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

a reply to: ArMaP

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

^Ok. I think the symbology of such artwork is multiple meanings at the same time.

I didn't know it resembled lotus flowers, but that's a great reference too. Plus it's a parallel with other ancient, advanced cultures, which also had a spiritual embrace of lotus flowers.

Lotus flowers are a famous, common thing in Buddhism, so that alone incorporates India, China, and Japan (etc.).



^But the spread of Buddhism is not really ancient, of course, Bodhidharma brought Buddhism from India to China, about 1,500 years ago.


(So apparently Buddhism in China and Japan only goes back 1,500 yrs.

Whereas in India, Buddhism is more ancient, going back to the actual Buddha: 2,600 yrs ago.)




So if we follow the ancient spiritual consideration of lotus flowers: That's a parallel between ancient India, and ancient Egypt, apparently.

(India: Hinduism is FAR more ancient than Buddhism, many thousands of yrs older, and I expect that lotus flowers were always part of Hinduism in ancient India.)




Alright so then lotus flowers in spirituality, it's a parallel with ancient Egypt and ancient India, going back any number of thousands of years...

...Plus lotus flowers in Buddhism, spread in more recent times thru China and Japan etc., in the last 1,500 yrs. (I don't know if China and Japan previously loved lotus flowers, or not, before Buddhism spread there. Probably, but Idk.)



Anyways that's an interesting mesh of different cultures that all loved lotus flowers as some kind of religious symbol.



It's at least the two ancient cultures, who both revered lotus flowers, the ancient Egyptians and ancient Indians... probably the ancient Chinese and Japanese too.

Also if we just think about some easy, free-associations here (which is what I believe the artwork is meant for):

The "meteor impact" remnant, carved into the beetle: Probably refers to the NUCLEAR POWER, or something similar, which CAUSED that "meteor impact." The beetle literally came from some kind of explosive impact that resembles nuclear weapons.

Also, in the spaceship interpretation: The beetle is showing that the ship is POWERED BY that same nuclear power (or similar).

Plus, looking at the beetle as the power center of the ship: There are snakes running from the beetle to connect to those 4 lights (2 headlights and 2 side lights). The snakes are "wires" or similar direct conduit, from the nuclear power reactor at center, its power directly running to the 4 lights.

Note that the image only has a few spots which naturally appear to be GLOWING. MOSTLY: The beetle "meteor impact" remnant, is iridescent, if I'm seeing it correctly. Iridescent means the light is always shining THROUGH it, slightly-transparent, so it always has a natural glow. This is like many stones that are cheap to buy.

So the ONE BRIGHTEST GLOW is the iridescent beetle, the power-source of the ship, and also, carved from the remnants of that SAME POWER which exploded in the desert and created that glass.

Alright so with the ONE BRIGHTEST GLOWING SPOT, at center, i.e. powering the ship: The 4 main lights would seem the OTHER brightest shining spots. 2 headlights and 2 sidelights.

Sidelights seems strange until you realize it's actually a parallel with our modern planes having lights under their wings.

So this is essentially the same thing as that. Except here, maybe the lights are fused onto the ship, below the wings, instead of actually ON THE WINGS, as modern day planes have it usually, AFAIK.





Then I think it's fair to say that the 3rd-brightest spots are at the bottom of the ship: The actual fire of the exhausts.





Note that while the 4 lights have wires / cables connected to the beetle / nuclear reactor at center of the ship: The bottom of the ship connects to the beetle through the eagle tail, which runs from the reactor, to the row of lights, and the jets of fire and exhaust.

While the snakes / cables running to all 4 lights, looks light thick strong cables for massive amounts of power:
The eagle-tail is MUCH BIGGER than those cables running to the 4 lights!

This implies a very HUGE, DIRECT BLAST through the back of the ship!




The apparently retractable wings, also run directly into the beetle / nuclear power source.


This would seem to imply that the reactor's STRONGEST output, is through the biggest connections that we see: Obviously the massive power blast through the ship's exhaust (the eagle tail etc.). Plus the wings have the same, or MORE power running straight from the reactor (again just looking at the size of the connections, the eagle tail and wings are all HUGE connections the reactor).

So at the very least, that would seem to imply that the wings are very powerful and very move-able, however the pilot wants, apparently.

I can also easily imagine that the 4 lights are simultaneous potential weapons blasters too, as well as lights.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
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.

Where exactly did I "prove" I am unfamiliar with the "Covid Comet" hypothesis, the work of Firestone etal, or any subsequent research into the subject? And where did I say I had been studying it for 16 years?

(I said I'd been following the subject since it was first proposed)

Try making calm, reasoned responses rather than shouting and making on ad hom attacks on those who disagree with you. It's better for the soul, as well as your credibility.


Anyway, I see we're now on to Libyan desert glass. It's probably a moot point as to whether the origin was an actual meteorite impact or an air burst, given the event occurred about 28.5 million years ago.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

And yes, we can date it:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Iridescent means the light is always shining THROUGH it, slightly-transparent, so it always has a natural glow.

That's not the meaning of iridescent.

An iridescent object is an object that appears to change colour with changes in light (or changes in the object that change the way light is reflected/refracted by it, like in the case of soap bubbles.

Maybe you meant translucent?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Iridescent means the light is always shining THROUGH it, slightly-transparent, so it always has a natural glow.

That's not the meaning of iridescent.

An iridescent object is an object that appears to change colour with changes in light (or changes in the object that change the way light is reflected/refracted by it, like in the case of soap bubbles.

Maybe you meant translucent?

Ok I just looked it up.

Yes, you're right, "translucent" is the correct word.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Where exactly did I "prove" I am unfamiliar with the "Covid Comet" hypothesis, the work of Firestone etal, or any subsequent research into the subject? And where did I say I had been studying it for 16 years?

(I said I'd been following the subject since it was first proposed)

^Well it was proposed 16 years ago. So your statement of following it since it was proposed, means 16 years.



So after SIXTEEN YEARS, you never got to the part about how the Impact Theory incorporates the impact damage in Africa?

It's one of the most basic parts of the theory.

That's your proof that you're completely unfamiliar with the theory that you just pretended to study for 16 years.

Try making calm, reasoned responses rather than shouting and making on ad hom attacks on those who disagree with you. It's better for the soul, as well as your credibility.

Try not pretending that you studied something for 16 years, without even bothering to try to understand, what you're pretending you devoted 16 yrs of your life to.

Anyway, I see we're now on to Libyan desert glass.

No, we're not "now on to Libyan desert glass," IT IS PART OF THE IMPACT THEORY of The Younger Dryas. So it's ALWAYS been part of that topic, even before I specifically linked wiki articles and embedded photos of it.

See you're AGAIN proving yourself, that you're completely unfamiliar with the topic. That you pretended to study for 16 years.

It's probably a moot point as to whether the origin was an actual meteorite impact or an air burst, given the event occurred about 28.5 million years ago.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

And yes, we can date it:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

No, it can't be definitively dated. And the entire Impact Theory of the Younger Dryas... which YOU PRETENDED to have studied 16 years... the entire theory is BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE LIBYAN DESERT GLASS CAN'T BE DEFINITIVELY DATED.

The Impact Theory is that the Libyan Desert Glass came from explosions 11,000 yrs ago, which triggered the Younger Dryas time period.



Obviously the entire theory wouldn't exist if the glass was definitively dated MILLIONS of years ago, instead of potentially being created only 11,000 years ago.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
No, it can't be definitively dated.

It can, what do you know about Geology?

Your dismissive attitude regarding people that are interested/studied/study/work in specific fields you (apparently) know nothing about only makes you look bad.

And the entire Impact Theory of the Younger Dryas... which YOU PRETENDED to have studied 16 years... the entire theory is BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE LIBYAN DESERT GLASS CAN'T BE DEFINITIVELY DATED.

The Impact Theory is that the Libyan Desert Glass came from explosions 11,000 yrs ago, which triggered the Younger Dryas time period.

Read this:

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) or Clovis comet hypothesis posits that fragments of a large (more than 4 kilometers in diameter), disintegrating asteroid or comet struck North America, South America, Europe, and western Asia around 12,850 years ago, coinciding with the beginning of the Younger Dryas cooling event.

Source

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Obviously the entire theory wouldn't exist if the glass was definitively dated MILLIONS of years ago, instead of potentially being created only 11,000 years ago.

Well, given it has been dated to millions of years ago (see the paper I posted a link to above - I take it you did read it?) and there is zero evidence it is much, much, more recent ....

But in any case, Libyan desert glass has no bearing on the veracity or otherwise of the "Clovis Comet" impact hypothesis.

Next you'll be claiming the Hiawatha crater as evidence ....

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Well, given it has been dated to millions of years ago

^It can not be definitively dated.

That's why The Impact Theory of the Younger Dryas incorporates the Libyan Desert Glass, as having been created 11,000yrs ago.

That's possible BECAUSE the desert glass can't be definitively dated.

But in any case, Libyan desert glass has no bearing on the veracity or otherwise of the "Clovis Comet" impact hypothesis.

^It's a fundamental part of the Impact Theory hypothesis, and it's potential proof of the theory being true.

All of which you'd already know, if you had followed the theory for 16 years, as you pretended.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Well, given it has been dated to millions of years ago

^It can not be definitively dated.

That's why The Impact Theory of the Younger Dryas incorporates the Libyan Desert Glass, as having been created 11,000yrs ago.

That's possible BECAUSE the desert glass can't be definitively dated.

But in any case, Libyan desert glass has no bearing on the veracity or otherwise of the "Clovis Comet" impact hypothesis.

^It's a fundamental part of the Impact Theory hypothesis, and it's potential proof of the theory being true.

All of which you'd already know, if you had followed the theory for 16 years, as you pretended.

This is getting a bit childish now.

Let's change tack.

Could you please present a paper - or other scientific research - questioning the accepted dating of the LDG

Could you also present a paper - or other scientific research - in which the existence of LDG is used as corroborative evidence for a large meteor or cometary impact causing the YD?

Until then I stand by what I have said: LDG has been dated to ~28.5mya and has no bearing on whether or not a impact caused the YD.

a reply to: ArMaP

It can, what do you know about Geology?

I know that the Libyan Desert Glass is a fundamental part of the Impact Theory of the Younger Dryas time period, stating that the glass was formed 11,000 years ago, from explosions that caused the Younger Dryas.

I also know that it's a respected theory in mainstream science.

All of which is proof that no, the glass can't be definitively dated to millions of years ago.

If it could then there would not be the Impact Theory of the Younger Dryas, incorporating the Libyan Desert Glass as evidence of the explosive impacts that caused the Younger Dryas, 11000 yrs ago.

Your dismissive attitude regarding people that are interested/studied/study/work in specific fields you (apparently) know nothing about only makes you look bad.

Actually the guy looks worse if you BELIEVE his claim that he studied a theory for 16 years, without learning what the theory was.

He's self-insulting, and it's more insulting against him, to believe him, about that.

Read this:

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH) or Clovis comet hypothesis posits that fragments of a large (more than 4 kilometers in diameter), disintegrating asteroid or comet struck North America, South America, Europe, and western Asia around 12,850 years ago, coinciding with the beginning of the Younger Dryas cooling event.

^Thanks, well... regardless of that specific quote, it's definitely part of the theory that it struck in Africa, too, and created the Libyan Desert Glass.

I did quote earlier that there's supportive evidence of the Impact Theory in South Africa:

Evidence that adds further to the credibility of this hypothesis includes extraterrestrial platinum, which has been found in meteorites. There are multiple sites around the world with spikes in levels of platinum that can be associated with the impact hypothesis, of which at least 25 are major.[117] Although most of these sites are found in the Northern Hemisphere, a study conducted in October 2019 has found and confirmed another site with high platinum levels located in the Wonderkrater area north of Pretoria in South Africa.[118] This coincides with the Pilauco site in southern Chile which also happens to contain high levels of platinum as well as rare metallic spherules, gold and high-temperature iron that is rarely found in nature and suspected of originating from airbursts or impacts.[119][120][121] These Southern Hemisphere high platinum zones further add to the credibility of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.

en.wikipedia.org...


And I also quoted the theory of the Libyan Desert Glass being formed from explosive impact:

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.

en.wikipedia.org...



So there's quoting the Impact Theory evidence in Africa, and quoting the theory of the Libyan glass formed from impact explosions.

So really, this is splitting hairs... There's Impact evidence in S. Africa, and also impact evidence in northern Africa (Libya)...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So there's quoting the Impact Theory evidence in Africa, and quoting the theory of the Libyan glass formed from impact explosions.

So really, this is splitting hairs... There's Impact evidence in S. Africa, and also impact evidence in northern Africa (Libya)...

But there is nothing to connect the LDG with an impact only ~13kya. Even the wikipedia page you quote states it formed ~29mya. Which no-one (except you) disputes.

The Earth has had thousands of large impacts over the past millions of years.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So there's quoting the Impact Theory evidence in Africa, and quoting the theory of the Libyan glass formed from impact explosions.

So really, this is splitting hairs... There's Impact evidence in S. Africa, and also impact evidence in northern Africa (Libya)...

But there is nothing to connect the LDG with an impact only ~13kya. Even the wikipedia page you quote states it formed ~29mya. Which no-one (except you) disputes.

The Earth has had thousands of large impacts over the past millions of years.

Look, number one, I need to focus more on real life, rather than focusing on bantering in the thread, and number two:

If I must, I will eventually find an article that is EXPLICITLY calling the Libyan Desert Glass formed from the Younger Dryas Impact Event... because it is truly part of the theory... and I'm surprised at the hair splitting anyway. You already pretended to know the theory for 16 years, and:

ArMaP already quoted the Impact Theory exploding all over the world (without specifically saying Africa), and I've quoted the Impact Theory evidence in South Africa, and I've quoted the Libyan Desert Glass as impact-evidence itself.

There's not much lacking right there, as it is. Impact Theory happened all over the globe, and Africa has Impact damage, plus melted sand glass impact remnants.

I'm surprised if anyone can't see that it goes together very easily. Impact damage is established in S. Africa, and around the world, and there's also impact-remnants in the northern Africa... and people want to single out the one spot of impact damage from the others, and argue that it CAN'T possibly be related to the OTHER impact damage in the SAME CONTINENT and around the world... Hmmm...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I know that the Libyan Desert Glass is a fundamental part of the Impact Theory of the Younger Dryas time period, stating that the glass was formed 11,000 years ago, from explosions that caused the Younger Dryas.

I also know that it's a respected theory in mainstream science.

All of which is proof that no, the glass can't be definitively dated to millions of years ago.

If it could then there would not be the Impact Theory of the Younger Dryas, incorporating the Libyan Desert Glass as evidence of the explosive impacts that caused the Younger Dryas, 11000 yrs ago.

So, as you didn't answer my question, I suppose that means you know nothing about Geology, as demonstrated by many posts on this thread...

Actually the guy looks worse if you BELIEVE his claim that he studied a theory for 16 years, without learning what the theory was.

Don't change the subject, I am talking about you.

^Thanks, well... regardless of that specific quote, it's definitely part of the theory that it struck in Africa, too, and created the Libyan Desert Glass.

I did quote earlier that there's supportive evidence of the Impact Theory in South Africa:

South Africa is not Libya. I suppose Geography is not you forte either...

So there's quoting the Impact Theory evidence in Africa, and quoting the theory of the Libyan glass formed from impact explosions.

A tooth ache can be a result of an impact, but that doesn't mean that if you are hit in a knee with a baseball bat you will get a tooth ache.

So really, this is splitting hairs... There's Impact evidence in S. Africa, and also impact evidence in northern Africa (Libya)...

It's not splitting hairs, it's being based in facts instead of wild imagination and ignorance.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
If I must, I will eventually find an article that is EXPLICITLY calling the Libyan Desert Glass formed from the Younger Dryas Impact Event... because it is truly part of the theory... and I'm surprised at the hair splitting anyway.

Yes, you must, otherwise it's just your word, not a fact.

ArMaP already quoted the Impact Theory exploding all over the world (without specifically saying Africa), and I've quoted the Impact Theory evidence in South Africa, and I've quoted the Libyan Desert Glass as impact-evidence itself.

Two separate events that you insist are linked, ignoring the difference in dates by stating that geologists cannot date geologic features.

There's not much lacking right there, as it is.

Just one thing: facts.

I'm surprised if anyone can't see that it goes together very easily. Impact damage is established in S. Africa, and around the world, and there's also impact-remnants in the northern Africa... and people want to single out the one spot of impact damage from the others, and argue that it CAN'T possibly be related to the OTHER impact damage in the SAME CONTINENT and around the world... Hmmm...

Because they are from different eras.

Your insistence that geologists cannot date geological features is the only way to link the two.

Just because you are a human (I suppose) and Queen Victoria was a human doesn't mean you are the same.

a reply to: ArMaP

So, as you didn't answer my question, I suppose that means you know nothing about Geology, as demonstrated by many posts on this thread...

I haven't even read half the posts in the thread, and everything I've been talking about has been backed up with links to information validating it, from mainstream science.

And I keep saying that I'm MORE caught-up with real-life right now, more than bantering in the thread. For example, I'm messing around with my iPhone not charging lately, which is a new rebuilt phone, so it SHOULD be good, but it also might be garbage. However I think the main problem is PROBABLY that there's a heat wave, which is overheating it, and stopping it from charging. So I'm putting my phone in the refrigerator, which seems to be solving the problem of not charging, lol.

But that's also ANOTHER reason that I need to avoid the thread, my phone's hotspot is also probably overheating it too, and stopping the charge... and I use my phone to work, so you can probably see how this is the more important demand of time, right now...

Don't change the subject, I am talking about you.

You're talking about me criticizing the guy for claiming he followed the theory for 16 yrs but he also didn't actually know the basics of the theory.

My criticism of that, was warranted. Can't be faking the funk.

South Africa is not Libya. I suppose Geography is not you forte either...

Apparently it's my forte more than it is yours, lol. For god's sake, South Africa is South Africa. And Libya is NORTHERN AFRICA.

That's why it's relevant, IT'S THE SAME CONTINENT. So mentioning S. Africa's established Impact site, is establishing that THE CONTINENT of Africa HAS IMPACT DAMAGE from the Younger Dryas Impact.

A tooth ache can be a result of an impact, but that doesn't mean that if you are hit in a knee with a baseball bat you will get a tooth ache.

^Well, as I've been saying, there's established impact damage from the Younger Dryas Impact event, around the entire world, including Africa, and then there's this OTHER melted glass IMPACT SITE, on the same continent, and it's really absurd to try to single it out like this, and act like it can't be part of that same impact damage that's everywhere, INCLUDING AFRICA.

It's not splitting hairs, it's being based in facts instead of wild imagination and ignorance.

^Yes, it's splitting hairs to argue that an impact site in northern Africa can't be related to the established Younger Dryas Impact site in South Africa, the same continent. And which has already been established, with evidence, from around the entire world, it IS splitting hairs and it's absurd.








...And I didn't make the connection myself anyway. I learned about the Younger Dryas Impact Event as incorporating the Libyan Desert Glass impact site.

That's how I first learned of the theory, and I will eventually find specific articles that say that, if I must. But you guys gotta acknowledge the absurdity that there's Younger Dryas Impact evidence EVERYWHERE, INCLUDING AFRICA, and you're trying to single out a SPECIFIC SITE IN AFRICA, as not being related to that. It's definitely absurd.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I haven't even read half the posts in the thread, and everything I've been talking about has been backed up with links to information validating it, from mainstream science.

Wrong.

You're talking about me criticizing the guy for claiming he followed the theory for 16 yrs but he also didn't actually know the basics of the theory.

No, I was talking, among other things, about you saying geologists cannot date geological features when it doesn't suit your ideas.

Apparently it's my forte more than it is yours, lol.

I seriously doubt it...

For god's sake, South Africa is South Africa. And Libya is NORTHERN AFRICA.

And their closest locations are separated by around 5000 Km. And one is in the South hemisphere and the other in the North hemisphere, with all the differences that makes in atmospheric conditions.

That's why it's relevant, IT'S THE SAME CONTINENT. So mentioning S. Africa's established Impact site, is establishing that THE CONTINENT of Africa HAS IMPACT DAMAGE from the Younger Dryas Impact.

It's not that relevant because of the distance between those locations.
It could be in two different continents and the distance between them be only a few kilometres.

^Well, as I've been saying, there's established impact damage from the Younger Dryas Impact event, around the entire world, including Africa, and then there's this OTHER melted glass IMPACT SITE, on the same continent, and it's really absurd to try to single it out like this, and act like it can't be part of that same impact damage that's everywhere, INCLUDING AFRICA.

The dates (that you keep ignoring because it suits you) are completely wrong.

^Yes, it's splitting hairs to argue that an impact site in northern Africa can't be related to the established Younger Dryas Impact site in South Africa, the same continent. And which has already been established, with evidence, from around the entire world, it IS splitting hairs and it's absurd.

What is absurd is the way you ignore part of the evidence when it doesn't suit you and treat your own imagination as if it's a historic fact.

...And I didn't make the connection myself anyway. I learned about the Younger Dryas Impact Event as incorporating the Libyan Desert Glass impact site.

OK, where did you get that information? Have you checked it recently to see if the information is like you remember it? Have you checked it to see if the person(s) that mentioned it changed their mind(s)?

But you guys gotta acknowledge the absurdity that there's Younger Dryas Impact evidence EVERYWHERE, INCLUDING AFRICA, and you're trying to single out a SPECIFIC SITE IN AFRICA, as not being related to that. It's definitely absurd.

Absurd is treating two events separated by millions of years as if they occurred at the same time.

PS: one suggestion, take care of your real life problems first, that will be better to all.

a reply to: ArMaP

Wrong.

Really. Let's recap, then.

First of all, the actual OP topic, was based on the documentary video from "Our World," which I embedded in the OP, and then I responded about how I think the shapes of the mountains and caves, and "mystery holes," show artificiality.

So I embedded the 47 minute original documentary... and so I'm pretty sure that the ORIGINAL TOPIC is pretty well established, for the mainstream science of the topic, there's even flying-footage and cave-exploration footage, of the landscape (which is the topic).

So that's the mainstream science of the original topic, and yes, it's completely well-established, what we're talking about: the unique landscape in China, as per the embedded documentary.

What's not 'proven" is my personal response that I interpret artificiality in the mountains, caves, and "mystery holes."

However what IS proven are the signs that I think show artificiality. The mountains' consistency of shape & size, the mountain that looks exploded, with caves inside the crater, and the mountain with the gaping hole. That's all proven to the extent that the video is SHOWING, crystal clear, what those aspects are, which I think artificial.

So THAT was the original topic and it's all established, as clearly possible, in the OP, especially with the embedded documentary.




It's the side-topics which I haven't established as clearly, because... it wasn't the original topic.

So... I haven't proven that the desert glass impact site in northern Africa, is directly linked to the Younger Dryas Impact sites that include S. Africa, and also includes practically everywhere else in the world too.

So I haven't proven THAT, because it's a side-topic, and I haven't put time into it yet (as per real-life being demanding of my time).

But I did establish the Younger Dryas Impact site in S. Africa... the same continent as the Libyan Desert Glass... and I also established that the Libyan Desert Glass site was apparently formed from incineration & explosions. I established BOTH of those things, with mainstream scientific evidence, linked in the thread.

And also, you and I have both established that the Younger Dryas Impact sites... are found, practically everywhere, around the entire world. And so, when you take into account S. Africa, it ends up that the Libyan Desert Glass site, is practically SURROUNDED by the entire world of Younger Dryas Impact sites... which does indeed make it absurd to be so insistent that the glass-impact-site, is just IMPOSSIBLE to be related to the entire world of Younger Dryas impact sites surrounding it...






So... that's the break-down so far, everything is backed up with links to mainstream science, and the only thing lacking, is the side-topic of proving a connection between the Libyan Desert Glass etc., because that's a side-topic that wasn't originally a direct part of the OP and original topic.

So it doesn't really make THAT much sense to complain about side-topics lol because there will ALWAYS be side-topics that the original post didn't cover, lol. The original post can't cover EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE side-topic, lol.

And besides, I'm putting as much free-time into the thread as I can, already. I have a lawn to cut, I have deliveries to do, etc.





Anyway, I can focus on making that connection in the future, I haven't even tried to do that yet.

I seriously doubt it...

Well you were just apparently arguing that it's not RELEVANT that there's proven Younger Dryas Impact site in the same continent, as the Libyan Desert Glass impact site... so that's not flexing a lot of forte for geography... It's entirely BETTER forte to acknowledge, there's YD Impact damage ON THE SAME CONTINENT, and also, there's the ENTIRE GLOBE of YD Impact sites, practically everywhere on Earth, practically SURROUNDING the Libyan Desert Glass site... which geographically suggests that the one impact site JUST MIGHT BE RELATED TO ALL THE SURROUNDING IMPACT SITES, including the same continent, sheesh.

And their closest locations are separated by around 5000 Km. And one is in the South hemisphere and the other in the North hemisphere, with all the differences that makes in atmospheric conditions.

It established YD Impact in Africa, and also, in the ENTIRE WORLD surrounding the Libyan Desert Glass site, if you look at ALL the YD Impact sites, it's practically the entire world. And then the Libyan site is one more impact site, that you want to assume just CAN'T POSSIBLY be related, the whole world of impact sites around it...

The dates (that you keep ignoring because it suits you) are completely wrong.

Actually I just haven't sunk the time into the side-topic yet. And I didn't make the connection myself, it's how I first learned about the Younger Dryas Impact Theory, as incorporated the Libyan glass site.

OK, where did you get that information? Have you checked it recently to see if the information is like you remember it? Have you checked it to see if the person(s) that mentioned it changed their mind(s)?

^I've barely even gotten into this side-topic...

Absurd is treating two events separated by millions of years as if they occurred at the same time.

^Absurd is assuming YOU know, for sure, the millions of years history behind different impact sites... or that any human being really can be definitive about such claims...

PS: one suggestion, take care of your real life problems first, that will be better to all.

^Thanks, I seem to have cleared up my phone's lack of charging, intermittently, this past week. Though you're probably trying to be insulting, more than you care about my phone charging its battery, LOL.

And also, what you're really probably getting is that I haven't sunk enough hours into the thread yet, apparently, well what can I say. "Patience is a virtue." If you really have some interest in the topic then I will eventually work on making that connection between the Libyan site and the ENTIRE WORLD of YD Impact sites that are surrounding it...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So that's the mainstream science of the original topic, and yes, it's completely well-established, what we're talking about: the unique landscape in China, as per the embedded documentary.

What's not 'proven" is my personal response that I interpret artificiality in the mountains, caves, and "mystery holes."

Correct.

However what IS proven are the signs that I think show artificiality. The mountains' consistency of shape & size, the mountain that looks exploded, with caves inside the crater, and the mountain with the gaping hole. That's all proven to the extent that the video is SHOWING, crystal clear, what those aspects are, which I think artificial.

For that, you would need to ignore the geology of the place and the opinion and possible explanation presented by the guy in the video. Nothing based on science points to explosions or artificiality.

It's the side-topics which I haven't established as clearly, because... it wasn't the original topic.

Original topic or not, if we brought it into the discussion you should provide the same kind of evidence.

So... I haven't proven that the desert glass impact site in northern Africa, is directly linked to the Younger Dryas Impact sites that include S. Africa, and also includes practically everywhere else in the world too.

Exactly.

So I haven't proven THAT, because it's a side-topic, and I haven't put time into it yet (as per real-life being demanding of my time).

Bad excuse, but let's move on.

But I did establish the Younger Dryas Impact site in S. Africa... the same continent as the Libyan Desert Glass... and I also established that the Libyan Desert Glass site was apparently formed from incineration & explosions. I established BOTH of those things, with mainstream scientific evidence, linked in the thread.

You are adding one thing that is not part of mainstream explanation and that would give a different result: incineration.
That would leave different effects on the glass, and there's no signs of incineration in them.

And also, you and I have both established that the Younger Dryas Impact sites... are found, practically everywhere, around the entire world. And so, when you take into account S. Africa, it ends up that the Libyan Desert Glass site, is practically SURROUNDED by the entire world of Younger Dryas Impact sites... which does indeed make it absurd to be so insistent that the glass-impact-site, is just IMPOSSIBLE to be related to the entire world of Younger Dryas impact sites surrounding it...

It's absurd only if you ignore the evidence that shows the opposite.
Evidence shows signs of the Younger Dryas happening at slight different times across the whole Earth, which does not point to a large global event.
Evidence shows that the Libyan desert glass is much older than the Younger Dryas event.

So... that's the break-down so far, everything is backed up with links to mainstream science, and the only thing lacking, is the side-topic of proving a connection between the Libyan Desert Glass etc., because that's a side-topic that wasn't originally a direct part of the OP and original topic.

If just one thing is not backed up by evidence you shouldn't say "everything I've been talking about has been backed up with links to information validating it, from mainstream science", as that would be a lie.
(Bold added by me).

So it doesn't really make THAT much sense to complain about side-topics lol because there will ALWAYS be side-topics that the original post didn't cover, lol. The original post can't cover EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE side-topic, lol.

Then don't bring side-topics to the thread, if you do you should treat them the same way as the original topic.
Just because it's a side topic doesn't mean you can invent a story about it and treat it as facts.

Well you were just apparently arguing that it's not RELEVANT that there's proven Younger Dryas Impact site in the same continent, as the Libyan Desert Glass impact site... so that's not flexing a lot of forte for geography... It's entirely BETTER forte to acknowledge, there's YD Impact damage ON THE SAME CONTINENT, and also, there's the ENTIRE GLOBE of YD Impact sites, practically everywhere on Earth, practically SURROUNDING the Libyan Desert Glass site... which geographically suggests that the one impact site JUST MIGHT BE RELATED TO ALL THE SURROUNDING IMPACT SITES, including the same continent, sheesh.

As I said, being on the same continent is irrelevant, as those two locations are on different sides of the equator, with all the differences that makes, and they are some 5000 kilometres apart (the shortest distance between Africa and South America is only 3000 Km, for example. 5000 kilometres is 1/8 of the Earth's circumference).

It established YD Impact in Africa, and also, in the ENTIRE WORLD surrounding the Libyan Desert Glass site, if you look at ALL the YD Impact sites, it's practically the entire world. And then the Libyan site is one more impact site, that you want to assume just CAN'T POSSIBLY be related, the whole world of impact sites around it...

Because of the dates and the difference between the supposed signs left by possible Younger Dryas impact(s) and the Libyan desert glass.

Actually I just haven't sunk the time into the side-topic yet. And I didn't make the connection myself, it's how I first learned about the Younger Dryas Impact Theory, as incorporated the Libyan glass site.

Apparently, you got the wrong information about it...

^I've barely even gotten into this side-topic...

Doesn't matter. You bring it to the conversation you should treat it in the same way.

^Absurd is assuming YOU know, for sure, the millions of years history behind different impact sites... or that any human being really can be definitive about such claims...

This is the dismissing of people that study these things I was mentioning before. Geologists have dated the Libyan glass, you are ignoring it.

^Thanks, I seem to have cleared up my phone's lack of charging, intermittently, this past week. Though you're probably trying to be insulting, more than you care about my phone charging its battery, LOL.

No, I know that if we have real life problems we cannot focus on things that are, in fact, not that important as we would if things we OK. Also, if we have something worrying us in real life we have a tendency of getting angry online easier, as real life problems are still there on our minds.
That has happened to me a few times.

And also, what you're really probably getting is that I haven't sunk enough hours into the thread yet, apparently, well what can I say. "Patience is a virtue."

I had more patience when I was younger, but I still have more than enough. In fact, as I said before, I can wait.

If you really have some interest in the topic then I will eventually work on making that connection between the Libyan site and the ENTIRE WORLD of YD Impact sites that are surrounding it...

I'll "stay tuned".

By the way, I was brushing up a bit on the first few pages of the thread.

Page 3 of the thread, I quoted and linked the wiki for the "The Younger Dryas."



Here's my quote, again, from page 3 of the thread:

Impact hypothesis
Main article: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis
A hypothesized Younger Dryas impact event, presumed to have occurred in North America about 12,900 years ago, has been proposed as the mechanism that initiated the Younger Dryas cooling.[107]

Among other things, findings of melt-glass material in sediments in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Syria have been reported. The researchers argue that the material, which dates back nearly 13,000 years, was formed at temperatures of 1,700 to 2,200 °C (3,100 to 4,000 °F) as the result of a bolide impact. They argue that these findings support the controversial Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) hypothesis, that the bolide impact occurred at the onset of the Younger Dryas.

Also:

New support for the cosmic-impact hypothesis of the origin of the YDB was published in 2018. It postulates Earth's collision with one or more fragments from a larger (over 100 km diameter) disintegrating comet (some remnants of which have persisted within the inner solar system to the present day). Evidence is presented consistent with large-scale biomass burning (wildfires) following the putative collision. The evidence is derived from analyses of ice cores, glaciers, lake- and marine-sediment cores, and terrestrial sequences.[115][116]

Evidence that adds further to the credibility of this hypothesis includes extraterrestrial platinum, which has been found in meteorites. There are multiple sites around the world with spikes in levels of platinum that can be associated with the impact hypothesis, of which at least 25 are major.[117] Although most of these sites are found in the Northern Hemisphere, a study conducted in October 2019 has found and confirmed another site with high platinum levels located in the Wonderkrater area north of Pretoria in South Africa.[118] This coincides with the Pilauco site in southern Chile which also happens to contain high levels of platinum as well as rare metallic spherules, gold and high-temperature iron that is rarely found in nature and suspected of originating from airbursts or impacts.[119][120][121] These Southern Hemisphere high platinum zones further add to the credibility of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.

So while the quotes (from page 3 of the thread) are not explicitly mentioning Libyan Desert Glass, it does mention very similar sounding melt glass in Syria, which is very close to Libya... and the Syrian melt glass IS linked with the Younger Dryas event.





The quotes also mentioned Younger Dryas Impact sites containing platinum, in S. Africa (which is again, the same continent as Libya: Africa); and also, platinum Younger Dryas Impact site in Chile (which helps establish: YD Impact sites are in both the northern and southern continents, inclu. both Africa and S. America).



So it's not quite exactly mentioning the Libyan site, but it IS mentioning Younger Dryas Impact sites relatively-close by: both below, on the same continent, in S. Africa, and also, above: Syria's Younger Dryas Impact site containing GLASS, very close to it.



I think this is extremely compelling and suggestive that the Libyan site can obviously just be from the same Younger Dryas Impact, as these other neighboring sites.

Especially that the Syrian Younger Dryas Impact site has melted glass, it sounds very much the same, as if it could be the same stuff, from the same event.