May I ask what anomalies you are talking about? I have started to read the text and I just want to see if they are the same as those talked about in the book.
While the shift probably isn't as dramatic as people suggest, the poles do move. When magnetic minerals are heated above a point called the Curie Point they lose their magnetism and when they cool, their magnetic orientation becomes that of the planet's existing orientation. They have studies of both lava flows around volcanoes and portions of the Mid Atlantic Ridge that suggest this. They actually sent ships out to map out and take magnetic readings of the sea floor and have mapped out bands of alternating magnetized rock. Source
There is also the earthquake data that has been collected associating the depth of the earthquakes along the plate boundaries with subduction of one plate underneath another. While the text books I have talk about this I wanted to provide a few other resources you can look at as proof of the subduction zone portion of this post. The first one, from the USGS has a number of slab models and other types of information you can look at.
Of course I should also say I'm not a geophysicist myself and it has been a long time since my geology days. I will continue to read the text you are talking about when I have the time.
It is fought over one issue:
whether the present continents and deep ocean basins have
been permanent features of the earth's crust since the forma-
tion of the planet, or whether they have not.
Again I'm going to assume much of the information and lack of knowledge (including related material and blah blah blah) presented in the book is because at this time period plate tectonics/continental drift and all that stuff was still a pretty new concept. According to the book, Historical Geology by Reed Wicander and James S. Monroe, "a 'Precambrian shield' (one well known example is the Canadian Shield) consisting of a vast area or areas of exposed ancient rocks is found on all continents." The book goes on to say that there are formations of rocks or "platforms" that spread out from these shields buried under the upper layers of each continent. These shield/platform areas or cratons are basically a sort of ancient nucleus and are "the foundations of the continents". As time went on and the plates drifted along the surface of the earth colliding with each other they accumulated more and more land mass creating the present shapes we see today. The book goes on to say the Canadian Shield in particular along with its associated platform are compose of smaller units of cratons "that amagamated along deformation belts during the Paleoproterozoic." Each of these smaller units have distinct absolute ages and structural trends.
In other word the continents started out as smaller land masses that came together as the continental plates moved and collided over time. It should also be noted that the earth's crust is less dense than that of the underlying material. Ocean crust consists of gabbro and basalt while the continental crust consists of andesitic rock.
A little earlier (which is probably where I should have started), the book talks about how the earth's early crust was thin and ultramafic. In other words the were igneous rocks with very low silica. Upwelling mantle underneath would disturb the thin layer of crust causing spreading plates and subduction zones which, in turn would generate island arcs that would becomes the before mentioned cratons.
As for this so called "war" this guy is talking about I'm not completely sure I understand. I would guess this is something that happened and has been debated since Wegener proposed continental drift in the early part of the 20th Century. At the time of the book's publication there were two camps of scientists. One camp believed that the earth was actually expanding, and therefore the continents here always the same shape, while the other believed in Wegener's idea that the continents moved from their positions and are continuing to move.
edit: I read further and I seem to be wrong. The author of this book seems to be talking about a possible theory put forth by some biologists and paleontologists of the time explaining why certain species of the same animal or plant can be found on continents across oceans. He says the theory suggests that there were land bridges connecting the continents rather than that the continents were together at some point. I've heard of this theory. While that may be able to explain the reason for the same animals and fossils appearing on continents separated by oceans it wouldn't explain why there are similarities in rock types and geological structures; for example Scandinavia, the mountains of the British Isles and the Appalachians (Found in Essentials of Geology by Frederick K. Lutgens and Edward J. Tarbuck). If these three areas were connected somehow by a land bridge there would probably be some evidence of a continuing mountain range in the Atlantic ocean but there isn't. They all have similar types of rock formations that are of the same age wwhich suggests that, at one time they were connected. It also doesn't explain the shapes of each continent being able to fit together i.e. Africa and South America. I'd chalk this up to the lack of knowledge at the time of the book's publication.
What anomalies in international politics do you see nowadays? I feel like nuclear weapons played a huge part for the past 70 years. Why do you say the videos are fake? Why do you think all the countries in the world would play along? What do they have to gain?
For example how could you possible get a shot like this[1] , the camera is unfazed by a shockwave that supposedly decimating an entire house.
"The camera was completely enclosed in a 2-inch lead sheath as a protection against radiation. The only source of light was that from the bomb." - Source.
These cameras were incredibly well protected, and were not the type of camera you would have often seen at the time. Everything was designed to survive the blast, and the cameras were absolutely no exception. They were designed to take the shock-wave and keep filming.
What's more logical; The camera was designed and housed in a way that mitigated damage from a blast-wave, or that the whole thing was fakes and each one of the thousands of videos, hundreds of thousands of pictures, and tens of thousands of eye-witness testimonies are fake.
I know which side I'm on. The one with even the most basic form of evidence.
Which part of this is so clearly fake? While it's likely a few tests spliced together, it's all real footage. I'd love to see your evidence. It's a Mark 9 Artillery-fired nuke, which due to the conditions you'd have to be in to be using artillery as the delivery vehicle, was an idea that was abandoned fairly quickly from the mainstream.
All govts are very interested in keeping the population under control. Fear is a trick the rulers have always used up until this day. To them, we aren't so special for it to be any different. How hard is it to comprehend the same tactics are used today?
Because nuclear weapon usage is the MOST well documented thing on the planet, these cameras were specially designed to take these photos, these cameras were placed underground and used mirrors to get these shots, also if you follow the website in the video it's an entire website dedicated to nuclear weapon usage of the 50s and 60s, also the fact that there are thousands of eye witness that saw it in the 50s and 60s in Las Vegas since they used to test near Las Vegas. Because the radiation burns and radiation sickness that victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings obtained, the fact that there are fucking people's shadows burned into objects from the flash of the nuclear detonation. For all topics for someone to argue against why on EARTH would you pick something sooo WELL documented. Something that's been proven happened.
There are people that are alive that witness the bomb being drop and a man who survived both bombs, eye witness accounts and the actual footage of the bombs explosion are proof enough, the damage on the ground the fact there are nuclear shadows from people and objects that were vaporized by the light. Not believing in the nuclear weapons is as retarded as people denying the holocaust
No, he means this is literally a CG film with no pretenses of being real. I can find CGI videos of unicorns and mole-men, it doesn't make them real and you certainly can't use them as evidence of anything.
The Anunnaki forbade their use among themselves, and when they were used illegally on Earth, it resulted in the withdrawal of their Earth colony. If Earth is still part of their empire, it makes sense that the psychopaths in charge can only pretend to use them. Things like depleted uranium and nuclear power may simply be the exploitation of loopholes in the law.
Sumerian and Indus mythologies both describe warfare, between their respective gods, which strongly resembles a thermonuclear exchange. Certain levels of extremely ancient ruins, such as Mohenjo-daro, exhibit both vitrification of structures, and skeletons containing isotopes peculiar to nuclear fission.
When one of his colleagues remarked, during the explosion of the first American atomic bomb, "this is the first time this has ever happened," Edward Teller, an unabashed student of Indus mythology, responded "the first in modern times."
Keep in mind i'm no expert but to me icbms have all the marks of a power full propaganda tool with close to no real evidence of their legitimacy. again just my opinion. but nukes are very real they are just not what we think they are.
Supposedly it was described as a perfect glowing sphere. And the fires that raged are uncharacteristic of normal fire bombing . I'm no expert so this is all speculation but Russia is not one to bend over and take it and that's exactly what happened with this event.
Keep in mind i'm no expert but to me icbms have all the marks of a power full propaganda tool with close to no real evidence of their legitimacy. again just my opinion. but nukes are very real they are just not what we think they are.
48 comments
14 BrotherSpartacus 2015-12-22
If nuclear weapons are fake so is science.
-5 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
3 squamesh 2015-12-22
What parts of science do you think are made up or slanted?
-4 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
3 squamesh 2015-12-22
Could you explain how those are slanted?
0 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
5 squamesh 2015-12-22
Aeronautics
-4 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
7 SuburbanDinosaur 2015-12-22
Aeronautics had/has very little to do with the moon landings.
Do you also think planes don't exist?
2 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
0 SuburbanDinosaur 2015-12-22
Which proves my point. You should've use the term aerospace engineering. "Aeronautics" doesn't fit, and isn't the term anymore.
2 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
2 SuburbanDinosaur 2015-12-22
I don't think you're even in a league.
0 Harbinger147 2015-12-22
Oh he's in a league alright, just not a smart one
3 squamesh 2015-12-22
What about information technology?
-4 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
4 PeculiarNed 2015-12-22
You don't understand entropy, do you?
4 Pisceswriter123 2015-12-22
As a former geology student I'm interested in what you might say about that one. I've gotten as far as Sedimentology/Stratigraphy.
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
2 Pisceswriter123 2015-12-22
May I ask what anomalies you are talking about? I have started to read the text and I just want to see if they are the same as those talked about in the book.
While the shift probably isn't as dramatic as people suggest, the poles do move. When magnetic minerals are heated above a point called the Curie Point they lose their magnetism and when they cool, their magnetic orientation becomes that of the planet's existing orientation. They have studies of both lava flows around volcanoes and portions of the Mid Atlantic Ridge that suggest this. They actually sent ships out to map out and take magnetic readings of the sea floor and have mapped out bands of alternating magnetized rock. Source
There is also the earthquake data that has been collected associating the depth of the earthquakes along the plate boundaries with subduction of one plate underneath another. While the text books I have talk about this I wanted to provide a few other resources you can look at as proof of the subduction zone portion of this post. The first one, from the USGS has a number of slab models and other types of information you can look at.
Of course I should also say I'm not a geophysicist myself and it has been a long time since my geology days. I will continue to read the text you are talking about when I have the time.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
1 Pisceswriter123 2015-12-22
Again I'm going to assume much of the information and lack of knowledge (including related material and blah blah blah) presented in the book is because at this time period plate tectonics/continental drift and all that stuff was still a pretty new concept. According to the book, Historical Geology by Reed Wicander and James S. Monroe, "a 'Precambrian shield' (one well known example is the Canadian Shield) consisting of a vast area or areas of exposed ancient rocks is found on all continents." The book goes on to say that there are formations of rocks or "platforms" that spread out from these shields buried under the upper layers of each continent. These shield/platform areas or cratons are basically a sort of ancient nucleus and are "the foundations of the continents". As time went on and the plates drifted along the surface of the earth colliding with each other they accumulated more and more land mass creating the present shapes we see today. The book goes on to say the Canadian Shield in particular along with its associated platform are compose of smaller units of cratons "that amagamated along deformation belts during the Paleoproterozoic." Each of these smaller units have distinct absolute ages and structural trends.
In other word the continents started out as smaller land masses that came together as the continental plates moved and collided over time. It should also be noted that the earth's crust is less dense than that of the underlying material. Ocean crust consists of gabbro and basalt while the continental crust consists of andesitic rock.
A little earlier (which is probably where I should have started), the book talks about how the earth's early crust was thin and ultramafic. In other words the were igneous rocks with very low silica. Upwelling mantle underneath would disturb the thin layer of crust causing spreading plates and subduction zones which, in turn would generate island arcs that would becomes the before mentioned cratons.
As for this so called "war" this guy is talking about I'm not completely sure I understand. I would guess this is something that happened and has been debated since Wegener proposed continental drift in the early part of the 20th Century. At the time of the book's publication there were two camps of scientists. One camp believed that the earth was actually expanding, and therefore the continents here always the same shape, while the other believed in Wegener's idea that the continents moved from their positions and are continuing to move.
edit: I read further and I seem to be wrong. The author of this book seems to be talking about a possible theory put forth by some biologists and paleontologists of the time explaining why certain species of the same animal or plant can be found on continents across oceans. He says the theory suggests that there were land bridges connecting the continents rather than that the continents were together at some point. I've heard of this theory. While that may be able to explain the reason for the same animals and fossils appearing on continents separated by oceans it wouldn't explain why there are similarities in rock types and geological structures; for example Scandinavia, the mountains of the British Isles and the Appalachians (Found in Essentials of Geology by Frederick K. Lutgens and Edward J. Tarbuck). If these three areas were connected somehow by a land bridge there would probably be some evidence of a continuing mountain range in the Atlantic ocean but there isn't. They all have similar types of rock formations that are of the same age wwhich suggests that, at one time they were connected. It also doesn't explain the shapes of each continent being able to fit together i.e. Africa and South America. I'd chalk this up to the lack of knowledge at the time of the book's publication.
I know this is being a little lazy and none of the things I've given you are direct sources, this wikipedia article talking about greenstone belts might be something to look into.
9 DostThowEvenLift 2015-12-22
What anomalies in international politics do you see nowadays? I feel like nuclear weapons played a huge part for the past 70 years. Why do you say the videos are fake? Why do you think all the countries in the world would play along? What do they have to gain?
1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
15 Cptcutter81 2015-12-22
"The camera was completely enclosed in a 2-inch lead sheath as a protection against radiation. The only source of light was that from the bomb." - Source.
These cameras were incredibly well protected, and were not the type of camera you would have often seen at the time. Everything was designed to survive the blast, and the cameras were absolutely no exception. They were designed to take the shock-wave and keep filming.
-6 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
12 Cptcutter81 2015-12-22
What's more logical; The camera was designed and housed in a way that mitigated damage from a blast-wave, or that the whole thing was fakes and each one of the thousands of videos, hundreds of thousands of pictures, and tens of thousands of eye-witness testimonies are fake.
I know which side I'm on. The one with even the most basic form of evidence.
-10 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
7 Cptcutter81 2015-12-22
Which part of this is so clearly fake? While it's likely a few tests spliced together, it's all real footage. I'd love to see your evidence. It's a Mark 9 Artillery-fired nuke, which due to the conditions you'd have to be in to be using artillery as the delivery vehicle, was an idea that was abandoned fairly quickly from the mainstream.
2 giantfrogfish 2015-12-22
those are hilarious! wow
-2 metabolix 2015-12-22
All govts are very interested in keeping the population under control. Fear is a trick the rulers have always used up until this day. To them, we aren't so special for it to be any different. How hard is it to comprehend the same tactics are used today?
-2 giantfrogfish 2015-12-22
this guys awake ^
-1 metabolix 2015-12-22
:)
7 DarthExecutor 2015-12-22
So what is in our icbm missile silos? Fake missles? What did we drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
-5 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
11 Cardsfan1539 2015-12-22
It's pretty easy to tell which ones were caused by nukes...
4 Harbinger147 2015-12-22
This is pants on head absolutely the most retarded thing I have ever read in my life.
0 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
4 Harbinger147 2015-12-22
Yep, considering that is a real atomic weapons test yes I am satisfied, I will reiterate this is the most retarded thing I've ever read
1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
5 Harbinger147 2015-12-22
Because nuclear weapon usage is the MOST well documented thing on the planet, these cameras were specially designed to take these photos, these cameras were placed underground and used mirrors to get these shots, also if you follow the website in the video it's an entire website dedicated to nuclear weapon usage of the 50s and 60s, also the fact that there are thousands of eye witness that saw it in the 50s and 60s in Las Vegas since they used to test near Las Vegas. Because the radiation burns and radiation sickness that victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings obtained, the fact that there are fucking people's shadows burned into objects from the flash of the nuclear detonation. For all topics for someone to argue against why on EARTH would you pick something sooo WELL documented. Something that's been proven happened.
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
4 Harbinger147 2015-12-22
Lol you've got no proof either way besides some video you thought was impossible
0 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
5 Harbinger147 2015-12-22
Lol okay, just because you don't understand doesn't mean they aren't real. TOP MIND here!
0 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
1 Harbinger147 2015-12-22
Except it's not fake, we've got nuclear power plants that do the same thing except it's controlled unlike nuclear weapons
1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
1 Harbinger147 2015-12-22
Except you know they actually did drop atomic weapons on Japan that's literal fact
1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
1 Harbinger147 2015-12-22
There are people that are alive that witness the bomb being drop and a man who survived both bombs, eye witness accounts and the actual footage of the bombs explosion are proof enough, the damage on the ground the fact there are nuclear shadows from people and objects that were vaporized by the light. Not believing in the nuclear weapons is as retarded as people denying the holocaust
3 KendleC 2015-12-22
Which videos, I'd like to watch? Willing to entertain the thought.
-4 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
8 NovaculaAcuta 2015-12-22
I'm pretty sure that is CG.
-4 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
10 Cptcutter81 2015-12-22
No, he means this is literally a CG film with no pretenses of being real. I can find CGI videos of unicorns and mole-men, it doesn't make them real and you certainly can't use them as evidence of anything.
-6 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
0 metabolix 2015-12-22
Wow, thanks!
0 s70n3834r 2015-12-22
The Anunnaki forbade their use among themselves, and when they were used illegally on Earth, it resulted in the withdrawal of their Earth colony. If Earth is still part of their empire, it makes sense that the psychopaths in charge can only pretend to use them. Things like depleted uranium and nuclear power may simply be the exploitation of loopholes in the law.
-2 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
1 s70n3834r 2015-12-22
Sumerian and Indus mythologies both describe warfare, between their respective gods, which strongly resembles a thermonuclear exchange. Certain levels of extremely ancient ruins, such as Mohenjo-daro, exhibit both vitrification of structures, and skeletons containing isotopes peculiar to nuclear fission.
When one of his colleagues remarked, during the explosion of the first American atomic bomb, "this is the first time this has ever happened," Edward Teller, an unabashed student of Indus mythology, responded "the first in modern times."
1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
1 metabolix 2015-12-22
Or all we have is an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation
-1 metabolix 2015-12-22
I also have my doubts. It is a powerful weapon though, to fear the population into submission and control.
-4 flyyyyyyyyy 2015-12-22
and i believe the 'nuclear weapons are fake' trope is just more cover for the nuclear demolition of wtc1/2/7 at 9/11
0 giantfrogfish 2015-12-22
nuclear war heads ona giant missile are a silly lie, but atomic weaponry is definitely real. These things don't need to be black and white.
3 flyyyyyyyyy 2015-12-22
yeah i dunno who is saying 'nuclear war heads ona giant missile'
or are you saying nuclear icbms are a lie?
0 giantfrogfish 2015-12-22
Keep in mind i'm no expert but to me icbms have all the marks of a power full propaganda tool with close to no real evidence of their legitimacy. again just my opinion. but nukes are very real they are just not what we think they are.
0 flyyyyyyyyy 2015-12-22
yeah im interested in the whole 'ley lines' thing, but i dont understand them. gotta keep digging..
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
1 giantfrogfish 2015-12-22
Have you looked into the supposed nuclear device that may or may not have leveled ancient Moscow? This was during the Nepolionic wars.
https://m.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comments/3w1gm0/napoleon_nuked_moscow/
I do think they have significant destructive powers.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
0 giantfrogfish 2015-12-22
Supposedly it was described as a perfect glowing sphere. And the fires that raged are uncharacteristic of normal fire bombing . I'm no expert so this is all speculation but Russia is not one to bend over and take it and that's exactly what happened with this event.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
0 giantfrogfish 2015-12-22
Unfortunately this event would have happened like 60 years before the first moving pictures could be taken.
0 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
-3 [deleted] 2015-12-22
[deleted]
1 flyyyyyyyyy 2015-12-22
yes
ffwded to the part that explains wtc7
but i highly recommend watching the whole thing. my jaw was on the floor for 4 hours.
0 giantfrogfish 2015-12-22
Keep in mind i'm no expert but to me icbms have all the marks of a power full propaganda tool with close to no real evidence of their legitimacy. again just my opinion. but nukes are very real they are just not what we think they are.