Thanks for posting, Pashalis, and caught both clips (it's one show) last night, and these guys are fun to listen to while offering up their findings and speculations. Both Carlson and Howard complement each other by adding in their own thinking, which in this show went from the Bays, to Black Mat, to Greenland, with much in between. Carlson mentions stepping back and now looking at the older events in time to perhaps get his bearings (this comes up a bit as in looking at the long and short lens distance in time).
After catching many of these talks now, along with different threads here of various ideas, and stepping back a bit too, had a couple of thoughts (2 cent opinions) of things that probably can never be resolved satisfactorily; although things could be bridged between the main thinking camps.
The Camps
The landscape level camp sees the comet camp against the slow gradualism camp of the neo-Darwinists. Attack and counter attack, and Howard (Cosmic Tusk - CT) offers up a trail of these reviewed papers that go back and forth while also pointing out the gap is narrowing. That is good. CT is backed by something like fifty scientists, and many are PH.D's, thus their footing is pretty strong.
Both Carlson and Howard, and correctly so, bring up the works of Clube, Napier, Firestone, West and others. So there is a lot to draw on for them.
Carlson, especially, is a delight to listen to in describing landscape level changes, using his observations, and this is great because it is something each can participate in with our own everyday observations depending on what you see.
Now the gradualism camp represents academia in the main, so the usual things happen when their theories are challenged. This was discussed in some detail (Hancock is mentioned as being attacked relentlessly, and he is only a reporter).
Not discussed in their talk were the electrical camp (EC) with the likes of Wal Thornhill (see many threads here) et cetera, and the astrophysics camps, although the latter comes up in a brief discussion (see below).
The Sun camp comes up, sort of (Carlson), more in terms of Sun grazing comets and changes of the Sun, and this is occupying some of Carlson's recent thinking (which he says he will say more on). The Sun going nova in cycles is not considered (there is another thread here), and I don't know enough about that theory to say more.
Velikovsky is brought up by both Carlson and Howard, which they are generally dismissive of his astrophysics, which they also pointed out that Carl Sagan successfully brought low. Of course, Velikovsky, at that time, could not known advanced astrophysics and made a choice to look to Venus being spun out of Jupiter rather than allowing for things like Oort Clouds and Binary systems, which he did not know as possible factors, nor do Carlson and Howard ever bring them up (that I'm aware of) e.g., that Venus (and of course Mars interacting) seems to not be a good interloper theory in their discourse for YD. They did allow some concession for Velikovsky in some areas.
Greenland
This is the newest to come into our awareness field, and CT has a lot of information on their site and it is discussed at some length at the end of the podcast.
Personally, Pierre's article seems to focus on this Greenland event, if it bears out, with some pretty interesting details, so if not read they are in the quote box below - the three articles that shoul be read in succession.
...examples from different magnitudes of earth changing events like
this,
this and
this by Pierre Lescaudron.
This brings up the ice (have just read a little citing Colle Gnifetti Glacier studies et cetera) in an article named Getting to Grips with Greenland that seems to look, with graphs (stitch together) at the ages of ice of both Greenland and Iceland as being in the same date range (and they are island neighbors after all), and that does not seem to be at all right with data. I've found no direct papers for this sameness, yet it did get me wondering concerning how much we really know. There were those tree stumps under glacier ice near Alaska (and think in Switzerland) that are at odds with what is said in the main, and the referencing of ice core data date-ranges that keeps peoples timeline thinking on track.
Howard says of this new Greenland under the ice creator, if so, that the scientists who discovered it (and there are indicators of a second small creator 300 or so miles away) worked closely with NASA and, Defence, who the latter is just a stones throw away from the creator on the Greenland coast. According to Howard, there have been no ice cores extracted from this creator site. The story has also been somewhat buttoned down and the draft copy somewhat massaged out of direct reference to the YD event, as Howard tells. There were articles that did make the connection, yet they, too, are largely ignored.
There is something about ice dating going on (whether in the ant-Arctic, Greenland or elsewhere) that is interesting, yet don't know what to make of it let alone say what it is other than take it on faith the the picture is correctly scientific.
Myth, Water & Ice
The spikes of change are there to see; in the landscape, in build up markers of chemistry and as ice core markers, which the landscape camp and comet camp point out, and agreements vary, although more data is needed. However, the fact that something really big happened is there as markers too; asteroids and comets, yes. Electrical, it seems can't be discounted. Myths also tell that something really big also happened, and people like Velikovsky, back in his day, added that that bigness involved planets going out of phase. Thus, as far as can be seen the comet camp don't like talking to the EC camp (and forget the gradualism camp), and Velikovsky can be seen to just muddy the waters, like yeah, okay, that guy - we have to mention him, and yet there is this elephant in the room named Venus that Velikovsky kept pointing a finger at. Pierre writes about this in terms of where did earth get its water and electrical properties of the cosmos, which the C's also make a point of noting.
Lastly, Carlson and Howard were great as are other not featured in their talks, and all in all it would be nice to see all the camps bridge a little more rather than be so guarded, osit.
www.sott.net
malagabay.wordpress.com
cosmictusk.com
