This site focuses on Madame Blavatsky and her teaching - Theosophy. It features an introduction to Theosophy,              study aids, research tools, original text, supporting evidence, membership, and visitor interaction.

Blavatsky.net

Supranova and Atlantis

 the Culprit


Brian,

I will take as a given that an axial shift of the earth occurred and that it was caused by a celestial intruder. Comets, meteors and asteroids are not big enough.

The size of the object would be on the order of the size of the earth. If it is too small then it doesn't have a big enough effect and it gets "consumed" by the earth. If it is too big then the earth gets "consumed" by it.

Also it should be moving at a very fast velocity. As it races through space it acquires electromagnetic charge. The charge allows the intruder to "couple" with the electromagnetic field of the earth and change its axis. The charge also works to prevent an actual collision of physical bodies. The two objects more bounce off each other in space.

Novae erupt about 40 per year in our galaxy.

However, it should be bigger. It should be a supernovae. Then it can have the magnitude and the necessary velocity to make a difference. The speed is critical. As I remember it, a supernovae chunk can travel at up to one fifth of the speed of light - very very fast. But maybe Shawn can give an more accurate number. Also, maybe Shawn can say more surely, but as I remember it, a supernovae is thousands of times more powerful than a mere novae explosion.

Concerning a supernovae chunk, Cataclysm writes:

"Certainly, on such a lengthy journey through an all-pervading plasma of dissociated ions and electrons, any such high-speed object could be expected to acquire a high electromagnetic potential in addition to any electrical or magnetic field it already possessed. Such an object would be extremely dangerous." (Cataclysm p  209)

Supernovae erupt about 1 every 30 years in our galaxy. In the last 15,000 years some 500 supernovae have erupted in our galaxy. At least 5 have exploded between 17,000 BC and 13,500 BC.

One of these, star G263.9-3.3, exploded unusually close at a distance of 45 light years from the solar system. It is a likely candidate. It is called the Vela supernovae. The date of that explosion is estimated at some 14,300 years or about 11,000 years ago. Both of these dates fall in the "right" time period. If the supernovae chunk traveled at only 1/50 of the speed of light it could reach earth at about the right time. So, following the suggestion of Cataclysm (p209) I will say that a chunk from the Vela supernovae was the culprit.

There is one other piece of evidence that specifically a supernovae chunk has entered the solar system at the time in question.

There is a Kuiper belt outside the orbit of Pluto. It consists of perhaps 1,000 objects in orbit around the sun. Various estimates suggest the biggest of the pieces are 100's of miles in diameter and that collectively their mass is suitable for a planet-sized object. Now there is something highly coincidental.

"The gamma-ray spectrometer on the Third High Energy Astronomical Observatory satelitte (HEO 3) has lately detected a high concentration of cloud of Aluminium-26 (AL) in space, surrounding the solar system. AL is a radioactive isotope with a half-life of about one million years, and, according to theoretical studies, is readily produced in supernova explosions. Ultimately AL decays to Magnesium-26, but as this cloud is apparently still very much Aluminium-26 and not Magnesium-26, its decay is not very far advanced and suggests that the cloud may be as young as a mere 10,000 years." ( Cataclysm p 210).

Cataclysm adopts the name from Greek myth (for good reason) of  "Phaeton" to name this intruder. It then says:

"On the basis of the above -mentioned details, we suggest that Phaeton was spawned in an astronomically-near supernova explosion, and that Phaeton was a portion of exploded astral matter. We further suggest that, being of that nature, Phaeton precipitated a second astronomically far smaller explosion on coming into confrontation with the combined gravitational and electromagnetic fields of the huge outer planets of the solar system, and that this produced the Aluminium-26 cloud now known to exist on the edge of the solar system.  The above-cited detail that the astronomically-close Vela supernova exploded some time between 14,300 and 11,000 years ago indicates that, allowing for the time taken by Phaeton to traverse interstellar space between the point of its original disruption - 45 light years distant - and the outer confines of the solar system, the planetary derangements under discussion probably took place approximately 11,500 years ago!" p 210.

So Brian, there you have it. The culprit was Phaeton in Greek terms or Vela supernovae in scientific term.

Of course there is more detail to examine concerning exactly what effects this would have on earth. Also, now that we know what happened, things fall into place. Mythology makes sense. We can explore the effect of such an encounter on the crust and how this explains all the details that have been described so far. All of them.

Here is the most important effect. As the Phaeton approached earth it gravitationally pulled the waters of the oceans toward it - like the moon causes tides. But it did this very extremely so. Phaeton was much much bigger than our moon.

That would have been very bad but what happened next was the horror of horrors. After Phaeton reached its closest point to Earth -- it kept on going! That released all the water from the gravitational pull of Phaeton. The standing wave returned !!! Unthinkable. Erratics were hurled a thousand miles. Rock surfaces were polished, striations carved and Till deposited - all from North to North West toward  South to South East around the globe. Existing topography did not stand in the way of the "global tsunami". The crust of the earth heaved and buckled, mountains chains around the earth rose up together, continental land masses sank, species extinguisted. Mammoths flash frozen standing up with food in their mouth as they were hurled from a warm to permanently frigid climate. The Carolinas and more, sprayed with exploded debris from the sky. The oceans rolled like puddles into the new topography. Poseidonis sank 2 miles deep. The Pleistocene epoch completed in its entirety in a geological instant rather than 2 million years. The axis of the earth wobbled and restabilized. We were lucky the earth survived. All in about a "day and a night" as Plato phrased it. (How did he know?) Damage that boggles and staggers the mind. And we find yet toda the debris of that broken world around us.

That event was remembered in mythology around the globe. Some myths even refer to the on-coming wall of water! Remembered for 12,000 years!

Also because of the electromagnetic charge, bolts of lightning were exchanged with Earth. This is seen in myth. It is seen in remnants of burned forests. (This paragraph added for Lenny to help decide between two models.)

Yet despite all this and the other troubles not yet documented here -- humanity survived! A few at first. Then more. We are the survivors of that calamity! Now we can learn our history!

But there is a detail concerning how this relates to Theosophy. Theosophy knew about this disaster and preserved in its memory a most important item concerning this event. In my view it warrants all this scientific detail just to get to the next letter.

Reed Carson

Comet Hit Alantis?


Mauri,

You wrote Someone might know if an impact by a comet or large meteorite might've caused the abrupt transition around 10,000 BC.


This is the reasonable next question. I had to develop the flow of thought to catch up to your question.

Comets first. There are an estimated 100,000 comets moving with the Sun as focus. Some have Jupiter as focus. Most have very long time periods for their orbits (over 100 years).

The size of the comet head can be very large - 20,000 to 200,000 miles. That maximum size makes the comet larger than the Sun. However, the mass of the comet lies in its nucleus. The nucleus varies in size from 1 to 20 miles. Now the big "however", the nucleus is almost all dust. So it has no potential to do this kind of damage.

Meteors next. There are billions of loose meteors flying around the universe. The largest has been up to a mile in diameter.

Interestingly,

"The advent of satellite space photography has revealed numerous previously unsuspected land-forms suggestive of impact by very large meteors on various occasions throughout Earth history. These features which have constituted the central theme of at least two full-length books, clearly show that on impacting these meteors perpetrated widespread damage, and that while some are geologically ancient others are surprisingly recent." Cataclysm p 201.

One of those was "The Bombarded Earth" (London) by R. Gallant, pub in 1964. The other was The Mysterious Carolina Bays by H. Savage, published in 1982 in by University Carolina Press. These sound like interesting books. I will say more on the Carolina Bays below.

Asteroids next. Asteroids are in a belt between Mars and Jupiter. There may be up to 80,000 of them. The biggest is 625 miles in diameter. At least eight of them cross earth's orbit. The biggest such is Eros with a diameter of a mere 6 miles. It has come within 14,000,000 miles. That is "close" in astronomical terms.

But even asteroids will not tilt the axis. It is as though a particle of dust fell on your table. It would not knock your table over.

Those Carolina Bays referenced above are interesting. To start with these are not bays and they are not only in the Carolinas.

There are some 500,000 of them on the Atlantic seaboard of the US centered in South Carolina but extending from New Jersey to Florida.

They are oval indentations in the ground. They range in size up to 4 miles in length. 140,000 of them are 500 ft or longer. The interesting item is that all those in a given geographical area are aligned in the same direction. That direction shifts slightly in a systematic way as one moves from one area to another.

Interestingly these "bays" tend to be not noticeable from the ground. It was not until the 1930's with the advent of aerial photography that they came to be recognized. (Although they had been mentioned first in 1847.)

Henry Savage jr, has suggested these features were formed at the "end of the mammoth" age i.e. "end of the pleistocene". It seems highly unlikely that this is a coincidence with window of time we are examining. They are related to our "event".

It appears likely that there are also impacts on the underwater continental shelf where other indentations have formed.

Such bays are found elsewhere - all with the strangely parallel orientations. There are 25,000 in Alaska near Point Barrow up to 9 miles long, more in Harrison Bay area in Alaska, and oddly enough, some in Bolivia up to 12.5 miles long, and some in Netherlands though these are less obvious due to farming over them.

The existence of these remains in the Atlantic off the US has encouraged the Atlantologist Otto Muck (pronounced "mook") to raise an hypothesis. He suggests the similar objects that fell into the Atlantic created a tsunami that engulfed Atlantis. I have his book on order and not received it yet so I cannot comment in any more detail.

His hypothesis is a good one. The tsunamis would be adequate to inundate the Atlantean civilization. But it appears to be insufficient. First the tidal wave itself would leave Atlantis remaining above water - not submerging in a "day and a night". So I presume he hypothesizes that the impact on the ocean floor caused disturbances that also caused the land of Atlantis to sink. Again I don't have his book yet.

But there remains a larger problem with Muck's hypothesis - it is wholly inadequate to explain the world-wide disaster that must be accounted for. So his explanation must be only a part of the larger solution to the facts on the ground.

Reed Carson

Atlantis And Cataclysm

The Suddenness Of Events


You wrote:

Reed,

Just an interesting note. Mammoth remains were recently found in Maine and are displayed at the State Museum.

Of course the mammoth remains found in Maine are interesting in themselves. They also do make a significant other point: the finding of mammoths is not limited to Siberia. This will end up being a relevant point for this exploration of Atlantis.

REPLY

Here is a quote that may relate to the animal in Maine.

"While the northern animals were frozen solid in ground almost instantly reduced to permafrost conditions, the mastodons, were entombed in great avalanches of mud and salts that, upon consolidating, often preserved many of their soft parts and sometimes even their stomach contents." [Cataclysm p 122]

Also after you published your letter I have noted some other creatures found within driving distance from where I live. They have been found in Orange County, New York state in 1845, Hackett's Town New Jersey, Jamestown New York in August 1871, Monmouth County, New Jersey in 1823, Long Branch New Jersey found in 1823, and another in Newburgh New York. All sites relatively close to home for me.

But what I am really concerned with is the issue of suddenness of the disaster that the Pleistocene age was created to resolve. How really abrupt was the disaster. To pursue I want to take a factor that is fairly known to the list - the frozen Siberian mammoth - and build upon that to explore the larger issue of suddenness.

For many years I thought there was only one frozen carcass found. Now I have explained that the first one was found in 1772. Even that is disputed. There are some records that suggest earlier. It is said that the Tunguse, living in Siberia, have used unfreezing mammoth carcasses for food for 1600 years.

"Based on the number of bones found and the use of old ivory continuing even today, the original number of the mammoths in Siberia and Alaska is estimated to be several hundred thousands, maybe even millions, of animals." [From Darwin was Wrong p 81]

Only ivory tusks that are from a recently deceased elephant or from a frozen mammoth are useful for carving. Ivory carving requires relatively fresh material. So there has been a huge market in recently unfrozen mammoth tusks for a long time. I seem to remember 20,000 such tusks in 3 decades but I suspect I somehow have my figures wrong. Here is a quote I just found:

"The larger part of the ivory, used for carving in Eastern Asia, even today comes from the large ivory deposits in Siberia. These consist of tusks of long extinct mammoths." [ibid p 79. published in 1998].

I don't seem able to find my Mammoth material at the moment but I have read startling figures claiming something like half the trade in ivory has come from Siberian sources of frozen mammoths in a significant number of decades in recent times past.

These frozen mammoths have been found in a wide area - some 3,000 miles from Siberia to Alaska. So we have many animals over a wide area.

Now to stomach contents.

Many people on this list I guess are aware that undigested buttercups have been found in the stomachs of the mammoths. Lets consider the buttercups first. They grow in a warmer climate than Siberia. We have also found in their stomachs undigested grasses that are known to grow ONLY in more moderate climates.

Of course a problem develops. To freeze a mammoth so fast that it does not rot and instead its stomach contents still remain undigested requires a VERY fast freeze. How could it have happened?

But whatever happened, happened faster than that. In 1900 a frozen mammoth was found in the Berezovka River. The unusual part was that there was half-chewed food in the animal's mouth. The animal did not have time to swallow before being overcome. The animal was found in upright position.

Mammal skin:

Often one sees pictures of the mammoths in todays science textbooks that represent a reconstructed image. What one usually sees is a winter type environment in the picture. But this is not correct. The mammoths did not have fur. They had straggly thin hair. It was not enough to keep them warm. Moreover, their skin did not have the proper oil for a cold climate. So they were not suited to a cold climate and the pictures are in error.

We can note that a mammoth needs to eat a lot of vegetation. A cold climate does not provide enough vegetation to supply the food for the mammoth. So the mammoth had been living in a warm climate not a frigid one.

Some more oddities. It wasn't only mammoths that had frozen.

Rhinoceros' were also found perfectly frozen. They are found today only in warmer climates.

Other animals found frozen include: horses, rabbits, squirrels, wolverines, a vole and a lynx along with numerous more species. All the list of animals lived or live today in warmer climates.

Plants were also frozen.

"While surveying the New Siberian Islands, Arctic explorer Baron Eduard von Toll discovered the remains of a sabretooth- tiger and those of a fruit tree with an original height of about 88 feet. The tree had suddenly and completely been preserved by the ice, including its ripe fruits, green leaves, roots and seeds, virtually instantly frozen. Nowadays, the only plants to be found there are creepers." [ibid p 80]

There is one last item called "muck" that also supports the suddenness. I will quote at some length in order to convey the point and then end the letter.

"Coincident with this dreadful slaughter upon the land was the deposition far inland of myriads of contemporary marine shells, and the stranding at great elevations of marine mammals such as whales, porpoises, walruses and seals. Elsewhere, vast forests were flattened and buried under equally vast accumulations of sand or mud or piled up in broken and twisted heaps.. At some localities plant remains were packed so densely and in such abundance as to form lignite (soft brown coal akin to peat) beds of great extent, while at others animal and plant remains were mixed together in inexpressible confusion as heterogeneous masses. In Alaska, for example, thick frozen deposits of volcanic ash, silts, sands boulders, lenticles and ribbons of unmelted ice, and countless relics of late Pleistocene animals and plants lie jumbled together in no discernible order, This amazing deposit, usually referred to as 'muck', has been described by Dr Rainey as containing: 'enormous numbers of frozen bones extinct animals, such as the mammoth, mastodon, super bison and horse, as well as brush, stumps, moss and freshwater molluscs.'

Hibben described these deposits in very similar language:

'In many places, Alaskan muck is packed with animal bones and debris in trainload lots. Bones of mammoths, mastodons, several kinds of bison, horses, wolves, bears, and lions tell a story of a faunal population ... within this frozen mass lie the twisted parts of animals and trees intermingled with lenses of ice and layers of peat and mosses. It looks as though in the midst of some cataclysmic catastrophe of ten thousand years ago the whole Alaskan world of living animals and plants was suddenly frozen in mid-motion in a grim charade.'

In another publication, the same author commented:

"Although the formation of the deposits of muck is not clear, there is ample evidence that at least portions of this material were deposited under catastrophic conditions. Mammal remains are for the most part dismembered and disarticulated, even though some fragments yet retain, in their frozen state, portions of ligaments, skin, hair and flesh. Twisted and torn trees are piled in splintered masses ... at least four considerable layers of volcanic ash may be traced in these deposits, although they are extremely warped and distorted."

All of this evidence suggests a global earth-wide sudden catastrophe that was almost instant. When we solve the larger problem of this enormous disaster, then we can more easily solve the lesser problem of the sinking of the island of Atlantis. Indeed, to make room for Atlantis within the science of geology, we need to loosen the grip of the existing paradigm of geology - as I hope we agree has been done - and then resolve the nature of this disaster. Then there is room for Theosophy's Atlantis within the data of geology.

Reed Carson

Atlantis - Shift of Axis


When the evidence on the ground is coupled with the rapid freezing described in the last letter then it is clear that the evidence shows there has been a shift in the axis of the earth. This has very interesting ramifications.

1. It further defines what we must seek as the physical cause for the disaster. It must be something capable of causing an axis shift.

2. It adds reasonableness to the numerous references to axis shift in the SD. In some cases the exploration of science up to this point adds more than reasonableness - it adds confirmation of the SD.

But suppose we first consider some aspects of an axis shift.

According to traditional theory a shift in the axis is not possible. It would violate the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The same law that makes a gyroscope behave like a gyroscope makes the earth retain its angular momentum and acts against a tilt in the axis.

There are 2 quotes of interest here from Cataclysm:

"Almost all authorities are as one, therefore, in concluding that only a powerful external agent could have altered the inclination of the Earth's axis." p 194

And further:

"Among the terrestrial effects listed by almost every investigator of a theoretical near-collision has been a shift in the inclination of Earth's axis. Authorities of the calibre of Runcorn and Mulholland have admitted that axial shifts could be expected to occur on such occasions." p 191

The most serious reason for the shift is that the electromagnetic fields involved in the near-colllision would intereact. But I am getting ahead of myself.

From the above we see that science is beginning to approach and contemplate the unthinkable - an axial shift. HPB was right again. Science is approaching the SD.


We do find references to axis shifts in ancient literature and mythology. For example:

"The ancient Egyptian Ipuwer Papyrus, for example, describes terrible devastation created by an early cataclysm which "turned the "Earth upside down"". [ Lange, H.). (transwl). 1903. "papyrus Ipuwer", sber preuss akad wiss, p 610]

The Ermitage Papyrus, now preserved in St. Petersburg, refers to a similar ancient world convulsion. [Gardiner, A H. 1914 "New literary works from Ancient Egypt", J Egypt Archaeol, vol 1, pp100-6]

A third Egyptian papyrus tells how the Earth was nearly destroyed by fire and water during a tremendous celestial upheaval long ago when the south became north and the world turned over. [Lange, H.). (transl). "Der Magiswche Papyrus Harris", K dansk Vidensk Selsk Skr, p 58]


Now the quotes from the SD. All of these have added vindication in varying degrees:

The first quote shows a very striking confirmation that the SD says Poseidonis was destroyed by an axial shift !!

"It is the submersion of the great Atlantis which is the most interesting. It is of this cataclysm that the old records (See the “Book of Enoch”) say that “the ends of the Earth got loose"; and upon which the legends and allegories of Vaivasvata, Xisuthrus, Noah, Deukalion and all the tutti quanti of the Elect saved, have been built. Tradition, taking into no account the difference between sidereal and geological phenomena, calls both indifferently “deluges.” Yet there is a great difference. The cataclysm which destroyed the huge continent of which Australia is the largest relic, was due to a series of subterranean convulsions and the breaking asunder of the ocean floors. That which put an end to its successor—the fourth continent—was brought on by successive disturbances in the axial rotation. It began during the earliest tertiary periods, and, continuing for long ages, carried away successively the last vestige of Atlantis, with the exception, perhaps, of Ceylon and a small portion of what is now Africa. It changed the face of the globe, and no memory of its flourishing continents and isles, of its civilizations and sciences, remained in the annals of history, save in the Sacred records of the East.

Hence, Modern Science denies Atlantis and its existence." (SDii314)


Perhaps sometime I will get around to showing some suggestive evidence that Lemuria was destroyed by fire as indicated below. But not right now.

Thus lost continents are officially suspected. That worlds (also Races) are periodically destroyed by fire (volcanoes and earthquakes) and water, in turn, and renewed, is a doctrine as old as man. Manu, Hermes, the Chaldees, all antiquity believed in this. Twice already has the face of the globe been changed by fire, and twice by water, since man appeared on it. As land needs rest and renovation, new forces, and a change for its soil, so does water. Thence arises a periodical redistribution of land and water, change of climates, etc., all brought on by geological revolution, and ending in a final change in the axis. Astronomers may pooh-pooh the idea of a periodical change in the behaviour of the globe’s axis, and smile at the conversation given in the Book of Enoch between Noah and his “grandfather” Enoch; the allegory is, nevertheless, a geological and an astronomical fact: there is a secular change in the inclination of the earth’s axis, and its appointed time is recorded in one of the great Secret Cycles. As in many other questions, Science is gradually moving toward our way of thinking. (SDii726)


Another interesting connection of axial shift and destruction of Atlantis:

Precisely so; and the Secret Doctrine teaches that that “order of nature” has been thus altered, and the series of the Earth’s humanities too. For, as the angel Uriel tells Enoch: “Behold, I have showed thee all things, O Enoch; and all things have I revealed to thee. Thou seest the Sun, the Moon, and those which conduct the stars in Heaven, which cause all their operations, seasons, and arrivals to return. In the days of sinners THE YEARS SHALL BE SHORTENED. . . . the moon shall change its laws, etc.” (chap. lxxix). In those days also, years before the great Deluge that carried away the Atlanteans and changed the face of the whole earth—because “the earth (on its axis) became inclined”— nature, geologically, astronomically, and cosmically in general, could not have been the same, just because the Earth had inclined. (SDii533-4)


But it [esoteric philosophy] teaches distinctly that after the first geological disturbance in the Earth’s axis which ended in the sweeping down to the bottom of the Seas of the whole second Continent, with its primeval races—of which successive “Earths” or Continents Atlantis was the fourth—there came another disturbance by the axis resuming as rapidly its previous degree of inclination; when the Earth was indeed raised once more out of the Waters, and—as above so it is below; and vice versâ.(SDii369)


Even a section of a stanza refers to the same though this may be a different deluge:

5. THE WHEEL WHIRLED FOR THIRTY CRORES (of years, or 300,000,000*). IT CONSTRUCTED RUPAS (forms). SOFT STONES, THAT HARDENED (minerals); HARD PLANTS, THAT SOFTENED (vegetation). VISIBLE FROM INVISIBLE, INSECTS AND SMALL LIVES (sarisripa, swapada). SHE (the Earth) SHOOK THEM OFF HER BACK, WHENEVER THEY OVERRAN THE MOTHER (a). AFTER THIRTY CRORES OF YEARS, SHE TURNED ROUND. SHE LAID ON HER BACK; ON HER SIDE. . . . SHE WOULD CALL NO SONS OF HEAVEN, SHE WOULD ASK NO SONS OF WISDOM. SHE CREATED FROM HER OWN BOSOM. SHE EVOLVED WATER-MEN TERRIBLE AND BAD (b). (STANZA II 5
(a) This relates to an inclination of the axis—of which there were several—to a consequent deluge and chaos on Earth (having, however, no reference to primeval chaos), in which monsters, half-human, half-animal, were generated. We find it mentioned in the “Book of the Dead,” and also in the Chaldean account of creation, on the Cutha Tablets, however mutilated. (SDii52)


Thus, since Vaivasvata Manu’s Humanity appeared on this Earth, there have already been four such axial disturbances; when the old continents—save the first one—were sucked in by the oceans, other lands appeared, and huge mountain chains arose where there had been none before! The face of the Globe was completely changed each time; the survival of the fittest nations and races was secured through timely help; and the unfit ones—the failures—were disposed of by being swept oft the earth. Such sorting and shifting does not happen between sunset and sunrise, as one may think, but requires several thousands of years before the new house is set in order. (SDii330)

Obviously the reference to several thousands of years must be considered carefully. The erratics and frozen cadavers indicate speed. I presume it is the "sorting and shifting" that takes time.


This quote I have saved for last. When considered in detail, the movements of the Earth today are actually much more complex than we normally know. But this statement of HPB's should keep us on our flexible toes.

According to the old teaching, the axis of the earth gradually changes its inclination to the ecliptic, and at the period referred to, this inclination was such that a polar day lasted during the whole period of the earth’s revolution about the sun, when a kind of twilight of very short duration intervened; after which the polar land resumed its position directly under the solar rays. This may be contrary to astronomy as now taught and understood: but who can say that changes in the motion of the earth, which do not take place now, did not occur millions of years back? (SDii292)

Reed Carson

The "Ice Age"


Brian,

As suggested in the previous letter, we need to examine the usefulness of the ice-age theory in explaining the facts on the ground - in particular, the erratics, striations, polished surfaces, and till. Because of the critical nature of this material, this explanation is a little longer than usual.

However there is a shocking question to be asked before that - did the ice-age as commonly taught actually happen - or not?

The standard proposal is that a massive ice sheet covered the top of the globe reaching from the north pole down to say New York City and down to the straits of Gilbraltar. The Northern version is presented as more extensive than a Southern polar cap.

A first and perhaps prime fact you need to know is that ice does not go uphill. Water doesn't and ice doesn't and glaciers don't. Even over level ground ice doesn't go very far. Specifically it goes up to 7 miles on level ground. Ice just can't push ice further than that. If pressure is applied to push more than 7 miles worth of ice then it gets crushed or melts instead.

"If a solid be so heavy and so big that it requires more than a certain force to move it, it will crush rather than move, that is to say, the whole thrust will be dissipated by the object being reduced to pulp, or even liquid, which will flow away rather than move en masse." [ Howorth, H.H. 1905 Ice or Water? vol 1, p383]

A look at the map shows that the ice would have to be pushed much farther than 7 miles.

With just this info you can see, the ice-age didn't happen!

In the early 1800's the proponents of the ice-age were aware that if there were a massive ice sheet then there would of necessity have been very large mountains at the North Pole, from which the ice could have slid down to cover a large part of the earth. They must have been very high mountains, right? Science was in fact so sure of this that those polar mountains were assumed to have existed without any doubt.

Here is the catch. Science has now examined the North Pole for those huge mountains and there has not been a trace found of them!

It gets worse. It was not long before science found evidence that there had been an "interglacial" period when it was warm. Then more interglacial periods were found. The proposed length of the pleistocene finally reached over 2 million years for its assumed length. For each interglacial period it was assumed those polar mountains dropped in height. Then they went back up. So what we actually have is yo-yo polar mountains bobbing up and down over 2 million years. They had to be there. Yet now there is not a trace of them.

Are you doubting yet the ice-age?

The ice-age was first presented with much credit by Agassiz in 1840. He studied the Alps. There was something he did not know that we now know. The Alps did not attain the bulk of their current height until the end of the ice-age! Now they are some 15,000 feet high. Prior to that rise they were only some 2,000 to 3,000 feet.

Also the mountains of Scandinavia - important shedders of ice in the theory - did not have their current altitude during the ice age. In general the ice age theorists were assuming that the current topography was the one in effect during the pleistocene event. But as I have indicated earlier their assumption of a constant topography is very seriously in error. What does this do to the ice-age theory? Are you beginning to wonder why you have not heard these simple facts?

There are numerous other smaller issues.

The erratics are often sharp edged. This means that their dislocation occurred quickly. That dislocation was not caused by the slow grinding of glaciers.

In many places there was supposed to have been glacier action but it is absent. For example, in Siberia and Alaska, in places where ice is thought to have passed by, there are still standing thin rock pinnacles. Thick ice would have ground them to a pulp and not left them standing.There are broken stumps and roots of large trees that are frozen into position along with their original leaves, flowers, and fruits. Thick passing ice would have swept them away instead. But they are still standing. North of Siberia many thousands still stand.

In Arctic Canada there are marine shells found at high altitudes. If a glacier had placed by there as asserted then the shells would have been crushed.

There are many instances of areas that ice theorists claim have been glaciated but evidence of that glaciation cannot be found. For example, there should be glacial deposits on the floor of the Barents Sea, north of Norway. But none have ever been found. In several cases in the North Sea, if the glaciation had come from Scandinavia as claimed we would see evidence of movement from North East to South West. Instead the evidence shows movement from North West to South West.

Many mountains and hills in the northern hemisphere have their northern sides only scored and striated from top to bottom. So we are to believe that as ice slowly climbed up the surface (which it can't do)it left these marks but on the other side, perhaps going down fast gravel and till that is on the northern and northwestern side of mountains appears to be "plastered up" against the hillsides with "great force". The boulders are rammed into the hillsides.

So we have places that the ice is claimed to have reached but never did. We have the opposite. We have erratics in places where the theory says the ice never reached! For example, there are large erratics in the Sahara Desert, on the Mongolian plains, and in subtropical Uruguay.

Here is another kind of problem:

"Eroded and fragmentary shells occur within the 'drift' deposits on Moel Tryfaen, a mountain in North Wales rising 1,300 ft (400m) above sea level. Perplexingly the species represented include not only northern but also temperate and southern forms adapted to very varied habitats. Some required deep and others shallow water, some sandy and others muddy water, and some were peculiar to shingly and others to a bare rocky environment." p 46 Cataclysm.

Ice would not have brought together such a collection. (Of course water might have.)

In others cases we have to ask, why are there erratics at the top of the mountains but not on the lower ground?

Let that rest the case. The 2 million year long Pleistocene Epoch (ice-age) did not happen.


You may find this passage from Cataclysm! to be particularly helpfulin offering an informed modern perspective:

"More up-to-date views of the Ice Age world, in discarding the near-hemispheric ice-sheets of the earlier theorists, have replaced those with a series of much smaller fluctuating ice-sheets radiating out from separate northern ice domes, with ice-free regions, some little more than corridors, existing between them. The retention of the term 'glacial', initially devised to accurately reflect the nature of the icy model postulated by nineteenth century glacialists, and its application to modern Ice Age concepts, although technically correct, unfortunately still tends to perpetuate a false (the discarded)panorama for interested modern lay-readers as yet familiar only with the older nineteenth century Ice Age doctrines. Certainly very few of the multitude of facts and details nullifying the earlier views which we are about to review have percolated down to them. ... Accordingly, much of what follows, though factually correct, may at first seem not merely novel but startling and perhaps even disturbing, as cherished conventions fracture and totter." p 39 Cataclysm (available at Seekerbooks in the late fall.)

To put it more succinctly "... the notion of the Ice Age can never have been more than a grand illusion". p 39 Cataclysm.

Let me add one little oddity to this list. There does appear to have been a significant drop in temperature at 10,000BC along with some ice formation from 10,000 BC to 8,000 BC. Particulates in the air may have caused this. Ironic that the extra ice that did form was just after the end of the ice age.


At this point it may be useful to note a quote from HPB. She says in SDii71:

"Moreover, what matters it that science places the birth of man in the "pre- or post- glacial drift," if we are told at the same time that the so-called "ice age" is simply a long succession of ages which "shaded without abrupt change of any kind into what is termed the human or Recent period ... the overlapping of geological periods having been the rule from the beginning of time." The later "rule" only results in the still more puzzling, even if strictly scientific and correct, information, that "even to-day man is contemporary with the ice-age in the Alpine valleys and in the Finmark."

Now if you read that carefully - rereading it as necessary - she is not supporting the ice age! Instead she is mocking it! She is saying that if the reasoning of the scientist's is correct then we are still in the ice age.

But she is even more striking. She says the 'so-called "ice age" '. Why does she say the "so-called"? Generally in a context such as this, that is what people say to indicate they disbelieve in some alleged thing. Now the next and related point. Those quotes around "ice age" are hers. Why does she put the term "ice age" in quotes?? There is no obvious reason except that she knows that there is something inaccurate about it.

So a question is raised. Does she warrant another vindication for knowing that the ice age as commonly considered, did not happen? Is it surprising she said this? How did she know?

Where does this leave us? First, the ice-age as commonly conceived did not happen. Secondly, if it had happened - even to the extend commonly conceived - it still would be inadequate to explain all of the facts on the ground - the erratics, striations, polished surfaces and till. So then where are we?

Back to square one. Science has some fast talking to do.

Reed Carson


Support this site by visiting our donation page
Site copyright © 1996- by Estela Carson-Priede