Oolite Bulletins

This may have been the fossil that made me scratch my head so many years ago, but I don't think it is the same one.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/Images/ ... rint04.jpg

Dinosaurs with handguns? Sounds like you sometimes your thoughts resemble mine... alas there is no medication and I can't drink beer so you'll have to drink mine!

All this cogitation has been very illuminating. I'd like to thank you firstly for discussing it with me and in such an informative and patient manner and also for not calling me a twonk

Greyth wrote:

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/Images/ ... rint04.jpg

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /Images/humanfootprint04.jpg on this server.

SandJ wrote:

Greyth wrote:

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/Images/ ... rint04.jpg

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /Images/humanfootprint04.jpg on this server.

I ran into the same problem, but the image is on this page (scroll down to "Fossilised Human Footprints"):
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/ooparts.htm

An interesting quote – not about this image – is further down the page:

What makes it of great significance is the fact that this skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile [1.609 km] in length! Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old—which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on earth!

Since such a date for a regular person does not fit evolutionary theory, you will not find "Guadeloupe Woman" mentioned in the Hominid textbooks. To do so would be to disprove evolutionary dating of rock formations.

The problem with this sort of thinking is that it sees science as some sort of static, autocratic belief-system, determined to defend its established point of view at all costs and against all comers. Whereas in reality, if someone was able to "disprove evolutionary dating of rock formations", they would become one of the most famous and respected scientists in their field.

Edit: the only non-odd site I can find which has any reference to this other "mystery", the above-mentioned "Guadeloupe Woman", is here:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... loupe.html

In 1812, several skeletons were found on the island of Guadeloupe. They were all pointing the same way, were not disjointed, were only partly mineralized, and a dog and implements were found with them. This implies a burial, rather than a mass death. The dog and the partial mineralization imply they are post-Columbian.

One of the skeletons, of a woman, was presented to the British Museum. It has been on and off public display ever since.

In 1983, the Australian creationist journal Ex Nihilo ran an article by W. R. Cooper. He claimed that the skeleton was found in a 25 million year old Lower Miocene deposit. He said that it showed signs of drowning in the Flood. He also claimed that it was taken off display, in Darwin's day, to conceal the evidence against Darwin's theory. The Natural History Museum curators say that they didn't move it down to the basement until 1967.

And there the matter sits. Cooper has not produced an independant opinion that his dating (to the Miocene) is correct. The skeleton has not been carbon-dated, although the Museum offered to do so for a fee.

A reference:
"The case of Miocene Man", Howgate and Lewis, New Scientist 29 March 1984 pp. 44-45

An interesting link regarding "fossil human footprints":

http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown

Disembodied wrote:

I ran into the same problem, but the image is on this page (scroll down to "Fossilised Human Footprints"):
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/ooparts.htm

Thanks.

Oh dear, this isn't looking good. Starting from the top: that hammer is well-documented. Just like those poor petrified teddy bears at Mother Shipton's Cave, it's just a miner's hammer. Here's a better photograph.

"It takes between 3 to 5 months to petrify a teddy bear" — anyone who does that to a teddy bear should be tied to a stake and burned alive.

Disembodied wrote:

The problem with this sort of thinking is that it sees science as some sort of static, autocratic belief-system, determined to defend its established point of view at all costs and against all comers.

Like the "So, do you believe in Darwinism?" question.
"No, I believe in scientific method."
"So, you accept Darwin was wrong then, and Scripture is right."

Odd, the image opens for me... perhaps I have special powers? Ah no, I remember now. What I have are special needs.

Petrified teddy bears?! WoE? And so much then for Grabthar's hammer... a shame.

Disembodied wrote:

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/ooparts.htm

Ooparts? really??

And those South African Spheres look like Death Stars...

They also have a section on leylines. Another reference to the maths course I did on the Open University many moons ago...

Spiritual leylines connect ancient sites such as burial chambers and standing stones. Also, cathedrals and ancient parish churches were often built on such ancient sites. They showed on this maths course how if you draw lines connecting every such "site of power" to every other such site, there are so many in the British Isles that there is no point that is not within a few metres of such a line.



When I was living in Anglesey - a land of myth, ancient wisdom and mystery - I asked why the ancient standing stone circle in Llangefni wasn't a major tourist attraction. "Silly boy, we put those Gorsedd stones up when we hosted the National Eisteddfod. We just don't tell the tourists that. They're all over Wales."

I also queried the number of monoliths in the fields on the island. "Back scratchers. When dry stone walls were replaced by barbed wire, the cows would scratch themselves on the wire and pull the fence down. So the farmer borrows a JCB and erects a big quarry stone in the field for the cows to scratch themselves. Bugger all to do with ancient folk. Just don't tell anyone I told you."

Oops. I blabbed.

Reminds me of 'Stonehenge' from Spinal Tap!

Just in case there is actually someone who hasn't hear them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqeq12TdW58

Regarding fossilised trees occurring in seemingly incongruous rock, scroll down to photo number 20 on this web page: www.lovethesepics.com - erupting volcanic paradise. I can imagine this producing very odd fossils.

These tree casts formed during the 1965 eruption, when lava flowed through forest. Where the lava came in contact with a tree, it chilled to form a solid rind surrounding the trunk, while the rest of the flow remained molten. The trees in Lava Trees State Park “were formed during a small eruption in the late 18th century. A fissure — one of the early vents of the eruption — has drainback features formed when some of the lava poured back into the fissure at the end of the eruption, a process typical of fissure eruptions. The drainback lowered the original flow surface, exhuming the lava-covered tree trunks that now stand above the flow. Tree moulds are also abundant in the park.”

Hmm... that is fascinating. One would have thought evidence of trees would be entirely obliterated, but no!

Trees on the moon?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm

These are interesting... possibly...

Greyth wrote:

These are interesting... possibly...

They're very interesting, although totally unconnected! Irish megalithic tombs and some lunar features share some superficial similarities in shape, but are vastly different sizes and have totally different causes. The tombs were built by people, and the geological (or selenological?) features on the moon are a result of meteorite impacts and lava upwellings.

The volcanic features on the moon are interesting, and potentially useful: lava tubes could provide the beginnings of ready-made underground bases, shielded from solar radiation.
http://www.moonzoo.org/Lunar_Volcanic_Features

Edit: The first astronomical image is of Dawes impact crater, on the moon: it's 18km across and over 2km deep. the second astronomical feature isn't lunar, as I first thought: it's from Mars, and is probably volcanic in origin:
http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_023304_1995

Indeed, lunar regolith itself is an effective radiation shield at a depth of a few feet. As for lunar mounds and rills being caused by lava... possibly... as for scale they come in all sizes. I would have thought it worth mounting a lunar expedition just to find out if our best guess concerning their origin is correct It has been postulated that Luna once had an atmosphere and if that is true then she may have supported life, so it is not totally inconceivable that they are artefacts/structures.

[edit] I'd like to point out that rills also seem to occur on the lunar plains/mares and that these places lack mounds. It may be that the two types of feature are unconnected [/edit]

A monolith on Phobos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIXvpjnRws