a coal mine in Wilburton,
Oklahoma. A small spouted iron pot found embedded in a lump of coal.
It seems that Carl Baugh has the original in a safe in the Creation
Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, home of the infamous mantracks alongside
dinosaur prints. Next to the Wilburton anomaly was a casting of the
equally famous London Hammer, a steel hammer with unfossilized wooden
handle found embedded in limestone in the Brazos River near London,
Texas, east of Austin. That anomaly has been explained to my
satisfaction by none other than Bud Shelton, the geologist who wrote
the analysis of the buried walls at Rockwall, Texas. I won't go into
his explanation here but suffice it to say, I believe Bud to have the
most plausible answer given Baugh's refusal to allow Carbon 14 dating
of the handle of the London Hammer. That would involve sacrificing
about one square centimeter of the handle and answer conclusively
whether the hammer was coeval with the purported Cretaceous limestone
or merely a modern era tool tossed into a leftover batch of burnt
limestone mortar and subsequently dumped into the Brazos channel along
with similar debris to found in abundance there. (This would include
some baffling rhomboidal "cannon balls" which turned out to be
industrial grinding tools commonly used in local clay processing
plants tossed into the Brazos with residual clay batches from the
mixing drums. ) The iron pot in the lump of coal found deep in the
mine along with a cluster of other anomalies such as polished tile
pavements, metallic barrels and repetitive images of an old man's face
are much harder to explain away. Up until now the absence of the
original artifact was a major obstacle but it appears that Carl Baugh
has removed that. The obstacle now, as I see it, lies in Carl Baugh's
unwillingness to submit his evidence to impartial testing. There are
many sincere Christians who have volunteered to foot the bill for the
testing an monitor the process. Testing like any other industrial
process is available for a fee by labs which have no vested interest
in the outcome. If I were a Young Earther with the kind of hard
evidence Carl Baugh believes he has, I would jump at the chance to
make the heathen Darwinists eat a crow banquet. Many, like myself,
with no firm committment to either side, would dearly love to see the
best evidence thoroughly wrung out. That is why I will continue to
look for my own examples and thanks to Mr. Billy Gordon, I now have
some fresh leads.

You may see this extraordinary collection for yourself at:
The Museum of Creation Truth
Billy & Delie Gordon
3290 State Road 22
Bokchito, Oklahoma 74726 (6 miles south of the bank in Bokchito)

----- Original Message -----

From: dcampbell75479

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:28 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: Wilburton, Oklahoma Anomaly

Sure. www.anarchaeology.com
Best regards,
David Campbell
--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "justice family"
<justice_thunder@...> wrote:
>
> Would you post your website address? Thank you.
> Jamye
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dcampbell75479
> To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:50 AM
> Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Wilburton, Oklahoma Anomaly
>
>
> Since the issue of OOPARTS in coal has come up again, I thought I'd
> post this message I made at another ancient anomaly site.
>
> Earlier last week one of the readers of my newpaper column dropped in
> urging me to go to a new private museum in Bokchito, Oklahoma to
> assess a brass bell with unknown ancient inscriptions. The reader told
> my wife that Billy Gordon the owner of the museum was a regular reader
> of my column and wanted my opinion on the artifact. He warned that Mr.
> Gordon was a firm believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible
> and was convinced the earth was only 6000 years old. That did not
> bother me particularly, though those of you who know me realize my own
> view is diametrically different. In the past many of my best leads on
> out of place artifacts and anomalies have come from people whose views
> are quite similar to Billy Gordon's, so I have learned to view the
> evidence without prejudging it on that basis. The notion of an ancient
> metal bell with unknown inscriptions found in Oklahoma was
> irresistible bait for someone of my ilk, so I made arrangements to go
> to Bokchito as soon as possible, which turned out to be today. We were
> already planning to take the kids to the Choctaw Indian Pow Wow in
> Durant today and Bokchito is just a few miles down the road from
> there. The moment I entered the little one room museum, I realized
> that I'd made a wise choice.
>
> The first thing I noticed in a display case next to some monstrous
> fossil fangs was an Ica stone. As it turned out, it was just a replica
> but it hinted at what was to be found in the other cases. There were
> an astounding number of rare artifacts and fossils collected locally,
> including Clovis, Folsom, Eden, Barber and other Paleoindian points
> along with fossil mammoth teeth and dinosaur bones. There were also
> gigantic Adena celts, axes and mortars along with other Mound Builder
> artifacts from various states. Some were authentic, some were dubious
> as Mr. Gordon freely admitted, and some had been hafted by local
> Indian artisans. Wahya would appreciate the Bois d'Arc spear shaft
> hafting a ten inch stone lance head which had been carved by one of
> Billy Gordon's neighbors using only a pocketknife. Stone warclubs and
> axes had been similarly hafted with rawhide and various native
> hardwoods. Even as modern reproductions they were masterpieces of
> stone age art. The other category of objects on display were were out
> of place pieces and anomalies such as I have on my website and indeed
> several were from locations near where I'd found mine. Proving once
> more that both sides of the Red River are veritable treasure houses of
> anomalous artifacts and objects. I think Mark would be thrilled to see
> some of the evidence for giants that were on display there and I must
> return and get some photos to share with you all.
>
> The most astonishing artifact though was shown to me just before I
> left due to squawling pressure from the kids and friends who had
> already gone to the car eager to be off to the Pow Wow. It was a
> casting of the famous OOPART found in a coal mine in Wilburton,
> Oklahoma. A small spouted iron pot found embedded in a lump of coal.
> It seems that Carl Baugh has the original in a safe in the Creation
> Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, home of the infamous mantracks alongside
> dinosaur prints. Next to the Wilburton anomaly was a casting of the
> equally famous London Hammer, a steel hammer with unfossilized wooden
> handle found embedded in limestone in the Brazos River near London,
> Texas, east of Austin. That anomaly has been explained to my
> satisfaction by none other than Bud Shelton, the geologist who wrote
> the analysis of the buried walls at Rockwall, Texas. I won't go into
> his explanation here but suffice it to say, I believe Bud to have the
> most plausible answer given Baugh's refusal to allow Carbon 14 dating
> of the handle of the London Hammer. That would involve sacrificing
> about one square centimeter of the handle and answer conclusively
> whether the hammer was coeval with the purported Cretaceous limestone
> or merely a modern era tool tossed into a leftover batch of burnt
> limestone mortar and subsequently dumped into the Brazos channel along
> with similar debris to found in abundance there. (This would include
> some baffling rhomboidal "cannon balls" which turned out to be
> industrial grinding tools commonly used in local clay processing
> plants tossed into the Brazos with residual clay batches from the
> mixing drums. ) The iron pot in the lump of coal found deep in the
> mine along with a cluster of other anomalies such as polished tile
> pavements, metallic barrels and repetitive images of an old man's face
> are much harder to explain away. Up until now the absence of the
> original artifact was a major obstacle but it appears that Carl Baugh
> has removed that. The obstacle now, as I see it, lies in Carl Baugh's
> unwillingness to submit his evidence to impartial testing. There are
> many sincere Christians who have volunteered to foot the bill for the
> testing an monitor the process. Testing like any other industrial
> process is available for a fee by labs which have no vested interest
> in the outcome. If I were a Young Earther with the kind of hard
> evidence Carl Baugh believes he has, I would jump at the chance to
> make the heathen Darwinists eat a crow banquet. Many, like myself,
> with no firm committment to either side, would dearly love to see the
> best evidence thoroughly wrung out. That is why I will continue to
> look for my own examples and thanks to Mr. Billy Gordon, I now have
> some fresh leads.
>
> You may see this extraordinary collection for yourself at:
> The Museum of Creation Truth
> Billy & Delie Gordon
> 3290 State Road 22
> Bokchito, Oklahoma 74726 (6 miles south of the bank in Bokchito)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1837 - Release Date:
12/8/2008 9:38 AM
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1839 - Release Date: 12/9/2008 9:59 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: mike white

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:34 AM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest geology

 

   a recent comment was made of the action of glaciers in arizona.  im no expert, and am not aware that az was ever covered by glaciers.  if somebody can edify us further, im interested. 

 

http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/back.1_div.1.html

 

   this link tells of az geology, and discusses the glaciation periods of north america.  the classic view was 4 periods of glaciation, with 3 interstatial warming periods.  more recently, two expert reports speak of 21 or 16 glaciation periods within the past 2.5 mya, or during the pleistocene.  the 3 main periods were named after the furthest extent of glaciation south, that of wisc, neb, and kansan.  the terrain of the southwest would probably look much different had it been scoured by glaciers.  the salt flats and red clay would be gone, if laid before the glaciers. 

   i noted on an old western today that rock piles were heavily rounded by water erosion, but these had dark patina over the rounded surfaces.  indicating that the flood waters thru that region had been much earlier than others i observed in n az and s utah.  so there were various events widely separated in time.  the corridor thru eastern nv - w az, up thru the great salt lake of utah, looked recently eroded by flood waters, with hardly any patina.  it would require fieldwork to carry this study further, and it needs to be done.  the navaho tribe has the money to fund it, and their lives may depend upon it.  lets hope that they get the word. 

 

mike

 

 

There is plenty of interest as this is a perennial subtopic in the
never-to-be-resolved debate, The Age of the Earth, between
creationists and evolutionists. Rather than reiterate my own views on
the subject for the nth time, here is commentary from Dr.Ray Bohlin of
Dallas, who hails from your side of the aisle if not the same pew.
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
<infoplz@...> wrote:
>
>
>    no stir of interest?  its not so good to respond to my own post,
but it seems compelling.  plz note the geological ages given on the
chart on the link below.  i find it interesting that the rim of the
grand canyon is the land surface of 229 mya.  they say either the
other stratas were never laid [???], or were washed away.  i cannot
imagine how the former could be true, so must assume they were washed
away.  this is incredible!  thousands of feet of deposits are missing.
  should we think that the colorado river washed that amount of surface
away over a huge area, perhaps thousands of square miles?  i dont
think so.  its the biggest clue yet that the sea was involved.  the
more i look into it, the more obvious, and in plain sight the facts
become.
>    the same is true for the creation of sand.  sand is seldom found
in the mountains, unless accompanied with other marine deposits.  yet
it is often found on coral islands, far from any mountains.  how could
our scientists persist in saying its a product of mountain erosion?
the same can be said for salt.
>    such errors skew our entire thinking in the earth sciences.
there are many more instances, of what i consider wrong thinking, the
foremost is clinging to the gradual conformity theory by geologists.
>    i could be wrong, which is no big deal for an amateur, but they
pretend to be experts, and should try to be certain of their facts.
>
> imho
> mike
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: mike white
>   To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:34 AM
>   Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest geology
>
>
>
>
>      a recent comment was made of the action of glaciers in arizona.
  im no expert, and am not aware that az was ever covered by glaciers.
  if somebody can edify us further, im interested.
>
>   http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/back.1_div.1.html
>
>      this link tells of az geology, and discusses the glaciation
periods of north america.  the classic view was 4 periods of
glaciation, with 3 interstatial warming periods.  more recently, two
expert reports speak of 21 or 16 glaciation periods within the past
2.5 mya, or during the pleistocene.  the 3 main periods were named
after the furthest extent of glaciation south, that of wisc, neb, and
kansan.  the terrain of the southwest would probably look much
different had it been scoured by glaciers.  the salt flats and red
clay would be gone, if laid before the glaciers.
>      i noted on an old western today that rock piles were heavily
rounded by water erosion, but these had dark patina over the rounded
surfaces.  indicating that the flood waters thru that region had been
much earlier than others i observed in n az and s utah.  so there were
various events widely separated in time.  the corridor thru eastern nv
- w az, up thru the great salt lake of utah, looked recently eroded by
flood waters, with hardly any patina.  it would require fieldwork to
carry this study further, and it needs to be done.  the navaho tribe
has the money to fund it, and their lives may depend upon it.  lets
hope that they get the word.
>
>   mike
>

----- Original Message -----

From: dcampbell75479

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:07 AM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology

There is plenty of interest as this is a perennial subtopic in the
never-to-be-resolved debate, The Age of the Earth, between
creationists and evolutionists. Rather than reiterate my own views on
the subject for the nth time, here is commentary from Dr.Ray Bohlin of
Dallas, who hails from your side of the aisle if not the same pew.
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
<infoplz@...> wrote:
>
>
> no stir of interest? its not so good to respond to my own post,
but it seems compelling. plz note the geological ages given on the
chart on the link below. i find it interesting that the rim of the
grand canyon is the land surface of 229 mya. they say either the
other stratas were never laid [???], or were washed away. i cannot
imagine how the former could be true, so must assume they were washed
away. this is incredible! thousands of feet of deposits are missing.
should we think that the colorado river washed that amount of surface
away over a huge area, perhaps thousands of square miles? i dont
think so. its the biggest clue yet that the sea was involved. the
more i look into it, the more obvious, and in plain sight the facts
become.
> the same is true for the creation of sand. sand is seldom found
in the mountains, unless accompanied with other marine deposits. yet
it is often found on coral islands, far from any mountains. how could
our scientists persist in saying its a product of mountain erosion?
the same can be said for salt.
> such errors skew our entire thinking in the earth sciences.
there are many more instances, of what i consider wrong thinking, the
foremost is clinging to the gradual conformity theory by geologists.
> i could be wrong, which is no big deal for an amateur, but they
pretend to be experts, and should try to be certain of their facts.
>
> imho
> mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike white
> To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:34 AM
> Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest geology
>
>
>
>
> a recent comment was made of the action of glaciers in arizona.
im no expert, and am not aware that az was ever covered by glaciers.
if somebody can edify us further, im interested.
>
> http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/back.1_div.1.html
>
> this link tells of az geology, and discusses the glaciation
periods of north america. the classic view was 4 periods of
glaciation, with 3 interstatial warming periods. more recently, two
expert reports speak of 21 or 16 glaciation periods within the past
2.5 mya, or during the pleistocene. the 3 main periods were named
after the furthest extent of glaciation south, that of wisc, neb, and
kansan. the terrain of the southwest would probably look much
different had it been scoured by glaciers. the salt flats and red
clay would be gone, if laid before the glaciers.
> i noted on an old western today that rock piles were heavily
rounded by water erosion, but these had dark patina over the rounded
surfaces. indicating that the flood waters thru that region had been
much earlier than others i observed in n az and s utah. so there were
various events widely separated in time. the corridor thru eastern nv
- w az, up thru the great salt lake of utah, looked recently eroded by
flood waters, with hardly any patina. it would require fieldwork to
carry this study further, and it needs to be done. the navaho tribe
has the money to fund it, and their lives may depend upon it. lets
hope that they get the word.
>
> mike
>

It was not my intention to label you; however a reference to "Noah"s
flood would lead one to think you subscribed to a biblical chronology
as does the belief in a geologically young Rocky Mountain orogeny.
Perhaps you have reconciled the apparently conflicting chronologies of
  Cayce, the Judeo-Christian scriptures, Madame Blavatsky and other
esoteric writers but this reconciliation is not at all clear to some
especially me. Personally, I find the 80 million year old date for the
Rocky Mountain orongeny persuasive after having surveyed numerous
geological papers addressing various aspects the subject in relation
to some reviewing I did a few years ago on the pavement discovered in
Colorado. That date came up with other pavements mentioned in Kansas,
Oklahoma and Arkansas as well as the buried walls in Texas. It was
also during that period of review that I found that zircons found in
sands in Arizona and other southwestern states could be tracked to an
origin in the Allegheny region due to advances in zircon analysis in
the last three or four years.
Now the following is a link to geologist G.R. Morton's series of pages
with detailed evidence against a global "Noah"s flood. As Morton
explains in his introductory page, he was once a firm believer in
Noah's flood but hands on examination of the evidence led him to
abandon that belief. So this is a case for someone who is not seeing
only what he wants to see and with the technical expertise to
substantiate his change in position. If you will take the time to read
the papers relevant to your subject, I am certain you will will have a
number of your questions answered.
--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
<infoplz@...> wrote:
>
>
>     i normally dont read such 'info', as it was compiled by groups
who look for what they expect, and have an axe to grind.  i think of
myself as open-minded, and go where the evidence leads.  maybe some
see me as an old-earth creationist.  ive got better things to do than
get involved in this nonsense, or ponder how many angels can dance
upon the head of a pin.
>    i think the earth is billions of years old, man at least 10 mya.
  i believe that the southern rockies uplifted within the last 52,000
years, and consequently that the colorado river is no older than that.
  there were at least three global floods within the past 52,000 years,
and many major local floods, with noah's flood circa 26,000 bce.
>    the cut of the grand canyon is basically northeast-southwest, and
the amount of surface deposits missing would seem to point to a local
event, that only involved the southwest.
>    can we focus on this, and not try to label each other.
>
> imho
> mike
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: dcampbell75479
>   To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:07 AM
>   Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology
>
>
>   There is plenty of interest as this is a perennial subtopic in the
>   never-to-be-resolved debate, The Age of the Earth, between
>   creationists and evolutionists. Rather than reiterate my own views on
>   the subject for the nth time, here is commentary from Dr.Ray Bohlin of
>   Dallas, who hails from your side of the aisle if not the same pew.
>   http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
>   --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
>   <infoplz@> wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   > no stir of interest? its not so good to respond to my own post,
>   but it seems compelling. plz note the geological ages given on the
>   chart on the link below. i find it interesting that the rim of the
>   grand canyon is the land surface of 229 mya. they say either the
>   other stratas were never laid [???], or were washed away. i cannot
>   imagine how the former could be true, so must assume they were washed
>   away. this is incredible! thousands of feet of deposits are missing.
>   should we think that the colorado river washed that amount of surface
>   away over a huge area, perhaps thousands of square miles? i dont
>   think so. its the biggest clue yet that the sea was involved. the
>   more i look into it, the more obvious, and in plain sight the facts
>   become.
>   > the same is true for the creation of sand. sand is seldom found
>   in the mountains, unless accompanied with other marine deposits. yet
>   it is often found on coral islands, far from any mountains. how could
>   our scientists persist in saying its a product of mountain erosion?
>   the same can be said for salt.
>   > such errors skew our entire thinking in the earth sciences.
>   there are many more instances, of what i consider wrong thinking, the
>   foremost is clinging to the gradual conformity theory by geologists.
>   > i could be wrong, which is no big deal for an amateur, but they
>   pretend to be experts, and should try to be certain of their facts.
>   >
>   > imho
>   > mike
>   >
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: mike white
>   > To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:34 AM
>   > Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest geology
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > a recent comment was made of the action of glaciers in arizona.
>   im no expert, and am not aware that az was ever covered by glaciers.
>   if somebody can edify us further, im interested.
>   >
>   > http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/back.1_div.1.html
>   >
>   > this link tells of az geology, and discusses the glaciation
>   periods of north america. the classic view was 4 periods of
>   glaciation, with 3 interstatial warming periods. more recently, two
>   expert reports speak of 21 or 16 glaciation periods within the past
>   2.5 mya, or during the pleistocene. the 3 main periods were named
>   after the furthest extent of glaciation south, that of wisc, neb, and
>   kansan. the terrain of the southwest would probably look much
>   different had it been scoured by glaciers. the salt flats and red
>   clay would be gone, if laid before the glaciers.
>   > i noted on an old western today that rock piles were heavily
>   rounded by water erosion, but these had dark patina over the rounded
>   surfaces. indicating that the flood waters thru that region had been
>   much earlier than others i observed in n az and s utah. so there were
>   various events widely separated in time. the corridor thru eastern nv
>   - w az, up thru the great salt lake of utah, looked recently eroded by
>   flood waters, with hardly any patina. it would require fieldwork to
>   carry this study further, and it needs to be done. the navaho tribe
>   has the money to fund it, and their lives may depend upon it. lets
>   hope that they get the word.
>   >
>   > mike
>   >
>

Sorry, I neglected to post the link:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/clasdyke.htm
This page is specifically on clastic sand dykes but the other essays
are linked on the same page regarding the Grand Canyon etc.

--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "dcampbell75479"
<fred-dobbs@...> wrote:
>
> It was not my intention to label you; however a reference to "Noah"s
> flood would lead one to think you subscribed to a biblical chronology
> as does the belief in a geologically young Rocky Mountain orogeny.
> Perhaps you have reconciled the apparently conflicting chronologies of
>  Cayce, the Judeo-Christian scriptures, Madame Blavatsky and other
> esoteric writers but this reconciliation is not at all clear to some
> especially me. Personally, I find the 80 million year old date for the
> Rocky Mountain orongeny persuasive after having surveyed numerous
> geological papers addressing various aspects the subject in relation
> to some reviewing I did a few years ago on the pavement discovered in
> Colorado. That date came up with other pavements mentioned in Kansas,
> Oklahoma and Arkansas as well as the buried walls in Texas. It was
> also during that period of review that I found that zircons found in
> sands in Arizona and other southwestern states could be tracked to an
> origin in the Allegheny region due to advances in zircon analysis in
> the last three or four years.
> Now the following is a link to geologist G.R. Morton's series of pages
> with detailed evidence against a global "Noah"s flood. As Morton
> explains in his introductory page, he was once a firm believer in
> Noah's flood but hands on examination of the evidence led him to
> abandon that belief. So this is a case for someone who is not seeing
> only what he wants to see and with the technical expertise to
> substantiate his change in position. If you will take the time to read
> the papers relevant to your subject, I am certain you will will have a
> number of your questions answered.
> --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
> <infoplz@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     i normally dont read such 'info', as it was compiled by groups
> who look for what they expect, and have an axe to grind.  i think of
> myself as open-minded, and go where the evidence leads.  maybe some
> see me as an old-earth creationist.  ive got better things to do than
> get involved in this nonsense, or ponder how many angels can dance
> upon the head of a pin.
> >    i think the earth is billions of years old, man at least 10 mya.
>  i believe that the southern rockies uplifted within the last 52,000
> years, and consequently that the colorado river is no older than that.
>  there were at least three global floods within the past 52,000 years,
> and many major local floods, with noah's flood circa 26,000 bce.
> >    the cut of the grand canyon is basically northeast-southwest, and
> the amount of surface deposits missing would seem to point to a local
> event, that only involved the southwest.
> >    can we focus on this, and not try to label each other.
> >
> > imho
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: dcampbell75479
> >   To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> >   Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:07 AM
> >   Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology
> >
> >
> >   There is plenty of interest as this is a perennial subtopic in the
> >   never-to-be-resolved debate, The Age of the Earth, between
> >   creationists and evolutionists. Rather than reiterate my own
views on
> >   the subject for the nth time, here is commentary from Dr.Ray
Bohlin of
> >   Dallas, who hails from your side of the aisle if not the same pew.
> >   http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
> >   --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
> >   <infoplz@> wrote:
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > no stir of interest? its not so good to respond to my own post,
> >   but it seems compelling. plz note the geological ages given on the
> >   chart on the link below. i find it interesting that the rim of the
> >   grand canyon is the land surface of 229 mya. they say either the
> >   other stratas were never laid [???], or were washed away. i cannot
> >   imagine how the former could be true, so must assume they were
washed
> >   away. this is incredible! thousands of feet of deposits are missing.
> >   should we think that the colorado river washed that amount of
surface
> >   away over a huge area, perhaps thousands of square miles? i dont
> >   think so. its the biggest clue yet that the sea was involved. the
> >   more i look into it, the more obvious, and in plain sight the facts
> >   become.
> >   > the same is true for the creation of sand. sand is seldom found
> >   in the mountains, unless accompanied with other marine deposits. yet
> >   it is often found on coral islands, far from any mountains. how
could
> >   our scientists persist in saying its a product of mountain erosion?
> >   the same can be said for salt.
> >   > such errors skew our entire thinking in the earth sciences.
> >   there are many more instances, of what i consider wrong
thinking, the
> >   foremost is clinging to the gradual conformity theory by
geologists.
> >   > i could be wrong, which is no big deal for an amateur, but they
> >   pretend to be experts, and should try to be certain of their facts.
> >   >
> >   > imho
> >   > mike
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > ----- Original Message -----
> >   > From: mike white
> >   > To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> >   > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:34 AM
> >   > Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest geology
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > a recent comment was made of the action of glaciers in arizona.
> >   im no expert, and am not aware that az was ever covered by glaciers.
> >   if somebody can edify us further, im interested.
> >   >
> >   > http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/back.1_div.1.html
> >   >
> >   > this link tells of az geology, and discusses the glaciation
> >   periods of north america. the classic view was 4 periods of
> >   glaciation, with 3 interstatial warming periods. more recently, two
> >   expert reports speak of 21 or 16 glaciation periods within the past
> >   2.5 mya, or during the pleistocene. the 3 main periods were named
> >   after the furthest extent of glaciation south, that of wisc,
neb, and
> >   kansan. the terrain of the southwest would probably look much
> >   different had it been scoured by glaciers. the salt flats and red
> >   clay would be gone, if laid before the glaciers.
> >   > i noted on an old western today that rock piles were heavily
> >   rounded by water erosion, but these had dark patina over the rounded
> >   surfaces. indicating that the flood waters thru that region had been
> >   much earlier than others i observed in n az and s utah. so there
were
> >   various events widely separated in time. the corridor thru
eastern nv
> >   - w az, up thru the great salt lake of utah, looked recently
eroded by
> >   flood waters, with hardly any patina. it would require fieldwork to
> >   carry this study further, and it needs to be done. the navaho tribe
> >   has the money to fund it, and their lives may depend upon it. lets
> >   hope that they get the word.
> >   >
> >   > mike
> >   >
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: dcampbell75479

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 9:08 PM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology

It was not my intention to label you; however a reference to "Noah"s
flood would lead one to think you subscribed to a biblical chronology
as does the belief in a geologically young Rocky Mountain orogeny.
Perhaps you have reconciled the apparently conflicting chronologies of
Cayce, the Judeo-Christian scriptures, Madame Blavatsky and other
esoteric writers but this reconciliation is not at all clear to some
especially me. Personally, I find the 80 million year old date for the
Rocky Mountain orongeny persuasive after having surveyed numerous
geological papers addressing various aspects the subject in relation
to some reviewing I did a few years ago on the pavement discovered in
Colorado. That date came up with other pavements mentioned in Kansas,
Oklahoma and Arkansas as well as the buried walls in Texas. It was
also during that period of review that I found that zircons found in
sands in Arizona and other southwestern states could be tracked to an
origin in the Allegheny region due to advances in zircon analysis in
the last three or four years.
Now the following is a link to geologist G.R. Morton's series of pages
with detailed evidence against a global "Noah"s flood. As Morton
explains in his introductory page, he was once a firm believer in
Noah's flood but hands on examination of the evidence led him to
abandon that belief. So this is a case for someone who is not seeing
only what he wants to see and with the technical expertise to
substantiate his change in position. If you will take the time to read
the papers relevant to your subject, I am certain you will will have a
number of your questions answered.
--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
<infoplz@...> wrote:
>
>
> i normally dont read such 'info', as it was compiled by groups
who look for what they expect, and have an axe to grind. i think of
myself as open-minded, and go where the evidence leads. maybe some
see me as an old-earth creationist. ive got better things to do than
get involved in this nonsense, or ponder how many angels can dance
upon the head of a pin.
> i think the earth is billions of years old, man at least 10 mya.
i believe that the southern rockies uplifted within the last 52,000
years, and consequently that the colorado river is no older than that.
there were at least three global floods within the past 52,000 years,
and many major local floods, with noah's flood circa 26,000 bce.
> the cut of the grand canyon is basically northeast-southwest, and
the amount of surface deposits missing would seem to point to a local
event, that only involved the southwest.
> can we focus on this, and not try to label each other.
>
> imho
> mike
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dcampbell75479
> To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:07 AM
> Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology
>
>
> There is plenty of interest as this is a perennial subtopic in the
> never-to-be-resolved debate, The Age of the Earth, between
> creationists and evolutionists. Rather than reiterate my own views on
> the subject for the nth time, here is commentary from Dr.Ray Bohlin of
> Dallas, who hails from your side of the aisle if not the same pew.
> http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
> --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
> <infoplz@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > no stir of interest? its not so good to respond to my own post,
> but it seems compelling. plz note the geological ages given on the
> chart on the link below. i find it interesting that the rim of the
> grand canyon is the land surface of 229 mya. they say either the
> other stratas were never laid [???], or were washed away. i cannot
> imagine how the former could be true, so must assume they were washed
> away. this is incredible! thousands of feet of deposits are missing.
> should we think that the colorado river washed that amount of surface
> away over a huge area, perhaps thousands of square miles? i dont
> think so. its the biggest clue yet that the sea was involved. the
> more i look into it, the more obvious, and in plain sight the facts
> become.
> > the same is true for the creation of sand. sand is seldom found
> in the mountains, unless accompanied with other marine deposits. yet
> it is often found on coral islands, far from any mountains. how could
> our scientists persist in saying its a product of mountain erosion?
> the same can be said for salt.
> > such errors skew our entire thinking in the earth sciences.
> there are many more instances, of what i consider wrong thinking, the
> foremost is clinging to the gradual conformity theory by geologists.
> > i could be wrong, which is no big deal for an amateur, but they
> pretend to be experts, and should try to be certain of their facts.
> >
> > imho
> > mike
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mike white
> > To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:34 AM
> > Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest geology
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > a recent comment was made of the action of glaciers in arizona.
> im no expert, and am not aware that az was ever covered by glaciers.
> if somebody can edify us further, im interested.
> >
> > http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/back.1_div.1.html
> >
> > this link tells of az geology, and discusses the glaciation
> periods of north america. the classic view was 4 periods of
> glaciation, with 3 interstatial warming periods. more recently, two
> expert reports speak of 21 or 16 glaciation periods within the past
> 2.5 mya, or during the pleistocene. the 3 main periods were named
> after the furthest extent of glaciation south, that of wisc, neb, and
> kansan. the terrain of the southwest would probably look much
> different had it been scoured by glaciers. the salt flats and red
> clay would be gone, if laid before the glaciers.
> > i noted on an old western today that rock piles were heavily
> rounded by water erosion, but these had dark patina over the rounded
> surfaces. indicating that the flood waters thru that region had been
> much earlier than others i observed in n az and s utah. so there were
> various events widely separated in time. the corridor thru eastern nv
> - w az, up thru the great salt lake of utah, looked recently eroded by
> flood waters, with hardly any patina. it would require fieldwork to
> carry this study further, and it needs to be done. the navaho tribe
> has the money to fund it, and their lives may depend upon it. lets
> hope that they get the word.
> >
> > mike
> >
>

No, the Rockies would not be worn down like the Appalachians,
Arbuckles, Ouachitas and other ranges of similar age. Those mountains
date to the formation of Laurentia, Pangea and other primeval
continents. The latest date for the buried walls in Texas which had
previously been found to be contemporary with the Rocky Mountain
orogeny, was given by Dr. Wulf Goss in his paleomagnetic survey, as 55
million years. Goss at the University of Texas is one of the leading
paleomagnetic experts in the US along with Brooks Ellwood who did the
previous paleomagnetic survey. This redating apparently comes from
advances in the science not available to earlier geologists who
established the 80 million year old date using stratigraphy and other
traditional methods. Still the date of the orogeny is measured in
millions not thousands of years. Using dates channeled by mystics such
as Cayce still falls into the category of belief as opposed to
empirical evidence. The widespread existence of flood myths does not
substantiate a global flood but rather massive local flooding at
various periods which are substantiated by the geological record.
Noah's Flood which is clearly lifted from the 3rd millenium BC
Sumerian myth of Ziusudra does nothing to further the contention of a
global flood 26,000 years ago. I don't see any point in recapitulating
points in geological papers that are just as available to you as they
are to me. None of it would change your beliefs and I have no vested
interest in doing so. Mainly I responded to your lament over lack of
response to your post over southwest geology and now, I, in turn,
lament doing so. And with that, I'm backing out of this deteriorating
"discussion".

--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
<infoplz@...> wrote:
>
>
>    believing that events of the bible are true, is not the same as
accepting a chronology that some apply to those events.  ive stated
many times that i accept the date for noah's flood given by cayce as
about 26,000 bce.  i dont see how that fits into the 6000 years of
chronology that many cling to.  if you place the words of morton
higher than the bible, thats your business.
>    i read a few of mortons papers and was not impressed.  he still
has an axe to grind, he just changed sides.  he never addressed my
ideas, just attacked weaknesses in those of others.  ive never
believed that the colorado river carved the grand canyon.
>    given the universal worldwide preponderance of flood legends, and
beliefs in an ark and spared people - only a fool would contend that
there never was a great flood.  its merely a question of which flood
and when.
>    rather than point to the words of others, put your reasons for
thinking the southern rocky mts arose 80 mya in your own words, and we
will consider it.  many noted geologists now give 55 mya for their
orogeny.   ive not seen any that were conclusive or compelling in
proving millions of years for their uplift.  like the andes, the
southern rockies have every appearance of being newly formed, sharp
edges, with little erosion.  if they were 80 mya they would be wore
down and rounded, much like the appalachian mts.
>     the grand canyon, and orogeny of the rocky mts are side issues,
my main concern is a large corridor from s nevada thru utah, that
shows massive widespread erosion, and not associated with any river.
>    there have been quakes in nevada recently, often later deleted,
mysteriously, as if related to underground detonations, perhaps in
violation of treaties.  if the plates are unstable there, such tests
could cause a rapid subsidence.  we may not have long to wait for the
disaster that cayce spoke of, wherein quakes cause the land to drop,
and the sea to rush in.  the salt flats and great salt lake are ample
proofs for some, that this happened before, not so long ago.
>
> imho
> mike
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: dcampbell75479
>   To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 9:08 PM
>   Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology
>
>
>   It was not my intention to label you; however a reference to "Noah"s
>   flood would lead one to think you subscribed to a biblical chronology
>   as does the belief in a geologically young Rocky Mountain orogeny.
>   Perhaps you have reconciled the apparently conflicting chronologies of
>   Cayce, the Judeo-Christian scriptures, Madame Blavatsky and other
>   esoteric writers but this reconciliation is not at all clear to some
>   especially me. Personally, I find the 80 million year old date for the
>   Rocky Mountain orongeny persuasive after having surveyed numerous
>   geological papers addressing various aspects the subject in relation
>   to some reviewing I did a few years ago on the pavement discovered in
>   Colorado. That date came up with other pavements mentioned in Kansas,
>   Oklahoma and Arkansas as well as the buried walls in Texas. It was
>   also during that period of review that I found that zircons found in
>   sands in Arizona and other southwestern states could be tracked to an
>   origin in the Allegheny region due to advances in zircon analysis in
>   the last three or four years.
>   Now the following is a link to geologist G.R. Morton's series of pages
>   with detailed evidence against a global "Noah"s flood. As Morton
>   explains in his introductory page, he was once a firm believer in
>   Noah's flood but hands on examination of the evidence led him to
>   abandon that belief. So this is a case for someone who is not seeing
>   only what he wants to see and with the technical expertise to
>   substantiate his change in position. If you will take the time to read
>   the papers relevant to your subject, I am certain you will will have a
>   number of your questions answered.
>   --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
>   <infoplz@> wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   > i normally dont read such 'info', as it was compiled by groups
>   who look for what they expect, and have an axe to grind. i think of
>   myself as open-minded, and go where the evidence leads. maybe some
>   see me as an old-earth creationist. ive got better things to do than
>   get involved in this nonsense, or ponder how many angels can dance
>   upon the head of a pin.
>   > i think the earth is billions of years old, man at least 10 mya.
>   i believe that the southern rockies uplifted within the last 52,000
>   years, and consequently that the colorado river is no older than that.
>   there were at least three global floods within the past 52,000 years,
>   and many major local floods, with noah's flood circa 26,000 bce.
>   > the cut of the grand canyon is basically northeast-southwest, and
>   the amount of surface deposits missing would seem to point to a local
>   event, that only involved the southwest.
>   > can we focus on this, and not try to label each other.
>   >
>   > imho
>   > mike
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: dcampbell75479
>   > To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:07 AM
>   > Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology
>   >
>   >
>   > There is plenty of interest as this is a perennial subtopic in the
>   > never-to-be-resolved debate, The Age of the Earth, between
>   > creationists and evolutionists. Rather than reiterate my own
views on
>   > the subject for the nth time, here is commentary from Dr.Ray
Bohlin of
>   > Dallas, who hails from your side of the aisle if not the same pew.
>   > http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
>   > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
>   > <infoplz@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > no stir of interest? its not so good to respond to my own post,
>   > but it seems compelling. plz note the geological ages given on the
>   > chart on the link below. i find it interesting that the rim of the
>   > grand canyon is the land surface of 229 mya. they say either the
>   > other stratas were never laid [???], or were washed away. i cannot
>   > imagine how the former could be true, so must assume they were
washed
>   > away. this is incredible! thousands of feet of deposits are missing.
>   > should we think that the colorado river washed that amount of
surface
>   > away over a huge area, perhaps thousands of square miles? i dont
>   > think so. its the biggest clue yet that the sea was involved. the
>   > more i look into it, the more obvious, and in plain sight the facts
>   > become.
>   > > the same is true for the creation of sand. sand is seldom found
>   > in the mountains, unless accompanied with other marine deposits. yet
>   > it is often found on coral islands, far from any mountains. how
could
>   > our scientists persist in saying its a product of mountain erosion?
>   > the same can be said for salt.
>   > > such errors skew our entire thinking in the earth sciences.
>   > there are many more instances, of what i consider wrong
thinking, the
>   > foremost is clinging to the gradual conformity theory by
geologists.
>   > > i could be wrong, which is no big deal for an amateur, but they
>   > pretend to be experts, and should try to be certain of their facts.
>   > >
>   > > imho
>   > > mike
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > From: mike white
>   > > To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
>   > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:34 AM
>   > > Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest geology
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > a recent comment was made of the action of glaciers in arizona.
>   > im no expert, and am not aware that az was ever covered by glaciers.
>   > if somebody can edify us further, im interested.
>   > >
>   > > http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/back.1_div.1.html
>   > >
>   > > this link tells of az geology, and discusses the glaciation
>   > periods of north america. the classic view was 4 periods of
>   > glaciation, with 3 interstatial warming periods. more recently, two
>   > expert reports speak of 21 or 16 glaciation periods within the past
>   > 2.5 mya, or during the pleistocene. the 3 main periods were named
>   > after the furthest extent of glaciation south, that of wisc,
neb, and
>   > kansan. the terrain of the southwest would probably look much
>   > different had it been scoured by glaciers. the salt flats and red
>   > clay would be gone, if laid before the glaciers.
>   > > i noted on an old western today that rock piles were heavily
>   > rounded by water erosion, but these had dark patina over the rounded
>   > surfaces. indicating that the flood waters thru that region had been
>   > much earlier than others i observed in n az and s utah. so there
were
>   > various events widely separated in time. the corridor thru
eastern nv
>   > - w az, up thru the great salt lake of utah, looked recently
eroded by
>   > flood waters, with hardly any patina. it would require fieldwork to
>   > carry this study further, and it needs to be done. the navaho tribe
>   > has the money to fund it, and their lives may depend upon it. lets
>   > hope that they get the word.
>   > >
>   > > mike
>   > >
>   >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: dcampbell75479

To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:14 AM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology

No, the Rockies would not be worn down like the Appalachians,
Arbuckles, Ouachitas and other ranges of similar age. Those mountains
date to the formation of Laurentia, Pangea and other primeval
continents. The latest date for the buried walls in Texas which had
previously been found to be contemporary with the Rocky Mountain
orogeny, was given by Dr. Wulf Goss in his paleomagnetic survey, as 55
million years. Goss at the University of Texas is one of the leading
paleomagnetic experts in the US along with Brooks Ellwood who did the
previous paleomagnetic survey. This redating apparently comes from
advances in the science not available to earlier geologists who
established the 80 million year old date using stratigraphy and other
traditional methods. Still the date of the orogeny is measured in
millions not thousands of years. Using dates channeled by mystics such
as Cayce still falls into the category of belief as opposed to
empirical evidence. The widespread existence of flood myths does not
substantiate a global flood but rather massive local flooding at
various periods which are substantiated by the geological record.
Noah's Flood which is clearly lifted from the 3rd millenium BC
Sumerian myth of Ziusudra does nothing to further the contention of a
global flood 26,000 years ago. I don't see any point in recapitulating
points in geological papers that are just as available to you as they
are to me. None of it would change your beliefs and I have no vested
interest in doing so. Mainly I responded to your lament over lack of
response to your post over southwest geology and now, I, in turn,
lament doing so. And with that, I'm backing out of this deteriorating
"discussion".

--- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
<infoplz@...> wrote:
>
>
> believing that events of the bible are true, is not the same as
accepting a chronology that some apply to those events. ive stated
many times that i accept the date for noah's flood given by cayce as
about 26,000 bce. i dont see how that fits into the 6000 years of
chronology that many cling to. if you place the words of morton
higher than the bible, thats your business.
> i read a few of mortons papers and was not impressed. he still
has an axe to grind, he just changed sides. he never addressed my
ideas, just attacked weaknesses in those of others. ive never
believed that the colorado river carved the grand canyon.
> given the universal worldwide preponderance of flood legends, and
beliefs in an ark and spared people - only a fool would contend that
there never was a great flood. its merely a question of which flood
and when.
> rather than point to the words of others, put your reasons for
thinking the southern rocky mts arose 80 mya in your own words, and we
will consider it. many noted geologists now give 55 mya for their
orogeny. ive not seen any that were conclusive or compelling in
proving millions of years for their uplift. like the andes, the
southern rockies have every appearance of being newly formed, sharp
edges, with little erosion. if they were 80 mya they would be wore
down and rounded, much like the appalachian mts.
> the grand canyon, and orogeny of the rocky mts are side issues,
my main concern is a large corridor from s nevada thru utah, that
shows massive widespread erosion, and not associated with any river.
> there have been quakes in nevada recently, often later deleted,
mysteriously, as if related to underground detonations, perhaps in
violation of treaties. if the plates are unstable there, such tests
could cause a rapid subsidence. we may not have long to wait for the
disaster that cayce spoke of, wherein quakes cause the land to drop,
and the sea to rush in. the salt flats and great salt lake are ample
proofs for some, that this happened before, not so long ago.
>
> imho
> mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dcampbell75479
> To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 9:08 PM
> Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology
>
>
> It was not my intention to label you; however a reference to "Noah"s
> flood would lead one to think you subscribed to a biblical chronology
> as does the belief in a geologically young Rocky Mountain orogeny.
> Perhaps you have reconciled the apparently conflicting chronologies of
> Cayce, the Judeo-Christian scriptures, Madame Blavatsky and other
> esoteric writers but this reconciliation is not at all clear to some
> especially me. Personally, I find the 80 million year old date for the
> Rocky Mountain orongeny persuasive after having surveyed numerous
> geological papers addressing various aspects the subject in relation
> to some reviewing I did a few years ago on the pavement discovered in
> Colorado. That date came up with other pavements mentioned in Kansas,
> Oklahoma and Arkansas as well as the buried walls in Texas. It was
> also during that period of review that I found that zircons found in
> sands in Arizona and other southwestern states could be tracked to an
> origin in the Allegheny region due to advances in zircon analysis in
> the last three or four years.
> Now the following is a link to geologist G.R. Morton's series of pages
> with detailed evidence against a global "Noah"s flood. As Morton
> explains in his introductory page, he was once a firm believer in
> Noah's flood but hands on examination of the evidence led him to
> abandon that belief. So this is a case for someone who is not seeing
> only what he wants to see and with the technical expertise to
> substantiate his change in position. If you will take the time to read
> the papers relevant to your subject, I am certain you will will have a
> number of your questions answered.
> --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
> <infoplz@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > i normally dont read such 'info', as it was compiled by groups
> who look for what they expect, and have an axe to grind. i think of
> myself as open-minded, and go where the evidence leads. maybe some
> see me as an old-earth creationist. ive got better things to do than
> get involved in this nonsense, or ponder how many angels can dance
> upon the head of a pin.
> > i think the earth is billions of years old, man at least 10 mya.
> i believe that the southern rockies uplifted within the last 52,000
> years, and consequently that the colorado river is no older than that.
> there were at least three global floods within the past 52,000 years,
> and many major local floods, with noah's flood circa 26,000 bce.
> > the cut of the grand canyon is basically northeast-southwest, and
> the amount of surface deposits missing would seem to point to a local
> event, that only involved the southwest.
> > can we focus on this, and not try to label each other.
> >
> > imho
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: dcampbell75479
> > To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:07 AM
> > Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: southwest geology
> >
> >
> > There is plenty of interest as this is a perennial subtopic in the
> > never-to-be-resolved debate, The Age of the Earth, between
> > creationists and evolutionists. Rather than reiterate my own
views on
> > the subject for the nth time, here is commentary from Dr.Ray
Bohlin of
> > Dallas, who hails from your side of the aisle if not the same pew.
> > http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
> > --- In Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com, "mike white"
> > <infoplz@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > no stir of interest? its not so good to respond to my own post,
> > but it seems compelling. plz note the geological ages given on the
> > chart on the link below. i find it interesting that the rim of the
> > grand canyon is the land surface of 229 mya. they say either the
> > other stratas were never laid [???], or were washed away. i cannot
> > imagine how the former could be true, so must assume they were
washed
> > away. this is incredible! thousands of feet of deposits are missing.
> > should we think that the colorado river washed that amount of
surface
> > away over a huge area, perhaps thousands of square miles? i dont
> > think so. its the biggest clue yet that the sea was involved. the
> > more i look into it, the more obvious, and in plain sight the facts
> > become.
> > > the same is true for the creation of sand. sand is seldom found
> > in the mountains, unless accompanied with other marine deposits. yet
> > it is often found on coral islands, far from any mountains. how
could
> > our scientists persist in saying its a product of mountain erosion?
> > the same can be said for salt.
> > > such errors skew our entire thinking in the earth sciences.
> > there are many more instances, of what i consider wrong
thinking, the
> > foremost is clinging to the gradual conformity theory by
geologists.
> > > i could be wrong, which is no big deal for an amateur, but they
> > pretend to be experts, and should try to be certain of their facts.
> > >
> > > imho
> > > mike
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: mike white
> > > To: Precolumbian_Inscriptions@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:34 AM
> > > Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] southwest geology
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > a recent comment was made of the action of glaciers in arizona.
> > im no expert, and am not aware that az was ever covered by glaciers.
> > if somebody can edify us further, im interested.
> > >
> > > http://southwest.library.arizona.edu/azso/back.1_div.1.html
> > >
> > > this link tells of az geology, and discusses the glaciation
> > periods of north america. the classic view was 4 periods of
> > glaciation, with 3 interstatial warming periods. more recently, two
> > expert reports speak of 21 or 16 glaciation periods within the past
> > 2.5 mya, or during the pleistocene. the 3 main periods were named
> > after the furthest extent of glaciation south, that of wisc,
neb, and
> > kansan. the terrain of the southwest would probably look much
> > different had it been scoured by glaciers. the salt flats and red
> > clay would be gone, if laid before the glaciers.
> > > i noted on an old western today that rock piles were heavily
> > rounded by water erosion, but these had dark patina over the rounded
> > surfaces. indicating that the flood waters thru that region had been
> > much earlier than others i observed in n az and s utah. so there
were
> > various events widely separated in time. the corridor thru
eastern nv
> > - w az, up thru the great salt lake of utah, looked recently
eroded by
> > flood waters, with hardly any patina. it would require fieldwork to
> > carry this study further, and it needs to be done. the navaho tribe
> > has the money to fund it, and their lives may depend upon it. lets
> > hope that they get the word.
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Rafael Andrés Escribano

Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:12 AM

Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Disease Tracker Wants to Rewrite Mexican History --Epidemiology and the Black Legend

http://www.banderasnews.com/0610/edat-blacklegend.htm