Thank you for your answer Pierre, however, the Taal is spelled "Taal":
As this Wikipedia entry does not exist in French, I thought it would be great to provide the date of each ones in a comment.
Volcanoes, Earthquakes And The 3,600 Year Comet Cycle
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
Thank you for your answer Pierre, however, the Taal is spelled "Taal":
As this Wikipedia entry does not exist in French, I thought it would be great to provide the date of each ones in a comment.
MKS said:
My bad. I corrected the spelling in the original article.
MKS said:
If there's no entry in the French Wikipedia, it's better to add your explanations. With all your improvements, the article in French will end up better than the article in English!
Well, I've just finished the translation and I currently am doing a last proofreading before to publish it on tomorrow or on Saturday.
It was a real pleasure to learn about all this stuff around this cometary cycle, so thank you again for all your work.
I don't know if the French version will be better, I just consider the lack of datas available in French (it's an understatement!) and try to make the translation as exhaustive as it can be (or as I can do) to give the will to readers to maybe go further and make their own extra investigations. That's why I adapted the numerous diagrams in French - as wrote previously in editors and translators Groups - because reading them (part of) is not an easy thing in itself, and might discourage their understanding if in another language. I myself did not know nor understand some of them before to do so.
And if (as I read it in one of your comment under the original Focus) this article (and the two previous ones) is about to be part of a next book, these French diagrams could be useful.
Mexico issues yellow alert after Popocatepetl volcano erupts spectacularly
One of Mexico's most active volcanoes, Popocatepetl, erupted on Thursday morning, spewing ash high into the air above and showering lava around its crater. Officials have issued a yellow alert in response to the volcanic activity. Dramatic...
www.sott.net
Possible presence of a ninth planet (Planet X) causing gravitational perturbations on Trans-Neptunian objects and its period at about 3,500 years showed:
The Orbit of Planet Nine Derived from Engineering Physics
Robert Finch, Mattia A. Galiazzo
(Submitted on 24 Jan 2020)
The Orbit of Planet Nine Derived from Engineering Physics
Robert Finch, Mattia A. Galiazzo
(Submitted on 24 Jan 2020)
I've started to read the article now for the first time while translating and right from the start there is something that peaked my interest and I guess is also one of the reasons Pierre got interested into looking into that possible cycle more closely.
The 14,400 BP event, which by the looks of it, was even more severe than the two following ones (at least in terms of temperature drop) is dead on the timeframe the C's gave us for the comet cluster cycle of about 3600 years. And I mean, dead on...
Here is a short list I wrote down a while ago in order to pay closer attention to information in and around those dates that might pop up in the scientific literature in terms of cataclysmic events and such. It is the 3600 years comet-cluster-cycle the C's suggested bombards earth dated back from the year 2012:
- 3,600 years BP (1,588 years B.C.)
- 7,200 years BP (5,188 years B.C.)
- 10,800 years BP (8,788 years B.C.)
- 14,400 years BP (12,388 years B.C.)
- 18,000 years BP (15,988 years B.C.)
- 21,600 years BP (19,588 years B.C.)
So, if we assume that the big drop we can see in the temperature record for the 14,400 year BP event has been primarily caused by the comet cluster the C's talked about, that raises a number of pretty interesting questions. We notice that the two following ones that preceded the younger drayas period (and are by now strongly associated with harsh global cosmic events) don't fit within that cycle the C's suggested. That raises the big question if those events actually happened pretty much in the cycle the C's suggested, but that the accuracy of dating got seriously screwed up? If the 14.400 event is indeed the event the C's suggested, it could potentially be used as an anker point to calibrate/correct dates of events afterwards in some way?
Also, if the 14,400 BP event is the event the C's talk about, the question arises how exactly it is possible that this date is dead on in terms of dating while the following (and maybe the previous) events seems to be off quite some margin in terms of dating? All pretty interesting thoughts to think about that could help us figure out more precisely what might have happened and how exactly timeframes got mixed up (or moved in time) and how to maybe readjust them to reflect what actually happened on which point.
Will read on now in Pierres article.
The 14,400 BP event, which by the looks of it, was even more severe than the two following ones (at least in terms of temperature drop) is dead on the timeframe the C's gave us for the comet cluster cycle of about 3600 years. And I mean, dead on...
Here is a short list I wrote down a while ago in order to pay closer attention to information in and around those dates that might pop up in the scientific literature in terms of cataclysmic events and such. It is the 3600 years comet-cluster-cycle the C's suggested bombards earth dated back from the year 2012:
- 3,600 years BP (1,588 years B.C.)
- 7,200 years BP (5,188 years B.C.)
- 10,800 years BP (8,788 years B.C.)
- 14,400 years BP (12,388 years B.C.)
- 18,000 years BP (15,988 years B.C.)
- 21,600 years BP (19,588 years B.C.)
So, if we assume that the big drop we can see in the temperature record for the 14,400 year BP event has been primarily caused by the comet cluster the C's talked about, that raises a number of pretty interesting questions. We notice that the two following ones that preceded the younger drayas period (and are by now strongly associated with harsh global cosmic events) don't fit within that cycle the C's suggested. That raises the big question if those events actually happened pretty much in the cycle the C's suggested, but that the accuracy of dating got seriously screwed up? If the 14.400 event is indeed the event the C's suggested, it could potentially be used as an anker point to calibrate/correct dates of events afterwards in some way?
Also, if the 14,400 BP event is the event the C's talk about, the question arises how exactly it is possible that this date is dead on in terms of dating while the following (and maybe the previous) events seems to be off quite some margin in terms of dating? All pretty interesting thoughts to think about that could help us figure out more precisely what might have happened and how exactly timeframes got mixed up (or moved in time) and how to maybe readjust them to reflect what actually happened on which point.
Will read on now in Pierres article.
There's obviously nothing wrong with the theory in general.
But what about the "missing centuries"? This problem with time reckoning can make you go haywire...
Let's suppose that "2012" was really something like 1712 that would put the 10,800 BP event at 9088 BC.
When Platon mentions the demise of Atlantis at 9,000 years before the time of Solon though, "in a single day and night of misfortune" (written in 360 BC) it should have been published in 2,380 BP (counting from 2020) - but was it?
So when Atlantis perished 9,000 years before Solon (his heyday being around 600 BC) the figure 9,000 would be correct but Solon's time would fit in between 2,200 and 2,300 BP and "the end of Atlantis" around 11,000 BP and then some.
Converting these BP figures into our habitual BC time reckoning is probably just a game because there are serious doubts that we're even living in 2020...
Playing the game Solon's "end of Atlantis" would come in nicely at 8,980 BC which would be very close to the 10,800 BP/9,088 BC event mentioned earlier.
At the end of the day there is reason to believe that the demise of Atlantis and a cyclical cataclysmic event came close together...
I know it is only an example, but 2012 - 1712 is 300 years. So this would make the 10,800BP event 10,500BP. You seem to be working with a 1,712 year time difference (10,800 - 9,088)
Yes, if 2012 would have been 1712 the 10,800BP/9,088BC event mentioned by Pashalis it would turn into 10,500BP/8,788BC. I told you I was going haywire...
Skyfarmr
Jedi Master
Wow, Pierre, that article looks like it was a lot of work and effort. Thank you for compiling the information.
Finally got to reading this article. Got about half way through and came across a confusing graph. I think there's a mis-placement of your pointer arrow in Taylor Dome NO3 (A) graph. If it's suppose to be marking 10800BP, it should be moved to the left ~600 years.
This would also change the description that follows, where you write: The spike in Belukha (+15 ppb) is more pronounced than in Taylor Dome (+ 6 ppb). Should be closer to 30+ ppb? Not sure which spikes you are measuring from, maybe the ppb change is higher, it's a pretty big spike!
Back to reading article....
Finally got to reading this article. Got about half way through and came across a confusing graph. I think there's a mis-placement of your pointer arrow in Taylor Dome NO3 (A) graph. If it's suppose to be marking 10800BP, it should be moved to the left ~600 years.
This would also change the description that follows, where you write: The spike in Belukha (+15 ppb) is more pronounced than in Taylor Dome (+ 6 ppb). Should be closer to 30+ ppb? Not sure which spikes you are measuring from, maybe the ppb change is higher, it's a pretty big spike!
Back to reading article....
The onset of Younger Dryas was triggered by such massive catastrophes ca. 14,400, 12,900 and 12,600 BP that the dating pre-YD might indeed be unreliable.
anartist said:
I think that using BP timelines circumvents the missing centuries issue to some extent. Ice cores and similar techniques count yearly layers from present (among other calibrating approach). Say, ice cores reveal that Caesar's comet passed nearby 1,664 years ago (1,664 BP), that is 1,664 yearly layers ago, the missing centuries, whatever their number, don't affect the BP dating. It's only when we convert into the BC/AD timeline that we encounter potential problems.
To illustrate this point, Caesar's comet was sighted in 44 BC, that is officially 2064 years ago, but if 4 centuries were added the comet was sighted 1,664 years ago.
Wow, Pierre, that article looks like it was a lot of work and effort. Thank you for compiling the information.
Finally got to reading this article. Got about half way through and came across a confusing graph. I think there's a mis-placement of your pointer arrow in Taylor Dome NO3 (A) graph. If it's suppose to be marking 10800BP, it should be moved to the left ~600 years.
This would also change the description that follows, where you write: The spike in Belukha (+15 ppb) is more pronounced than in Taylor Dome (+ 6 ppb). Should be closer to 30+ ppb? Not sure which spikes you are measuring from, maybe the ppb change is higher, it's a pretty big spike!
Back to reading article....
Very good find Skyfarmer, that's makes the case for a 3,600-year cycle even stronger. I will amend the graph tomorrow. I counted 1,8 graduations from the left of the 10,000 BP mark for Beluka and Taylor Dome but I missed the fact that the scale for the two graphs is different dooohhh!
I got excited when I read "its period at about 3,500 years", but a Neptunian object (with a possible accompanying asteroid swarm) at 233 AU from the Sun and an eccentricity of 0.65 would not approach the Earth close enough to be the culprit, unfortunately.
