China: Ancient Pyramids + Explosions: "Underground Forests in Mystery Holes of Guangxi"

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: ArMaP
Dust clouds covering the whole planet for a relatively long time would have to eventually land somewhere. That would mean those particles should exist around the whole planet and the layer they would form could easily be dated to more or less that time period, so yes, it's possible for science to recognize something like that, like in the event of a huge volcano eruption.

Indeed. We can date ancient volcanic eruptions from the traces left in ice cores.

For example, the Mount Toba eruption ~75,000 year ago

cp.copernicus.org...

We can prove the Storegga tsunami (~8,000 years ago) from deposits left along British coastlines

www.researchgate.net...

Well, are you 100% sure that there's NOT similar evidence for the Younger Dryas Event, having massive dust clouds?

Considering there's not even an exact date for the Event, nor a consensus of what the Event even was, and there's not an exact range of dates for the resulting time period... and also considering that it's a relatively uncommon topic...

^Considering all THAT, I'm extremely doubtful that anyone here can have definitive knowledge that there's NOT such evidence...

And honestly, isn't the quoted post basically ASSUMING that there's no such evidence, and making a big deal out of that assumption... without even looking IF there is such evidence, or not?






...ALSO the Impact Theory (as the cause of the Younger Dryas Event) is already a mainstream theory. I just quoted information about it, in an earlier post:

It's not a fringe theory. It's a normal explanation, within normal mainstream science. It's not a UNANIMOUSLY-accepted theory, but it's one of the MAIN POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS for what triggered the Younger Dryas Event.

So if you guys think there's a lack of evidence, your real problem is with the mainstream science community, for accepting the Impact Theory as ONE possible reason for the Younger Dryas Event. It's an accepted theory within mainstream science, so apparently your issues are against mainstream science.







But of course, let's be honest, you guys probably aren't... actually convinced of the LACK of evidence of the Impact Theory...

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: JamesChessman

-5c is not cold, heck government heating allowances don't kick in unless its -7c or below for 7 days. -10c is a warm and comfortable day here in January to March.

-5 Mean annual temperature, not the temperature during Winter.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

Well, are you 100% sure that there's NOT similar evidence for the Younger Dryas Event, having massive dust clouds?

Considering there's not even an exact date for the Event, nor a consensus of what the Event even was, and there's not an exact range of dates for the resulting time period... and also considering that it's a relatively uncommon topic...

But that's the point: if there was a massive dust cloud, it would have left deposits in the polar ice sheets, glaciers and, indeed, ocean beds, around the world, and from those we would be able to date it. Albeit, even with events this recent we can't actually pinpoint the exact year!

...ALSO the Impact Theory (as the cause of the Younger Dryas Event) is already a mainstream theory. I just quoted information about it, in an earlier post:

It's not a fringe theory. It's a normal explanation, within normal mainstream science. It's not a UNANIMOUSLY-accepted theory, but it's one of the MAIN POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS for what triggered the Younger Dryas Event.

Yes, it's an accepted hypothesis - one I have been following since it was first proposed and was initially persuaded by, but have since had my doubts raised by conflicting and contrary evidence. However, the hypothesis is for an impact to have occurred on the Laurentian ice sheet. So, if it did occur, there wouldn't have been any big global dust clouds anyway ....

In other words, the lack of evidence of global dust clouds does not necessarily preclude the possibility that an impact caused the YD. But it does preclude the possibility of global dust clouds having occurred.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So if people want to debate whether it was a doomsday or not... we are literally talking about THE LAST ICE AGE.

It makes no difference.

I think people must not be realizing that, or else it would be impossible to ACTUALLY be arguing about whether the Ice Age was a period of destruction, or not... lol.

It wasn't a period of destruction, it was a period of cold weather.

Low temperatures may kill some life forms (specially those that aren't capable of moving) but it doesn't kill all life, even in the colder regions, we can still see that with the amount of life that exists in the poles.

All the other life forms that are capable of moving a few hundred metres or even less per day were perfectly capable of moving away from the cold weather, like many do in Winter.

If we were talking about earthquakes, then yes, that's destruction.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

But that's the point: if there was a massive dust cloud, it would have left deposits in the polar ice sheets, glaciers and, indeed, ocean beds, around the world, and from those we would be able to date it. Albeit, even with events this recent we can't actually pinpoint the exact year!

Nope. The point is: Why are you seemingly implying that there's a definitive lack of evidence?

I don't believe that you've exhaustively studied the topic and come to that conclusion.

Rather, I think you're just bantering about YOUR ASSUMPTION of no evidence, and I bet you've NEVER looked into this specific topic at all. Amiright?

Yes, it's an accepted hypothesis - one I have been following since it was first proposed and was initially persuaded by, but have since had my doubts raised by conflicting and contrary evidence.

^Ohhh OK, you're actually an expert on the topic, since the topic first existed.

So let's see:

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis
In 2006, The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes: How a Stone-Age Comet Changed the Course of World Culture, a trade book by Richard Firestone, Allen West and Simon Warwick-Smith, was published by Inner Traditions – Bear & Company and marketed in the category of Earth Changes. It proposed that a large meteor air burst or impact of one or more comets initiated the Younger Dryas cold period about 12,900 BP calibrated (10,900 14C uncalibrated) years ago.[28]

Wiki: Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

^So the Impact Theory was established in 2006, right?

And so your previous statement means that you've been studying this Hypothesis since 2006?

So you've POURED SIXTEEN YEARS, INTO STUDYING this obscure hypothesis. I'm sorry, I can't quite believe you about that.

You haven't even convinced me that you're familiar with the topic on a superficial level. You were just acting like there's absolutely no evidence, but apparently WITHOUT bothering to care if there really is evidence or not.

You also described the Event happening IN A FEW DECADES, right after I quoted information about it happening WITHIN ONE DECADE. Which COULD mean that you're disagreeing with the hypothetical number of decades... OR that you're just not even really reading the conversation, and that you might just be very unfamiliar with the whole topic.

However, the hypothesis is for an impact to have occurred on the Laurentian ice sheet. So, if it did occur, there wouldn't have been any big global dust clouds anyway ....

No, there's no way that this hypothetical Event can be narrowed down to ONLY ONE SPECIFIC IMPACT SITE, on an ice sheet.

AT THE VERY LEAST, I know there is ancient IMPACT DAMAGE in Africa, which is attributed to The Younger Dryas Impact Theory.

So there goes your idea that it could have ONLY hit in ONE SPECIFIC SPOT on an ice-sheet. Well the Impact-damage in Africa clears up THAT idea. Along with clearing up that you legit have absolutely no familiarity with the topic, apparently.

Even after your 16 YEARS of devoting your life to studying it...

In other words, the lack of evidence of global dust clouds does not necessarily preclude the possibility that an impact caused the YD. But it does preclude the possibility of global dust clouds having occurred.

^No, you'd need to establish... that definitive lack of evidence, first. Which you haven't. You've only established that you're completely unfamiliar with the topic.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Nope. The point is: Why are you seemingly implying that there's a definitive lack of evidence?

For the same reason I would also argue that there are not a herd of 200 invisible pink elephants living in my back garden.

I don't believe that you've exhaustively studied the topic and come to that conclusion.

To be fair, I have not personally studied every single ice and seabed core. No. Have you?

So the Impact Theory was established in 2006, right?

And so your previous statement means that you've been studying this Hypothesis since 2006?

So you've POURED SIXTEEN YEARS, INTO STUDYING this obscure hypothesis. I'm sorry, I can't quite believe you about that.

I didn't stay studying - but yes, I was aware of Firestone etal's initial hypothesis in the early 2000s and have read his book and numerous papers both in support of and refuting it in the years since. He wasn't the first to come up with the hypothesis though. Even the likes of Otto Muck proposed a similar event (as an explanation for the destruction of "Atlantis").

And I've been interested in the events around the end of the last Glacial for much longer than 16 years.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
But of course, let's be honest, you guys probably aren't... actually convinced of the LACK of evidence of the Impact Theory...

It's not a question of being convinced or not, it's a question of availability.

If the evidence was abundant and clear the impact theory would be the main theory.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
You also described the Event happening IN A FEW DECADES, right after I quoted information about it happening WITHIN ONE DECADE. Which COULD mean that you're disagreeing with the hypothetical number of decades... OR that you're just not even really reading the conversation, and that you might just be very unfamiliar with the whole topic.

The source you quoted (Wikipedia) says, also says this about the start of that colder period:

The change was relatively sudden, taking place in decades, and it resulted in a decline of temperatures in Greenland by 4~10 °C (7.2~18 °F),[3] and advances of glaciers and drier conditions over much of the temperate Northern Hemisphere.

Apparently, there isn't an exact date (no surprises).

AT THE VERY LEAST, I know there is ancient IMPACT DAMAGE in Africa, which is attributed to The Younger Dryas Impact Theory.

So, where is it?

^No, you'd need to establish... that definitive lack of evidence, first.

How can someone establish that something doesn't exist? We can only know that we can't find it.

On the other hand, if someone says the evidence exists then they should present it.

PS: if you read the whole Wikipedia article you have seen that the change in temperature didn't happen at the same time around the world:

Although the start of the Younger Dryas is regarded to be synchronous across the North Atlantic region, recent research concluded that the start of the Younger Dryas might be time-transgressive even within there. After an examination of laminated varve sequences, Muschitiello and Wohlfarth found that the environmental changes that define the beginning of the Younger Dryas are diachronous in their time of occurrence according to latitude. According to the changes, the Younger Dryas occurred as early as around 12,900~13,100 calibrated years ago along latitude 56–54°N. Further north, they found that the changes occurred at roughly 12,600–12,750 calibrated years ago.[36]

According to the analyses of varved sediments from Lake Suigetsu, Japan, and other paleoenvironmental records from Asia, a substantial delay occurred in the onset and the end of the Younger Dryas between Asia and the North Atlantic. For example, paleoenvironmental analysis of sediment cores from Lake Suigetsu in Japan found the Younger Dryas temperature decline of 2–4 °C between 12,300 and 11,250 varve (calibrated) years BP, instead of about 12,900 calibrated years BP in the North Atlantic region.

In contrast, the abrupt shift in the radiocarbon signal from apparent radiocarbon dates of 11,000 radiocarbon years to radiocarbon dates of 10,700–10,600 radiocarbon years BP in terrestrial macrofossils and tree rings in Europe over a 50-year period occurred at the same time in the varved sediments of Lake Suigetsu. However, this same shift in the radiocarbon signal antedates the start of Younger Dryas at Lake Suigetsu by a few hundred years. Interpretations of data from Chinese also confirm that the Younger Dryas East Asia lags the North Atlantic Younger Dryas cooling by at least 200~300 years. Although the interpretation of the data is more murky and ambiguous, the end of the Younger Dryas and the start of Holocene warming likely were similarly delayed in Japan and in other parts of East Asia.[37]

Similarly, an analysis of a stalagmite growing from a cave in Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park, Palawan, the Philippines, found that the onset of the Younger Dryas was also delayed there. Proxy data recorded in the stalagmite indicate that more than 550 calibrated years were needed for Younger Dryas drought conditions to reach their full extent in the region and about 450 calibrated years to return to pre-Younger Dryas levels after it ended.[38]

The above timelines appear to point more to a large local event that took some time to spread across the whole Earth than a catastrophic event that affected the whole Earth.

PPS: it's possible that a meteor/comet strike released fresh water into the North Atlantic, creating the conditions described by the sea currents theory.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
And so your previous statement means that you've been studying this Hypothesis since 2006?

So you've POURED SIXTEEN YEARS, INTO STUDYING this obscure hypothesis. I'm sorry, I can't quite believe you about that.

You shouldn't assume you know what other people do/have done with their lives. Personally, I have been interested in geology since the 1970s, specially after we (my sister, a friend and me) found that there were fossils in the excavations for new building near my home).
I have also been interested in meteorology since the 1980s, besides other things.

a reply to: ArMaP

You shouldn't assume you know what other people do/have done with their lives.

^Sir the guy just proved HIMSELF that he is UNFAMILIAR with the topic on a surface level. Right after he PRETENDED THAT HE JUST SPENT SIXTEEN YEARS STUDYING IT.



Those are actually TWO MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE things:

1. The guy either STUDIED it for 16 YEARS... which would mean that he UNDERSTANDS the basic ideas; OR:

2. The guy just PRETENDED he studied it for 16 years... which is PROVEN BY his TOTAL LACK OF FAMILIARITY with the MOST BASIC IDEAS of the theory that he was pretending to be familiar with.

It's just one OR the other, and he's proven that, himself.




I'm only glancing at the thread right now, so only small quotes & responses:

AT THE VERY LEAST, I know there is ancient IMPACT DAMAGE in Africa, which is attributed to The Younger Dryas Impact Theory.

So, where is it?

First of all, I've already described it pretty specifically, A FEW TIMES already, in this thread. Obviously the impact-damage in the desert of Africa, is exactly that.

I've already described it in more detail too. There are FIELDS OF GLASS FROM MELTED SAND IN THE Sahara Desert, which suggests EXPLOSIVE IMPACT DEBRIS, even if you want to consider it all NATURAL SPACE DEBRIS.

Here's a link to the wiki for: LIBYAN DESERT GLASS.


Map of Libyan desert glass, from 1934:


King Tut's chest-piece with carved desert glass:



It's a small wiki article so I'll copy-paste the whole thing.

Geologic origin

The origin of desert glass is uncertain. Meteoritic origins have long been considered possible, and recent research links the glass to impact features, such as zircon breakdown, vaporized quartz and meteoritic metals, and to an impact crater.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Some geologists[9] associate the glass with radiative melting from meteoric large aerial bursts,making it analogous to trinitite created from sand exposed to the thermal radiation of a nuclear explosion. Libyan Desert glass has been dated as having formed about 29 million years ago.[10] Like obsidian, it was knapped and used to make tools during the Pleistocene.[11]

The glass is nearly pure silica which requires temperatures above 1,600 °C to form – hotter than any igneous rock on Earth.However, few mineral relics survived from whatever caused the melting, including a form of quartz called cristobalite, a rarely occurring high-temperature mineral; and grains of the mineral zircon, although most have reacted to form a higher-temperature mineral called zirconia. Ideas about how the glass formed include melting during meteorite impact, or melting caused by an airburst from an asteroid or other object burning up high in Earth's atmosphere.

It lines up perfectly with the Younger Dryas Impact Theory, except for the one wildly-different estimation of its creation 29 million yrs ago, instead of 11,000 yrs ago. Which of course, WE ALL KNOW that it's not possible to actually date the age of rock / sand / glass. So it's meaningless to just make up random numbers like that, when the topic is materials that can't be dated.

It's one of the standard ideas of the Younger Dryas Impact Theory, that it landed several huge impacts in the Sahara Desert, as its sand was melted thousands of degrees into glass, from exploding debris impacts.

The above quoted wiki even compares it to nuclear bombs.





Finally here's a different answer to the same quote:

So, where is it?

Younger Dryas Impact Theory, and Younger Dryas time period, are common knowledge topics, that I've been familiar with for several years, before randomly making this thread a few days ago.

And I just validated the existence of this common knowledge, with the wiki link for Libyan Desert Glass, a photo of a chunk of it, a 1934 map of that Sahara desert glass, and King Tut's chest piece with carved desert glass.

So I'm absolutely providing the real-life proof of the topic. Which was already common-knowledge for YEARS before this point, so I hardly think I'm supposed to be burdened with PROVING COMMON KNOWLEDGE topics like this, in the first place, but there you go.

However, I have real-life obligations of making money, etc., so that's where I need to spend most of my time and energy right now.

Plus the trolls are coming in, pretending to be 16-year experts on topics that they're unfamiliar with, and pretty soon there will be a half dozen people discussing their bodily fluids, until the thread will resemble a cesspool of raw sewage, full of people celebrating their own toxicity and ignorance.

So I can see the sewage starting to dump into the water, and I really can't swim in POISON, and I really actually need to be grinding out money in real life.




I can easily post later about exploded Egyptian pyramids and statues, although now that I posted about the Sahara Desert Glass, it seems a waste of time, that I did so.

I'm mostly getting the sense that there's little-to-no genuine interest in the thread, or else why are people acting like this stuff doesn't exist, or that I need to prove its existence, when this is all COMMON KNOWLEDGE stuff that really doesn't exactly require me to prove it...



So yeah, I think I'm going to focus on delivering pizza IRL, for the moment.

originally posted by: Dalamax
If My memory serves correctly wasn’t there a complex discovered recently (like within the last decade) by a boy on google earth?

He recognised a celestial map theme in the locations of known sites and found a star position that hadn’t been explored. Lo and behold a temple complex was unearthed in South America at the indicated location.

Could the same method be used, possibly using the AE pyramids and the Nile as Milky Way, to offer some locations of interest?

Cool thread btw

a reply to: JamesChessman

I remember that.....the kid was like a super genius for figuring it out....

I wonder how his path has progressed? There must be a thread or two here in the archives.

a reply to: JamesChessman

"think it's probably a pretty common thing, and I bet that your mountain just might be an ancient pyramid, too..."

I knew you were going to say that lol....

I used to look on the internet for possible pyramids in Alaska and found some interesting stuff...

There are two mountains in Sitka AK you can see from the shore that everyone says look like pyramids too.

I used to see them every day, super cool stuff....probably just mountains ⛰ but pyramids would be better.

Also: It's probably worth mentioning, in this thread, along with all my other threads that I've created:

My YT channel is 100% not monetized, in any way, whatsoever.

So there is absolutely zero benefit to me, no matter how many views I might get.

I thought I might get away from explaining this in every single thread I make, but actually, I probably DO just need to explain this in every single thread.





Something that I dislike, is that: Ever since 2021: I noticed that YouTube ITSELF is running ads on my videos, now, but it has nothing to do with me, lol.

Up to 2021, my channel never had ads, and I had THOUGHT that ads were only present on MONETIZED channels.

Well something in that set-up changed, in 2021, because YT has been putting ads on my vids, ever since. Still, regardless, it has nothing to do with me, and I don't think I have a choice in the matter.





*** The most basic criteria for a YouTube channel to be monetized is: 1,000 subs.

It's impossible to monetize, with less than that. And that's how it's crystal-clear that my channel is, and always has been, completely non-monetized. I don't have any choice in the matter.

My subs are at their highest number right now, but it's about one-third the requirement to monetize, so even now, it's NOT something that will be an option, probably not even in the next few years.






Also for what it's worth, I've made occasional videos and accompanying threads since late 2017, so it's been 6 years of doing this.

Just to do the math, if my subs grow at literally the same exact rate, it would take me like TWELVE MORE YEARS lol, to reach 1,000 subs.

I'm just saying, lol. In real-life, I think the channel growth probably keeps increasing its rate of growth, so it would probably be sooner.

But still. If we want to be as realistic as possible, we know I got one-third in 6 years. So if the coming years happen to be CONSISTENT, then it'll take like 12 YEARS to reach it. And it would have been like 18 YEARS until I reached it, lol.

So it should be self-evident that my YT channel is absolutely NOT a financial venture. It would be an 18-YEAR PLAN just to START to monetize, in 12 years in the future, from now. lol.







So I know people are always out there to accuse financial motives, but that's the real-life math of it, and it really shows that it's self-evident that it's NOT a financial venture. It is what it obviously is, a hobby channel of things that catch my interest.

And it's only been only around 2-3 serious videos PER YEAR.

I started the channel because I got a beautiful computer in late 2017, it's very easy to make videos with, that's why I started making videos. (2017 iMac, it's Apple's beautiful all-in-one desktop computer... basically a monitor that contains the computer inside the monitor, plus keyboard & mouse. I love it... and I don't like phones or tablets or anything else, lol.)



So in 2017: I was looking at camera-feeds from NASA, and also from cameras mounted to Elon Musk's SPORTS CAR THAT HE SENT INTO SPACE, lol.

I believed I was seeing UFO's, and I knew that my iMac could easily just record her own screen.

So at some point, it was just so damn effortless, to just record the screen, that it was automatic, that I started doing that, when I'M ALREADY looking at stuff that's amazing.

That's the long and short of the channel. Whatever amazing stuff I might be excited about, it's practically effortless to make a video about, so it happens automatically. The stuff is already on my screen, so it's automatic to record it, that's my videos, that's it.









...I'm also considering making a point of taking space away from the thread. I'm quite disappointed at how immediate the trolling began.

I mean, I know the pattern, the genuine interest in a thread only seems pure for a couple days, and the trolls set in around the 2nd day.

So I KNOW that's the pattern, but still, wow, I'm amazed at how fast and how intense it happened in this thread. The hamster guy set in with the most toxic imaginable poison posts, several already in the thread, without me even talking to him, lol. And he took a couple days before he started, but also, he's basically spreading poison from the thread's first page onward, and wow. This isn't my scene. Then the new guy comes out of the woodwork claiming that he spent 16 YEARS studying a topic, while also showing that he was unfamiliar with the MOST BASIC FACTS of that topic. I sunk some time into discrediting his false input, and that ALONE was already a time-sink, waste-of-time.



And real-life is legit pressing, all by itself, re: need for money, possibly finding new jobs, my car is acting like it's on its deathbed... Everything is stressful and crazy right now: car, money, place to live, job searching, and my family is crazy and miserable too. It's really all I can do to try to keep healthy and productive in real-life, completely regardless ATS.

So I really can't deal with all this, right now. I might or might now check back in briefly, but people are already complaining of that too, so I'm feeling more like I need to avoid the thread, for the most part.









...ALSO I'm thinking about how ATS is really ABOUT THE FIRST POST of threads, and maybe the 1st couple pages, really, isn't it?

I mean maybe it's not even worth trying to pour a ton of time into these threads, I think most thread-viewers are only seeing the first post, and maybe the 1st couple pages... lol.




...That was my first few years of reading ATS, around 2008, on. I'd mostly just read the OP and the first few responses on the 1st page. (I really never got into the actual threads very far, because it always fills up with a glut of trolling and meaningless toxicity.)


So, ya know, maybe we need to be honest that it's really the OP and the first few responses that really count, for the most part. For the most viewers of the thread.

So really what the f*ck are we even doing, lol. I know there's a bit of genuine interest in the thread by ArMaP and some others, especially at the beginning, but the trolling kicked off hard, right off the bat, on the first page of the thread, guys I'm not at all ready to be swimming in the sewage like this.




My last thread was the moon hut thread, I absolutely spent WAY TOO LONG splashing around in other people's trolling sewage, in that thread.

I'm not doing that here. The trolls will overwhelm any thread, it's inevitable, you guys got it. I feel disgusted by the direction of the thread but it's really the direction of EVERY thread, lol, and it probably was always this way, I just didn't used to read beyond the first page or two.

But I mean that's really how it is now, still, isn't it.



I'll come back and discuss the substantive posts, and I think we all just need to ignore the trolling, the willful ignorance and toxicity.

I need to avoid it, myself. And focus on finding my best health and productivity, in my solitude.


Also I've become fascinated by King Tut's chest-piece that embedded earlier, just look at this thing!!


It's nearly impossible to imagine how this was actually used in daily life, in ancient Egypt... like, do you think the guy actually wore this everyday, or what?

.

This is a side-topic but it's at least still directly related to the main topic.

Since posting King Tut's chest piece, I've looked and become convinced it's a depiction of a spaceship, the MAIN reason being the bottom shows those 3 bell-shaped things:

It's 3 exhaust pipes, it even has the shape of exhaust pipes, the bell shape is the fire blasting out of it. The bottom of the bell shapes are depictions of clouds rising from the exhaust.

I think THAT'S the most clearly identifiable part. That, plus the overall shape of a general rocket shape. Wider bottom and narrows down toward the top, it's just the general overall shape.

The round orbs can easily be rows of lights, at bottom of the ship. Then two orb-lights on the sides, and two at front: headlights.

There's not exactly wings on the sides, but it DOES have wings that are tucked-in, so it's probably an implication that the wings could spread out and extend off the sides.

Ancient Indian art seems similar in creating these sort-of cartoon representations of real objects, where it's not really showing the real object, but it's also still recognizable as the real object, like here we see rocket-blasters at the bottom of the rocket shaped mass, with rows of lights, pairs of lights, and retractable wings.




Also just for the perspective of ARTWORK, I'm surprised that the EYE design... is off-center from everything else. It's obviously on purpose, but it also obviously kills the perfect left-right symmetry of the whole piece. I mean, the total eye-piece is centered, but the design ITSELF is off-center, with the eye on the left side of its total design.




...The top orb with three beings in it, that would seem to obviously imply that the ship could go and meet up with those beings.

Gemstone Found In King Tut's Tomb Formed When A Meteor Collided With Earth

www.forbes.com...

Gemstone Found In King Tut's Tomb Formed When A Meteor Collided With Earth

David Bressan: Contributor


May 19, 2019,01:53pm EDT


In 1922, British archaeologist Howard Carter discovered the untouched tomb of Tutankhamen, a minor pharaoh who ruled over Egypt almost 3,300 years ago. When Carter entered the tomb for the very first time and asked if he could see anything, he famously responded: ”Yes, wonderful things.” Tutankhamen's burial chambers were filled with statues made of ivory, items made of gold and precious jewelry. In a treasure chest, Carter discovered a large pectoral, a breastplate decorated with gold, silver, various precious jewels and a strange gemstone, that the pharao wears across his chest. The breastplate shows the god Ra as a winged scarab, made from a yellow-green gemstone, carrying the celestial bark with the Sun and the Moon into the sky.

Carter identified the gemstone at first as chalcedony, a common variety of the mineral quartz. In 1932 the British geographer Patrick Clayton was exploring the Great Sand Sea along the border of modern Egypt and Libya. Here he discovered some strange pieces of glass in the sand. The yellow-green material seemed to be identical to the gemstone found in Tutankhamen's tomb. Two years later he published a short note, suggesting that the pieces of glass were the quartz-rich deposits of a completely dried up lake.In 1998, Italian mineralogist Vincenzo de Michele analyzed the optical properties of the gemstone in King Tut's breastplate andconfirmed that it was indeed a piece of Libyan Desert Silica Glass, as the material is nowadays called. Libyan Desert Glass consists of almost pure silicon-dioxide, like quartz, but its crystal structure is different. It also contains traces of unusual elements, like iron, nickel, chromium, cobalt and iridium. It is among the rarest minerals on Earth, as it is found only in the Great Sand Sea north of the Gilf Kebir Plateau, one of the most remote and desolate areas in the Libyan Desert.

The origin of the desert glass has long remained a mystery. Glass forms naturally when molten rock material cools so rapidly that atoms are unable to arrange themselves into a crystalline structure. Obsidian is a natural glass that forms when lava from a volcano rapidly cools and solidifies. However, no extinct volcano can be found near the site where the desert glass occurs.Tektites are natural glass formed when the debris of a meteorite impact is ejected high into Earth's atmosphere, where the molten debris will rapidly cool and solidify into glass spherules. Tektites have been found across Asia, Australia and as far away as Antarctica. However, no impact crater associated with the desert glass is known in the Libyan Desert. In an alternative scenario proposed in 2013 a comet, composed mostly of ice, entering Earth's atmosphere may have exploded mid-air above the desert. The generated heat burst, an estimated 2,000°C, would be sufficient to melt the upper layers of the sand dunes, forming the desert glass, but without leaving a crater behind.

A new study published in the journal Geology refutes this scenario, claiming that an airburst alone wouldn't be sufficient to explain the formation of the desert glass. The researchers analyzed grains of the mineral zircon found in the desert glass, discovering that the supposed zircon grains are actually a very rare mineral called reidite. Reidite is chemically similar to zircon, however, displays a different, denser crystalline structure. Reidite forms only under very high pressure, es experienced during massive meteorite impacts. Reidite can't form by the low pressure of an airburst. Airbursts, as the researchers argue, create shock waves in Earth's atmosphere with pressures of some thousands of pascals. During a meteorite impact, the shock waves in the ground can reach some billions of pascals, millions of times more powerful than any airburst. Only a meteorite impact on the ground, generating enough pressure to form the reidite and enough heat to melt the sand, can explain the stray field of desert glass fragments found in the Lybian Desert. However, it remains unclear where the impact crater associated with the Lybian Desert Glass is located, even if radiometric dating suggests that the impact happened around 28 to 26 million years ago.

It's also unclear how the desert glass became part of Tutankhamen's treasures. Archaeological evidence suggests that an ancient system of caravan routes existed around the Gilf Kebir Plateau, but it doesn't seem that the routes were used to search or trade for the desert glass. It seems that the piece used for the scarab was discovered by chance or maybe an exotic gift. It remains the only known example where an Egyptian artist used this mysterious material.


-- David Bressan

(Bolds added by me.)
* Forbes is A BUSINESS MAGAZINE, by the way. They're usually focused on businesses' success / failure, and stock market values, etc., AFAIK.

So the above article is basically as MAINSTREAM as possible, that the author is identifying the gem as a meteor impact remnant.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
First of all, I've already described it pretty specifically, A FEW TIMES already, in this thread. Obviously the impact-damage in the desert of Africa, is exactly that.

You didn't "described it pretty specifically", you just said "in Africa".
Before that you said "Africa's Sahara Desert", which far from "pretty specifically".

I've already described it in more detail too. There are FIELDS OF GLASS FROM MELTED SAND IN THE Sahara Desert, which suggests EXPLOSIVE IMPACT DEBRIS, even if you want to consider it all NATURAL SPACE DEBRIS.

You said that "certain areas that are covered in sand, but underneath, there is flat expanses of glass".
I knew of the Libyan glass, but not of those supposed "flat expanses of glass", for which you didn't provide any evidence.

It lines up perfectly with the Younger Dryas Impact Theory, except for the one wildly-different estimation of its creation 29 million yrs ago, instead of 11,000 yrs ago. Which of course, WE ALL KNOW that it's not possible to actually date the age of rock / sand / glass. So it's meaningless to just make up random numbers like that, when the topic is materials that can't be dated.

So, you think geologists are all idiots that make things up based on nothing?

It's one of the standard ideas of the Younger Dryas Impact Theory, that it landed several huge impacts in the Sahara Desert, as its sand was melted thousands of degrees into glass, from exploding debris impacts.

I didn't see that on the Wikipedia article about the Younger Dryas Impact Theory, do you have a source for that or are you just making things up as if you were a geologist?

So I'm absolutely providing the real-life proof of the topic. Which was already common-knowledge for YEARS before this point, so I hardly think I'm supposed to be burdened with PROVING COMMON KNOWLEDGE topics like this, in the first place, but there you go.

Yes, you, like everybody else, have the burden of proof for you statements, and the proof you present does not support what you said, as usual you have to change what you originally said to make it fit the proof or the other way around.

I can easily post later about exploded Egyptian pyramids and statues, although now that I posted about the Sahara Desert Glass, it seems a waste of time, that I did so.

I can wait.

I'm mostly getting the sense that there's little-to-no genuine interest in the thread, or else why are people acting like this stuff doesn't exist, or that I need to prove its existence, when this is all COMMON KNOWLEDGE stuff that really doesn't exactly require me to prove it...

What doesn't exist is your version of things.
For example, your "flat expanses of glass" underneath the Sahara desert turn out (as I expected) to be the Libyan glass pieces, you ignore the date of the possible impact that created them because it doesn't suit your idea, like you ignore all the things that can show that your idea is wrong.

So yeah, I think I'm going to focus on delivering pizza IRL, for the moment.

As I said before, I can wait, I'm not in a hurry.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Also I've become fascinated by King Tut's chest-piece that embedded earlier, just look at this thing!!

It's nearly impossible to imagine how this was actually used in daily life, in ancient Egypt... like, do you think the guy actually wore this everyday, or what?

It's possible that this was only made for his afterlife, the Egyptians did that.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
It's 3 exhaust pipes, it even has the shape of exhaust pipes, the bell shape is the fire blasting out of it. The bottom of the bell shapes are depictions of clouds rising from the exhaust.

I think the bell-shaped things may represent lotus flowers, a design they used a lot in ancient Egypt.

^Also I'm realizing that the very top-center: The orb with three people on it: THAT'S THE ACTUAL MOON.

It's the texture on the orb which makes it identifiable as THE ACTUAL MOON.

That texture is really unique among such artwork, where surfaces are typically SMOOTH, just look at this piece, EVERYTHING is a smooth surface of gold or gems.

Except that rough texture of the orb. It's the ONLY ONE INSTANCE of such texture, that I believe I've ever seen. It's the only ONE use of rough texture, which makes it extremely RARE and IMPORTANT. It's convincingly depicting the ACTUAL MOON. They even got the texture right, to even resemble the moon at all.




Then of course, the bottom of the moon-orb, it has a CRESCENT MOON SHAPE which is clearly identifiable.

Modern day we think of a crescent moon on ITS SIDE, but it's possible that ancient Egypt could have thought of it more as shown, that the crescent moon is the "bottom" of the moon.



At first, I thought the crescent shape was more just part of the ship, which it could be, but also, it's a clear marker for the ORB to be the actual, real moon.

It's accurate to nature too, if we consider the crescent shape as just SUNLIGHT, then it makes sense that the crescent is slightly larger than the sphere of the moon. Because the glow would presumably make the illuminated parts look bigger.




Anyway, I bet it probably represents part of the ship, too.

But the more I reflect on the image, the implication is clear that the ship has the easy ability to visit the 3 figures shown standing on the moon's surface.




Therefore the most obvious, and most natural implication. Is that the ship can literally travel to the moon and meet with the figures on the moon.