The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith
Posted on 06/12/2012 7:03:32 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Although human hunting played a part in the demise of the woolly mammoth about 10,000 years ago, homo sapiens were but bit players in a global drama involving climate change, comet impact and a multitude of other factors, scientists have found in separate studies.
Previous research had blamed their demise on tribal hunting. But new findings “pretty much dispel the idea of any one factor, any one event, as dooming the mammoths,” said Glen MacDonald, a researcher and geographer at the University of California in Los Angeles, to LiveScience.com.
In other words, hunting didn’t help, but it was not instrumental. The ancestors didn’t do it.
So what did? After thriving for 250,000 years, the huge mammals lingered on in dwarf form in the Arctic Ocean’s Wrangel Island until 3,700 years ago. Between 20,000 and 25,000 years ago, LiveScience said, the animals declined during the worst of the last major ice age, though they started to multiply in warmer interior Siberia.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com ...
It was always a stupid theory.
The knuckledragging, homo sapien haters can put this in their pipe and smoke it!
It’s a good thing some government outlawed those prehistoric SUVs. Why, they almost killed humans, too.
(Do I really need a /sarc tag?)
B.S.
Ice ages have been coming and going for a few million years now and the Mammoths rode through them with no problem.
What was the difference last time? Man.
This is just a PC attempt to resurrect the Lib favorite Noble Savage myth
It is a stupid theory.
Humans had almost zero impact on the buffalo until the arrival of two things:
The horse and the gun.
To think that stone-age humans could have decimated the mammoth population is ridiculous. An individual mammoth is just too large and powerful, human hunter time could have been way more effective against smaller prey.
“Global warming killed the mammoths.” Another piece of crap from the Leftards.
I still think cloning is the hard way, and they could probably get viable eggs and sperm from recent finds.
Can these lefties just go ahead and off themselves and be done with it? Would save a lot of time and money. Seriously.
Why couldn’t woolly mammoths just stop driving gas-guzzling personal vehicles, switch from coal to “renewables” to generate power, and stop redeveloping the land so much . . . ? (Oh wait; they were wild animals. Climate change??)
So who killed off the hundreds of other species that checked out at the same time?
I know of a few groups (incl Penn Univ) who have been warming this up for 10 years. They got the Mammoth sequence done first, just needed to complete the African elephant. So the sequencing part is done as far as I know. I haven’t heard yet about finding viable sperm or eggs, but its possible.
Then, just as everybody was getting cozy, 12,000 years ago a comet hit mid-continent and busted up the residual icesheet in Canada.
We find the debris all over the American midwest.
The ice flows down the St Lawrence valley increased flooding the North Atlantic with ice. This triggered an almost instantaneous return to deep Ice Age conditions.
1500 years later that ice melted and the interglacial climate continued on to where we are today ~ 5,000 years overdue for the next glaciation.
The Mastadons dining on grass and other herbacious delights died out rather quickly with nothing to eat. Their predators also died out.
With the big cats out of the way both North America and East Asia were opened up to human settlement.
“Climate change.”
Yeah, that’s it, “climate change.”
And it’s happening again, unless you renew my superfatted research grant.
Isn’t it amazing how many scientists come up with theories that demand huge grants in order to Save Mankind.
****human hunter time could have been way more effective against smaller prey.****
I understand baby mammoth is both tender and tasty! And they are easy to kill!
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Earth-White-Lies-Scientific/dp/1555913881
Blame it on Bush. Why not? Just as stupid an accusation as those for global warming, poverty, starvation, and lack of sunspots on the sun which are also blamed on Bush.
Never let facts get in the way of faux science.
Thank you ... a response that makes more sense then this ridiculous theory.
human hunter time could have been way more effective against smaller prey.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Teach man to fish and he could maybe feed his family for a day.
Teach man to hunt down, sautee, tenderize and deep fry a Wolly Mammoth and he can feed his village for a month.
There is no evidence the mammoths went in one big blast or any impact caused any long term or global impact.
All these big animals went extinct over an extended period of time. What shows man did it was the last remaining populations of these animals were in the remote areas where man was last to show up.
So either man did it or by an amazing coincidence where ever man showed up the climate changed and a comet hit.
That gives us 19 interglacials (10,000 years or longer) and an unknown number of interstadials (shorter than 10,000 years).
Mankind was present for at least four of the interglacials and many of the interstadials. The Mastadons thrived. The tigers thrived!
This latest situation, the Younger Dryass, was unique ~ the other periods of glaciation did not not stop and start up right away. They just stopped.
We are still in an ice age. But there are a lot fewer big cats around to stop our advances. Humans didn't kill off the cats ~ hunger killed them!
There just doesn't seem to be a pattern to the extinctions at all - camels and horses (in N. America), but not deer or elk; short-faced bears, but not grizzly bears; dire wolves, but not grey wolves. The "mega-fauna" were wiped out, but the run-of-the-mill fauna weren't.
That’s something like 500 million years ago. We are focusing on 12000 years ago.
What a good job.
Get a grant to study if rocks be come sand.
File a report.
Get the money.
Move on.
We are stupid.
You kidding right? Cause otherwise you missed the part about the comet....and of course the ever problematic issue of pole shifts
The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith
They need to get off the idea that this earth is tens of thousands or millions of years old. It simply is not, as scientists have proven time and again.
The problem is their theory of evolution, which never happened. All skeletons of species have appeared fully formed and no intermediary skeletons have ever been found, despite the desperate search for them.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks Free ThinkerNY. |
|
|
|
|
WOW, thanks for that list of posts!
But it was only the last ice age that man kind started to spread around the world.
I will give you another example, Australia
The Mega-Fauna there went extinct 50,000 years ago.
Why did they go extinct there 50,000 years ago instead of the 5,000- 10,000 here in North America?
Simple because that’s when man showed up there.
Same with The Pacific Islands 30,000 years ago, Madagascar 2000 years ago, New Zealand 1500 years ago.
When ever ancient man showed up, the Mega Fauna went extinct.
It’s a good thing some government outlawed those prehistoric SUVs. Why, they almost killed humans, too.
No, in fact, they did not. That peculiarity has been the reason so many have been looking for a cause for so many years, and why the blame has been put on mythical, nearly superhuman hunters.
/bingo
Study Jointly Led by UCSB Researcher Finds New Evidence Supporting Theory of Extraterrestrial ImpactAn 18-member international team of researchers that includes James Kennett, professor of earth science at UC Santa Barbara, has discovered melt-glass material in a thin layer of sedimentary rock in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Syria. According to the researchers, the material -- which dates back nearly 13,000 years -- was formed at temperatures of 1,700 to 2,200 degrees Celsius (3,100 to 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit), and is the result of a cosmic body impacting Earth.
University of California, Santa Barbara
Division of Institutional Advancement
June 11, 2012
These new data are the latest to strongly support the controversial Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) hypothesis, which proposes that a cosmic impact occurred 12,900 years ago at the onset of an unusual cold climatic period called the Younger Dryas. This episode occurred at or close to the time of major extinction of the North American megafauna, including mammoths and giant ground sloths; and the disappearance of the prehistoric and widely distributed Clovis culture. The researchers' findings appear today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Not to mention that almost all of the mammoth slayer stories seem to depend on this “cliff” that they somehow force the mammoth over.
I’ve been to the midwest, the Great Plains. There are places there where the nearest “cliff” big enough to stun a mammoth is probably more than 100 miles away!
Interesting.
Something large and catastrophic froze those mammoths in place. Many of them still had undigested food still in their stomachs, and their bodies were perfectly preserved in ice.
Now, what on earth can drop the air temperature so fast that it can instantly freeze something as big as a mammoth?
I don’t have a ready answer for that, but it happened. One of the more curious things, though, is that explorers haven’t found a similar number of quick-frozen humans in the same areas.
Post of the year!
Heh! *bows*
I’ve commented on this before. They are called “temperature inversions” of the severest kind. They occur when very cold upper air drops due to condensed moisture at near freezing temperatures.
When it lands on earth, because of its massive size, it kills by a literal flash freezing, all life. It freezes the lungs of living creatures which explains why the mammoths still had buttercups and other freshly eaten plants in their stomachs (not digested).
While my description might be somewhat general, I believe that it is close to what a massive temperature inversion can do.
Some holes in massive cloud formations are attributed to temperature inversions. I don’t have any more information on this except that photos of such holes show a nearly uniform circular pattern, like a donut hole does.
I would appreciate any additional information as it has been decades since I last read up on this subject.
For all they know a virulent strain of flu killed them off.
I just finished reading this book, “The Cyclle of Cosmic Catastrophes.....”, and the authors demonstrate over and over and over (ad nauseum) if fervent pieces of evidence from all over North America (particularly) that there was, in fact, some impact that sprayed debris across the continent. The author also points out that it was not only the large mammals that disappeared at precisely the same time, but tiny little rodents that would be pretty hard for man to extinguish. This article is barely a snippet of what is in the book. It left me as a believer.
In AFTER the It was aliens dude. :(
A few thoughts.
First, humans have been very effective at wiping out large, dangerous animals in many other circumstances. Everywhere we show up, whether it is Northern Europe, the Americas, or Australia, most of the large, dangerous animals die off shortly thereafter. I doubt that is a coincidence. The example of the buffalo is flawed because they were not very dangerous to humans, and because the sheer size of the buffalo population was massive compared to the amount of mammoths that could be supported in a similar sized region. I’d guess we’re talking on the order of thousands to one.
Your argument about the effectiveness of hunting large vs small prey is based on false assumptions. Small prey is faster and more elusive than large prey. It takes more time to hunt them, better technology and skill to effectively kill them, and they provide only a small amount of protein for the effort. Humans weigh the calculus of all this, and usually take down the biggest prey they can manage, to get the greatest return on investment. For example, Eskimos subsist on whale meat, not on seals or fish, even though they would seem to be the easier targets. Same thing with your example of the buffalo. Hunting rabbits or deer might seem easier than going after buffalo with spears or bow and arrow, yet we had whole societies of humans who decided to get most of their meat from following the buffalo herds.
Also, look at the example of other top tier predators like lions. They’ll kill anything they can to satisfy their massive need for protein, but their hunting behavior is quite different for large and small prey. They’ll stalk a herd of gazelles or antelope they come across, to get a quick meal, but they are lucky to grab one of them, and that meat will satisfy the needs of the pride for only a very short time. When they encounter a giraffe, on the other hand, they will herd the beast to a battleground where they can gain the upper hand, and then spend hours in mortal combat with it, taking much greater risks, in order to secure a much larger meal that can provide them food for days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
