A Revised Egyptian Chronology. Errors in Early Iron Age through Bronze Age Radiocarbon Correlations.

see my evolving google sheet with all correlations with the king lists (link)

Old World Correlations between Bible

A / CSCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTIONREPEAT/BIBLE DESCRIPTIONS / H *
± 5500-3100 BCOsiris MythsAbraham myths± 1936 BC
± 2600 BCImhotep cult/Amenemhat IIJoseph in Egypt (convoluted history)± 1746 BC
1680 BCNeferhotep/Sobekhotep IVPharoah/Moses & Exodus (convoluted hist.)± 1451 BC
1900-1550 BCHyksos of Canaan then AverisAmalekites Rule Israel then Egypt1400-1037 BC
± 1650-1630 BCBeon takes AverisSaul’s conquest of ‘Shur’ (Samuel 15:7)1037 BC
± 1630-1590 BCKhyan conquers to KarnakDavid’s Conquest of Israel/Egypt/Syria± 1010 BC
± 1575-1540 BCApepi the Set/Monotheist ‘(Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre’ papyri)King Solomon (masonic teachings on Hirum Abif & 3 ruffians who murder)± 940 BC
±1541–1529 BCKhamudy (driven from Egypt by Ahmose)Rehoboam (Pharaoh Shishak defeat & takes Northern Kingdom from him)± 926 BC
± 1479 BCThutmose III (Megiddo/Canaan Campaign)± 911 BC
±1351–1334 BCAmarna LettersEarly neoAssyrian campaigns (Tiglath-Pileser III & Shalmaneser V)745-723 BC
± 1178 BC(c14 misdated)Ramesses III (‘Sea Peoples’ overrun Syria, Battle of Djahy & Delta)Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser III (Takes Northern Israel during Piye/Osorkon IV/Tefnakht rule)± 732 BC
±1292-1290 BCRamesses INecho I (Assyrian puppet)±672–664 BC
Seti IPsamtik I (see statue) Hezikiah’s time.±664–610 BC
± 1274 BCBattle of Kadesh (Ramesses II/Canaan vs.  old-Mitanni/  Hittites/ Amurru)Battle of Carchemesh (Necho II/Israel vs. Babylonian/ Phrygian/Lydian alliance)± 605 BC
± 1200-1150 BCLate Bronze Age Collapse (Minoans/Cyprus/Hittites-Kassites/Mycenaeans/’Sea Peoples’)Late Iron Age War Carnage (Dorians/Cyprus/Babylonians-Persians/Greeks/ ’Lydians-Pheonicians’)± 600-546 BC
± 1184 BCTrojan War (like with Ramesses/ Seti, multiple ancient & modern events were combined into single mythology)Siege of Sardis where Cyrus takes Western Anatolia, combined with Siege of Tyre, Darius & Xerxes as well as ancient 1000bc events of original Ramesses/Seti)± 546 BC

Strongest Correlations:

-Herodotus places Apries & Amasis (26th dynasty) directly AFTER Sethos/seti (19 dynasty), Necho & Samtik (26th dynasty). Likewise Menetho seems to tack variants of these names in the 18th dynasty. These repeats scream of a mix up. Especially when juxtaposed with the completely anachronistic story of Sethos/Armais.  In this story. Josephus quotes Menetho saying concerning the siege of the Assyrians (732 BC) “After him came Sethosis, and Ramesses, two brethren… The country also was called from his name Egypt; for Manetho says, that Sethosis was himself called Egyptus, as was his brother Armais called Danaus”.  Yet in all chronologies, Sethos/Ramesses are placed in the 19 dynasty at 1500 BC, instead of during Assyrian times of the 26th dynasty of ~700 BC!  This alone, calls for a real look at if there’s a major mixup here.

-The Famine Stela, Philae temple motifs & Elephantine papyrus show how Egyptian Jews adapted egyptian history. The famine stela tells of a 7 year famine, resembling the story of Joseph in the Bible which seems to equate Imhotep with Joseph and Djoser as Joseph’s Pharaoh. Imhotep’s forefathers are said to be Ptah (Israel?) and Banebdjedet (Adam?, similar to the Masonic motifs of Facsimile 2)  Drawn above the text is a scene greatly resembling Facsimile 3 in the Book of Abraham. With both the Famine Stela text, The Kolbrin (and Joseph Smith/Masonic?) interpretation suggesting that the Jewish colony of Elephantine, Egypt equated Osiris with Abraham.

-The Kolbrin unmistakably mentions David in the time of pharaoh Athmose

-Both Masonic tradition AND the Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenre’ papyri suggest Solomon & Hirum of Tyre are contemporaries of Seqenenre Tao/ Senakhtenre Ahmose. Agreeing with the Kolbrin.

-The archaeological findings in Tanis (The Hyksos of that same era) match strongly with both the biblical narrative of ‘hand cutting’, bull sacrifice AND ties to Pheonician settlements such as Tyre (as suggested by the Kolbrin account of Hirum)

-Soleb inscription in Sudan is oldest mention of Yahweh/Jehovah. Built by Amenhotep (1400 BC), hieroglyphics say “land of the Nomads of Yahweh”. For Sudan, this makes far more sense in the Davidic era & his Cushite alliances than in the time of Moses! 

-‘Ramesses II’ statue found in Cairo neighborhood (Matariya) in 2017 ended up having Psamtik I cartoosh on it! Why? Because Ramesses II is Psamtik, but because ancient Egypt was multi-cultural/multi-lingual, different regions/temple cults used different variants of the ruler’s names!

-The Merneptah Stele! (1207 BCE)  It says “Israel is laid waste—its seed is no more” along with other Destructions which REALLY sound like either Assyrian or Babylonian destruction of Israel or Judah at 605 BC!

-There’s really just validation after validation of this correlation.

Overview

Near-eastern prehistory is in need of a significant chronological overhaul. Egyptian & Babylonian timelines as well as global radiocarbon date correlations for our modern views of prehistory are off by at least 500 years. This largely because of previously unrecognized mistakes in the ancient Egyptian timeline which were then propagated into most other near-eastern prehistory timelines and even radiocarbon correlations curves.

These timeline mistakes were made as early as 70 AD in the writings of Josephus (and later Christian redactors of the Greco-Egyptian historian Manetho) whose desires to correlate biblical events such as Moses & the Exodus into Egyptian history caused them to correlate the Canaanite Hyksos of Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period with the freed Jews spanning from the Exodus throughout the conquest of Israel (1900-1500 BC). When in fact, the Hyksos in Avaris actually correlate with the post exilic period of 1400-1050 BC of Amalekites whose empire stretching into Nubia is then conquered for a short period by Saul & the Davidic Kingdom. This false correlation was then propagated into modern archaeology by early Christian scientists & enthusiasts who were enamored with the idea of many of the impressive Ramesean monuments being related to Biblical Egyptian stories. Ironically, because of that desire of early religiously motivated archaeologists, most prehistory scholars today do not see many of the accounts in the bible before about 850 BC as reliable history because the accepted timelines create so many problems with biblical accounts vs archaeological correlations.

My first premonitions for the need of a chronological adjustment came from early encounters with the numerous ‘repeats’ of events, empires and individuals in the near-east prehistoric record. Old Babylon vs. Neo Babylon. Old Assyria vs Neo Assyria. Mythical Ramesses & Seti vs the New Kingdom characters vs Persian references. Mythical Sargon vs Sargon II. Bronze age Nebuchadnezzar I vs Nebuchadnezzar II. Then my suspicions were truly validated when I began to compare the ancient Kolbrin text to true history. In its pages are amazing references to Egyptian & near-east history & myth with a specific reference equating a red haired Canaanite King (obviously David) warring with Pharaoh Ahmose/Thothmose.

Now even our radiocarbon correlation curve institutions have made the early Iron age Hallstatt radiocarbon anomaly (450-950 BC) into a plateau when it should be a cliff (rewrite, simplify). At around 500-850 BC, radiocarbon dates very quickly jump from nearly correct readings to 300-350 years too old! (c14 1050 BC = 750 BC) But because of the incorrect Egyptian dating, radiocarbon correlators who did in fact realize the need for correlation, but went the wrong direction! (c14 1050 BC = 1150-1350 BC!). Undoubtedly, very low CO2 levels played a part, with plants up taking lower amounts of c14 than the historic average during the early iron age & bronze ages. (put the details down in the article)

Note (rewrite and put this in body) A huge part of the mixup is the partially mythical story of the brothers Ramesses/Seti (also called Egypt). These brothers conquered from Egypt to Anatolia & Greece and became a powerful mythos behind the common ties of Greece, Phoenicia and Egypt. The original story may be as old as the great monuments of Egypt itself, but throughout Egyptian history, any pharaoh who expanded Egyptian territory into Anatolia took the title Rameses. This included Sesostris I (1800 BC – note that Herodotus mentions a carving of Sesostris in Nif Dagi, thought by Archaeologist to be Ramesses II), Kamose/Ahmose (1000 BC) who subjugated Israel & the Phoenicians, Amasis/Apries who conquered to the Euphrates. The title was then adopted by Darius & Alexander/Ptolemy to legitimize the Greco-Egyptian Empire.

Actual DateHistorically Known Empire or CultureArchaeologically Dated EquivalentArcheol. Date
1400-1000 BCAmalekites / Davidic KingdomEarly/Late Hyksos Dynasties 14-161725-1550 BC
1037-931 BCSaul/ David (&Jonatan)/ SolomonSaltis (Beon)/ Khyan (Jannas)/ Apophis (Apepi)1620-1550 BC
1069-609 BCThird Intermediate to Late PeriodEgyptian New Kingdom1550-1069 BC
911-609 BCNeo Assyrian EmpireMiddle Assyrian Empire (parts)1365–1050 BC
605-556 BCNeo Babylonian Dynasty (X)Babylon Dynasty IV & Sargonid Dynasty1153-609 BC
605-562 BCNebuchadnezzar II (same person as >)Nebuchadnezzar I1121-1100 BC
722-560 BCMedes/Babylonians/Early PersiansElam/Kassites1531-1155 BC
732-530 BCGreeks/Early PersiansSea Peoples/Hittites1292-1189 BC

Introduction

Near-eastern prehistory is a patchwork of ancient floating chronologies hashed together over the last 300 years on often contradictory data garnered from archaeological contexts (such as radiocarbon dates, king lists and monuments) combined with historical sources like the Bible, Eusebius/Africanus, Josephus, (quoting Manetho), Herodotus and more. Small revisions and adjustments to these correlations has been an ongoing process, worked on continually by many authors. However, only from time to time do authors attempt major revisions which reassess the very foundations that modern dating techniques are based on. In this paper I attempt to show that largescale global and regional fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic field have caused massive gaps and repeats in current prehistory paradigms which have not yet been addressed by any of the available radiocarbon calibration curves.

The primary evidence of these radiocarbon fluctuations are seen in the well known ‘wiggles’ or variations in ancient radiocarbon levels such as seen in the Hallstatt Plateau. Radiocarbon variation during this era have made the dating of artifacts with known dates from 800-400 BC nearly impossible. Archaeologists familiar with this radiocarbon phenomena have referred to the Hallsatt Plateau as “the 1st millennium BC radiocarbon disaster” (see James, 19933) During this period the geomagnetic field in the Near East was characterized by “rapid changes and high intensity values, including several spikes of more than twice the intensity of today’s field.” (see ManningVakninBen-Yosef, etc.)

The anomaly is named after the late Bronze Age Hallstatt period in which it most notably manifests as well as the salt mines of Hallstatt Austria which form the type locality for the site. Disturbingly, this period of geomagnetic/radiocarbon instability was not found by dendrochronologists or geochronologists, but only by archaeologists working with near-eastern settings of known age. Predominately Biblical sites with archaeological evidence which could not be confused from historical contexts. This means, were it not for the fact that archaeologists positively knew the sites actual date and reported the faulty radiocarbon result, the false age would likely never been discovered.

Furthermore, I believe that this anomalous “plateau” has been misinterpreted by geochronologists and its logical effects on Bronze Age dates ignored. Instead of a “plateau”, I believe the Hallstatt anomaly actually a general cliff in the dating regimen, with a number of small range series spikes. Spikes which causes artifacts with true ages between 800-400 BC to yield dates of 3000-1400 BC! And although the phenomena is recognized on the “historical end” in settings known from the bible to date to 800-400 BC, it is often missed in archaeological contexts without positive historical markers.

“When dealing with the period after ~800 BCE, our archaeomagnetic dating is particularly useful, due to the plateau in the radiocarbon calibration curve which limits high resolution dating. During this period the geomagnetic field in this region was characterized by rapid changes and high intensity values, including several spikes of more than twice the intensity of today’s field”(In Reconstructing biblical military campaigns using geomagnetic field data, Yoav Vaknin, 2022)

Thus we get various sites or artifacts with a radiocarbon dates around 2400 BC which actually date to around 800 BC. Even the type locality of Hallstatt Austria for which the radiocarbon plateau is named shows a suspicious bimodal array of dates covering not only the early Iron Age of 800-500 BC, but recently a middle Bronze age array of dates from 1200-800 BC have manifest in the area which I suspect are actually just anomalous dates from one of the several radiocarbon peaks which existed during the seventh to ninth century BC. (see Agerskov et al and Grabner et al)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Q3KvcorSsZE%3Fstart%3D595%26feature%3Doembed%26wmode%3Dopaque%26rel%3D0
Dipole moment or general magnetic field polarity for the last 9000 years (from Nilsson, et al, 2022). The authors note the sharp drop in strength at 600 BC (400-900 BC), which coincides with the Hallstatt Platea. Note similar rapid changes in dipole strength occur at c14 dates of 3000-4000 BC & 6500-7000 BC which likely correspond to similar unrecognized radiocarbon anomalies. Note also the 650/700 year cycles.

Nilsson, Suttie, Stoner & Muscheler. Recurrent ancient geomagnetic field anomalies shed light on future evolution of the South Atlantic Anomaly. Nature, 2022 (great read)

.

HOW OFF COULD RADIOCARBON DATES BE?

  • The latitudinal variation of carbon dioxide and radiocarbon is relatively small (425ppm vs 435ppm in co2, and __), whereas the variation for vulcanism can be enormous. (As much as 50,000 ppm co2 near volcanoes/trapps). Localized date pollution by volcanic outgassing/eruptions such as Thera/Iceland, should be taken very seriously.
  • If the present atmospheric carbon dioxide level (near double pre-industrial levels) was experienced in the past (lets say at 600 BC from an eruption), then the radiocarbon date from a sample of that age would be effectively halved. So, the actual c14 ratio would be HALF the expected ratio, giving a date of 8332 BP or 6332 BC! (This delusion is called the Suess Effect)
  • The bomb effect on radiocarbon was so powerful (doubling pre-bomb levels), that a sample from its peak in 1965 would date to 5,730 IN THE FUTURE. Meaning, that nearly 6000 years would have to pass before that sample even gave a ‘modern’ date. But it only lasted about 50 years. So we can assume that if massive CME’s created spikes in the past, dates problems should only last a few decades, and give completely anomalous dates.
  • So for the Ice Age to give anomalously OLD dates, then there must have been LESS radiocarbon (from a stronger magnetic field) or MORE carbon dioxide. But it would have to be SUBSTANTIALLY STRONGER. For instance The field has decayed 10% in the last 100 years. And if we suppose a 20% stronger field in 600 BC, samples would have 5% less radiocarbon which would cause them to appear 425 years older. (AI generated calculations). So to assume dates that are from 720 BC are giving erroneous dates of 2200 BC, we’d have to assume the field was like 60% stronger than the current field strength. (which if the earth wobbled at Hezekiah could we assume that would be the effect?)
  • Similarly, for the ice age to have ended at Moses at 1500 BC, but give radiocarbon dates of 9000 BC… then there would have to be WAY STRONGER MAGNETIC FIELD. So we’d have to hypothesize that the growing earth, both released massive amounts of carbon dioxide AND massively increased the magnetic field strength.
  • Carbon Dioxide levels in the Cambrian and Cretaceous are thought to be as high as 2-6000ppm, so about 16x ‘normal’ (preindustrial) levels. AI calculates that a sample from 1800 BC with those levels of carbon dioxide (6,000ppm) would yield a date of 25,300 BP. (with no change in magnetic field strength). So completely within reason. (2,000ppm would yield a date of 16,250 BP)

.

.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION FROM THIS POINT ON!

.

Or… [give a few more examples from my repeating culture chart up top and then propose the idea that the cause has been staring us in the face with the biblical account of the “sundial of Ahaz” which points to a rapid true polar wandering event (TPW), which I believe is only one example of many episodes of axial instability. Something which caused sea travel across the Atlantic and pacific to grind to a halt, because of increased volcanism on the spreading ridges. Also, that this is a 700 yr cycle with known occurrences at: Moses 1500 BC, Hezekiah 780/722 BC, 33 AD, 774/5 AD/820 AD1482 AD, and the next due around 2200 AD, major instability seen in 586 BC, Babylonian burning of Jerusalem]

In this article I offer a fairly large revision created by large scale repeating patterns I’ve noticed over my decades of research supported by new information from Britain’s mysterious and controversial ancient history book, The Kolbrin. Although dismissed by many who don’t understand it. The Kolbrin contains some of the most impressive Near-eastern and British history of any book in its spurious mystical-history genre.

One of the most intriguing historical references in the Kolbrin is a section suggesting that Pharaoh Ahmose (called Atmose, SOF 6:9) was a contemporary with King David and Hiram of Tyre mentioned in the Bible (ref). The reference reads as following:

“In the days when Hiram [of Tyre] came to Egypt, the Pharaoh Athmos ruled. In those days, Egypt was at war with the Abramites, for their great red-headed king had committed adultery with the wife of a prince of Paran. The remorseful king reaped as he had sown, for his favourite daughter was ravished by her own brother, and his wives were humiliated and ravished before the eyes of all men.”(Sons of Fire:6:9)

Although many Pharaohs have used titles similar to Ahmose (son of iah/Jah), The thing that makes this reference so impressive is the way that following its logic ties together several other historical parallels between Egyptian Chronology and the Bible.

For instance. Because Ahmose is well known as the is the first Pharoah of the 300-400 year long 18th Dynasty who freed the Egyptian Delta from the mysterious late Hyksos. Placing Ahmose (who is usually dated to about 1550 BC) as a contemporary of David
-means the hysos were Israelite (and earlier amalakites), which the kolbrin mentions
-means the amarna letters match hoshea
-means the nubian pharoes are likely the same as the ethiopian menationed in the bible AND the 25th dynasty ethiopians
-explains why akenhaten was a monotheist, because they were allied with Israel from david’s time but now began to side with the assyrians
-explains why Herodotus seems to match with Menetho’s amasis myth with Greeks and the Ramesses/Sethos brothers? (rethink this logic)
-puts the ramesses as ptolemies! (column in alexandria, lots of other temples, and an understanding of Ptolmies claim to the throne because of the legend of Sethos and Ramesses who founded lydia? in Greece and was a greek sympathizer.

Kolbrin offers a few other chronological markers to correlate Thutmose II (called Tathomasis, MAN:34:29) and Akhenaten (called Nabihaton, MAN:34:29) to the same dynasty.
This adjustment pushes the end of the Eighteenth dynasty to around 700 BC solving the mystery of why the Greek Historian Herodotus places Sethos of the 19 dynasty at around 700 BC, as well as why every retelling of Manetho’s work omit the Pharaohs of the 20th Ramesside dynasty. And why Egyptian temple chronology inscriptions like the Abydos, and Saqqara lists stop at Ramesses II, yet match almost perfectly with the Egyptian Menetho’s work who lived during Ptolemy II.

Fix this animation. its timeline is wrong.

All of these points of evidence point toward a historical parallel or synchronicity which I have been suspecting for years. Which is that the Ramesside dynasty and the Ptolemaic dynasty are actually one and the same.

coming soon: a correlation chart like this one, but with the dates, dynasties and famous pharaohs more prominent..

The Ptolemaic dynasty which includes Pharaohs Ptolemy I to X or so, is known from Greek and Roman historical sources [note x] and is therefore dated historically from 332 to 45 BC. The Ramesside dynasty on the other hand, also includes Pharaohs I to X (Ramesses I to XI) but information for them is derived almost entirely from radiocarbon dated archeological sources giving dates from 1190 to 1077 BC.

Each of these dynasties were among the most prolific builders in Egyptian history, strangely building on the same sites and temples throughout Egypt [fn]. In fact, almost without fail, known Ptolemaic motifs or writing will show up randomly within major Ramesside buildings and vise versa. “Strangely”, ALL of the resplendent Tombs of the Rameses have been found and carbon dated. But for some “unknown reason”, ZERO of the famed “more recent” Ptolemy tombs have been found. In fact historical king lists derived from Herodotus as well as Manetho (a historian commissioned by Ptolemy II) do not include the Ramesside 20th dynasty in them at all! Instead in the Manetho accounts of Josephus, Eusebius & African we are given dynastic lists which match almost perfectly with king list on Rameses temples, with a few non-Theban disjointed dynasties thrown in after. I see this as clear evidence that the king lists on the Ramesside temples of Abydos and Karnak which radiocarbon date to around 1100 BC, actually came from Ptolemies’ historian Manetho who lived around 300 BC.

Even the famous Lighthouse of Alexandria, historically known to have been by Ptolemy II built around 270 BC, when recently excavated curiously contained “half a dozen columns carved in the Egyptian style had markings dating back to Ramses II, nearly a millennium before Alexandria was founded.” (see Smithsonian article) This phenomena of mismatched artifacts of Ptolmaic/Ramesside periods, if far more the rule than the exception. (ref)

“Curiously, half a dozen columns carved in the Egyptian style had markings dating back to Ramses II, nearly a millennium before Alexandria was founded.”This phenomena of Ramesside artifacts being mixed in with Ptolemaic artifacts is incredibly common.

And the strange repeated near-east history does not stop there. Sargon of Akkad, radiocarbon dated to xxx is likewise unbelievably similar to Sargon the Assyrian historically dated to xxx. And again Sargon’s palace has not been found. Although his brothers mask…

Likewise entire cultures have come to “repeat” in our modern chronologies as historically dated sites and artifacts conflict with radiocarbon & Egyptian dated

————————————————

Ancient variations in ancient native carbon-dioxide and radiocarbon levels are known to skew radiocarbon dates for given time periods. This is something all scientists well studied in radiocarbon dating understand. Several calibration curves (such as IntCal) have been created to attempt to ‘correct’ for these variations in order to translate a laboratory ‘radiocarbon date’ to a true calendar date. In this paper I propose that a previously undetected large variation in atmospheric carbon dioxide occurred from at least the onset of the Christian era to around the second millennium BCE in the Mediterranean region. This variation skews dates for the given period up to a 1000+ years causing our modern models of pre-Christian history to essentially ‘repeat’– with written historic empire and dynasty sequences from about 100-900 BCE, duplicating in an artificial ‘radiocarbon dated history’ dating from about 900-4000 BCE.

[—add illustration here or at top with the IntCal correlation curve next to my proposed correlation curve —]

Thus the well known historically dated empire and dynasty sequences of the Grecian, Median, Persian, Neo Babylonian and Neo Assyrian Empires, completely repeat with an identical radiocarbon dated empire and dynasty sequence of the ‘sea peoples’, Hittite, Hyksos, Old Babylonian or Sumerian and Akkadian Empires. I propose that these latter empires are identical to the former. This repetition of history caused by insufficiently calibrated dates, of course should have been obvious to the scientific community of the mid twentieth century, however I suggest that Early Christian archaeologists and historians were eager to have the tales of the bible validated by archaeological findings. And it just so happened that radiocarbon dates for many of the most monumental architecture there (New Kingdom) happened to radiocarbon date to about the time that the Israelites in the Bible were supposedly slaves in that land. Additionally the prestige and ability to publish when one finds archaeological evidence of ‘new and previously unknown empires’ as well as a lack of general understanding among archaeologist at the tenuous results of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates caused them to overlook the obvious ‘repetition’ of history that these radiometrically dated archaeological finds were creating in the broader view of prehistory.

So even though Manetho who was commissioned by Ptolemy III around 240 BC, starts his famous ‘history of Egypt’ going back in time from Rameses II, archaeologist discarded the obvious fact that Rameses II WAS IN FACT Ptolemy II, in favor of the idea that Rameses (one of the most prolific builders in Egyptian history) was actually the Rameses of the bible’s story of Moses. Forget the fact that Rameses dynasty has countless similarities to the Ptolemaic dynasty or that the second most important Persian/Egyptian historian Herodotus says nothing of the Rameses New Kingdom dynasty. [rewrite… this isn’t true]

These mistakes took hold because of a disastrous coincidence. This being that radiocarbon dates just happened to somewhat correlate in certain areas with the erroneous histories of Eusebius, and Jerome who cherry picked & added to the works of Manetho in order to create an Egyptian & Mesopotamian timeline that fit the bible. [fn. he himself says in the beginning of his book ‘Chronicles’, that he was seeking to “establish how long before the life-giving revelation [of Christ] Moses and the Hebrew prophets who succeeded him lived and what they, filled with the divine spirit, said before [the time of Christ]” (Chronicles, p.5) However, a simple look at Josephus ‘Against Apion‘, who Eusebius quotes at length shows that Eusebius almost certainly added to both Josephus and Manetho’s king list every dynasty after the New Kingdom. Its obvious Josephus’ Egyptian history was trying to wrongly prove that the ‘Shepard Kings’ of Manetho were actually the Jews of Moses from around 1600 BC. When in fact they are actually Persians of 500 BC. (rewite this whole thing. Outline it.) Note on pharoe.se how many king lists start with Rameses/Seti. The Abydos, the , Why? Because, like Manetho they were comisioned by Ptolemy to legitimize his dynasty!] So this is the troubled foundation that Willard Libby and radiocarbon dating entered the scene on. And because the radiocarbon dates for the famed Ramesses and Atmose dynasties somewhat loosely matched the “historical” dates (the historical dates have since been changed by over 500 years, so I use the term ‘loosely’, loosely. [I need to compare the dates of the artifacts found in this analysis of libby’s work, (here’s the original chart from Libby, see this too) As well as many taken since in this work as in this study. And find a pre-Libby Egyptian chronology from the 40‘s just before Libby and see how they actually correlate. I’ll bet they hardly do AT ALL, but I MUST prove this. And I need to write out this paragraph better

But because it roughly correlated with the biblical story and false or skewed historic sequences built on poor biblical correlations they ran with it. And since then the field of prehistory has been built on so many studies based on circular reasoning and those initial false histories that the entire scientific community has simply explained away the thousands of examples where historically dated and radiometrically dated artifacts seem like they should belong to the same culture or timeframe and yet do not. An occurrence which has given rise to confusing nomenclatures like old Babylon vs neo-Babylon (ie. historically dated Babylon vs. radiocarbon dated Babylon)

Eusebius, one of the three sources we have of Menetho, says of the account,

Perhaps it happened that there were many kings in Egypt at the same time. They say that some of them were kings of Thinis, some of Memphis, some of Sais, and some of Ethiopia; and there were yet others in other places. And as it seems that these dynasties ruled each in its own [time, but] no, it is very unlikely that they ruled in succession to each other. Rather, some of them ruled in one place, and others in another place. Therefore the increase in the number of years can be explained in that way. But we will leave this matter, and proceed to the details of the chronology of the Egyptians… (Eusebius. p.137)

———————————————————————————————————————-

LIST OF POSSIBLE DUPLICATED HISTORY (things that seem strangely repetitive)

———————————————————————————————————————-

Hyksos Pharoah Khyan holds an enormous ritual feast just before the abandoment of his palace, filling several 5 m (16 ft) wide pits with animal bones and thousands of pottery fragments in consequence. Some of these fragments came from an array of vessels produced by the Kerma culture of Nubia (allies). This sounds a lot like Saul or David. Both David & Solomon conquer from the Euphrates to Gath & the Border of Egypt. (Joshua 15:20,47 / Isaiah 27:12; 1 Chron 18:1,3; 1 Kings 4:21)

The Sea peoples “Philistine” called Peleset (Egyptian: pwrꜣsꜣtj) or Pulasati from the Temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu (1150 BC) likely match with Phoenician/Palestine groups mentioned in Assyrian texts from 720-600 BC like Iamani of Ashdod. The biblical early Philistines & Amalekites were Hyksos. (and ruled all the way to Memphis at one point)

Hammurabi as Solomon (1770 BC = 990 BC) – NOPE

-Some have noted the distinct similarities between not only Hammurabi’s law code but also his songs and biblical law and psalms is far to strong to be coincidence. Many historians dismiss the account of 1 Chronicles 18 and 2 Samuel 8 where David is said to have conquered the land to the Euphrates River. However several authors see extensive evidence for this occurrence in a correlation with Zimri-Lim & Hammurabi . See Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon by Damien Mackey
-there are strong similarities between the goring ox of Exodus 21 and the same occurrence in what is called LH 251 of Hammurabi’s Code. Just as striking are the contrasts between the Torah Law and Hammurabi’s Code (see: LH 16, 19, 106, 197, 209, 210, 229 and 230) in the laws of runaway slaves, the rejection of cross-generational civil punishment, and even the famous lex talionis.

Hyksos & Ahmose I as Amalekites & David (1570 = 1000 BC)

-There is overwhelming archaeological and epigraphical evidence showing that the Kolbrin not only solves the identity of Manetho & Josephus’ Hyksos Shepherd Kings. But also that the Egyptian timeline is in need of revision.

Josephus goes to great lengths to try and prove the Hyksos as captive Israelites under Moses. But the Kolbrin has this to say, “In the days when Hiram [of Tyre] came to Egypt, the Pharaoh Athmos ruled. In those days, Egypt was at war with the Abramites, for their great red-headed king had committed adultery with the wife of a prince of Paran. The remorseful king reaped as he had sown, for his favourite daughter was ravished by her own brother, and his wives were humiliated and ravished before the eyes of all men.”(Sons of Fire:6:9)

The identity of this “red haired” king as David is easily recognized from both the description of his red hair in 1 Samuel 16:12 as well as the story of the rape of his daughter Tamar by Amnon her half brother in 2 Samuel 13:1-21.

Archaeologists have failed to find any evidence that the Davidic kingdom achieved any of the size or importance given it in the Bible, but if David is in fact the king who warred with Egypt during the reign of one called Athmos (Ahmose I?), then what Manetho says works well the the biblical record (the current version of which came from Alexandria in the same decade as Menetho!). In Against Apion, Josephus quotes Manetho in stating that the first shepherd king’s name was Salatis who conquered both upper and lower Egypt and even built a palace in Memphis. He left garrisons throughout Egypt building a primary outpost in Avaris, which he walled and left 240,000 men to keep it.

After his death it states that his successor Beon (Soloman?) reigned 44 years, a series of five puppet kings/governess are named who all together hold Egypt as a vassal for some 278 years.

Finally, Manetho says, Under Tethmosis (thought to be Ahmose I), the kings of Thebes and the other parts of Egypt “made an insurrection against the shepherds, and that there a terrible and long war was made between them.” He says further, “That under a king, whose name was Alisphragmuthosis, the shepherds were subdued by him, and were indeed driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place that contained ten thousand acres; this place was named Avaris.” Manetho says, “That the shepherds built a wall round all this place, which was a large and a strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions and their prey within a place of strength, but that Thummosis the son of Alisphragmuthosis made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, with four hundred and eighty thousand men to lie rotund about them” (Against Apion, Bk 1 v14)

As unbelievable as this account is, especially in supposing Saul or David to be the first Shepherd king, its hard to dispute the evidence of the scores of severed hands found in Averis around the time of Ahmose I. (see article on it here). Compare that to 2 Samuel 4:12 which tells us, “And David commanded his young men, and they killed them and cut off their hands and feet and hanged them beside the pool at Hebron”. This may have been a common practice and thus coincidence. OR this may be evidence that David was in Avaris during the reign of Ahmose. Archaeologists say of Averis, “At Avaris, the evidence shows a small group of settlers from the Canaan/Syria area settled on virgin ground, rapidly grew to a huge population”

What’s I propose is that the Hyksos were Amalekites and Canaanites that continually fought Israel until David conquered or killed them all. And the last few Hyksos were actually David, Solomon and Rehoboam (who was then conquered by Egypt and Jeroboam after 4 years). Another point of evidence might be Sheshi, the Hyksos king thought to be Manatho’s Salitis, he leaves hundreds of some of the first Scarabs to appear throughout Canaan, Egypt and Nubia. David is known to have allied with Nubia, and Solomon allied with Egypt. Why is ‘the seal of Solomon such a big legend? A match?

There’s more evidence here..  Read and add it.

(Note this also suggests then, that David conquered to the rivers (Mesopotamia).. Judah including egypt, and the northern kingdom including all of Syria and perhaps parts of Assyria?

-Tell el-Dab near Avaris (northeast delta) has a population explosion during 1590 and 1570 BCE, could this be evidence of David taking it from the Amalekites? (this is speculative, learn more)

Hyksos as Early Persians (or David’s Kingdom in one instance?) –NOPE

Summary of Correlations
-Note that the term ‘Hyksos’ is used on the tomb of Petosiris to designate Artaxerxes III the Persian. ref
-The Kolbrin tells of a war between Egypt and the Abramites who were led by a red haired king who perfectly fits the description of David in the days of the Phoenician Hiram and Pharaoh Ahmose. (although names like Ahmose might have been re-used over and over, and red hair kings who cut off hands might have been common for centuries)
-Ahmose is well known as being the Pharaoh who drove out the Hyksos. (he should be the Pharaoh who let them in)
-Manetho says Hyksos were Jewish (Cananite?) aggressors (give all details of this). Josephus tried (poorly) to prove they were captives.
-Archaeology shows: They spoke Aramaic & Canaanite dialects.
-They likely lived close by and were prolific, because they had been migrating into Egypt for a few centuries. ref ref.
-War in the Hyksos takeover could have been partly minimal. Instead they used diplomacy and expansion. ref
-They had a custom of cutting off hands as a bounty, Just as 2 Samuel 4:12 says David did. ref.
-They seem to have been in alliance with the Nubians of Ethiopia (ref)
-The independent Thebans came to battle the Hyksos (because of an argument over hippos) and were defeated (is this in the bible?) ref
-They are the ones who bring the compound/composite bow and horse chariot to Egypt. Their Asiatic technology advances Egypt. ref
-they wore bright colored Canaanite clothing. ref (1900 BC to 1750 BC)

Behistun Inscription lists the lands conquered and ruled by Darius the Great. It includes Egypt. (and lists his genealogy)
Isaiah 44:28 reads: “says of Cyrus ‘He is My shepherd, And he will carry out all My desire’.”.
-Be sure in the paper to note that Sumerian kings in general were known ash shepherd kings. Two kings on the Sumerian King list are literally called ‘shepherds’, “Etana, the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries” and “Lugalbanda the shepherd.” Urukagina who reigned seven years in Lagash around 2375 B.C is also called a shepherd king.

Ninteenth Dynasty Correlations Overview
-It seems unlikely that the 19the dynasty is cohesive. It is likely missing people and time. The question is where? I suspect the biginning (after Ahmose, because I’ll bet their two of them), Middle (ideas?) and End (Seti could be pre-Alexander?)

Ahmose & Pinedjem II as Contemporary of David (1550 =1000 BC)
-The Tomb/Mummy of Ahmose I (1549–1524 BC) is thought to have ‘been relocated from its original burial place… and re-wrapped’ in the 21st dynasty because the name of Pinedjem II (990-976 BC.) is on his wrappings! (ref) More likely Pinedjem II was Ahmose’ high priest, or his father Pinedjem I (-1032 BC), again making him a contemporary of David like the Kolbrin says.
-In fact the mummies of pharaohs Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, Thutmose II, Thutmose III, Ramesses I, Seti I, Ramesses II, and Ramesses IX were ALL put in Pinedjem II’s tomb! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinedjem_II)
-Note that Ahmose is credited with bringing war horses to Egypt. (ref) Its thought this technology came from the Hyksos because of evidence from Avaris. (ref). This works with the fact that the bibles first mention is of the Canaanite’s (king Jabin, Judges 4) surrounding Israel. (refref) The first use BY Israel seems to be David stealing 1000 chariots & 100 horses from King of Zobah at the Border of the Eurphratees (1 chron 18:3-6, 2 Sam 8:3–6), which Solomon multiplies into 12,000 horses (1 Kings 10:26). Only by Persian times are war-horses ubiquitous.

The Armana Letters as Letters Between Ethiopia and Rulers of Judah from 2 Kings 17:4. (1352 BC = 720 BC) YES!
These letters provide the best opportunity to revising Egyptian chronology of the 18th dynasty. These letters attest to a very strong Egyptian state which allies with Canaan as well as Turkey & Babylon. The main aggressor being the Hirbu who seemed to be a raiders.
Letter EA287 is a great example where the ruler of Jerusalem begs for help from Kushite archers of the Amarna Egyptian kings. Compare that to 2 Kings 19:9 & Isaiah 37:9 where we’re told that the “King of Ethiopia (Kush), waged war against Sennacherib in reign of King Hezekiah” (about 716–687 BC) and 2 Kings 17:4 that says that king Hoshea (730-721 BC) sent letters to “So, King of Egypt”. So is often erroneously attributed to Osorkon IV who ruled nothing… but is FAR more likely Oros or Shebitko (who are likely the same person), even though one is the father of 18th dynasty Akhenaten and the other the 25th dynasty Nubian Pharaoh who fought Sennacherib.
-In the Bible, Ethiopians/Cushites are presented as ruling Egypt all the way from Hezekiah ~720 BC and Isaiah (Isa 18-20, 2 Kings 19) to presumably just before Josiah and the Pharoah Necho II around 620 BC. I believe archaeologists mistake the Assyrians of Nineveh who were actually Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar II. Jeremiah & Ezekiel prophesy of his conquering of Egypt, but because of the mix-up, historians/archaeologists don’t believe Babylon every conquered Egypt. Archaeologists believe the 25th dynasty Cushites gained control of Egypt by aligning with the Assyrians around 720 BC. But I’m pretty sure its actually the Babylonians, who Josiah was aligned with. 25 & 26 dynasties are probably somewhat concurrent as Egypt, just like Israel is in a north/south civil war going back and forth on whether to align with Assyria or Babylon. These correlate with the 18 dynasty which is also mixed between Monotheistic Cushite and Egyptian Pharaohs.
-The Kolbrin explains that the Monotheism of Akhenaten had long been part of Egyptian religion but hidden from the commoners who held deeply entrenched polytheistic beliefs. The Armana Letters show the growing power and influence of these Nubian rulers and their treaties with those of Canaan and Babylon.
Insights from the Armana Letters:
-lots of letters from Asqalon king Widia. And Ashkalon was taken by Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar. (supposedly later in history but I say actually during the neo-Assyrian & neo-Babylonian conquests)
-five letters to Lakis (Lachish, Israel), really pertinent because seven Lachish Letters were found there dating to likely just before Nebuchadnezzar in 588BC. (but these are in paleo-Hebrew & Amarna was cuneiform, There’s also a Lachish Relief in Assyria which is cuneiform I think). NOTE THAT LACHISH is the Lachish reliefs show this is where Sennacherib (actually Nebuchadnezzar II) attacked Jerusalem from… further proving that Lachish was smartly aligned with Babylon, but Jerusalem flipped allegiance and sided with Pharaoh.

18th Dynasty Thutmose III (or Ay) as relative of 25th Dynasty Piye & Shabaka. (1479-1425 BC = 747-705 BC)
A Shabaka inscription in the Temple of Ptah @ Karnak built by Thutmose III suggest Piye & Shabaka somehow closely related to Thutmose & Hatshepsut or Ay?. Piye was Kushite and Hatshepsut ‘conquered’ Nubia and had her monuments defaced by later Egyptians (likely because she was a foreign Ethiopian wife of Thutmose that somehow gained the kingdom for Nubia instead of a native of Karnak who simply ruled Nubia!). Both Shabaka & Hatshepsut were prolific builders. (of course everyone in this age is. I’m pretty sure either these rulers overlap with either the Kushite/Nubian rulers of the 25th dynasty or the Egyptians that retake Egypt from them in the 26th! The same parallel of builders happens between 18th and 25th dynasties in The Temple of Amun at Jabel Barkal in Sudan.

Note that both the the 18th AND 25th dynasties are closely related to Kush/Nubia. The 25th are said to be Kushite rulers who controlled Middle Egypt, whereas the 18th are said to be Middle Kingdom rulars who controlled Kush/Sudan. Ether way, Assyria is closely involved with both (shown by the Amarna letters for the 25th).

There may even be a relationship between the names of monotheistic Amarna (Akanaten’s new capitol name for the Beni Amran tribe), Solomon’s close alliance with Sheba and Armenia with its relationship to Israel.

Other Notes on Repeating History

-Temple of Hibis is one of the only existing temples known to be built by Darius I. (my bet is all others were redone by Ramesses/Ptolemy). “The temple bears a close resemblance – both architecturally and regarding inscribed texts – to Theban temples of the New Kingdom and also of the Ptolemaic period” (which means perhaps you can use its architecture to compare things built by Ahmose who might be the vassal pharaoh of Darius? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Hibis
-another good way to Link Darius to a Pharaoh is his known work on the Darius Canal. Aristotle and Strabo say Sesostris is the first to try building the canal (just before Darius), which Egyptologist correlate with  12th Dynasty, Pharaoh Senusret III (1878–1839 BC). Which may be based on nothing… But many articles say the Suez canal was worked on during the new kingdom. (so Amhose I? is Darius?) see here and here. Thutmose II had a residence out there, so that more evidence.

-Rameses Horus name means “The strong bull who rejuvenates the royalty”. The Apis Bull was the Egyptian equivilent of Savior (Just like Ptolemy Soter/Savior). Ptolemy created the new God Ser-apis (Zues-Apis Bull). built his great Serapeum in Alexandria, nearby the famous library, to elevate his new god as a deity (see here & here). Since at least Cambyses the bull was ritually killed (like Spanish bull fighters), embalmed and then resurrected. “Coincidentally”, a Serapeum in Saqqara was built by Ramesses II to embalm bulls just like the Sarapeum in Alexandria built by Ptolemy. Ptolemy II (of course) then “extended” and adds to it as well (actually the same builder!).

-Mithras Scene. This tradition of killing, interring/mummifying and resurrecting the zues-apis bull serves as the backdrop for the Christ narrative. It is almost certainly what is represented in Mithraic tauroctony and was practiced not just in Egypt but also Turkey and Italy. Many Serapeum‘s or Bull Tombs are found in Egypt, Turkey & Italy.

-Note that many temples such as the Temple of Khonsu, are “originally constructed” by Ramesses I,II, or III but then have sections thought to be “added” by Ptolemy I,II, or III. Why? Because they are the same people, but archaeologists have aspects attributed to one or the other (such as Greek writing vs radiocarbon dates or c14 dated paraphernalia that contradict, forcing them to hypothesize a ‘dual’ construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Khonsu (other examples?)

-also Temple of Edfu. “started during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes and completed in 57 BC under Ptolemy XII Auletes. It was built on the site of an earlier, smaller temple also dedicated to Horus… [built under] the New Kingdom rulers Ramesses I, Seti I and Ramesses II” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Edfu

-same thing happens with Dendera Temple complex. Egyptologists know from inscriptions that the temple was built by Nectanebo II around (360–343 BC), but radiocarbon and other associated evidence leads them to believe it was built ontop of a temple by Pepi I and/or an Eighteenth dynasty ruler from (1550 – 1292 BC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendera_Temple_complex

-In the Esna temple, An out of place “Jam of a Gateway” from the reign of Thutmose II (Eighteenth Dynasty) his strangely placed as a door sill in the Esna temple known to be the work of Ptolemy III Euergetes (known as a “restorer of Egypt” because so many things are re-used in his building projects”. Or is it that…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esna

-Why is it that pieces of King Ramses II statue were found in the Ptolmaic temple of Kom Ombo? https://www.newsweek.com/ancient-egypt-king-ramses-statue-829679
Note how the Ptolemaic temple of Kom Ombo has the same motifs and honors the same gods as a “previous” temple built by the Ramesses in the New Kingom. “A temple was already built in the New Kingdom to honor these gods” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Kom_Ombo

-Cuneiform inscriptions from Hattusa, Turkey mention Mithra and that Hittite king Suppiluliuma (reigned between 1344 to 1322 BCE) who achieved fame as a great warrior and statesman, ordered the recording of a peace treaty between himself and the Armenian king Šattivaz (reigned ca. 1350-1320 BCE). Mithra isn’t found again until the fourth century BC under Achaemenid king Xerxes (son of Darius) and Armenian king Tiridates.

-Medinet Habu and The temple of Anum inscribed as built by Hatshepsut and Thutmose III but then “modified” in the Greco-Roman period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medinet_Habu (Yet its artwork still has paint! one of the best preserved temples in Egypt)

-Temple of Amun at Medinet Habu (which is Ramesses III funerary complex has a ‘Gate of the Ptolemies’ built by …

-Tuna el-Gebel, like pretty much all ptolmaic temple complexes has 18-20th/New Kingdom foundations and temples sprinkled throughout (where they have c14 dates or writing that correlates it to ‘Older’ Dynasties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna_el-Gebel#History

-Records of Ramesses III talk about a crop failure that might be a volcanic eruption. An ash layer is found in peat deposits that radiocarbon dates to 1087-1006 BC.

-Ramesses III killed (or close to) in ‘harem conspiracy’ led by his second wife Tiye, ct scans shows wounds from multiple attackers which seem fatal but debate exists. Ptolemy II’s wife is exiled for plotting his murder. Records say she failed, but perhaps that was a lie to hide the murder from the people. Ptolemy III takes throne and pays his mom a stipend in her exile in coptus. Its unknown what punishments’ Tiye received.

-Ramesses III – X are not in any king lists. Sources include: The hieratic Harris Papyrus,

  • The Temple of Amun at KarnACK: The temple complex was built by the pharaohs of the New Kingdom, including Amenhotep I, Tuthmosis III, and Ramses II. But then Ptolemy III Euergetes and Ptolemy IV Philopator “added” a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon, a temple of Isis and a birth house.
  • The Temple of Horus at Edfu: built by Ptolemy III Euergetes and Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple, such as a pylon, and a birth house
  • The Temple of Khonsu at Luxor: built by Tuthmosis III, Amenhotep III and Ramses II but Ptolemy III Euergetes and Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon, and a birth house
  • The Temple of Isis at Philae: built by Nectanebo I, and Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Ptolemy IV Philopator added structures to the temple complex.
  • The Temple of Amun at Thebes: built by pharaohs such as Amenhotep I, Tuthmosis III, and Ramses II
  • The Temple of Montu at Medamud: built by Ramses II (perhaps on an Old Kingdom Sanctuary), but with structures from the Ptolemy VIII period.
  • The Temple of Seti I at Abydos: built by Seti I, yet Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon and a birth house.
  • The Temple of Sobek at Crocodilopolis: built by Ramses II but Ptolemy III Euergetes and Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon and a birth house.
  • The Temple of Ptah at Memphis: built by Ramses II complete with a 36 foot high statue of himself, but Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon and a birth house.
  • The Temple of Ptah at Luxor/Karnak contains mixed motifs from Thutmose III & Shabaka (1479-1412 = 705-690 BC) as well as Ramesside & Ptolmaic pharoes (1200’s = 200’s BC). Built by Thutmose III, but Ptolmaic ‘additions include’ in first gateway crosses an enclosed cartouche of Ptolemy VI. On the interior façade of the first gateway are passages of Ptolemy XI and Ptolemy XIII. The second and fourth gateways contain cartouches in the name of Shabaka. The third gateway cartouche is in the name of Ptolemy XIII. The fifth gateway leading to the portico columns of Ptolemy III contains the title of Tuthmosis III and on the gate contains the name of Ptolemy III.
  • The Temple of Amun at Jebel Barkal, Sudan was also built by 18th AND 25th dynasty rulers. In the 18th, at least Thutmose III, Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), Tutankhamun and Horemheb as well as worked on by Seti I & possibly Ramesses II. This seems to suggest that ALL these pharaoh’s were associated with Nubia. The site was then ‘neglected’ until the reign of Nubian King Piye who added extensively to it. (forerunner to Shabaka) Once again this seems to show a synchronism or parallel between the 18th AND 25th dynasties. Close study of these will likely show them to be repeats of the same dynasty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Amun,_Jebel_Barkal

Important Events of Judah & Israel in Relation to Egypt & Mesopotamia
-Saul/David/Solomon appear to gain first independence from Canaanites & Amalekites
-in ~920 BC, Jeroboam flees to Egypt, allies with them and comes back to conquer Judah making Israel a vassal of Egypt (date)
– 700-900 BC, are somewhat of an Egyptian dark age. Probably when the Armarna letters occur!
-in 701 BCE, Hezekiah of Judah, Lule king of Sidon, Sidka, king of Ascalon and the king of Ekron formed an alliance with Egypt against Assyria (with Pharoah ___?), nevertheless, Sennacherib conquers the Northern Kingdom and parts of Judah (701 BC?), but stops short of Jerusalem & Egypt.
– in 671 Assyrian Esarhaddon sacks Memphis, conquers Egypt, takes massive spoils and captives to Assyria, appoints new rulers at every level including Necho I as king at Sais (673-663 BC)
– in 667 BC Ashurbanipal, quells revolts, reasserts Assyrian rule in Egypt
– in 655 BC Psamtik I threw off his ties to the Assyrians and allies with Greece.
– by 635 BC Egypt recaptures Ashdod.
– in 650-600, Egyptians were actively aiding the Assyrians in an attempt to help them survive from growing power of Babylon.
– in 609 BC, Jehoahaz, became king, the king of Egypt, Necho I (put into power by the Assyrians), rushed into Judah and deposed him, and Judah again became a tribute state of Egypt
– in 605 Babylon defeats Egypt at Carchemish and then Ashkelon.. (Jer 46:2). Jer & Ezek prophesied that Babylon would destroy Egypt (Ezek 29-32). But historians believe NO Babylonian army took Egypt, and Egypt stayed independent from the Assyrian conquest to the Persian Conquest.
– from 589-570 BC Apries or Biblical Pharaoh Hophra of Jer 44:30, 43:8-13, Ezekiel 17:15, is the one Hezekiah tries to ally with against Babylon. This suggests Israel was formerly independent of Egypt. Likely since the Assyrian fall of Egypt.

Actual DateHistorically Known Empire or CultureArchaeologically Dated EquivalentArcheol. Date
911-609 BCNeo Assyrian EmpireOld Assyrian Empire2600-2154 BC
605-556 BCNeo Babylonian EmpireOld Babylonian Empire1894-1595 BC
460-332 BCLate Achaemenes occupation of EgyptAhmose gains Egyptian semi-independence. Takes Memphis & battles averis.1550–1320 BC
332-30 BCPtolemaic Kingdom of EgyptRamessid 19th Dynasty of Egypt1292-1189 BC

Note 1: Egyptian artifacts first show up in Mesopotamia in Nimrud, which becomes a major Assyrian capital in 1350 BC. This date

Table of Pharaohs mentioned in the Kolbrin and possible correlations.

Actual DateKolbrin NameEquiv?Hist. DateDetails
~2400HanokNoahGLN:4:29 Hanok and the Ark/great ship. Had three brothers who divided the land.
BeltsheraBabel?GLN 3:7-9 The floodgates [of Atuma] were opened… “the people left… Shinara..fled up a mountain… built a gateway to heaven”
1450 BCAnked(Moses)MAN 6:1-48 Story of Moses & the Destroyer. “Kair taught these things to the Children of Light.. before the death of the Pharaoh Anked”. Mentions places: Remwar, Noshari, Maha, Pikaroth, Mara. City/God called “Thom”
970 BCAthmosAhmose1550 BCSOF 6:9 HUGE. This verse suggests that the Hyksos were Davidic Israel! David warred with Egypt at the same time Ahmose chased the Shepherd kings out.
910?TathomasisThutmose I or IV?1490 BCIf this is true… then Akhenaten is NOT Darius, but likely a follower of Babylon or Israel‘s cult.
772?NabihatonAkhenaten1352 BCMAN 34:29 Starts the story of how he had a demon and corrupted Egypt. Mother is Towi (Tiye) Name composed of Fathers ‘Nab’ adn ‘henaten’.
720 BCNafohiaunknown??SOF 1:1 “Father of sons of light (Hoskiah) came out of Egypt in days of Pharaoh Nafohia. (Should be about the time of the Assyrian conquest or Sargon of Akkad?)

Table of Pharaohs mentioned in the Bible and possible correlations.

Actual DateBible NameEquiv?Hist. DateDetails
?
?Rameses?unknown!1546 BCGen 47:11Ex 1:11Ex 12:37Num 33:3–5 A pharaoh named Rameses is never mentioned in the Bible, but Joseph settles Jacob & his family “in the land of Rameses” and Israel “built Pithom & Rameses and on (named as Heliopolis east of Cairo in Spt.) as store cities for Pharaoh before fleeing to Succoth just before the Exodus. Rameses in the bible is thus just a region/city in Egypt meaning “Ra created it”. (see biblehub).
?Pharaoh??1 Kings 11:18–23. Hadad flees to Egypt from Paran, Pharaoh gives him wife Tahpenes’ sister to wife. They have son Genubath who’s raised in Pharaoh’s household.
?Pharaoh??1 Kings 3:1, 9:16 Gives Solomon his daughter and city of captured Gezer in Alliance. Thutmose III (1479–1425 BC) has inscription of conquering Gezer. Armana period leaders swear allegiance to Egypt. Siamun & Psusennes II common matches.
?Shishak??943-9221 Kings 11:40 & 2 Chronicles 12:2 Tell of his Jeroboam’s escape to Egypt and return with Shishak to take Jerusalem.
?So’unknown730 BC2 Kings 17:4 says that king Hoshea sent letters to “So, King of Egypt”.  commonly identified with Osorkon IV (730–715 BC)
?Tirhakahunknown715 – 6862 Kings 19:9 & Isaiah 37:9. King of Ethiopia (Kush), waged war against Sennacherib in reign of King Hezekiah.. Some scholars have identified him as the pharaoh Taharqa (Ethiopia ruled Egypt from this point to Necho/Babylon, much like the late 18th dynasty)
sameNecho Necho II610–5952 Chron 35:20, 36:4, 35:22. Necho puts his brother Jehoiakim on throne of Judah (609 BC). Necho battles kills Josiah in Carchemish (605 BC). Takes King Jehoahaz captive in another Carchemish battle? Read and put dates.
sameHophraApries589-570Jer 44:30. I will give Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt into the hand of his enemies and into the hand of those who seek his life, as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Also mentions Pathros (upper), Noph (lower) & Tehpanhes border Egypt (43:7)

LIST OF OTHER CORRELATIONS.
-One of the most important things in the Kolbrin is CRT 7:5 which explains that the Mayan/Aztec Calendar is the correct cycle for the destroyer, NOT the later Israelite 49 year cycle. “Habaris… taught them the mysteries concerning the wheel of the year and divided the year into a … a great year circle of fifty-two years, a hundred and four of which was the circle of The Destroyer”

Egyptian King Lists

HERODOTUS- The king list given us by Herodotus is all over the place but helps us to understand how likely it is that those of Manetho are completely erroneous is too. Since Herodotus lived 484-425 BC just after Darius we can likely trust the 26th dynasty names he lists. One big question is… where does the 18th dynasty fit in? It is the last true names in Menetho & Abydos/Saqqara King Lists made by Ptolemy III so I think it makes sense that these were all ruler between Darius & Ptolemy.

ChapTransPharaohMenethoM. DynSM. DATE
2.99.2MinaNarmerMenes1st dynasty62/ 3150 BC
2.100.2NitokrisNetjerikaraNitokris6th dynasty12/ 2182–2179 BC
2.101.1MoeriusAmenemhat IIIAmmenemes11? dyn16
2.102.1SesostrisSenusret IIISesostris12th dynasty48/ 1878–1860 BC
2.111.1Pheron?
2.112.1Proteus?
2.121.1RhampsinitosRamesses IIInot present
2.124KheopsKhufuSouphis?4th dynasty63/ 2589–2566 BC
2.127KhephrenKhafraSouphis?4th dynasty66/ 2558–2532 BC
2.129MycerinusMenkauraMenkheres4rth dynasty63/ 2532–2503 BC
2.136.1Asukhis?
2.137Anusis?
2.137Sabakon/NeferkareShabakaSeberkheres? Sabakon?4rth? 25th?8/ 705–690 BC
2.140.2AmurtaiouAmyrtaeusAmurtaios28th dynasty6/ 404–398 BC
2.141.1SethosShebitko? Seti?Sebikhos? Sethos?25th? 19th?55/ 714–705 BC
2.151.2PsammetikhosPsamtik IPsammetikhos26th dynasty54/ 664–610 BC
2.152.1NeconNecho INekhao26th dynasty8/ 672–664 BC
2.158.1NecosNecho IINekhao II26th dynasty6/ 610–595 BC
2.159.3PsammiPsamtik IIPsammouthis?26th dynasty6/595–589 BC
2.161ApriesApriesOuaphris26th dynasty25/ 589–570 BC
2.172AmasisAmasisAmosis26th dynasty44/ 570–526 BC
3.14-15PsammetichusPsamtik IIIPsammekherites?26th dynasty6m 526–525 BC
MesutreCambyses IISon of Cyrus the Great27th dynasty6/ 525-522 BC
SetetureDarius Ithen Xerxes, artexerxes, Darius II27th dynasty36/ 522-486 BC

TABLE NOTES

Does the fact that Herodotus has ZERO New Kingdom (18th dynasty) Pharoah’s suggest that most the 18th came AFTER cyrus? Or is it because they are all right after David and are too OLD for accurate records?
-Amasis II might be a good match with Thutmose III based on both their conquests of Cyprus, power and military prowess. Thutmose II lead at least 17 campaigns from Syria to Nubia.


-Josephus last Pharoah reference is Sethos of whome he says, after Amenophis came… “Sethosis, and Ramesses, two brethren: the former of whom had a naval force; and in an hostile manner destroyed those that met him upon the sea. But as he slew Ramesses in no long time afterward, so he appointed another of his brethren [named Armais] to be his deputy over Egypt.” then… “For Manetho says, that Sethosis was himself called Egyptus: as was his brother Armais called Danaus” He sums the whole history as those who “inhabited this country, three hundred ninety and three years before Danaus came to Argos” (read it here).
Danaus is a famous legend, but like Herodotus, it seems very likely referring to Darius? My logic is this… Look at Armesis and Kherres in Eusibius. Josephus prolog suggests all the last pharoahs are contemporary with him. Is it coincidence that the last 2 pharaohs in Herodotus are named Amasis/Amosis and Apries? Probably not!

Footnotes In Paper

x. [[Sources of the Ptolmaic Dynasty include: 1. The “Canon of Kings” is an ancient Egyptian list of pharaohs that includes the Ptolemaic dynasty. It is inscribed on the walls of the temple of Seti I at Abydos, and is one of the oldest surviving king lists from ancient Egypt.
2. The “Alexandria List” is another ancient Egyptian king list that includes the Ptolemaic pharaohs. It was discovered in the Serapeum of Alexandria, a temple dedicated to the god Serapis.
3. The “Turin Canon” is an ancient Egyptian papyrus that contains a list of pharaohs, including the Ptolemaic dynasty. It was discovered in the 1820s in Turin, Italy and is now housed in the Museo Egizio in Turin.
4. The “Chronicle of the Pharaohs” by the Egyptian priest Manetho, written during the Ptolemaic period provides a list of the pharaohs of Egypt from the earliest times to his own day, including the Ptolemaic pharaohs.
5. The “Roman historian” Appian of Alexandria, wrote about the history of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, including the Ptolemaic dynasty.
6. Plutarch, a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist wrote about Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphus in his biography “Life of Alexander” and “Life of Demetrius”]]

y. [[Egyptian temples which share

z. [[Sources that detail Ramesside period Pharaohs after Ramesses III are limited to: 1. Primarily archaeological information from the Tombs in the Valley of the Kings.
2. A little from a relief in the Temple of Ramesses III in Medinet Habu.
3. Papyri and ostraca discovered in various locations in Egypt, including Deir el-Medina

References

The history of Manetho as preserved by Eusebius, and Jerome (Armenian version). Or perhaps better, by Dynasty (book Ibook II)

The History of Manetho as preserved by Josephus in ‘Against Apion‘ https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/apion-1.html#S14

The Histories by herodotus. (1890, Macaulay translation2013 Rawlinson Translation. Egyptian section spans from [99-172] )

Strabo’s Geography has some important information on Egypt.

attalus.org/egypt/ Has a great catalogue of translated ancient egyptian texts from 800 BC – 50 BC (chronological order)

mjn.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/ and even better one of all dates earlier than 800 BC. Pdf’s most with hieroglyphic transcriptions.

Pharoe.se, best resource on king lists and cartouches. https://pharaoh.se/comparing-the-kinglists (be sure to check out its library & bibliography)

Digital Egypt. This whole site could be turned into a map like my North America Archaeology one. I probably should. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt//chronology/index.html

phouka.com resources on king lists, dynasties and tombs. http://www.phouka.com/tr/egypt/history/KLManetho.html

Overview and back-check check of Willard Libby’s initial paper “on the age of things”. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324749521_Radiocarbon_Dating_and_Intercomparison_of_Some_Early_Historical_Radiocarbon_Samples

Huge amount of information on dates and cultures. Egypt and the Mediterranean. Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronology

Histomap of the world. An old empire harmony chart. http://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/histomap-big.jpg

Babylonian Chronicles. Babylonian Chronicles – Wikipedia

Egyptian texts: St Andrews Corpusattalus,

Huge number of artifacts used as original sources: List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology – Wikipedia

Faulty radiocarbon dates in Pompeii. Lindroos, Alf & Heinemeier, J. et al (2011). Problems in radiocarbon dating of Roman pozzolana mortars. Building Roma Aeterna. Current Research On Roman Mortar and Concrete. 214-230.

Radiocarbon dating in ‘The Manchester Museum Mummy Project‘, illustrated how different materials can produce large discrepancies in radiocarbon results, illustrating the importance of consistency and proper methods in gathering radiocarbon samples. (cloth vs bone on Egyptian mummies resulted in 1000 year + different results. A re-wrapping is assumed.)

Family Tree of the Ramessean 19th Dynasty

Family Tree of the Ptolemaic Dynasty

Radiocarbon Dating:
20 instances of false rings since 1932: https://www.science.org/content/article/false-tree-rings-could-provide-new-record-long-ago-hurricanes Actual article here: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm21/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/898756 (Extrapolating that data suggests a two thousand year old tree could have as many as 400 in a 2000 year old tree.)

Libby presentation summarizing first publications: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/libby-lecture.pdf
Initial Libby paper (first page): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.110.2869.678

Re-dating some of Libby initial samples: https://www.academia.edu/42582894/RADIOCARBON_DATING_AND_INTERCOMPARISON_OF_SOME_EARLY_HISTORICAL_RADIOCARBON_SAMPLES

Some new radiocarbon dates on major Egyptian periods. https://www.science.org/content/article/new-dates-egypts-pharaohs

186 radiocarbon dates from 1st dynasty Egypt. An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling. Dee, Michael, Shortland, Andrew, Et al. Royal Society Publishing, Nov 2013 [put these in teh libby table next to pre-c14 dates to show how off they are!]

Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Ramsay et al. Probably the most complete paper of assorted dates.
Read the paper here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44683433_Radiocarbon-Based_Chronology_for_Dynastic_Egypt#fullTextFileContent
Supplemental Material Here: https://www.science.org/doi/suppl/10.1126/science.1189395/suppl_file/bronk_ramsey.som.revision.1.pdf

Pre-carbon dating chronologies: https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.9701/page/n39/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/ancientchronolo00toffgoog/page/n240/mode/2up

Mediterranean radiocarbon off from northern Europe: https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.9701/page/n39/mode/2up

Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. (Intcal adjustments for meditranian dates, especially because of santorini issues) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz1096 webmap: https://arcg.is/1qvyLb0

Global radiocarbon database: https://www.p3k14c.org/download/ webmap: https://arcg.is/1HO8HK

Tracks, Traces & Other Fossils of The Grand Canyon & Grand Staircase

Geologic units of the Grand Canyon mentioned in this article.

.

The Grand Canyon, a mile-deep chasm carved through millennia of Earth’s history, is not merely a spectacle of layered rock; it is a profound archive of ancient life. Within its vibrant strata, beyond the skeletal remains, lie the subtle yet powerful narratives of behavior etched in stone: tracksites and trace fossils. These ichnological treasures, from the uppermost Kaibab Formation down to the basal Tapeats Sandstone, offer unique insights into the locomotion, feeding, dwelling, and resting habits of creatures that roamed these ancient landscapes. This post descends through the Grand Canyon’s formations, highlighting the known track sites and trace fossils that whisper tales of life across vast stretches of time.  For many more Grand Canyon region fossil picture, be sure to check out http://www.schursastrophotography.com/. Another fantastic resource is the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument Paleo Resource Inventory.

A second purpose for this article is help point the many young-earth creationists I run up against understand why a catastrophic or ‘flood’ deposition of the layers of the Grand Canyon is entirely implausible. Not only does almost every layer in the canyon have fossils and track sites showing fairly uniformitarian principles existed at their deposition, but time anomalous layer around the world have evidences such as fossilized “IN PLACE” forests spanning at least from the Mississippian to Permian ages.

Faunal Succession in the Layers of the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase. Map is of Utah Mountain area just north of the Grand Canyon, where most Grand Staircase strata is accessible in a short drive along highway 91.

.

Tapeats Sandstone (Cambrian)

Finally, at the base of the Grand Canyon sequence lies the Tapeats Sandstone (Cambrian), a resistant sandstone deposited in a nearshore marine environment as the ancient sea transgressed across the continent. The Tapeats is characterized by abundant vertical burrows of suspension-feeding worms (Skolithos). These simple, tube-like structures are a hallmark of the “pipe rock” facies and represent one of the earliest widespread records of complex animal behavior in the fossil record. Horizontal trackways and burrows of other early invertebrates are also found, indicating the initial colonization of the shallow marine environment by mobile organisms. The Tapeats Sandstone marks the dawn of the Cambrian explosion in this iconic geological section.  

Incredibly rare arthropod trackway from the Tapeats Sandstone.Found near Payson, AZ. See schursastrophotography for more detailed images
Skolithos, straight vertical burrows from the Grand Canyon’s Tapeats Sandstone near Payson, AZ. See schursastrophotography for more detailed images and top view.

.

Bright Angel Shale (Cambrian)

The Bright Angel Shale (Cambrian), a slope-forming unit composed of shale and siltstone deposited in a shallow marine setting, contains a diverse assemblage of invertebrate trace fossils. Horizontal grazing trails, burrows of various orientations and sizes, and trilobite traces are all well-documented. The finer-grained sediments of the Bright Angel Shale provided an excellent medium for preserving these delicate traces of Cambrian life, offering insights into the feeding strategies and locomotion of early marine organisms.  

Trace fossils from Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Left: Cruziana, a type of trace fossil attributed to trilobites. Formation not identified, but probably Cambrian Tonto Group. (Length about 20 centimeters or 8 inches). Photo by Cassi Knight, Paleontology Guest Scientist (National Park Service, public domain)Right: Trace fossils (burrows and Cruziana) from the Cambrian Bright Angel Shale, Tonto Group. Photo by Cassi Knight, Paleontology Guest Scientist (National Park Service, public domain)
Gastropod (snail) tracks from the Bright Angel Shale

.

Muav Limestone (Cambrian)

The underlying Muav Limestone (Cambrian), another significant marine limestone formation, similarly yields primarily invertebrate trace fossils. Horizontal burrows (e.g., Planolites) and vertical burrows (e.g., Skolithos) are common, indicating the presence of early worms and other soft-bodied organisms that colonized the Cambrian seafloor. Trilobite trackways (e.g., Cruziana) and resting traces (e.g., Rusophycus) are also found, providing direct evidence of the movement and behavior of these iconic Cambrian arthropods. The Muav’s trace fossils offer a glimpse into the early diversification of animal life in the marine realm.  

.

Temple Butte Fm (Devonian)

Although the Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian is essentially absent in the Grand Canyon region, it exists with thicknesses over 6,000 feet in Northern Utah and Nevada. The Temple Butte (385mya) is found only in paleo channels carved out in the underlying units and is largely unfossiliferous. But elsewhere in Utah and the world, the Devonian holds the first evidence of fossilized intact growing trees. Once again showing that these units are not part of some catastrophic flood, but sediments deposited under relatively uniformitarian conditions.

Researchers stand next to a pristinely preserved fossil of the root system of Archaeopteris at a fossil locality near Cairo, NY. The oldest evidence of large trees yet found (Devonian ~400mya). Charles Ver Straeten. (see article)
A lineup tree progression as seen in the fossil record, comparing their hypothesized sizes and shapes Gastaldo et al., Cell, 2024 under CC BY 4.0 DEED
Some of the earliest tree fossils (Eospermatopteris) from the 385 mya Devonian of New York and Svalbard, Norway (top right).

.

Redwall Limestone (Mississippian)

The Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), a massive cliff-forming unit deposited in a shallow marine environment, is primarily known for its body fossils of marine invertebrates. However, trace fossils are also present, albeit less conspicuous. Burrows of marine worms and other infaunal organisms are commonly found within the limestone beds, reflecting the activity of creatures living on and within the ancient seafloor. Crinoid holdfast attachment scars can also be considered a type of trace fossil, indicating where these stalked echinoderms were anchored. While large vertebrate tracks are absent, the Redwall’s trace fossil assemblage provides evidence of a thriving benthic community in a relatively stable marine environment.  

Assortment of Rugose (horn) coral and Tabulate coral community fossils collected from the Redwall Limestone. Bottom right is a CC4.0 image from digitalatlasofancientlife.org showing what similiar Coral communities looked like during the Permian. Redwall Fossil images from Grand Canyon Paleontology.
Marine invertebrates from the Mississippian Redwall Limestone, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona; on the left is a bryozoan, on the right a brachiopod. Left photo and right photo NPS photos by Michael Quinn (Grand Canyon National Park via flickr, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license, images cropped and resized).
Nautaloid from the ‘death bed’ of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon (top), bottom is better preserved fossil nautaloid example from elsewhere.
Modern bryozoan or ‘sea fan’ (Gorgonia ventalina). Note the delicacy, it will not withstand turbid flow.

.

Surprise Canyon Formation (Mississippian)

Hidden in small paleochannels carved into the Redwall Formation lies the Surprise Canyon Formation. Before the seas rose and formed an estuary full of sharks and invertebrates, the karst features on top of what is now the Redwall Limestone were filled with rivers and streams. These streams created a lush riparian environment teeming with plants, and not just small shrubs either. Some of these plants belong to the extinct genus Lepidodendron, which were large tree-like plants that grew in wetland environments and reached heights up to 160 feet (50 meters)! Lepidodendron are often known as “scale trees” because of the distinctive diamond shaped pattern of leaf scars along its trunk. Young Lepidodendron plants form a single unbranched trunk with numerous leaves attached to the diamond-shaped bases, and only formed a crown of branches once they neared the end of their lifespan. These trees thrived during the Carboniferous Period and became extinct at the end of the Permian Period.

The Chinle & Surprise Canyon Fm are, to my knowledge, the only layers in the Grand Canyon where petrified wood has been found. Although MANY of the layers above and other time equivalent layers elsewhere have tons.

.

Supai Group (Pennsylvanian-Permian)

Continuing our descent, the Supai Group (Pennsylvanian-Permian), a thick sequence of sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones deposited in a variety of fluvial, deltaic, and marginal marine settings, reveals an even greater diversity of ichnofossils. Within its various members (e.g., Wescogame, Esplanade, Watahomigi, Manakacha), numerous tetrapod trackways have been discovered, representing a transitional fauna from amphibians to early reptiles. Ichnogenera such as Baropezia, Notalacerta, and various amphibian trackways attest to the presence of diverse terrestrial vertebrates along ancient shorelines and floodplains. Furthermore, the Supai Group is rich in invertebrate trace fossils, including a wide array of burrows (vertical and horizontal), trackways, and feeding traces. These indicate the presence of worms, arthropods, and possibly early mollusks inhabiting both terrestrial and aquatic environments. The varied depositional environments of the Supai Group have preserved a complex tapestry of ancient life and behavior.  

Fossils from the Honaker Trail Fm along the San Juan River near Mexican Hat. Equivalent rocks to the Wesgogame Fm of the Supai in the Grand Canyon. (Bottom center is a museum sample to show what intact crinoids at top left would have looked like)
Pennsylvanian vertebrate tracks from the Manakacha Formation, Supai Group, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Photo of the tracks (A) and drawing of the same specimen (B). Scale is in decimeters (1 decimeter = 10 centimeters = about 3.9 inches). Figures 2A and 2B from S. M. Rowland, M. V. Caputo, and Z. A. Jensen (2020) PLoS ONE 15(8): e0237636 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, image cropped).
Both small and large burrows from the upper Supai Group. Just north of Grand Canyon (Virgin River Gorge).
Large, well-preserved invertebrate trace fossils (Psammichnites likely Trilobite tracks isp.) in the Supai Group (Wescogame Formation?) of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. Scale bar is in cm. Photo by Rose Weeks (from NPS Resource Inventory)

While the Watahomigie Formation of the Supai Group was being deposited in the Grand Canyon, conifer forests were growing and being buried and fossilized in the Eastern US & England. In fact much of Europe and North America’s substrate trees and minable coal mines come from the ‘Carboniferous Period’ (Mississippian and Pennsylvanian 360-300 mya). This is speculated to be caused by major ice-age induced sea level changes at the time. In Utah and the Grand Canyon region however, most coal is found in the Cretaceous period. Nearly 200 million years later. Why? Likely because by that time the climate in Utah was now similiar to that in England/New England of the Carboniferous, and once again sea level was rapidly changing.

The Stanhope Fossil Tree, in In St. Thomas’s churchyard, Stanhope north-central England dates to the Carboniferous Period 320 mya, the same age as the Supai Group of the Grand Canyon.
David Webster of The Fossil Grove Trust at Fossil Grove, Victoria Park, Glasgow. The tree stumps stand where they were formed 325 million years ago when land that is now Glasgow was found close to the equator, near Brazil. PIC: John Devlin MANY footprints, leaf impressions and fossils exist in a similiar park in east Fife Scotland (see link here).
Several trackways the first bay is also host to a range of other fossils, in particular a large tree stump and ripple marks formed in the Carboniferous sediment in east Fife Scotland (see link here).
1918 photo of an intact tree stump in an Eastern US? coal mine dating to the Carboniferous age circa 300 million years ago. Petrified wood in INCREDIBLY common in coal mines.

.

Fossil ripples vs modern ripples. Ripples are the most common type of bedform and often contain tracks and worm traces just like you see on modern shorelines, proving the uniformitarian processes at work when the rock was deposited.
Modern mud cracks (left), and fossil mud cracks (right) found in many, many different layers of the Grand Canyon. Once again proving the uniformitarian subaerial processes at work when the rock was deposited.

.

Hermit Formation (Permian)

The transition to the underlying Hermit Formation (Permian) marks a shift towards a more fluvial (riverine) and lacustrine (lake) environment, evidenced by its interbedded sandstones, siltstones, and shales. The ichnological record of the Hermit Formation reflects this change, showcasing a broader range of trace fossils. Tetrapod trackways, though perhaps less ubiquitous than in the Coconino, are still present, indicating continued habitation by early reptiles and amphibians. However, the Hermit is particularly notable for its insect trackways and resting traces, providing rare glimpses into the activity of terrestrial arthropods of the Permian. Delicate trails and impressions left by insects crawling across soft sediment have been documented, offering a unique perspective on the terrestrial invertebrate fauna of this period. Additionally, burrows and trackways of aquatic invertebrates are found in the finer-grained sediments, reflecting the presence of ancient waterways and lakes.  

Reptile footprints from the Hermit Shale (LORENZO MARCHETTI & SPENCER LUCAS). A. GRCA 3171, Yaki Trail. Dromopus lacertoides, several footprints, concave epirelief. B. UCMP-V 4010C, Mogollon Rim. Dromopus lacertoides, left footprint, convex hyporelief. C. USNM 11518, Hermit Trail. Holotype of Hyloidichnus bifurcatus Gilmore 1927, left pes manus couple, convex hyporelief. D. USNM 11692, Yaki/South Kaibab Trail. Hyloidichnus bifurcatus, left pes manus couple, concave epirelief. Holotype of Hyloidichnus whitei Gilmore 1928. E. UCMP-V 75216G, Mogollon Rim. Hyloidichnus bifurcatus, left pes manus couple, concave epirelief. F. UCMP-V 75216D, Mogollon Rim. Erpetopus isp., partial trackway, convex hyporelief. G. UCMP-V 75216A, Mogollon Rim. Erpetopus isp., left pes manus couple, convex hyporelief. H. UCMP-V 75209A, Hermit Trail. Erpetopus isp., partial trackway, convex hyporelief. Dashed arrows indicate the direction of progression. p=pes imprint. m=manus imprint. (from Marchetti et al)
Unidentified seed fern fronds (leaves) from the Permian Hermit Shale, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Left photo and right photo by Michael Quinn (Grand Canyon National Park via flickr, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license, images cropped and resized).
A few of many drawers of ferns and other plants collected from the Permian Hermit Formation, most of which were collected by David White in the 1920s.
Dragonfly wing (right) found in Hermit Shale in Grand Canyon of species T. whitei, a complete specimen of the same age shown (left) from Kansas. Some grew to be 28 inches in length (although these are about 8in).
Dimetrodon fossil from the Permian basin of Texas & Oklahoma lived west of the Grand Canyon during the deposition of the Hermit Shale, & Coconino Sandstone.

.

Schnebly Hill Formation (Permian)

The Schnebly Hill Formation is primarily exposed in the Sedona area along the western Mogollon Rim (50 miles south of the Grand Canyon). It consists of cross-bedded sandstones, mudstones, limestones, and evaporites deposited in a mix of eolian, coastal, and shallow marine environments within the Holbrook Basin. It sharply overlies the Hermit Formation (or Hermit Shale) in the Sedona region and intertongues upward with the Coconino Sandstone, reaching thicknesses of 300–600 m eastward but thinning westward to the point of pinching out just east & south of the Grand Canyon. (But still occupying a time period between the Coconino Sandstone and Hermit Formation. It contains many impressive marine & terrestrial fossils, as well as track sites.

Reptile trackway in the Schnebly Hill Formation Sadona, Near fortress ruin Loy Canyon Trailhead just south of the Grand Canyon.
Asterophyllites or Annularia, a type of horsetail fern from the Schnebly Hill Formation south of the Grand Canyon.

.

Coconino Sandstone (Permian)

Beneath the Toroweap lies the striking Coconino Sandstone (Permian), a massive cross-bedded sandstone representing an extensive ancient sand sea (erg). This formation is renowned for its exceptional preservation of tetrapod trackways. The fine-grained, wind-deposited sands acted as an ideal medium for recording footprints, which were subsequently buried and lithified. Numerous track sites within the Coconino have yielded a rich diversity of ichnogenera, including Chelichnus, Dromopus, Laoporus, and Octopusoides. These trackways provide invaluable insights into the gait, size, and behavior of early reptiles and possibly synapsids (the lineage leading to mammals) that navigated these ancient dunes. The consistent direction of many trackways suggests prevailing wind patterns, further painting a vivid picture of this Permian desert environment. While invertebrate traces are less common in the dominant eolian facies, evidence of burrowing organisms can be found in interdune or wetter intervals. The Coconino stands as a global benchmark for understanding early terrestrial vertebrate locomotion.  

A fallen boulder of Coconino Sandstone located adjacent to the Dripping Springs Trail shows trackways of a tetrapod, or mammal-like reptile, that walked on the sand dune and predated the dinosaurs. The tracks are enhanced by a false-color depth map (depth in mm).(TOP: FRANCISCHINI ET AL. (2019); BOTTOM: SPENCER LUCAS).
Artwork depicting the Coconino desert environment and two primitive tetrapods, based on the occurrence of Ichniotherium from Grand Canyon National Park.Illustration courtesy of Voltaire Paes Neto.
Small beetle trackway in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon. Both bottom left and top right also have other insect tracks as well (possibly spiders?)

.

Toroweap Formation (Permian)

Descending through the Toroweap Formation (Permian), a transitional unit representing fluctuating marine and terrestrial influences, the ichnological record begins to diversify. The Whitmore Wash Member, often considered a temporal equivalent to the Coconino Sandstone, exhibits abundant trackways of tetrapods. These footprints, often preserved in fine-grained sandstones and siltstones, reveal the presence of early reptiles and amphibians traversing dune-like environments or marginal marine flats. Genera like Chelichnus and Dromopus, characteristic of early amniotes, have been identified, providing crucial evidence of the fauna inhabiting this transitional landscape. Additionally, invertebrate traces such as burrows and trackways continue to be found, reflecting the persistence of benthic communities in the changing environments. Aside from the Whitemore Wash Member/Coconino, the Toroweap Formation is comparatively unfosiliferous, with fossils limited to invertebrates in a few limestone horizons and the trackways of the Whitmore wash.

 

Tiny Schizodus bivalves from a marine lens of the early Permian Toroweap Formation.

.

Kaibab Formation (Permian)

At the canyon’s rim, the Kaibab Formation (Permian), a resistant limestone deposited in a shallow marine environment, might seem an unlikely place for abundant tracksites. However, careful examination reveals evidence of invertebrate activity. Trace fossils such as burrows (e.g., Planolites, Palaeophycus) and grazing trails are documented, indicating the presence of worms and other soft-bodied organisms that moved through the muddy seafloor. While large vertebrate tracks are less common in the main canyon exposures of the Kaibab, equivalent formations outside the immediate Grand Canyon region have yielded footprints of early reptiles, suggesting the potential for future discoveries within its upper layers. The Kaibab’s story is primarily one of a marine ecosystem, its trace fossils reflecting the simple yet persistent life within those ancient seas.  

Dissolved chertified burrows (likely from shrimp or other crustaceans) from the Kaibab formation on the rim of the Grand Canyon.
Coral Reef community fossils associated with patch reef/burrowed areas, all gathered by the present author from a small canyon in the Kaibab. Fossils include brachiopods, bryozoans (sea fans), sponge, crinoids, corals and clam shells. Lance Weaver

.

.

Mesozoic Layers Just North of Grand Canyon

The Moenkopi and Chinle formations which stratigraphically sit just on top (just younger) than the layers of the Grand Canyon have many, many impressive trace fossils.

Cruziana trackways from the Virgin Limestone member of the Moenkopi Formation just north of Virgin, Utah just north of the Grand Canyon.
Well preserved petrified fire-scarred fossil tree from the Late Triassic Chinle Fm of Petrified Forest National Park. (see article here)
Dinosaur tracks in the Triassic Moenkopi Formation from Capital Reef and Holbrook Member of the Chinle Groups. See details here.

Although they are very rare, Placerias fossils have been found in the Blue Mesa Member of the Chinle Formation within Petrified Forest National Park. Placerias are a type of dicynodont that lived during the Late Triassic Period. These herbivores grew to be up to 11ft long and a ton in weight with two short tusks like a boar or saber-toothed tiger. Once thought to be reptilian, complete skeletons show a far more mammal-like anatomy similar to the Therapsids of the Permian.

Terrestrial Placerias fossil from Triassic Chinle Formation south of the Grand Canyon near St Johns Az.

The fact that Therapsid-like fossils as big as Postosuchus (shown below) appear as early as the Chinle in the Late Triassic shows either how quickly things diversified after the Terminal Permian Extinction or that many unknown clades lived before and then through the extinction. Desmatosuchus (on the right) was a large crocodile-like reptile measuring 15 – 16 ft long and weighing about 620–660 lb.

Postosuchus and Desmatosuchus fossils from Triassic Chinle Fm of Petrified Forest National Park
Triassic aged petrified tree from Petrified Forest National Park Arizona, and similar fossilized trees from Jurassic Morrison Formation in Escalante Petrified Forest State Park. (replace with collage).

Although true ‘dinosaur’ footprints don’t exist in the Grand Canyon or any Grand Canyon aged (Paleozoic) layers, numerous dinosaur track sites exist in the slightly younger Mesozoic layers just north of the Grand Canyon region. One of the best might be the Dinosaur Discovery Site (tracksite museum) at Johnson Farm in St George, Utah about 70 miles north of the Grand Canyon. (you can explore the museum 100% virtually at this link)

One of the many, many huge slabs of terrestrial and shallow lake deposits with vivid dinosaur tracks.
Three toed therapod/eubrontes dinosaur footprint surrounded by mudcracks from the Moenave Formation near St George, Utah north of the Grand Canyon.
Tracy Thomson points to chirotheriid swim tracks in the Torrey Member of the Moenkopi Formation in the Island in the Sky District of Canyonlands National Park. (ugs website)

.

.

Fossil locality from the Navajo Sandstone in the San Rafael Swell near Colonade arch. Although some have speculated these to be dewatering features (see this paper for abundant examples in the Carmel near Kanab), these more likely appear to be a small grove of trees from an inter-dune oasis. Tee trunk fossil in the Navajo at left center is one of many examples of trees & wood in the Navajo from (Parrish, 2007). The living trees shown (bottom right) are desert species known to have existed in Jurassic Navajo times, Cycads, and Araucaria (monkey trees from Argentina).
A few of dozens of images of mammal burrows, root casts and fossils and sand pipes in the Navajo Sandstone near the confluence of HW 191 & 313 near Moab, from Lucas, 2004. therapsid Burrows in the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone. In Odier, ‘The Jurassic, The Mammal Explosion’. Available here.
Lingulid brachiopod trace fossils from the Middle Jurassic Carmel Formation of southwestern Utah. The holes in the top two pictures are formed from the pedicle of the brachiopod. See details on the Wooster Geologists Blog. These common features show that the brachiopod shells found in these layers are from living, reproducing communities, not simply some dead heap of shells deposited in flood waters.
Full petrified tree from the Jurassic Morrison Formation just east of Bryce Canyon National Park on the top of the Grand Staircase. Fossilized beetle boreholes in the tree suggest quick burial and fossilization with minimum deformation.

.

Cenozoic Layers Just East of the Grand Canyon

The San Juan Basin, 200 miles east of Grand Canyon, hosts some of the best in situ (in place) petrified logs in the west, dating from 120-55 million years ago. The Fossil Forest member of the Fruitland Formation. Ah-She-Sle-Pah Wash, New Mexico. Great examples can be seen on the phototreknm.com page as well as the AMAZING photographic journey of Peter & Tanja at https://wilde-weite-welt.de

Petrified Trees in San Juan Basin, New Mexico

In Situ Petrified tree from the Ah-Shi-Sle-Pah Wilderness, New Mexico (About 200 miles East of the Grand Canyon in the Nacimiento Formation? 65mya, see here)

On the Grand Staircase, by far the best units to find petrified trees (in ancient river systems) are the Triassic Chinle and Jurassic Morrison Formations. Both of these units are easily discernable ancient river systems.

Fossilized ‘in place’ Sequoia stump from Florissant Fossil Beds in Colorado west of Colorado Springs/Pikes Peak dates to 34 million years ago.
Lund Petrified Forest, in Washoe County, Western Nevada, contains remains of more than 200 Sequoia stumps and logs buried in Volcanic tuff dating to the Miocene Period. ( A ) 1946 photo of the most prominent stump (photo courtesy of University of Nevada Reno Library Special Collections Department); ( B ) The same site in 2014 showing a protective fence installed by the Bureau of Land Management.

The immense number of fossils found in the Eocene Green River formation might lead some to suppose some type of catastrophic event led to the death and burial of so many animals, but as seen in the next image, numerous trace fossil burrows and trackways prove a fairly uniformitarian habitat existed in this large inland lake. Although it seems likely that the lake somehow became toxic during episodes, perhaps like the Aerial Sea of Asia or Lake Turkana of Africa where massive changes in ph coinciding with large influxes of sediment played a part in their demise.

Fossils of the Eocene Green River Formation of Utah & Wyoming. Equivalent to the Claron Fm. of the Grand Staircase. Animals clockwise from top left are a bird, small horse, snake, turtle, crocodilian, fish and fresh water ray.
Bird & mammal tracks in the Green River formation show that animals were walking around on the same lake shores where many dying animals created fossils.

Ice age magafauna such as the Huntington mammoths & groundsloth found on the Wasatch Plateau near Price, Utah during construction of the Huntington damn project. These animals are often found on the top of the stratigraphic column. The Huntington fossils were found in a bog sitting on glacial outwash radiocarbon dated to around 12,000 BP. The outwash sites on top of Paleocene Northhorn Formation, however, many tusks and teeth have been found in Lake Bonneville Shoreline deposits which date from Miocene to Pliestocene in age. Hair and skat has been found in Navajo Sandstone coves in Glen Canyon just up river from the Grand Canyon.

Huntington mammoths & groundsloth found during construction of the Huntington damn project, housed in Price, Utah.

Is the Orbit of Jupiter related to Solar Cycles and How Gravity Waves & Electrical Properties Affect the Earth and Shape the Arms of the Milky Way Galaxy

Introduction

Although my degree is in geology & geophysics, and not nuclear or astrophysics, I’v always had a keen interest in physics and would love to go back to school one day and get a graduate degree somewhere in that field. My advanced physics, geochronology and geophysics classes in college really interested and excited me. At just the age of 19 as I went through school I was flooded with the following ideas and insights and had strong impressions of where modern physical understandings were lacking.

As the internet grows I have found I am far from alone. Through the previous 20 years I’ve seen that numerous scientists are thinking about and trying to solve these same issues and independently coming to the same conclusions as I have. Because there are so many others, I am quite sure these issues will work themselves out over time. I think collaborative, academic bodies will eventually move our global understanding where it needs to be in order to fully understand the concepts my theories are working toward. In relation to my very unique theory for minor periodic true polar wandering and the relativity of radiometric dating, I will go over some of the basic principles of what I think mainstream science will one day mathematically & experimentally prove for certain.

Outline

1. There are many poorly understood cycles in celestial mechanics, some of which affect many of the fundamental units of physics.

(give examples)
-what really is mass? how does it relate to time?
-what dictates nuclear stability and decay rates?

2. One of the most basic of these is the sun’s 11 yr solar cycle of solar maximum. This poorly understood cycle, which is almost certainly caused by a type of electrical resonance between the sun and Jupiter (and Saturn), reverses the sun’s electromagnetic field and causes massive electrical discharges and changes within the sun’s dynamo.

(give examples)
-sun and Jupiter are a binary pair, Jupiter’s period is ~11 years.
-they create a double circle resonance. when closest, their lines intertwine. Saturn & Jupiters 11 year orbit somehow drive the ~11 year solar cycle.
-also…

3. Many of the celestial mechanic principles which govern the orbits of bodies are still sometimes explained using archaic concepts of Newtonian mechanics. Understanding phenomena such as inertia, circular orbits, and mass/gravity in terms of quantum field mechanics helps to better explain the relativity and connectedness of our galaxy.

(give examples)
-the similarity between charge and gravity equations (force related to distance squared).
-The circular orbital behavior of a charged particle in a mag field.
-The standing wave and orbit of the earth.
-diagram of how the earth would create a mag field if it is a charged particle in a large oscillating mag field of the sun.
-channeled sources teach of 8 dimensions, a fractal analog is the 8 energy shells in atoms. this is where energy goes.
-speed of light (core atomic resonance of that frequency) dictates the dimension. it is dictated by the mag field of the next higher governing creation.
-throw in the concept of the sun or all matter being a vortex into the next dimension (like a drain sucking in matter & blowing out energy)

4.The galactic core, and many other systems within the universe also produce harmonics and orbital resonances (especially with gravity waves), which create cycles affecting our solar system and all bodies within the universe. The density waves which create our spiral arm geometry is an example. The most pertinent cycle for our solar system is a 600-800 yr & 3000-4200 year cycle which radically affects our sun and solar system.

(give examples)
-we only have mythological historical and channeled accounts to tell us about these theorized cycles.
-It appears to completely disrupt the solar system.
-causes a huge energetic exchange between the sun and its governing power (perhaps the galactic core?).
-The energetic exchanges change the z-number and nuclear stability; which changes most of the relative fundamentals such as mass, density and binding energy.
-Changes occurring during these cycles create changes in volume/density & angular velocity and momentum and are the primary driving force for plate tectonics.

5. Just like suns, every atom is a miniature vortex/whirlpool connecting dimensions. Just as differing densities in the ocean or atmosphere cause vortexes seeking equilibrium (tornadoes/whirlpools), so also are suns and subatomic particles 3D vortices which pull matter from one density/dimension, transform it and blow it into another density/dimension in the form of energy (matter goes in gravitationally and out electromagnetically). Somewhat like a slinky going down the stairs, all matter steps through the dimensions; each sun, planet and atom attracting to itself in one dimension until it dies and is re-created or born again in the next higher dimension. Everything has its analog across the dimensions. As galaxies and humans attract in this life, so we will manifest in the next.

6. The unified field is the master electromagnetic (quantum) field. Particles are simply well behaved ripples or vortices in the quantum field. The Strong, Weak, Gravitational and Magnetic attractive/repulsive forces are all different aspects of the same force–which have to do with alignment or misalignment of the vortices. What needs to be solved is the mechanism which shields some interactions and not others. What shields some elements from being magnetic? What shields the Strong Force in all but nucleic interactions? What shields the “magnetic” forces in celestial mechanics to make interactions behave “gravitationally”?  Etc…  To solve the shielding problem is to unify the forces. My guess is that the math behind this is beyond our current abilities. I believe it has to do with calculating the composite field interactions between every subatomic vortex in the field.

.

Background Concepts

Relativity of Radiometric decay rates (likely caused by neutrino spikes)
Gravitational Waves which warp space-time and emanate out from super massive objects like Sagittarius A in the center of our galaxy.
-The galactic current/plasma sheet (Galactic analog to the Heliospheric Sheet)
Cosmic (astrophysical) Jets, and cyclical gamma ray bursts
-Solar outbursts in systems with brown dwarfs far more powerful than usual. Especially if magnetic lines reconnect (find article of this happening recently elsewhere)
Superflares (massive CME’s thousands of times more powerful than nuclear weapons’, capable of affecting C14 production in the upper atmosphere – see 774 AD event)

.

The cycles of celestial mechanics and their relationship to the fundamental units of physics

In our Galaxy there are many cycles which affect our earth and our measurements of space and time. The most fundamental of these cycles is obviously the earth day, which is essentially a measure one complete rotation of earth on its axis. Also well known are the year, the lunar cycle which months are loosely based on, and the less known Solar Cycle of 11 years where the sun reverses polarity. There are even greater cycles of such long duration that their exact mechanical characteristics are only speculative; such as our solar system’s movement within the Orion arm of the galaxy, our movement up and down across the galactic plane or equator, and our solar system’s orbit around the galactic core. I propose that these larger celestial cycles dictate all of our physical laws and measurements in ways many may not realize. It should be obvious that all our measurements of time are based on the velocity of the earth’s rotation and orbit around the sun, as well as the distance and size of the earth itself and its orbit. For instance, by changing the properties of inertia or the size of earth and/or its speed, you change the length of a ‘year’ and thus the 4.5x billion year date for the age of the earth and the age of everything in our geologic timeline. Einstein and many physicists like him came to realize over a century ago that all these measurements were relative to each-other and were dependent upon one’s reference frame in many complicated ways.

I suggest that there is no way to conclusively prove that the earth’s rotational velocity, orbital velocity or orbital period have been constant; and that in fact historical and mythological records seem to suggest to the contrary. I propose a cosmological model which suggests that our Solar System experiences long periods of relative stability interspersed by short bursts of extreme relativistic changes much like the suns 9-10 years of stable behavior interspersed by 1-3 years of erratic behavior during Solar Max. I suggest that special relativity and gravity waves can be used to suggest that large changes in the angular velocity of our solar system’s orbit in the galaxy, cause minor but significant changes in volume, density and even its mass, binding energy and other energetic properties of physics through time.

Two dimensional representation of the rate of change of Celestial Cycles. Peaks and troughs represent huge gravity waves emanating out from the Galactic Core, which cause short periods of intense change in spacetime, mass, angular velocity, and angular momentum. Areas of constant slope between peaks and trough represent areas of relative stability.

The Solar Cycle and Orbital Resonance

Our sun’s 11 year solar cycle has been well researched and documented. Roughly every 11 years the sun’s magnetic field collapses, reverses and realigns in a process corresponding with Solar Maximum, where the sun’s energetic output, sunspot activity and coronal mass ejection prevalence intensifies. Older models seeking to explain the cause of these cycles relied on classical physics explanations which saw the sun as a closed dynamo system. Newer models are beginning to explore how electro-magnetic and gravitational fields might actually be at play in these phenomena. Although well documented, it is not well known that the Sun and Jupiter are essentially a loose binary system, as the center of gravity of the two bodies lies outside the sun’s circumference. At roughly 1/10th the diameter of the sun, Jupiter is more than twice as massive than all the other planets combined. As Jupiter orbits the sun it tugs the sun toward itself by more than half the sun’s 800,000 mile diameter. The slight acceleration of the Sun’s mass and convective zone fluids created by this binary orbit between the Jupiter, the Sun & Saturn, I believe, creates drives the tidal forces within the sun as well as creating some type of electrical resonance of the two bodies and the entire solar system.

Jupiter’s massive size causes a slight tug on the sun in a binary or near-binary orbit. Their true center of gravity (barycenter) lies just outside the circumference of the Sun.
Exaggerated illustration of the binary nature of the Sun and Jupiter. Thier true center of gravity lies just outside the circumference of the Sun. This relationship creates an orbital resonance which in turn interacts with the galactic field
Highly Exaggerated illustration of the binary nature of the Sun and Jupiter’s orbits, showing how orbital speed increases at maximum approach. This relationship could theoretically create an electric resonance which in turn interacts with the galactic field.

Many papers attempting to link Jupiter’s orbit (in combination with other planets) to the suns solar cycle (see Courtillot, 2021 or Stefani, 2019 for instance). However, all of them have been ignored or dismissed as no one has found a mathematical model convincing enough to account for the 0.7 to 0.8 year difference between the two. I contend that there’s absolutely no way that the 11.8 year periodicity of the Jovian orbit is not somehow connected to the 11.1 periodicity of the solar cycle and I suspect the difference in time has to do with a combination of electrical flow of Jupiter and only some planets pairing with Jupiter to affect the Suns internal magnetic flow, or perhaps simple neglect and misunderstanding of the important aspect of Jupiter’s up and down motion across the solar equator on the suns dynamo.

As depicted in the exaggerated illustration above, when these two massive bodies reach perihelion (their closest approach), their angular momentum increases slightly — this acceleration of mass and charge, undoubtedly induces some type of charge. (As a result of gravitational and electromagnetic principles I detail below, I suggest that Solar Max is somehow related to changes in the Sun’s rotational acceleration and not just by inner-body tidal forces caused by heat differentials). Perhaps the Solar Jovian exchange simply enhances or subtly drives the existing flow and imbalances in the sun’s internal dynamo. It is not entirely understood why the sun’s electromagnetic field always rebuilds in a switched polarity, but I suspect that either Jupiter’s orbital obliquity to the Solar Plane (which is 6.01 degrees) actually alternately snakes above and below the celestial equator with each orbit, or it is caused by some galactic influence such as our solar system’s position in the galactic field according to principles which will be discussed later in this article.

Although not well explored by astrophysicists, the above gravitational influences between Jupiter and the Suns magnetic field, internal producing plasma currents are fairly straight foreword results of known dynamo processes. However, I believe there are more non-Newtonian electrical influences of this Solar/Jovian movement that warrant further exploration. Particularly, the electrical current exchange between the sun and Jupiter following a Jupiter/Io model, as well as possible ulta-subtle gravity waves cased by the Jupiter’s acceleration of the sun.

The Oahspe text contains many supposed ancient illustrations (channeled in 1882) of astronomic regions though which the earth passed in its galactic orbit which preportedly afftected human behavior and consiousness, the pattern in this illustration is surprisingly similar the reinforced wave patters of torroidal energy flow.
Many ancient cultures have legends of a cataclysmic time cycle with a periodicity of catastrophe approximating 4.5-7,000 years. The Hindu Yuga, the Mayan Baktun and the Hebrew/Christian calendar are just a few examples. Although mired in myth, perhaps these legends are based on some type of subtle astronomical cycle.

Galactic Gravity Waves and their Possible Effects on our Sun and Earth

The small Gravity Waves theorized to possibly be caused by the sun’s acceleration and the electrical resonance created by the same process is extremely relevant in our discussion because I believe it serves as a microcosm or fractal of what is occurring in the Galactic Core.  The dance or movement of these two bodies creates an alternating, radiating field disturbance which radiates throughout the and Galaxy and ends up affecting the gravitational and electrical properties of all smaller bodies. I believe it is this same phenomena occurring in our Galactic core which is responsible for the “arms” of our Galaxy, and more importantly, creating alternating regions or arms of high energy density and low energy density, (which also regulate the relativistic changes of many cosmic variables for our solar system such as inertia and gravity). Much like with the famous double slit experiment, this double wave interference pattern creates linear node alignments which radiate out from the center like sunbursts or spokes on a wheel. When the oscillating source of these interference waves is itself rotating, then the spokes become curved arms matching the ratio phi—just like we see in our galaxy. (see cosmometry.net for many amazing insights into the relationships of phi)

Understanding the gravity waves which likely shape our Galaxy. (take special note of the content near time 4:30)

As our solar system slowly moves through the pattern of electromagnetic waves and gravity waves emanated out from the galactic core, many fundamentals of physics change. Large gravity waves fold space-time on itself, causing relative changes in mass, density, inertia and solar energy output. I propose that rotating binary bodies in the center of the milky way are creating a wave pattern similar to those demonstrated in the experiments below. This pattern contains both reinforcing waves and canceling waves. Matter in the galaxy tends to get pushed into and congregate in the ‘arms’ which are composed of canceling waves (both gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves). However as earth moves through these regions of reinforcing waves and canceling waves, the very fundamentals of physics change.

Double wave interference pattern from two oscillating bodies
Imagine these oscillating balls representing the Sun and Jupiter (or similarly the Galactic Core & Sagittarius A East). Note the double interference pattern (especially the wave canceling “rays” or spokes radiating from the center). Now picture the entire system rotating and you would get the same condition existing in the Galactic core—it being responsible for the spiral arms of our Galaxy. Matter tends to be driven into the “quiet” or wave-cancelling arms.
As the two massive bodies rotate, the double interference pattern spirals out from the center, creating arcs matching the arms of our galaxy.
Watch a sort of binary pair or star orbiting Sagittarius A at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. (starting at minute 0:50) Could this motion be responsible for the arm structure of the Galaxy? Could it be creating a pattern of waves which affect the earth on a periodicity of several thousand years and be responsible for true polar wandering events on earth?

Celestial Mechanics and a Unified Field Theory

Although containing four or more fundamental forces, science seems to be marching on in finding ways to explain the unified field that Einstein envisioned. There are many patterns and concepts concerning a possible unified field which any high school student can see, and in fact most college textbooks actually point out. Modern String theory is starting to validate previously pseudoscience “new age” theories that require multiple dimensions to make things work. Here, we’ll first cover the similarities in equations which govern classical vs. quantum mechanics.  For an over simplified example, take for instance the similarities between law of universal gravitation and Coulomb’s law. 

gravitation vs.
Universal Gravitation vs. Coulomb’s Law

It should be obvious that there seems to be a distinct relationship between mass and charge.  This relationship becomes more clear and insightful when we look closely at mass and compare it to the effects of a charge in different types of magnetic fields. Mass, by definition is simply a measure of the force it takes to break inertia and accelerate an object. But what causes the effects of inertia?  This force is often seen as separate from electromagnetism, but remember the Lorentz force laws show that it takes a force to move charged particles against a magnetic field. To those who have looked closely into magnetic field vectors on a spherical object, the results are amazingly similar to the inertial effects we see on objects in our Solar System. Although strikingly similar on the surface, mathematically proving this idea that inertia is actually caused by the resistance of magnetic fields on relatively “charged” objects has proven elusive (but that doesn’t mean it won’t be done one day).  Before moving into the more complex differences between gravity and magnetism let’s take a moment to look at the similar effects of planetary orbits and the behavior of a charged particle moving normal to a magnetic field.  In introductory physics we learn of the cyclotron and the effects of a charged particle when traveling normal to a uniform magnetic field. As shown in the illustrations below, the particle will be forced into a circular orbit when the velocity is inversely proportional to the charge.  Doesn’t this look amazingly similar to planetary orbits?  Isn’t this a better explanation for why planets tend to stabilize their orbits around the celestial equator and galactic bodies tend to do the same along the galactic equatorial plane?  It likely also plays a role in why planets with weak or no magnetic fields often have very small or no moons.

Questions:
-Electromagnetic properties only act on oppositely charged objects. Is there any way to test whether the sun and its planets are relatively opposingly charged?

The circular behavior of charged particles in a uniform perpendicular magnetic field, is similar to the behavior of celestial bodies orbiting bodies with strong magnetic fields.
similarities between the circular or ‘cyclotronic” motion of a charged particle moving normal to a uniform magnetic field, and the stable orbit of a planet or satellite orbiting within the uniform magnetic field of its governing celestial body.

Some cosmological phenomena are sometimes still explained using entirely newtonian physics principles, despite their amazing similarities to electromagnetic principles.  There are many physicists trying to break out of this old mechanical cosmological view and trying to see the universe as a dynamic electrical system.  One profound aspect of this is the idea that Celestial bodies may be heated from within by induction caused by motion through the solar or galactic magnetic field, just as a conductor induces a current when it moves through an alternating field. If such were at all true there could be many implications on possible periodicities of volcanism and the speed of tectonic movement (orogenic events) seen in the geologic record. Perhaps as many ancient myths suggest, the movement of our Solar System in and out of high density “nodes” of the Galactic Field could possibly influence planetary heating, plate subduction and Solar output.

Our current difficulty in getting past the prevailing classical astronomical models is reminiscent of the 17th century scientific community led by Lord Kelvin who had trouble accepting the idea of radioactivity playing a role in the Sun’s and earth’s interior heating.

Understanding how Jupiter’s moon Io proves the electrical effects of planetary bodies and may be the best model for many of the volcanic effects we see on earth through the late Mesozoic to mid Cenozoic on earth.

Putting it all together

Putting the principles we have been discussing together I propose a model in which, just as a wound conductor wire acquires an induced current when moved through an oscillating magnetic field, the Sun also is subtly influenced electrically by its motion through the galactic magnetic field. Changes in the Sun’s acceleration, like those caused by Jupiter’s binary perigee every 11 years, cause electrically induced surges manifest as solar max. The same process is repeated up and down the line between Suns, planets and other orbiting satellites which have cores appropriate for forming dynamic magnetic fields. Thus the earth’s core also has a current which is induced by its travel through the sun’s oscillating magnetic field. (However, hardened planets like earth contain largely “frozen” magnetic fields which are no longer able to flow easily with the changes of their “governing” stars.) Energetic changes in earth’s internal dynamo are also caused by accelerations caused by our own satellite (The earth and moon are also a binary system). This process forms a chain which transfers energy and other aspects of electrical resonance from the smallest of celestial bodies, to the galactic core itself. Of course, like most things in nature there are obviously myriads of exceptions and complexities which seem to break the rules of every model. A scientists job is not to lay on the wisdom as if they have “figured nature out”, but to propose theories and hypotheses which explain natural phenomena and invite others to test and challenge those theories in search of truth….

The Larmor Precession causes atoms to process just like the earth. I propose the same principles act upon the earth causing the precession of the equinoxes

Understanding the Relationship Between PHI & Solar Max

I need to explain here how the alignment of Jupiter, Saturn & Neptune are responsible for the 11.3 solar max and reversal of the suns electromagnetic field. It has to do with the bipole of the binary like action these planets create as they pull the sun in directions opposing the greater galactic field (a microcosm to what happens each 3300 years when it changes directions in its spiral orbit. The thing to understand here, is that astronomers who have explored the sun/Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune alignment are looking for a straight line when they should be looking for PHI. PHI is a straight line imposed on bent space time. And its related to the way that tension waves & gravity work on ‘circular motion’ or rotating bodies as seen in the below video!

Oversimplified principles of electromagnetic dynamics within the Solar System and Galaxy.

Questions:
-If true would the motion of the sun through the galactic magnetic field, or the motion of the planets through the suns magnetic field create a drag? Wouldn’t this tend to slow them down over time?

Atomic Orbital Shells Are Analogs to the Dimensions

Just as different atoms have different numbers of energy shells, so might different planets and suns have different numbers of densities. (string theory refs).

periodic table of the elements showing the electron shells of each element.
periodic table of the elements showing the electron shells of each element.

We like to think of electrons as ‘particles’ orbiting ‘around’ the nucleus, but in reality electron shells are more like an energy field which holds a discrete amount of energy. The number of shells and amount of energy those shells can hold is determined by the “core vibration” or mass of the nucleus.  Likewise the varying dimensions of planets (such as earth’s heavens) or even the 7 energy bodies in hindu belief are often referred to as existing ‘around’ a person or planet, but in reality pinpointing these shells in space is not so straightforward.  In the ‘Law of One’, Saturn’s 7th dimension is referred to as existing in the “rings’ of Saturn, just as Oahspe and most mainstream religions refer to earth’s heavens or resurrections as existing within the earth’s electromagnetic field. This is true in a manner of speaking because space/mass expands as it becomes more energized, but one needs to realize that these places are truly alternate dimensions invisible to human eye and manifesting only as light or energy when translating from one reference frame to another.

-put diagrams of gravity vs electromagnetic interactions.
-lay out relationships between fundamental physical properties (mass, energy, etc)
-lay out a framework for how core vibrations change, and how this change then dictates the fundamental laws.

—- UNDER CONSTRUCTION —————————————————————————————–

Summary

Most of the fundamental units of physics are relative to many cosmological factors which change over time. The earth’s volume, density, and most importantly the speed of light, … are relative to the solar system’s position in the galaxy. Assumptions claiming these do not changed are flawed…

We are just beginning to understand the electrical nature of the universe. The relationship between electromagnetism and gravity is in its infancy. Most physics textbooks point out these relationships as examples of what is yet to be discovered… when we find these relationships, we will understand why decay rates change over time.

Small description of the 8 dimensions from cosmology article. As earth moves between these, dates skew.

(give examples)
-the similarity between force and gravity equations (over distance squared).
-The circular orbital behavior of a charged particle in a mag field.
-The standing wave and orbit of the earth.
-diagram of how the earth would create a mag field if it is a charged particle in a large oscillating mag field of the sun.
-the lost energy we call binding energy, is pulled to the next dimension
-(main point) most importantly hit on the possible causes for creation of, and polarity switches in magnetic fields. because switches (which have collapses) or changes in mag field intensity, affect radiation on earth, which affects decay rates.

-gravity and electromagnetic attraction are obviously the same force, but the force is dampened or accentuated by the configuration of the atoms in the material. In materials which conduct electricity, the force gravitational force is greater… that’s why they are heavy. It has to do with how the atoms are arranged…
different theories for what changes the decay rates…
1.standing wave nodes
2.abrupt change in velocity
3.(main point) direct CME impacts and general changes in solar and interstellar radiation reaching the earth. Current physics is still a bit too caught up in particle physics, but we understand radiation enough to realize that interstellar radiation both creates and affects radioactive particles. Creation of C14 by highly charged solar particles is well understood. Creation of other radioactive isotopes like U245 and K37 from cosmic sources is less understood, but the principles are still there.

4 -PLATE TECTONICS. as you move further away from a gravitationally governing body, an object’s volume and density change.  A bag of potato chips of a mountain or a balloon in the air will expand the higher they raise away from the earth. The planets experience the same effect in relation to the sun’s gravitational influences. As a you move away from the Sun, planets become more voluminous and less dense (depending on the rigidity of their materials).  Scientist currently assume that the differences in planetary density were determined as they all simultaneously condensed with our sun (which may certainly be true) and that the earth has not changed its location in the solar system. My theory however suggests that it is changes in interstellar density, which is the main driver of plate tectonics. The liquid core expands & shrinks as we cross major galactic density boundaries, the rigid crust, less so. The same would be true of our sun (and its planets) as we move about in relation to both the galactic core and other galactic gravitational influences (they move slightly closer or further from the sun).

This process is quantized, not simply gradational. It could best be compared to the water cycle. Water does not transform from ice to liquid to steam in a linear fashion, it does so in quantized steps involving latent heat. With water, changes of state are determined by the energy density of the liquid or the density/pressure of the environment. If you slowly move most frozen substances into a region of lower pressure, they will liquify unless you take enough energy out of the system to bring equilibrium. As our Solar System moves through the galaxy, the same type of thing happens as we pass through nebula (and clouds of dark matter) of differing density. Scientist know that the orbit of earth & all the planets in our solar system (as well as the moon) are slowly expanding, but no one can agree on why. What is yet to be seen is the effect of this change on the laws of physics once the quantized threshold boundary is crossed…

5-UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. gravity and magnetism are not separate forces, but different intensities of the same force. as scores of people have suggested, there is only one force, and it is subatomically created by reinforcing or cancelling waves. (Essentially vibrations or vortices in the quantum field.) Waves which are essentially electric field lines caused by space-time vortices in the unified field. Whats important is the idea that attractive and repulsive forces of electromagnetism act on every object. It is well understood that it is the “alignment” of the atoms which dictates magnetism. What is not well understood is that it is those same atomic alignment characteristics which determine mass… which in turn determines what we call gravity.  Magnetic materials are almost universally heavy (more massive). Why? Because the alignment or polarization of the atoms also makes them more attracted to the earth than other materials (in addition to being attracted to other magnetic materials). Iron, water or air do not have different masses because they have more or less atoms, it is because of the alignment or polarization of the atoms. Density is not so much a measure of the molarity (number of atoms) but the proportion of atoms aligned in certain configurations or ways.  The reason solids can pass through liquids or gases is the same reason why dimensions don’t interact, its because of the configuration and/or base vibratory frequency of the atoms.  At the most fundamental level, there is no such thing as a solid or “particle”.  Things simply behave like particles because of their electrical properties

———————————————————————————

-when the moon had a liquid core and stronger magnetic field, it likely caused the earth’s magnetic field to regularly flip in the same way Jupiter causes the sun to.  Possibly certain galactic variables re-melt the core and polarize it from time to time.  Or like dropping a magnetic can affect its magnetism, jolts to the earth may affects its magnetism as well.

#1 Unified field theory. I believe we one day will come to mathematically and conceptually understand how all fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, & weak force) are simply different distortions of the same unified force & field. I believe the key to finding these formulas is in understanding the multidimensionality of matter. (7 dimensions in our galaxy, just like there are 7 possible electron valence shells or energy levels in an atom.)

#2 Total relativity. All fundamental units of physics are relative and change as a body progresses through these dimensions. Mass, inertia, bonding energies/strong forces, gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces and time all are relative and change as a reference frame moves through the dimensions. Changes occur proportionally according to the mathematical relationships proven by mainstream physics. My ideas essentially mirror special relativity with exception that the speed of light is discretely different in each of the 7 dimensions.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION ——————————————————————————————————-

Changes In Fundamental Rules of Physics

I’ve come to realize our current understanding of the motion of our Solar System through the galaxy is fairly retarded. We really have only 200-600 years of good astronomical data to use as a basis for tracking our motion.  That’s not very much and not nearly enough to really be able to say much about our galactic orbit. All of our astronomical calculations concerning the suns movements are blind projections of current movements. We know from current measurable motions of stars that our planet wobbles on its axis. We know it also has a slight binary orbit because of the moon.  We know the sun does the same and has a true binary orbit with Jupiter (the center of which exists outside the circumference of the sun). We know our solar system is inclined relative to the galactic plane while moving toward it and we speculate it snakes its way up and down through that plane over time.  Despite presumptuous and prideful speculation, we really don’t have enough data to speculate as to exactly how that orbit behaves over thousands of years.  Vague Greek records (and possibly a few Chinese & Babylonian ones) are our only truly reliable way of extending astronomical conditions a bit longer into the past. The language barrier with Babylonian and Egyptian records makes them hopelessly suspect.  What is causing the earth’s magnetic field strength (and other planets in our solar system) to decay more rapidly than linear predictions suggested? It must have to do with the galactic orbit.

How reliable is projecting current motions millions of years into the past or present? I suggest that although equally as suspect, using material supposedly channeled from other dimensions where longer astronomical records exist is really all we have to work with.  From these, I speculate that as our solar system orbits the galactic core the earth moves through differing energy densities in the galactic wind.  I suspect it is a combination between our location in the galaxy and the angle between our suns trajectory in relation to the prevailing galactic field that dictates the speed of light and atomic energy potential in our solar system.

Variables affecting our planet and their relationships.

earth’s axial tilt = season/surface heat, electromagnetic interaction, harvest productivity
earth’s speed = time of day, length of year,
earth’s distance from sun = seems to be somehow loosely related to density/mass/size of the planet.

Variables affecting our solar system and their relationships.

solar system’s axial tilt = heat/intensity of the sun, electromagnetic interaction, spiritual harvest productivity
solar system’s speed = time in some way?
solar distance from galactic core = doesn’t matter so much, what matters is our relationship to the interference patterns.

The speed of Light dictates the dimension

I put a lot of meditation into this.. I need to find a way to explain it.  basically matter’s core vibration is what dictates a dimension and that is based on the speed of light. The speed of light is different for each dimension.  Each reality or illusion is formed by being able to interact with (see and touch) matter.  Both seeing and touching matter has to do with electromagnetic waves bouncing off things and repulsive interactions between atoms.  “Atoms” are mostly empty space, but the “solidity” of energy patterns that we call atoms or matter is dictated by them both having an equal core vibration.  So atoms or the matter in each dimension, vibrate at the same frequency which is the speed of light.

—————-

I reference the Law of One because it is seems to verbalize many of the ideas that I have felt since delving into physics. As a second witness to my thoughts, it gives more validity to the hope that my ideas are not solely my own. It seems to me that there are a lot of people working on these concepts and that a scientific consensus will eventually be achieved which will iron out all the errors and inconsistencies in my own and other pioneering theories.

I believe that the correct model for multi-dimensionality in the universe must take into account the accumulating metaphysical evidence for life after death, and the existence of beings which dwell in dimensions not visible to our own. I believe along with many major religions and supposed material channeled from unseen realms that the earth is approaching a dimension boundary. And as we slowly cross this boundary, the changes we see in the fundamentals of physics will help our understanding of the physics of our galaxy to greatly enlarge.

#1 There is a dualistic dimension or metaphysical realm.
There is a metaphysical realm, dream state, spirit world, purgatory, time/space, mental environment or inner planes which is a duality or opposite in many ways to the physical world. (Separate from the resurrected realms, atmospherea/4rth density, etc. It is essentially the 8th density, next octave or dwelling place of God/ Higher Self. “The conditions are such that time becomes infinite and mass ceases”.) Time as we know it does not exist there. Where in our dimension space is large and curved compared to ourselves (the earth is spherical), there time is large and curved. Here, if you travel around our sphere/globe you will return to the space where you started; there if you travel around that sphere you will return to the time where you started. Here we move through space at will, but cannot control movement through time; there you can travel through time at will, but cannot control movement through space.

#2 There are 7 primary dimensions or densities in our galaxy which religion and metaphysics call the resurrected realms/heavens or glories and are a projection of the metaphysical realm. The reality or illusion of these realms is created by differing discrete values for the speed of light. The seven energy levels or valence shells of an atom are a fractal or microcosm of this greater reality.
Energy vibratory rates are quantized into discrete octaves of existence. In our octave, energy vibratory rates are quantized into 7 discrete steps of the continuum. Much like light being shown through a prism creating the 7 colors of the rainbow, energy originates in an octave above our own and is projected through the metaphysical realm to create the 7 densities or realms of existence. The speed of light is constant for our 3rd dimension or density, but is different in each of the other dimensions.

#3 The same principles Einstein’s relativity theories suggest apply to objects as they approach the speed of light also apply to a “stationary” object’s core vibratory rate. Generally when an object absorbs energy, it eventually burns up or disintegrates. On a molecular scale, the energy causes the atomic bonds to break down, the energy transforms into kinetic energy and the particles become excited releasing light (electromagnetic field energy) and gases which rise in the air to join other particles of like energy and density.
We suggest the strong force or bonding energy is created by a harmonic standing wave which emanates from the protons of the nucleus. This standing wave is the “core vibration” of the atom (see http://quantumwavetheory.wordpress.com/)

Questioner: Were these constructed in time/space or space/time?
Ra: I am Ra. We ask your persistent patience, for our answer must be complex.

A construct of thought was formed in time/space. This portion of time/space is that which approaches the speed of light. In time/space, at this approach, the conditions are such that time becomes infinite and mass ceases so that one which is able to skim the, boundary strength of this time/space is able to become placed where it will.

When we were where we wished to be we then clothed the construct of light with that which would appear as the crystal bell. This was formed through the boundary into space/time. Thus there were two constructs, the time/space or immaterial construct, and the space/time or materialized construct.
Ra: I am Ra. Although this query is difficult to answer adequately due to the limitations of your space/time sound vibration complexes, we shall respond to the best of our ability.

The hallmark of time/space is the inequity between time and space. In your space/time the spatial orientation of material causes a tangible framework for illusion. In time/space the inequity is upon the shoulders of that property known to you as time. This property renders entities and experiences intangible in a relative sense. In your framework each particle or core vibration moves at a velocity which approaches what you call the speed of light from the direction of superluminal [faster than the speed of light] velocities.

Thus the time/space or metaphysical experience is that which is very finely tuned and, although an analog of space/time, lacking in its tangible characteristics. In these metaphysical planes there is a great deal of what you call time which is used to review and re-review the biases and learn/teachings of a prior, as you would call it, space/time incarnation.

The extreme fluidity of these regions makes it possible for much to be penetrated which must needs be absorbed before the process of healing of an entity may be accomplished. Each entity is located in a somewhat immobile state much as you are located in space/time in a somewhat immobile state in time. In this immobile space the entity has been placed by the form-maker and higher self so that it may be in the proper configuration for learn/teaching that which it has received in the space/time incarnation.

Depending upon this time/space locus there will be certain helpers which assist in this healing process. The process involves seeing in full the experience, seeing it against the backdrop of the mind/body/spirit complex total experience, forgiving the self for all missteps as regards the missed guideposts during the incarnation and, finally, the careful assessment of the next necessities for learning. This is done entirely by the higher self until an entity has become conscious in space/time of the process and means of spiritual evolution at which time the entity will consciously take part in all decisions.

references
Cosmometry. Be sure to check out this site… super interesting stuff.
https://cosmometry.net/phi-double-spiral-field-patterning

The Electric Sun Hypothesis (DONALD E. SCOTT)
http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Understanding the solar dynamo
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/4/4.7.full

Electric Field on Earth
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/TreshaEdwards.shtml

Power Density of Solar Radiation
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/ManicaPiputbundit.shtml

Of Particular Significance
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-forces-of-nature/the-strength-of-the-known-forces/

Ice Age Map of ice caps during the ice age

Were the Ice Ages Caused by True Polar Wandering?

This is one of those things that once you see, you can’t un-see.

.

Introduction to the New Theory

It was during my undergraduate or graduate work toward my degree in geology and geophysics that I first noticed that the majority of Northern Russia, Siberia and Northern Alaska were never fully glaciated during recent Ice Ages. In fact the areas where the last continental ice sheets persisted formed a nearly perfect ‘Arctic circle’ around a pole centered over Greenland.

The more I puzzled over this, the odder it seemed to me that the earth could be cold enough during the ice age for arctic ice to extend to 50 degrees south of the present Arctic Circle and into parts of Illinois and Germany (literally half way to the equator), and yet parts of Alaska and Siberia which are within the present arctic circle were never covered by continental ice sheets or glaciers!

How could this be? For years I’ve searched for a believable answer, always finding the same unconvincing response thrown out. “Siberia & Alaska were an arctic desert, and because of their distance from the sea — storm cells could not carry moisture far enough inland to those areas.” A pretty terrible response in my opinion considering the exact same “arctic desert” conditions would have existed over the 8,000 feet of ice in Central Canada during the Pleistocene, and even currently exist in the center of Antarctica and yet there’s still upwards of 10,000 feet of ice there today! (more on that later) If there’s one thing Antarctica teaches us, its that ice sheets still form in ‘Arctic deserts’ or regions where very little snow falls. It seems in the long run, continental ice sheets have a lot less to do with annual snowfall totals, and a lot more to do with temperatures being low enough to limit melting. More sophisticated answers involving anticyclones, Hadley cells in the jet stream driven by particular ocean currents and intercontinental rain shadows have been offered but are all equally implausible when examined closely. Is there perhaps a more convincing explanation for the geometry of the Pleistocene ice caps?

Ice Age Map of ice caps during the ice age

Ice Cover Visualization. Click on the link to see my Ice Age visualization application which shows the extents of the Pleistocene polar ice sheets in a 3D interactive experience. Slide the time slider to see the ice sheet extents though time as well as the theorized track of the north pole. Toggle on & off current & ancient latitude lines as well as an Antarctica overlay. Note the geometry of the ice sheets suggests an ice age north pole centered over Greenland.


TPW Caused by Crustal Precession & Obliquity Forcing as a Replacement for Milankovitch Cycles

Most scientists are well aware that magnetic north migrates its way along the surface of the earth every year. It’s what makes navigators have to change the declination of their compasses every year. But there’s a big difference between magnetic north and true north. Magnetic north affects only compasses and the earth’s magnetic field, but true north or the geographic north pole is the center of the earth’s spin axis and serves as the center point of all earth’s weather patterns. To most scientists, this is an unchanging bulwark of global geography and climatology–changing only over the span of millions of years.

But unbeknownst to the majority of the world, this stalwart feature actually changes each year just like the magnetic pole. It was Swiss physicist Leonhard Euler who predicted in 1765 that the geographic north poles must change based on astronomical observations, but it wasn’t until almost 100 years later when S.C. Chandler published his 1891 papers, laying out more precise calculations for the annual movement of the geographic north pole. His experiments found that the pole moved in spiral circles with a circumference of as much as 200 feet per year. (a radius of 26-33 feet). These ‘Chandler Wobbles‘ as they were dubbed, have been the source of controversy every since, with scientists actively debating their exact cause. Explanations ranging from changes within the earth’s mantel, to atmospheric friction, to changes in ocean currents, groundwater movements and seismic crustal adjustments. In this paper we’ll explore these explanations and offer our own, but more importantly I’d like to propose that this slow true polar wander of the earths geographic north pole is a FAR better explanation for the ice ages, than the current theory. In fact, if Milutin Milankovitch had known that the geographic north pole actually migrates nearly as many miles every decade as the two degrees (140 miles) obliquity nutation he proposed as the leading cause for earth’s 100,000 year ice ages, perhaps we wouldn’t have to be scratching our heads over why the Pleistocene ice caps don’t match up with our current north pole.

The Chandler wobble causes the earth’s geographic pole to migrate every few years by about 200 feet in a circle (60 feet laterally). A global network of observatories (shown above) helps modern astronomers & GPS systems correct for this movement.

At present the movement of the geographic north pole is mostly in circular motion, with linear movement totaling only about 31.5 inches since it began to be carefully tracked to a GPS level in 1993. But during that period something strange also happened to its linear motion. It went from apparently heading northward during Chandler’s time, to heading westward in the nineties, to recently turning around and heading to Greenland. This is hugely significant because it may be evidence that an unluckily timing of a slowing, stopping and reversal of the geographic pole wandering that is responsible for the ice ages just happened to coincide with modern precise tracking of the pole, causing us to miss the ‘would-be obvious fact‘ that this is the driving mechanism for long term global glacial and interglacial periods!

In fact, when we do the math to figure out how fast the pole would have to move between each glacial & interglacial period to account for the fact that Pleistocene glaciation appears to be centered over southern Greenland, we find that the change of about 1,700 miles over 50,000 years gives an estimate of about 179.5 feet per year. That’s less than the circular movement of the Chandler wobble, so certainly within the realm of possibility!

So to really explore this likely possibility that the geographic north pole has migrated or nutated between the area of southern Greenland and its present location on a cycle of around 100,000 years lets go over an overview of:
-What the ice ages are.
-How they come and go.
-How we know about them.
-What we currently believe causes them. (
-Why geographic polar drift is a FAR better explanation of the data.
-The driving mechanism for changes in obliquity & why the crust changes at a different rate from the mantle.
-How it fits into the larger geologic history of True Polar Wander (TPW) and glaciation.
-Its implications on modern global warming and Climate Change models.

Under construction from this point on….

What are the Ice Ages

Although it’s well known to most, the Ice Ages refer to periods in Earth’s history when large parts of Europe & North America were covered in continental ice sheets and glaciers. Early scientists assumed these periods were characterized by significant drops in global temperatures which led to the expansion of ice across these continents. The terminal limits to these glaciers left large heaps of earth called terminal moraines which were noticed and mapped out by early geologists Study of these deposits eventually showed that the most recent and prominent ice age, often called the Last Glacial Maximum, occurred approximately 20,000 years ago.

Ice ages are part of Earth’s long-term climate cycles, influenced by various factors such as changes in the Earth’s orbit, axial tilt, and the distribution of continents and oceans. These changes affect the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface, leading to cycles of glaciation (when ice sheets advance) and interglaciation (when ice sheets retreat). The Milankovitch cycles, which describe the variations in Earth’s orbit and tilt, play a significant role in these processes, causing shifts in climate over tens of thousands of years.

During an ice age, large ice sheets cover much of North America, Europe, and Asia. The growth of these ice sheets significantly impacts the global environment. Sea levels drop as more water is trapped in ice, exposing land bridges that allow species to migrate between continents. The Earth’s climate becomes cooler and drier, with vast areas transformed into tundra and steppe ecosystems. These environmental changes also influence the evolution and distribution of plants, animals, and early human populations.

The current period, known as the Quaternary Period, began around 2.6 million years ago and includes several glacial and interglacial cycles. The Holocene Epoch, which started around 11,700 years ago, marks the end of the last ice age and the beginning of the current interglacial period. Human civilization has developed during this relatively warm and stable climate.

While the Earth is currently in an interglacial period, scientific evidence suggests that future ice ages are possible, depending on long-term climate trends. However, human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, are significantly altering the Earth’s climate, potentially delaying or altering the natural cycles of ice ages.

Scrutinizing the predominate explanation

Central Antarctica really is a frozen desert. The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, located in the middle of Antarctica typically records only about 0.5 – 3.1 inches of snow (water equivalent) per year. Most of its snow accumulation there is often blown in from the coastal regions where snow fall can be as high as 15–25 inches a year. (Or it falls as frost-like ice crystals instead of snow) The continent as a whole averages only 6 inches of snow a year, and yet still has managed to accumulate 1 to 3 miles of ice over the last 14 million years (5,000-13,000 feet of ice). Compare that to Fairbanks in the center of Alaska which averages around 45 inches of snow a year but zero glacial accumulation — and you can see how its not impressive snowfall totals that form continental glaciers but consistently cold summer temperatures low enough to facilitate less snow melting than gains.

As anyone whose spent much time in alpine environments knows. Its the night time temperatures that dictate when the snow and ice is about to begin its rapid summer melt. Glacial science is complex, but as a general rule, if you want to grow a glacier, all you need is ANY snow and temperatures which are consistently BELOW freezing in the accumulation zone. Places like Prudhoe Bay or Fairbanks Alaska with summer night time temperatures of 40°F to 50°F are simply not cold enough to grow or maintain glaciers, despite their high snowfall totals. On the other hand places like Casey or Esperanza Base in Antarctica, with summer night time temps of 20°F to 30°F, with smaller snowfall totals are.

Comparison of Antarctica annual precipitation totals with Siberia. Studies such as Turner et al, or Vaughan et al, the interior High Plateau of Central Antarctica receives less than 24 mm (or less than 1 inch) of precipitation a year! And most of that falls in only a few large storms. Yet this region is still THE THICKEST PART of the Antarctic Ice Sheet!

So how is it then that places like Illinois, New York, Denmark and North Germany with current summer night time temperatures up to 60-70°F, and latitudes of 46° (roughly 5,500 miles from the North Pole), were able to accumulate upwards of 7000-10,000 feet of glacial ice during the supposedly frigid Ice Age. And yet places like North Siberia or Northernmost Alaska, with current summer night time temps as low as 40°F and latitudes within the Arctic Circle (2,500 miles from the North Pole) were not? The current “frozen desert” explanation holds less water than the frozen air that many blame it on. Really, its borderline ridiculous. Especially when you consider places like central Alaska or the Kamachatka region of Eastern Russia. These regions fall at the tail end of strong North Pacific weather cells which massive amounts of moisture from the Pacific to these Northern Latitudes. (Just like Greenland, the North Sea & Scandinavia are at the tail end of the Caribbean Jet Stream which does the same in that hemisphere). To suggest that these coastal regions did not have access to enough moisture to build ice sheets is as unlikely and faulty as the argument that ice sheets need large amounts of snow to build in the first place!

Average annual modern snow depth for Northern Hemisphere. Note in this figure from Hu et all, 2023 that the spatial distribution of high snow depths for the Northern Hemisphere doesn’t match AT ALL with the logic used by those claiming that Siberia’s lack of glaciation was because of low snow fall totals. Particularly it does not explain why a continental ice sheet did not accumulate in Northern Alaska, Eastern Siberia or the Tunguska Plateau.

As a great example lambasting both these arguments, look at the annual snow accumulation portrayed from time-lapse satellite imagery of the Northern Hemisphere. The annual snow gains and losses follow latitude almost exactly with the only exceptions being high elevation areas like Greenland & the Rockies. The current winter Arctic desert conditions of Central Siberia make little to no difference in the general trend of annual snow cover. Despite the smaller amounts of snow, high latitude regions like Siberia, Northern Alaska and Arctic Canada are the first to gain snow, and the last to lose it each year (or high elevation regions like Greenland & the Northernmost Rocky Mountains which are cold enough to keep ice all year long).

Image for post
Current annual snow accumulation and melting occurs almost entirely according to latitude & elevation. Alaska, Siberia and Arctic Canada are the first to gain snow each year and the last to melt. This does not match at all with what we see of glacial accumulation during the Ice Age.

See the same yearly snow and ice accumulation with sea ice added, and note how it corresponds almost entirely to latitude. Only elevation, as already mentioned, and the Gulf Stream current, which brings warm water from the South Atlantic to the North Sea affects the general latitudinal rule of snow accumulation—making areas of northwest Europe slightly warmer, a trend opposite of what we sea during the ice age.

Image for post
Earth’s snow and ice cover accumulates almost exactly according to latitude. Regional variations caused by mountains and sea currents tend to be small, when compared to the overall trends.

Glacial geologists sometimes also use processes like the albedo effect, thermohaline oceanic currents and localized microclimates created by ice or large fresh water dumps into constricted oceans to help explain how continental glaciers could have been SO massive and globally lopsided during the Ice Age. As evident in the above snow accumulation maps, every one of these three afore mentioned factors obviously have only little effect on modern day glacial or ice sheet growth. Truly the lack of ice in the North Sea caused by the Gulf Stream is the only real example of a microclimate created by ocean currents which breaks the general latitudinal rule of snowfall and snow/ice persistence. And even its strong effects only change latitudinal snow persistence by around 15 degrees latitude—and even then the effect is restricted primarily to marine ice and coastal environments.

Some have suggested that Greenland’s ice sheet existing at such a southern latitude is another exception to the latitudinal rule of snow persistence, however, I find those who see Greenland as a glacial anomaly, haven’t actually studied the elevation profile of the continent in order to see how the high the mountain ranges which literally surround the continent are (especially the southern tip of the continent which extends out of the arctic circle). These mountains are the obvious explanation for why Greenland has maintained an icecap post-Pleistocene at latitudes farther south than adjacent iso-latitudinal ice sheets. And were the formation of the Greenland ice sheet or its persistence predominately any of the other three reasons (albedo effect, oceanic currents or localized microclimates caused BY the ice) we would SURELY have had a similar Pleistocene ice sheet in the Kamchatka region of Eastern Russia or an existing persistent ice sheet somewhere in Siberia or Eastern Russia since it would have been subject to the same Albedo Effect — and to this day consistently has one of the coldest non-glacial microclimates on earth!

Elevation profile of Greenland without Ice. Greenland’s average ice elevation (even of the central depression) is over 7,000 ft. Which plays a major role in limiting ice melting. However, even that is not enough to explain why the Greenland icecap has persisted at latitudes outside the arctic circle, while the North American & Scandian ice sheets did not. What DOES explain this phenomena is exceptionally high Mountains which circumvent the continent. Especially the high mountains which essentially fill the south part of the island continent which lies outside of the arctic circle.

Growth & Melting of Ice Age Ice Sheets

Now let’s compare the above snow accumulation animations to an animation of the glacial ice growth and retreat during the last ice age. Pleistocene snow and ice accumulation and melting followed an entirely different pattern than it currently does. In fact it is striking how obviously the ice sheets seem to point toward a geographic north pole in the region of Greenland.

Image for post
Image for post
Evolution of the Eurasian ice sheets 20-10 ka as based on the DATED-1 time-slice maps and database. 50 years of Euraisan Glacial data using radiocarbon AND cosmogenic dates from the best available research. Credit Anna Hughes & UofBergen for animation.
Evolution of the North American ice sheets 20-10 ka as based on large assemblage of radiocarbon dated data points from Stokes, et al (2016). See Reconciling records of ice streaming and ice margin retreat to produce a palaeogeographic reconstruction of the deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice Sheet

There’s a lot of misunderstanding among the unstudied general public on exactly where the great northern Ice Sheets were and were not during the ice age. (There is near total agreement among trained glacial geologists). This public misunderstanding is mostly the result of poor illustrations based on imagination instead of science. Among experts the northern Ice Sheets and their terminal moraines have been well mapped & dated, with the features proving past continental glacier’s locations being well understood. In fact, in addition to the typical continental glacier telltale signs such as bedrock scour, eskers, outwash plains, drumlins and the like—proglacial lakes, which are lakes formed either by the damming action of a moraine during the retreat of a melting glacier, or in the case of continental icecaps, by meltwater trapped against an ice sheet due to bedrock abrasion and major isostatic depression of the crust around the ice are highly visible indicators showing the maximum extent of the thick margins of northern continental glaciers. Look carefully at the following two satellite images noting that the white line marks the average periphery or terminus of the Each of the hemispheric ice sheets, and the white transparent region symbolizes the continental ices sheets themselves. The labeled lakes are terminal “proglacial lakes” formed along the margin of the ice sheet where not only maximum snow fall typically occurs, but also where maximum melting and scouring occur (because weather systems typically drop their moisture most heavily on the peripheries of ice sheets which warm and cold air masses meet).

Image for post
North American Proglacial Lakes show the extent of the thick periphery of the Laurentian Ice Sheet during the Last Glacial Maximum of the ‘Ice Age’ (ice periodically extended past these extent in thinner more ephemeral lobes)
Image for post
Eurasian Proglacial lakes also show the extent of the thick periphery of the Finoscandian ice sheet during the LGM of the ‘Ice Age’

A Few Definitions: Glacial Landforms

Before we dive into an explanation of proglacial lakes, lets quickly go over the definitions of a few important glacial features.
GLACIER: A glacier is any persistent body of dense terrestrial ice which moves under its own weight. The term was created from the Old French “glace” or “ice” with a Savoy dialect ending likely denoting movement. Sea ice and lake ice are not glaciers. Neither is a thin ice layer under a thick snowpack that hasn’t started to move and plastically deform. Really, by definition a glacier needs ice thick enough to begin to shape the earth beneath it.
ICE SHEET: An ice sheet (which is often used interchangeably with the word ‘Continental Glacier’) is more specifically an area of glacial ice that covers land (not sea) to an extent greater than 50,000 square kilometers (or 20,000 square miles). That’s roughly the size of West Virginia, Costa Rica or Bosnia. This somewhat arbitrary acreage was chosen in order to differentiate Ice Sheets from smaller Ice Caps or alpine glaciers. There are only two Continental “Ice Sheets” on earth—Greenland and Antarctica.
ICE CAP: An ice cap is a bit of a misnomer and thus often wrongly used. It is not the ice which “caps” the the poles of the earth. It is the ice which “caps” a mountain and usually feeds a series of glaciers around its edges. Ice caps are smaller than 50,000 square miles. However, the term “polar ice cap”, referring to the Antarctic Ice Sheet, Greenland Ice Sheet and Arctic Sea Ice is used so frequently in the media that it is generally recognized as an acceptable use… even though it is technically incorrect.
APLINE GLACIER: An alpine glacier or mountain glacier is a glacier which persists because of the effects of lower temperature with higher elevation and exists only within the constraints of a canyon, valley or topographic low. Alpine Glaciers often originate from mountain Ice Caps or even Ice Sheets. The peripheries of the Greenland Ice Sheet & Antarctica Ice Sheets are riddled with Alpine Glaciers exiting from mountainous canyons to the sea. However, its important to note that in the context of my articles, Alpine Glaciers are differentiated from the Continental Ice Sheets because without the mountains from which these glaciers originate, they would have never existed. This in contrast to the Continental Glaciers which form at or near sea level as a result of latitude instead of elevation.
PROGLACIAL LAKE: A proglacial lake is a lake which forms at the downhill termination of a glacier. Proglacial lakes at the terminus of Alpine Glaciers are far smaller than the MASSIVE proglacial lakes formed at the terminus of Continental Ice Sheets. Proglacial lakes form in large depressions caused by glacial scouring. In massive ice sheets proglacial lakes often form as a result of isostatic depression from the weight of the ice.
GLACIAL SCOUR SURFACE: When ice sheets move over relatively level surfaces, inconsistencies in the hardness of the bedrock create a distinct topography of lakes and linear erosional features called striations. In the case of Alpine Glaciers, these features can be small — ranging in size from a few centimeters to tens of meters. With Ice Sheets, however, these lakes and striations are often hundreds of meters or kilometers long and visible from space. Glacially scoured topography is one of the most obvious ways geologists know where a continental Ice Sheet existed. In places like the Canadian Shield or Scandinavian Shield the glaciers left a VERY distinct topography where nearly ALL topsoil and recent geological layers have been scoured away, leaving behind a distinct landscape of lakes, old bedrock and exposed linear features matching the movement of the ice mass.
DRUMLIN: A long, low hill of sediments deposited by a glacier. Drumlins often occur in groups which are referred to as drumlin fields. The narrow end of each drumlin points in the direction of an advancing glacier.
ESKER: A winding ridge of sand deposited by a stream of meltwater flowing underneath the retreating glacier.
KETTLE LAKES: Lakes which form from chunks of ice left behind from the retreating glacier.
GLACIAL PLUCKING: Plucking, also referred to as quarrying, is when a moving glacier exploits pockets of poorly consolidated bedrock or sediment, ‘plucking’ out a depression which later often forms a lake or pond in the substrate. Plucking is a process which helps to create distinctive Glacial Scour surfaces.
THERMOKARST/PERMAFROST LAKE: Often confused with kettle lakes or glacial landforms, Thermokarst lakes ARE NOT glacially formed! Also called a permafrost lake, thaw lake, tundra lake, thaw depression, or tundra pond, it is a body of freshwater, usually shallow, that is formed in a depression formed by thawing ice-rich permafrost in a tundra environment. They are very prevalent in Northern Alaska & Siberia. A key indicator of thermokarst lakes is the occurrence of excess ground ice with soils having an ice content greater than 30% by volume. They commonly form in ancient ‘oxbow lakes’ and deltaic deposits and form as pockets/aquifers of gravel freeze and thaw— both heaving/elevating the surface of area of greater groundwater content (causing surface erosion) and simultaneously collapsing the underlying substrate from the weight of the ice. (Chemical dissolution of underlying soils can also come into play–thus the ‘karst’) When this pocket of ice melts, a thermokarst or tundra/permafrost lake is left in its place. They are differentiated from glacial landforms by their shape, sediment composition and absence of any other accompanying glacial landform.

Once you understand the basics of these glacial features, its easy to simply use Google Earth to explore the regions shown above to make your own conclusions concerning the location of the Pleistocene Ice Sheets. I literally have not shared this with another individual who is even moderately trained in recognizing the preceding glacial landforms who has not come to the same conclusion that the location of Pleistocene Ice Sheets and absence of Glacial landforms in Northern Alaska and Siberia seems hard to explain without evoking some type of True Polar Wandering event. The difficulty and debate comes in when geologist try and decide, how on earth a True Polar Wandering event could have occurred in this short timeframe! These types of events become VERY debatable & problematic for professional scientists when attempting to use any type of catastrophism to explain. Why? I’ll explain in the next section, but first lets look at a satellite images to solidify in our minds the exact location of the Pleistocene ice sheets.

Close up Google Earth image of the glacial scour surface in Saskatchewan Canada. Linear scour plains, now largely filled with lakes show the direction of movement in the ancient Ice Sheet.
Zoomed out Google earth image showing the relationship between the glacial scour surface and the extent of the Ice sheet as well as the large proglacial lakes which formed on its periphery.

In addition to geologic evidence, archaeological evidence helps us to know clearly where the continental glaciers were and were not. For instance, incorrect ‘neat-looking’ maps like the following one from technistuff, which try to suppose that the thermokarst regions of Siberia were actually glaciated are definitively proven false by the vast amount of archaeological evidence of Megafauna found within those same karstic sinkholes of Siberia and the Yukon Territory of Alaska. Literally thousands of megafauna remains, as well as even human remains show that these areas were not only NOT glaciers during the bulk of the ice age, but were habitat for abundant plants and animals.

Detailed diagram of mammoth remains help is to definitively show that there WERE NOT continental glaciers (or even sizable mountain glaciers) in Northern Siberia & Yukan thermokarst regions during the ice age. From ‘Pattern of extinction of the woolly mammoth in Beringia’, MacDonald et al, Nature Communications, 2012

.

True Polar Wander as a Mechanism for Rapid Deglaciation

Both gradual and relatively rapid true polar wandering events are well established in paleomagnetic data throughout the geologic record. However, established methods used for dating the paleomagnetic evidence for these events has generally yielded time frames much greater than my hypothesized ~20 degrees of movement in >3000 years.

True polar wander is an known effect of non-symmetrical objects with multiple moments of inertia also known as intermediate axes. Because of the equatorial bulge and large mantle plumes, the mass distribution of the Earth is not spherically symmetric, and the Earth has three different moments of inertia axes. The axis around which the moment of inertia is greatest is closely aligned with the current rotation axis (the axis going through the geographic North and South Poles). A second axis is near the equator through the equatorial bulge. A third is theorized to also cross the equator at a right angle to the second, although mantle plumes and crustal imbalances from mountains or ice could cause it to locate elsewhere. However, if the moment of inertia around one of the two axes close to the equator becomes nearly equal to that around the polar/rotational axis, the constraint on the orientation of the object (the Earth) is relaxed. Even slight imbalances can make the Earth (both the crust and the mantle) slowly reorient until one of the second moments of inertia moves to the rotational axis or North Pole, with the axis of low moment of inertia being kept very near the equator.

This effect is explained in detail in the following Veritasium video on The Bizarre Behavior of Rotating Bodies

Paleomagnetic evidence for True Polar Wander is further explained in relation to paleomagnetic data in this video lecture by Dr. Trond Torsvik (CEED, University of Oslo, Norway) who has worked on paleomagnetics for nearly three decades.(TPW explanations start at minute 38:16)

Note that the above physics principles are remarkably similar to the Larmor Precession of atomic nuclides and might have something to do with the true relationship between true polar wander and the precession of the equinoxes as I explain a bit in my article ‘Is the Orbit of Jupiter related to Solar Cycles‘ .

As mentioned above, earth’s secondary moments of inertia are not only caused by the planets equatorial bulge but also large mass imbalances from plumes in the mantle seen by gravity anomalies in seismic readings. Many studies have been published mapping out and visualizing the structure, shape and location of these mantle plumes.

See ‘Pulsing Mantle Plumes: causes and Geological Consequences‘, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU. Or the wiki article on mantle plumes for more info.

Nothing about True polar wandering, is controversial or unaccepted by geologists, geomorphologist and paleomagnetism researches in the mainstream scientific community. What IS controversial is rapid true polar wandering events spanning timeframes of less than a million years or so. Certainly my timeline of a few hundred to a few thousand years for a true polar wandering event will evoke debate. Toward the end of his life Albert Einstein appears to have been thoroughly convinced by many of Charles Hapgood’s arguments regarding rapid pole shift and perhaps even catastrophe. Einstein wrote in the foreword to Hapgood’s book, Earth’s Shifting Crust, “in a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth’s rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth.” For Einstein and Hapgood, the very off-center weight of the northern ice sheet itself seemed a plausible mechanism to cause a rapid pole shift. Geologist (including myself), however, are not convinced. Not only did Hapgood’s brand of catastrophism seem too much like creationism, It simply did not explain the configuration of mid-oceanic spreading ridges, marginal continental subduction zones with their associated volcanic arcs and constant earthquakes, as well as evidence for the slow uplift of so many of earth mountain chains as well as Wagner’s Plate Tectonic Theory did. Nor does it consider the science of True Polar Wandering. Thus Hapgood’s theories were dismissed and discarded to await a future date when a new group of scientist more removed from the nineteenth and twentieth century passionate debates between uniformitarians and creationists, could relook at the evidences of Hapgood & Einstein and see if perhaps there was a combination of uniformitarianism and true polar wander that could explain the many arguments given in Hapgood’s work.

Left: Illustration from William Sager & Anthony Kopper’s Science Magazine article, ‘Late Cretaceous Polar Wander of the Pacific Plate: Evidence of a Rapid True Polar Wander Event.’ Where they find evidence from 40Ar/39Ar dates suggest a rapid wander event of 3 to 10 degrees per million years during the Late Cretaceous. Another has been proposed for the Jurassic by Muttoni & Kent, 2019. see counterargument) Right. Fascinating paleomagnetic study by William Sager from University of Houston titled ‘Divergence Between Paleomagnetic and Hotspot Model Predicted Polar Wander for the Pacific Plate with Implications for Hotspot Fixity’. (Found here). Using the Hawaii hotspot as a fixed reference point, this paleomagnetic study from the Javan Plateau showed the APW, North Pole moving within the Greenland and North Sea region since at least the Late Cretaceous. (commentary found here)

(Above. from The drift history of Adria and Africa from 280 Ma to Present, Jurassic true polar wander, and zonal climate control on Tethyan sedimentary facies Muttoni, et al, 2013)

Apparent polar wander paths (APWPs) for paleomagnetic data from India, Australia & Antarctica. from Wu, et al, 2014

My illustration showing pole locations since the cretaceous.

TO DO: Make a diagram here using the data from the above Sager pole location map, but showing it zig zag its way back and forth a bit better (in a processing 8 pattern like Atum rappelling apep in Egyptian book of Gates) with a proposed track all the way from parallel with England to the Pole.

-the arguments for uniformitarianism are multitudinous and convincing. From the astronomically controlled varves of many formations across the earth. To the timespans likely needed for evolution. To the river systems which are able to continue their way cutting deep passes into raising mountains.

-there are however many scattered instances of limited catastrophism as well though. Extinction events and the likely catastrophic comet impacts that caused them. Rapid climatic events like the younger dryas period and late Holocene climatic optimum/warming.

.

TO ADD/REWRITE INTO PAPER.

-Ice ages are nothing like we’ve supposed. They are not coming and going to any large degree. They began to form at the Eocene/Oligocene transition in BOTH the arctic and Antarctic when the Arctic circle was over Greenland (and possibly a few times before since the Cretaceous) and have persisted ever since with short ‘interglacial’. They were caused and ended by the location of the pole, which slowly wanders as a result of TPW driven by inertial forces caused by changes in polar precession. They began with the opening of the Atlantic when Greenland and Scandinavia separated in ~30 mya.

The below illustration shows the major pole shifts clearly. It might be helpful to modify the left line to a stepwise angular plot to really show the pole re-organizations. Note the Oligocene and second half of the Miocene are equally cold. (likely signaling ice ages). Eocene and early Miocene are hot houses (likely similar to present). The Pliocene is the one real anomaly where the pole is obviously circulating right over Greenland/Canadian Shield/Scandian Ice Sheet.

Slightly modified version of the above.

Oxygen Isotope (temperature proxy) upper line and Carbon Isotope (ocean mixing proxy) lower line for Cenozoic Global Reference benthic foraminifer carbon and oxygen Isotope Dataset (CENOGRID) from ocean drilling core sites spanning the past 66 million years. (See Westerhold et al, 2020 & Zachos et al, 2001) (draw lines showing how the pole during this is drifting northward it latitude skewing the values.)

Note: Top line hills are warm periods (such as Paleocene Isotope Maximum and Monterey Event) and down-drops (to the right) are cool off periods (such as Eocene C20, Ol-1 glaciation and Miocene Ser in C5) . I interpret gradual decline as moving pole northward. Main ice ages are 47Ma, 35Ma, 17Ma, 8Ma and 3Ma.

The Below dataset is simply an enlarged subset of the above data. Paper suggests the increased variability since 3mya, could just be higher resolution data.

Another oxygen isotope graph showing the recent 5 million years in a bit clearer detail. (Zachos et al, 2001 & From Lisieki et al, 2005) Note the Zachos paper is an incredible resource. Increased variability in lower left suggests higher resolution data with less bensyan smoothing.

-Occilations for modern time periods also show JUST AS LARGE of delta/changes in oxygen isotope values. Easily showing 2% to 3% changes in isotope variances. See Knudsen et al, 2011. Figure 4

-Oxygen Isotope values CHANGE WITH SEASON & LATITUDE. That means that as the plates move and the pole drifts northward, the oxygen isotope values change slightly as well. Particularly as you approach the Arctic circle (as you can see from this article, Nakamura, et al, 2014) Note that studies like Hutchinson, et al, 2021, show that Oxygen isotope values can vary from 1 to 2.5% depending on latitude. So when episodes of rapid True Polar Wander occur, it shows as an abrupt change in the oxygen isotope values (such as the Eocene/Oligocene Transition) [find an even better illustration with 6 or 7 locations at different latitudes]

-So How ON EARTH did we get convinced that 3-4% benthic oxygen18 isotope ratios means a glacial/interglacial? Look at figure-1 in this article (shown above). Glaciation in Antarctica started at 2%. If you look at the hot house/ ice house transition in the greater geologic record you can see that the benthic oxygen18 isotope ratios for glaciation/deglaciation in the Carboniferous/Permian to the Cretaceous varies from -2% to -5%, not 3 to 4%.

Close examination of datasets used for Isotope curves shows disparate datasets yielding results FAR less straight foreword than suggested after data corrections/manipulation. (From ‘Ocean temperatures through the Phanerozoic reassessed’, Nature, 2022, Grossman, et al.)

As listed above… MAJOR COLD PERIODS APPEAR TO BE: Main ice ages are 47Ma, 35Ma, 17Ma, 8Ma and 3Ma.
-Penn/Perm: 270-290Ma
-Mid Cret: 125-133Ma / 140-160Ma
-Eocene: 47 Ma (mild) (see this)
-Oligocene: 34-33Ma
-Miocene: 23-14Ma (17-12Ma)
-Miocene: 7-5.3Ma (7-4Ma)

.

Note the difference between uncorrected ice core data from Volstok or Dome C, vs. corrected data.

a, δD, averaged over 3.85-m sections. b, Grain radius, measured approximately every 10 m. c, Dust concentration—below 787 m, there is one sample every 5.5 m; above that, one sample every 1.5 m. d, Electrical data (as discussed in the Methods), in 1-m averages. Termination V is marked by an arrow in a

a, Insolation records4. Upper blue curve (left axis), mid-July insolation at 65° N; lower black curve (right axis), annual mean insolation at 75°S, the latitude of Dome C. b, δD from EPICA Dome C (3,000-yr averages). Vostok δD (red) is shown for comparison1 and some MIS stage numbers are indicated; the locations of the control windows (below 800-m depth) used to make the timescale are shown as diamonds on the x axis. c, Marine oxygen isotope record. The solid blue line is the tuned low-latitude stack of site MD900963 and ODP6773; to indicate the uncertainties in the marine records we also show (dashed red line) another record, which is a stack of seven sites for the last 400 kyr but consisting only of ODP site 677 for the earlier period2. Both records have been normalized to their long-term average. d, Dust from EPICA Dome C.

.

Magneto/Electric field alignment occurs every 3k,12k,24k years as the solar system passes through cancelling/reinforcing waves in our galaxy. Its probably the 12k or 24k waves that are strong enough to reverse earth’s magnetic field. These correspond to geochron periods in the geologic record. Superchrons where no reversals occur may correspond to earth passing through super energetic inter-arm regions. See following section for more information.

Seesaw Heinrich Stadials as 3k Year Wobble Events

The ‘Bipolar Seesaw Hypothesis‘, or Anti-Phased Climate Events Between Greenland and Antarctica IS STRONG evidence for a wobbling pole. Heinrich event and Dansgaard–Oeschger event data supporting this hypothesis shows Antarctica warming while Greenland cools. It’s also strong evidence that the current dating methods are somewhat correct for the last 120k, and that Antarctic cores really are much older than Greenland cores. In my hypothesis, I would argue that each HS/GS/AIM event represents a 3000yr event.

BUT, since 120k / 3k = 40 events instead of the 25 events that have been found (or 10 Heinrick events) we would perhaps presume that the 120k date for the Greenland core is two to four times too long.

NOTE! Twenty-five ‘GS’ climate events times 3000yrs each equals exactly 75,000 years! (3000yrs x 25 events = 75k yrs) This seems pretty significant, as it matches perfectly with Oahspe and Law of One dates for the last ‘Major Cycle’ where man is on earth. And it would make sense that some huge event melted Greenland at that time. Also if the NGRIP Greenland 140k is actually 75k, then Antartica’s 800k seven cycles is probably 7 x 75k which would be 525k which would likely correspond with the Oligocene, when geologic evidence shows glaciation started. So if the Oligocene was actually 500k years ago, the Cambrian would probably be in the 2-4mya range, WHICH IS A FAR BETTER DATE FOR THE AGE OF THE EARTH. I should be able to use magnetic reversal chron ages to do a better correlation (assuming that the poles reverse every 3k, 12k or 24k. Geochron studies show the last reversal 40k years ago and 183 reversals from 0-84mya (the last superchron in the Cretaceous) — So I’d assume they happen every 12k which would put 84mya at actually 2 mya. CRETACEOUS AND KIAMAN (permo-conboniferous) SUPERCHRONS WERE PROBABLY FROM GOING THROUGH SUPER ENERGETIC ARMS OF MILKY WAY GALAXY. (Oahspe just calls them ‘Semu Nebula’ where carbon organics fell to earth–which also could shield us from electromagnetic realignments?)

This model could REVOLUTIONIZE geologic dating, using galactic waves which cause geochron reversals as absolute dates instead of radiometric dates which we suggest change massively during these 3k/12k energy events.

GRIP (Greenland Ice Core Project), Chronology of climatic events of importance for the Last Glacial Period (~last 120 000 years) as recorded in polar ice cores, and approximate relative position of (HS) Heinrich Stadial events (ice rafted, drop stone layers), initially recorded in marine sediment cores from the North Atlantic Ocean. Upper line shows Greenland Ice Project Greenland ice-core Stadials (GS) of Dansgaard–Oeschger events (of which there are 25 total), compared to (AIM) Antartic Isotopic Maxiumum (opposite warming event) cycles of EDML/EPICA Antartic core data of lower line. Note that HS/GS events are opposite AIM events. As Greeland cools, Antartica warms.
I suggest that these polarity reversals map to 3k, 12k or 24k galactic wave fronts. So we should be able to map the existing GPTS (Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale) to a new, more accurate time scale which condenses times greatly and explains the ice age and global pole shift more eloquently.

Overview:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11493-1/figures/1
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11493-1
Raw Data:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331398373_Seawater_Temperature_and_Dissolved_Oxygen_over_the_Past_500_Million_Years/figures?lo=1
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331398373_Seawater_Temperature_and_Dissolved_Oxygen_over_the_Past_500_Million_Years


-This precession is the primary cause of plate movement and true polar wander
-True polar wander is (define)
-Its a lot like the X principle of a top, or the Y principle of an atom in an electric field.
-The precession was likely begun and periodically altered by a combination of bolide impacts and electric field variations.
-random bolide impacts and changes in the solar and galactic field strength change our processional amplitude and timing
-The Oxygen isotope variations we see in Pliocene and Pleistocene have been misinterpreted at glacial cycles. They are not! The differences seen in pre-Pliocene vs post-Pliocene oxygen18 swings has to do with older/deeper material being compressed to a degree that flattens the curve. Show how summer/winter variations or secular variation like we’ve seen in the last 2000 years match the variation we see in the Pleistocene.

Compare these:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11493-1
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1221294
To these: !!!! (make an illustration of this!!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379122005613
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379122005613#fig5
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7614327/
(find a better one from more like 7000 BP to present. Or 20,000 BP to present.

TODO: Put the pole locations at different ages on this image as well as making an outline of North America and showing it move away from Europe and explain how ice age starts when the opening begins, and that the pole hasn’t drifted north hardly at all since 20mya, its just moved mostly west with North America. Show another location with the plate ages and more importantly, the Greenland Transverse Fault (which matches with the San Andréa’s Fault (starting 35-28 million years ago) but really accelerating with the swallowing of the Farallon plate/spreading ridge 20mya (draw spreading ridges on this image!)

-Add a graph showing the likely velocity of change for the pole shift. For instance, if it averaged 0.5 mph then it would take 2000 hours or 83 days to happen. I’m proposing something closer to 200 years. Which would be a speed of 0.00058 mph basically inperceptable.



.

.

Thick Atmosphere Theory

This theory doesn’t hold up. First off, because dragonflies and bees would not have been able to evolve with their delicate wings in the Paleozoic like they did. Its more likely that pterosaurs had wings and feathers like modern birds. Although debated there seems to be more and more evidence of this being found. And they weren’t really that big. The biggest full fossil found had a wing span of 8.5 feet. Smaller than a modern condor or albatross. Must have been temp that changed the density of the mantle NOT an ancient thick atmosphere.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION FROM THIS POINT ON:

— add a sat image of Scandinavia scour surface. add a pic of thermokarst and how it is NOT a glacial landform.

NEXT section. Title: The Catastrophism/Uniformitarianism Debate. The debate is well documented. Until the early 1900’s it was the predominate explanation for earth processes. However, with time uniformitarianism won out. Why? Because it did a better job of explaining observed phenomena. However, because deeply held religious beliefs were often involved the debate had a tendency to polarize individuals into extreme camps. Instead of looking objectively at evidence and creating models based solely on logic, many individuals felt that had to take an “all or nothing” approach to their chosen camp. Now that decades have gone by, and people have had a chance to disconnect themselves from the emotion of this debate, a more rational middle ground is emerging. Somewhat catastrophic events such as the asteroid impact hypothesized to have caused the dinosaur extinction or to have caused the Younger Dryas cooling event during the Ice Age are becoming mainstream. Articles on ancient rapid true polar wandering are sprinkled throughout the scientific literature.

I’ll finish this article when I have time. For now the rest is just notes.

TO DO:
-most true polar wandering events proven in the literature occur on timetables of at least a million years. To rationally suggest a rotational axis change of 25 degrees latitude within just a few thousand years will require not only a believable mechanism, but physical calculations about how this could be accomplished without tearing the earth apart or causing overwhelming catastrophe with the changes in angular momentum & inertia.
-talk about how this was a debate back in the 50’s and 60’s, especially with charles hapgood’s books (as well of velikovsky). But a believable mechanism for rapid pole shift was not conceived. Even though Einstein himself wrote the foreword to Hapgood’s book, and supported his theory that the weight of the ice itself destabilized the axis, the whole premise was too extreme, and smelled too much of biblical catastrophism for the scientific community to accept.

Talk about the comet impact theory for the Dryas Minima and how this combined with imbalances caused by the iceland mantle plume seem to some of the best explanations for a cause of the TPW

Image for post
If earth’s axis were to wobble, this is what it would look like?

Paleomagnetic Reconstructions

Image for post

Our current understanding of where pole is is based on several points of evidence….. POINT HERE NEEDS TO BE THAT RECONSTRUCTIONS ARE ONLY ACURATE TO 20 DEGREES, GIVES A GREAT BALLPARK FIGURE BUT HORRIBLE EXACT LOCATION. Be sure to reference this page, that shows how off CURRENT measurements are. http://all-geo.org/chris_rowan/2014/01/paleomagnetism-lab-testing-the-gad-hypothesis/

Image for post

Possible Causes

Some are cyclical, some are random. Make an illustration showing the core slightly off center to show how earth would now wobble, and then stabilize over time.

  1. Gravitational effects of sun and Jupiter on moon and equatorial bulge (same things that cause precession-go into detail on how this is likely ALSO what creates the earth’s and suns magnetic fields, and same forces cause sun to flip and probably cause earth’s to flip too). There’s a good amount on the correlations between Jupiters 11 year orbit and the suns 11 year solar cycle (with Saturns gravitational effects causing the half year difference in timing). Note this important fact. The moon is NOT orbiting earth’s equatorial plane, its on the SUNS equatorial plane (2–5 deg off), so the combined tidal forces of the moon and sun pull earth’s core double and unevenly.
  2. Bolide/asteroid impacts. (this is a big one, partly random and partly cyclical because arms of galaxy hold more debris. The proposed impact for the younger dryas is a great possibility as one of many)
  3. Gravitational waves (also a big one, because it literally warps space time and compresses the earth longitudinally. can be both cyclical and random between those coming from center of galaxy and those caused by supernova). Reference my article on how these are responsible for the arms of our Galaxy, and how when we cross these waves every 4000 years or so, it cause slight wobble events. (which if there is enough built up instability triggers a TPW event).

-TPW “excursions” caused by “destabilization events”. The evidence for glaciation in Patagonia and Siberia is a huge problem. It seems to suggest that the pole must have gone from north of present to greenland and back! How is that possible? And it doesn’t match well with any polar wandering data (of course those kinds of anomolous data points are often thrown out of studies). And why is Antarctica’s glaciation so much older than the north hemisphere? South-East Antartica should have the oldest ice. North-East Antartica & the Penensula should have the youngest. Does this match with data? See evidence for each area’s glaciation here:  http://www.science.earthjay.com/instruction/HSU/2015_fall/GEOL_553/literature_sources/ehlers_gibbard_2007_cenozoic_global_glaciation.pdf — — -this what you have to work with. So this idea solves it. THE CORE is more dense, it gets pulled by gravity more and destabilizes the earth. BUT the equatorial bulge resists the dif spin, causing mantle to differentially rotate (making the mag field by the way). but every 100,000 radiocarbon years or so the destabilization hits a tipping point and the SLOW TPW looses balance and the earth goes for a TPW trip. For the last 3 million K/Ar years this has been TOWARD the “North Atlantic gravity anomaly” (there also one north of Australia likely playing a part). And asteroid hitting the moon might just knock its orbit eccentric enough to affect tidal forces on the mantle.

Evidence Against Catastrophism

Be sure to add a whole section here on what I see in river systems and orogenic uplifting and folding on the Colorado Plateau. Its important to see the powerful evidence for uniformitarian orogenesis in earth’s river systems which traverse folded strata. For instance, even the smallest tributaries of the Colorado River cut through massive folds which obviously have risen slow enough over their evolution to avoid rerouting of the river systems. Only a few examples such as the Unaweap Canyon through the Uncompahgre Plateau show evidence of rapid enough uplift to reroute the river. This suggests to me that although these pole shirts are occurring fast in “geologic time”, they are not occurring fast enough to catastrophically reorganize plate motions.

Now this is where it gets crazy

Rapid polar wander events are fairly well documented and accepted in the Scientific literature. Just one of many examples is the Jan 2000 issue of Science which published evidence of “Late Cretaceous Polar Wander of the Pacific Plate: Evidence of a Rapid True Polar Wander Event“. These types of events are typically hypothesized to occur over about a million years. And of course debate will always exist as to whether these perceived rapid polar wandering events are simply movement of the magnetic pole, instead of true polar wandering of the rotational pole or axis (since in the geologic record it is difficult to tell the difference between the two). Debate also rages as to which reference system is the most reliable, as every continent and seamount system gives a different APW (apparent polar wandering) path since the plates all move separately from each other over time. However, to me the most interesting data point is the lack of Paleozoic strata under the entirety of the Pleistocene polar ice sheet! Where did it go? Are we to believe as some suggest that the entirety of the Canadian & Scandian Shields were above sea level for the last 500 million years in a configuration matching exactly with the ice sheet. That seems entirely impossible to me. Or are we to believe that the Pleistocene Ice Sheet removed/eroded essentially ALL Paleozoic strata? Although far more likely than the first possibility, this still seem unlikely to me. So then where did it go? When I see that the seamount reference frame shows an APW (apparent polar wandering) path matching closely with the location of the radiocarbon dated Pleistocene Ice Sheet it simply seems more likely to me that some type of ice sheet actually existed in that area for far longer than the Pleistocene. Perhaps more likely since the Eocene thermal maximum, when the Antarctic ice sheet is known to have began growing (or possible even into the supposedly “hot house” Cretaceous). Looking at the data, I cant get past the most obvious answer, that a Scandian & Canadian Ice Sheet existed in these “ice age” locations for much of the past 45-120 million years, and that this explains why there is essentially ZERO Paleozoic sediment in those locations. And that some kind of mechanism (likely a mantle plume) actually has had the rotational axis shifting back and forth from at least the end Eocene — causing along with it some type of overlap in radiometric dates. (


Bedrock Geology of the regions covered by Pleistocene Ice Sheets.
Results from Cenozoic units in the study area (see text for further discussion); all reconstructions and APW paths are from Müller et al. (2022). (A) Early Paleogene pole from unnamed volcanics in the Blackburn Hills of the Yukon–Koyukuk basin (Location 28). (B) Miocene (ca. 15 Ma) pole from unnamed basalts in the Porcupine fault system (Location 7). No error on the pole was given, so the error envelope is shown with question marks. (C) Pole from Quaternary unnamed volcanics on Nunivak Island (outliers removed, Location 29), note the near-sidedness of the pole, which is too young to be explained by tectonic motion. (D) Pole from Quaternary volcanics on the Pribilof islands (Location 30), which again are too young to be displaced by tectonic motion. (From Joseph Biasi, 2025, C & D are ICE Age poles! See fig. 5 in Thrupp’s (1987)

THIS ONE IS THE MOST ACCURATE! Even though the study this comes from is focusing on just two dates (orange circles), the rest of the dates are the consensus global averaged data. And Look how it matches with the Hawaii hotspot data, if you suggest an expanding earth. The 348 Ma date is out near north-most Japan (opposite Karoo Basin/South Africa on small earth), then it migrates over to Alaska?/Siberia?/BC? at 280-230 mya. Then it crosses over to the Atlantic?/Hudson? at 180-145 mya. Then it picks up where the Hawaii hotspot study shows at 145 Ma, and makes its way accross Greenland to its current location between 145 to present. (with some REALLY big back-and-forth’s around 80/50/30/10k. NOTE that the resolution of 20-35 million year slices messes thing up after the Oligocene when averaged into 5my slices and Atlantic expansion slows WAY down while South Pacific spreading explodes.

  • TO SUMMARIZE
  • The 348 Ma date is out near north-most Japan (opposite Karoo Basin/South Africa on small earth)
  • Then it migrates over to Alaska?/Siberia?/BC? at 280-230 mya
  • Then it crosses over to the Atlantic?/Hudson? at 180-145 mya.
  • Then makes its way accross Greenland to its current location between 145 to present
  • (with some REALLY big back-and-forth’s around 80/50/30/10k, as seen in Hawaii hotspot study)
Paleomagnetic (north) poles deemed reliable for Late Permian rock units from various areas in Gondwana in NW Africa coordinates (from Kent and Muttoni, 2020). Sampling locality of Ikakern Formation (in orange) in Morocco indicated by X. Pole for Ikakern C component with flattening factor, f = 0.6, is plotted as green circle and is bracketed by polewith no correction (f = 1) labeled ‘a’ that is joined by dashed line segment of great circle to sampling site to pole with correction for f = 0.48 labeled ‘b’. Overall 260 Ma mean pole for Gondwana is indicated by red star (with 95% confidence circle also in red) and includes Ikakern pole (f = 0.6) (Table 3). b) APW path for Gondwana in NW Africa coordinates from 348 Ma (Early Carboniferous) to 10 Ma (Miocene) with mean north poles generally centered on 20 Myr windows (Table 4). Sampling locality of Ikakern Formation in Morocco indicated by X. Pole positions marked by filled squares with A95 circles in orange are for Ikakern B component in geographic coordinates (labeled ‘B’) and C component in bedding coordinates (labeled ‘C’) (From Kent et al, 2021)

Unraveling the mystery. A few other really significant pieces of evidence which all seem to come together & support not only rapid true polar wander, but a large enough climatological shift to affect radiocarbon (likely from a changing magnetic field)
1. The fact that the rise of known civilization occurs completely counter to what modern climate suggest we should see. Modern farming productivity and thus population and settlement is NOTHING like that of the ancient world. Why did civilization rise in Sumer/Akad, Egypt and the Middle East, when modern climates make these HORRIBLE places to grow civilizations?! (compared to the Modern age population centers of Europe, China & the Eastern US.) All sorts of theories abound, but all of them are lacking in common sense. Yet when you look at the latitude lines from the last “Pleistocene Ice Age”, Egypt and the Middle East would have been the “Europe” or temperate region of the ancient world! (30-50 deg latitude). In fact comparing the amount of climate change which would have occurred in different regions of the world corresponds beautifully with where ancient civilizations persisted. Southern Africa & lowland S. America for instance would have suffered enormous devastating climate swings which might explain why no major ancient civilizations seemed to have evolved in those locations. On the other hand the climate change in places like Anatolia, and the Iranian Plateau would have been far more minimal. Which perhaps explains why this is where we find some of the most ancient cities in the world.
2. Testing this hypothesis we would of course expect to find evidence of radiocarbon anomalies, and this is perhaps the most convincing evidence I see of a TPW event. There is a very strange ‘repeat’ of history seen in the progression of Middle Eastern civilization. (make a bunch of illustrations and timelines of the repeat between radiocarbon dated civilizations— and how crazy obvious it is once you see it.)

.

The Saturn Hexigon

I need to write a section on the Saturn Hexagon, and how I believe there is something similar on earth which is a fractal of an energy pattern in our Magnetic Field, which somehow ‘snaps’ each 3000 years and our pole shifts about 1000 miles in a septagon, with nodes at East Hudson, West Hudson, South Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard & Present Pole. (draw a diagram of this! Answer the question… WHY DOES IT SUDDENLY SHIFT? What makes the magnetic pole go crazy? Does it flip and then realign? Why does the earth wobble when it happens? Is the moon involved? How is my double interference pattern involved? How does the septagon relate to the double interference pattern? Why doesn’t the suns flip affect Jupiter/Saturn?

.

The Ethical Skeptic Article

If you’ve made it through my notes long enough to read this, I highly encourage you to check out the unsigned article done by ‘The Ethical Skeptic‘. Go read his article. Share it on your socials and give him props. His graphics building on similiar ideas as mine are spectacular. As are many of his mechanistic ideas. I’m not one who subscribes to the idea that the pyramids or sphinx pre-date or have been eroded by a regional or global flood, but I am entirely open to the idea that the many cultural flood stories (and especially the pole shift stories) could certainly have a basis in true history. I’m more inclined to believe the casing stone on the Great Pyramid were taken as building materials, and that if anything it was actually built AFTER the time of Ahomse as suggested by Herodutus. For more of my research on this topic, see my article here. I’m copying thise amazing illustrations incase the Ethical Skeptic site gets taken down, and I’d like to build on his ideas some time. (or even collaborate)

Heat contribution from the core feeds into the mantle, avoiding the red-hued Large Low-Velocity-Shear Provinces under the south African continent (SAC-LLVP) and Pacific ocean (see Exhibits E and E2).6 As a result, these massive structures also become less dense as compared to the surrounding core-fed mantle.
Moment Map of Earth’s Hidden Gyroscope – Three perspectives of the LLVP structures under Africa and the Pacific, along with a conceptual depiction of the axis of gyroscopic moment (thick yellow line) based upon the South Africa Cusp centroid of the African LLVP.
South Africa Cusp Radial Center of Mass – 2021 tomography indicating the geographic position of the South Africa Cusp – Large Low-Velocity-Shear Province (SAC-LLVP). Please note that the red lines and annotations ‘Radial Centroid’ and ‘Meridian’ are our added highlights.
The repeating cycle of core exothermic sloughing followed by subsequent endothermic accretion creates a repeating oscillation based on the variable strength of the geomagnetic moment of the Earth’s core (green annotation in Exhibit J2). This process operates through the Dzhanibekov effect and the Earth’s mantle’s gyroscopic angular momentum. We speculate that the process of moving from State 2, Gyroscopic Priority, back to State 1, Geomagnetic Priority, may involve a viscoelastic-mantle tectonic height readjustment and gradual settle-in process, however involving a relatively sudden cooling event at the point where the core recaptures its HCP-Fe lattice integrity.


Mediated Dzhanibekov Oscillation with the rotational north axis cycling between 90° North (State 1) and 14° South (State 2) latitude (104 degrees) along the 31st East Meridian of longitude. The lever driving this cycle is the strength of the core’s magnetic moment. We currently rotate in State 1, with a strong-but-diminishing geomagnetic moment. The only thing in the video which differs from the hypothesis presented in this article is that the core of the Earth would not Dzhanibekov rotate with the outer rotational body (ORB = mantle + crust). It would continue to rotate as it does in State.

Once again… I highly encourage you to check out the unsigned article done by ‘The Ethical Skeptic‘. Go read his article. Share it on your socials and give him props.

A New Glacial History of Utah

This is duplicated in the Geologic Evolution of the Colorado Plateau paper. Main ice ages are 47Ma, 35Ma, 17Ma, 8Ma and 3Ma.

  • -I first started suspecting this from my work on the Ice Age being caused by a change in the geographic north pole and the paleomag data showing it near greenland since the Cretaceous
  • -Next and most convincing evidence is the Bishop Conglomerate and Gilbert Erosional Surface near Split Mountain and how the glacial canyons seem to come from highlands that haven’t existed since the formation of the Browns Park Grabin.  A LOT of work has been done in this region, and its now proven that the Bishop Cong sits UNDER the browns park formation at the bottom of the grabin… so its known that the precambrian plateau north of Browns Park is the source area for the rivers that formed those canyons near HW-191.  And they CLEARLY look like glacial canyons to me.
  • -Next evidence is that the POST oligocene laccoliths/volcanic peaks like the Henries and Navajo Mtn and Pine Valley Mtn, and particularly the Tushar mtns (!) do not have as distinct of glacial landforms as the Wasatch Plateau and Boulder mountain!  How can that be, unless those glacial features where carved during MULTIPLE glacial episodes, some of which predate their miocene emplacement!
  • -Next is that on the wasatch Plateau the surface of North Horn and South Horn mountains east of Joe’s Valley Res, seem to be outwash plains matching the Gilbert surface, one again suggesting a HUGE amount of erosion since the glaciers that carved a lot of the peaks (dissected by later glaciers)
  • -Show how Pine Valley is almost certainly highly glaciated but its so eroded as to not be very visible… just like the lower part of the boulder mtn glaciers!
  • -show how the Brain Head Fm, looks like it could be glacial outwash… or at very least the huge outwash planes above panguitch reservoir show that the whole mtn was shedding glacial outwash.. Long long ago.  Main street valley erratics were at head of glaciers.
  • -ALSO, note how south of Bishop, CA the glaciers in the east Sierra scarp are VERY poorly developed compared to north of there.. Why?  Because that scarp is less than 3 million years old and only got the most recent glaciation!  Same goes for Mammoth City/Ski resort Gaciers, they are poorly developed because all the rest have histories going back to the Miocene or even Oligocene!  (THIS IS A HUGE ONE!).   It is super obvious when you look at areas like Mt Whitney, Cirque Peak and South Fork Lakes. That glaciation is only up high because it just hasn’t had the time or repeated glaciations in the Miocene and Oligocene that the ones up by Tioga & Tahoe have.

.

Notes And References

– A significant issue in suggesting smaller time frames to the Last Glacial Maximum lies in the time needed for reforestation of the region. In this article, pollen samples’ suggest trees existed in small pockets or refugia throughout glacial maxima periods.
.Laura Parducci, et al. Glacial Survival of Boreal Trees in Northern Scandinavia, Science 335, 1083 (2012) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221882445_Glacial_Survival_of_Boreal_Trees_in_Northern_Scandinavia

-The DATED-1 glacial eurasian database. Probably the best source of exact eruasian ice boundaries available.
Hughes, Anna, Gyllencreutz, Richard, et al. The last Eurasian ice sheets – a chronological database and time-slice reconstruction, DATED-1. Boreas Volume 45, Issue1. January 2016. Pages 1-45. 2015
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bor.12142

– Eurasian glacial reconstructions going back to around 140ka
John Inge Svendsen, Helena Alexanderson, et al. Late Quaternary ice sheet history of Northern Eurasia. January 2004Quaternary Science Reviews DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2003.12.008
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223294900_Late_Quaternary_ice_sheet_history_of_Northern_Eurasia

– Illustration from video of circular plate motion vectors going around an equatorial secondary axis from True Polar Wandering. Steinberger, B. Torsvik, T. Absolute plate Motions and True Polar Wander in the Absense of Hotspot Tracks. Vol 452| 3 April 2008| doi:10.1038/nature06824
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bernhard-Steinberger/publication/5466242_Absolute_plate_motions_and_true_polar_wander_in_the_absence_of_hotspot_tracks/links/0fcfd5122024b06d8e000000/Absolute-plate-motions-and-true-polar-wander-in-the-absence-of-hotspot-tracks.pdf

– Evidence from 40Ar/39Ar dates suggest a rapid wander event of 3 to 10 degrees per million years during the Late Jurassic/Early Tertiary. (see counterargument)
William Sager & Anthony Kopper. ‘Late Cretaceous Polar Wander of the Pacific Plate: Evidence of a Rapid True Polar Wander Event.’ Science Magazine. Jan 21, 2000, Vol 287, Issue 5452, pp. 455-459. DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5452.45
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223779271_A_Late_Cretaceous_pole_for_the_Pacific_plate_Implications_for_apparent_and_true_polar_wander_and_the_drift_of_hotspots
– Paleomagnetic study using the Hawaii hotspot as a fixed reference point, this paleomagnetic study showed the North Pole moving within the Greenland and North Sea region since at least the Late Cretaceous.
William Sager. ‘Divergence Between Paleomagnetic and Hotspot Model Predicted Polar Wander for the Pacific Plate with Implications for Hotspot Fixity’. University of Houston, Draft 23 November 2006. Draft here. Published in “Plates, Plumes and Planetery Processses”, found here. http://www.mantleplumes.org/P%5E4/P%5E4Chapters/SagerP4AcceptedMS.pdf

-11 year magnetic reversal of the sun tied to orbits of Jupiter, earth and (venus?) in new study https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/hd-tsf052719.php

Best article to cite. Lots of great references. Study it! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1630749X?fbclid=IwAR1Y-bgol8Sd1IzmsfcsFALQ_2xzY_dnrHXnR8CZAJTTEOuAN2V2TeqQiuI#br0170

-This page has some amazing gifs, illustrations, videos and ideas to use. especially the gif of an egg shaped spinning object righting itself, and the evidence of why Venus turned over. and some of the other gyroscope stuff. https://www.plutorules.com/page-41-tilt.html This similar page talks of how ‘rain forest like in new Zealand covered Antarctica at the same time https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12378934

-this wikipedia article talks about how the ‘poles’ were dominated by ‘ deciduous conifers’. whaaat? Conifers like Larch and Cyprus that loose their leaves and live in wet, not-too-cold enviros like Washington state. Its yet more evidence that what they think was artic, was not artic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_forests_of_the_Cretaceous#Fossilized_forest

-Evidence against current magnetic polar paths . This dinosaur is found in Australia and Antartica in the early cretaceous. scientist think this was in the antarctic circle at the time based on paleomag. This is great proof the paleomag is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaellynasaura

-Younger dryas north hemisphere cooling (mainly europe) didn’t affect new zealand. Glaciers there were retreating with vigo https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/09/deep-freeze-didnt-affect-southern-hemisphere. but Radiocarbon dating of this time interval is precarious because of C14 plateaux and, for marine organisms, because of the varying reservoir effects as a consequence of changing ocean circulation (Björck, 2007; Cao et al., 2007). https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/younger-dryas (looks to me that they see the younger dryas is regional, so they are guessing the c14 dates must be off and coming up with this ‘reservoir effects’ idea where they compensate…

-evidence for comet impact at younger dryas, this is a great mechanism for what made the pole change direction at that time.. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/20/support-comet-impact-may-have-triggered-the-younger-dryas-period/

Malankavitch cycle… one of three is ‘precession’ and might cause true polar wander because of gravitational forces of sun and Jupiter. (especially since they are binary system). The moon rotates obliquely so that affects things too. watch this and picture the sun torqueing irregularities in the mantle and equatorial bulge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9QSiVC2g0 see also Larmor Precession.

rework malankavitch calcs to show it could NOT give needed cooling, then propose mantle redistribution combined with gravitational pull from sun/Jupiter wobble (chandler wobble) to create true polar wandering as mechanism for both ice ages and plate movement.

younger dryas (north america warming, Bonneville shrinking while Europe cooling lgm)

Explore this: Even in more ancient geologic record, paleomagnetic reconstructions show that at least the magnetic pole (and likely true north pole) is all over the place through time. Comparing magnetic trace readings from different continents and oceanic plates show paths and sudden swings which cannot be accounted for with plate techtonics. These paths suggest that not only are the plates moving and separating over time, but the magnetic north pole (and presumably the true north pole with it) is moving. If we are to assume that the magnetic pole has historically been within 10–13 deg of the true north pole, we

The Vishnu Schist

(exposed in Arizona’s Grand Canyon)


Gray and reddish rock face with rough surface adjacent to a river.The Vishnu schist is part of the Vishnu complex in the exposed basement rocks of the Grand Canyon region. This metamorphic layer was formed by the intrusion of plutonic masses from under the crust and the deposit of sediment from an eroded mountain chain.

The oldest rocks in the Vishnu complex are deposits of hornblende and quartz that were laid down around 1.8 billion years ago. These rocks were originally part of a deep ocean trench, and they were subsequently overlain by sediments now known as the Brahma schist, which was laid down 1.75 billion years ago. Within a few million years of the Brahma schist deposit, volcanic activity added the felsic rock of the Rama schist. Together, these layers comprise the Vishnu schist that serves as the basement of the entire Grand Canyon area.

Schist is a metamorphic rock type that is commonly formed by the pressure of overlying sediments over a period of millions of years. The rocks of the Vishnu schist are typical of their type, having elongated minerals that can easily be separated into flakes. Some igneous rock is present in the Vishnu complex, though it represents an intrusion that took place considerably later than the original sediment deposits.

 


The oldest rocks within the Grand Canyon are exposed within Granite Gorge aria are characteristically dark somber gray. They respond to erosion to form a steep-walled V-shaped gorge (Text-fig. 56) through which the Colorado River flows from Mile 77 downstream to beyond Phantom Ranch, These (lark colored rocks are evidence of extensive deformation, during which they were subjected to intense heat and pressure and the effects of fluids and gases. The original sedimentary or volcanic characters have been extensively modified and in some cases obliterated. Early Precambrian rocks are not stratified but possess a planar structure known as foliation, resulting from reorientation of platy minerals, crystals, and grains in response to deformation. Foliation throughout most of Granite Gorge is nearly vertical which contrasts with the horizontal stratification of the overlying younger rocks.

Three major rock bodies are found within the Early Precambrian complex. The first encountered on the river trip consists of metamorphosed sedimentary rocks in which some relict. sedimentary structures are preserved. This body of baked and altered rocks is known as the Vishnu Schist and is exposed downstream beyond Hance Rapids to near Zoroaster Canyon. They represent part of the older rocks of the earths crust. Very little detailed information can be gained about their environment of deposition since the original character of the rock has been nearly completely obliterated.

Downstream from Zoroaster Canyon is a sequence of metamorphic rocks which differ in composition, color, and texture from the Vishnu Schist but superficially appear similar to it because of their degree of metamorphism, These rocks are known as the Brahma Schist and probably represent metamorphosed volcanic rocks. Numerous granitic dikes have intruded into both the Vishnu and Brahma schists. Most of these dikes are nearly vertical and parallel to foliation of the schists and stand out in marked contrast to the metamorphic material. Rocks of the dikes are characteristically pink, light colored, and composed of large interlocking crystals of feldspar and quartz, many of which are over a foot in diameter. These intrusions become very numerous in many areas and in some localities make up more than 50 percent of the rock body. Near Zoroaster Canyon dikes are particularly common and one large massive intrusion is dissected by the canyon.

Large granite bodies of the Inner Gorge are referred to as the Zoroaster Granite and represent a period of igneous activity after deposition and metamorphism of both the Brahma and Vishnu Schists but before deposition of the overlying Grand Canyon Series and Paleozoic formations.

The Vishnu Schist in the upper part of the gorge contains many pink pegmatite dikes. Many units within the schist are well foliated and may appear similar to a gneiss. Locally, relict bedding can be seen indicating a sedimentary origin. Foliation is nearly vertical. The gray-green walls of the Vishnu Schist are crisscrossed by dikes of granite. The ragged, ledgy, V-shaped character of the inner gorge is evidenced downstream.

 


Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite[edit]

The Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite consists of lithologic units, the BrahmaRama, and Vishnu schists, that have been mapped within the Upper, Middle, and Lower Granite Gorges of the Grand Canyon. The Vishnu Schist consists of quartzmica schist, pelitic schist, and meta-arenites. They exhibit relict sedimentary structures and textures that demonstrate that they are metamorphosed submarine sedimentary rocks. The Brahma Schist consists of amphibolitehornblendebiotiteplagioclase schist, biotite-plagioclase schist, orthoamphibole-bearing schist and gneiss, and metamorphosed sulfide deposits. As inferred from relict structures and textures, the Brahma Schist is composed of mafic to felsic-composition metavolcanic rocks. The Rama Schist consists of massive, fine-grained quartzofeldspathic schist and gneiss that likely are probable felsic metavolcanic rocks. On the basis of the presence of relict pillow structures, interlayering of metavolcanic strata, and the large volumes of metavolcanic rocks, the Brahma and Rama schists are interpreted to consist of metamorphosed, volcanic island-arc and associated submarine volcanic rocks. These metavolcanic rocks are locally overlain by the metamorphosed submarine sedimentary rocks of the Vishnu Schist that are interpreted to have accumulated in oceanic trenches. These metasedimentary rocks were originally composed of particles of quartz, clay, and volcanic rock fragments that have become metamorphosed into various schists. The Vishnu Schist exhibits relict graded beddingand structures indicative of turbidite deposits that accumulated in oceanic trenches and other relatively deep-marine settings. The Brahma Schist has been dated to about 1.75 billion years ago. The felsic metavolcanic rocks that comprise the Rama Schist have yielded an age of 1.742 billion years ago

 

Early Paleoproterozoic basement

The oldest rocks that are part of the Vishnu Basement Rocks is the Elves Chasm pluton. It consists of metamorphosed mafic (hornblende-biotite tonalite) and intermediate-composition plutonic rocks (quartz diorite). Within it, there are tabular amphibolite bodies that might be dikes, that have been dated at about 1.84 billion years ago. It is regarded to be an older granodioritic pluton that was exposed by erosion prior to being buried by the original volcanic and submarine sedimentary rocks of the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite. The Elves Chasm pluton is likely part of the basement rocks on which the original volcanic rocks and sediments of the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite were deposited.

The highly tectonized contact between Elves Chasm pluton and the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite is exposed near Waltenberg Canyon, in 115-Mile Canyon, near Blacktail Canyon, and in the Middle Granite Gorge. This contact is characterized by a high-grade orthoamphibole-bearing gneiss. This gneiss is interpreted to be a highly metamorphosed and sheared paleosol and associated regolith that originally consisted of several meters of weathered rock debris eroded from older plutonic rocks.

Take Away Lessons from my Experience with the Jerold Williams Search

5 year old Jarold Williams.

5 year old Jerold Williams.

I’m a bit heartbroken as day five in the search for five year old Jerold Williams comes to a close, his body was recovered just hours ago.

I spent a good part of days three and four looking for him, and headed home as storms again moved into the area and made the already slim chances of finding the five year old alive, even slimmer. As I was out alone in the dense forest searching for this child, I gave a lot of thought to what could have been done better in his search (and what I would do if this were my child).  I think the number one take home point was mobilize as many volunteers as quickly as possible, and do not let anyone under 16 be alone anywhere in the deep woods–always use a buddy system. Nine year old David Gonzales who went missing in Big Bear California was a grisly reminder to how predators can silently steal away a child without any sound, less than 50 yards from watching parents. (His remains were finally discovered almost a year later, less than a mile from where he went missing in an assumed mountain lion predation). Twelve year old Garrett Bardsley who went missing the same summer in the Uinta Mountains, likewise teaches us that not even older boys are immune from getting lost and never being found in cold, wet weather.

.

A few of the mistakes I consider in retrospect.

Because of legal and bureaucratic considerations, as well as worries that volunteer efforts would interfere with dog searches and air support, volunteers were not called for, and actually turned away in the early stages of this search. Because it rained the evening this boy went missing– this was a huge mistake. All scents were destroyed and air support was stifled by inclement weather. Thick forest cover also made air support & thermal imaging useless in many areas. Volunteer and search mobilization was very slow, and because of the rain, may have been the difference between life and death in this event.

Hundreds of volunteers came from the boys Colorado City community by late day two & three, but nearly all of them congregated at the base camp. It became muddy, overly congested and may have made things more difficult for search agencies. No perimeter camps were set up, and very few ventured more than a mile away from the congested base camp. Really, no-one camped away from base camp.

It was easy to be overly optimistic in the first day or two of the search. Because of an optimistic feeling that he would be found, I believe searching was not as thorough, and volunteers were not properly dispersed or valued.

I saw no visible central command tent. Because of this it was hard to tell who was in charge, or where to get the most up to date and reliable information. There was also no real central media outlet for updates, and no human connection to inspire volunteerism outside of the Colorado City community. Because of this only 200-400 searchers participated, when 2,000-3,000 would have been far more effective.

.

Suggestions for possible future searches.

-Seek help as soon as possible. But don’t let search agencies completely take over the search. They have legal considerations (especially with liability for searcher they call/control) and bureaucratic considerations which dictate their actions (especially in calling for volunteers and setting up dispersed camps). Go to the media and call for volunteers, and lead the effort which coordinates volunteer efforts with the efforts of the search agencies involved. Law enforcement understandingly often dissuades volunteerism because it distracts from their important efforts. A Father, brother or family friend MUST step up and direct/coordinate all volunteer efforts. He needs to set up a command booth and get volunteers directed & dispersed. There needs to be two heads who work side by side; one for law enforcement and search agencies and one for excess volunteers (those above and beyond what search agencies need or are legally willing to be responsible for). If law enforcement insists that volunteers stay out of the initial search perimeter, they should be directed to search just outside of it. Remember Brennan Hawkins of Bountiful who was found after 4 days by one of nearly 3,000 volunteers in the Uintas. (Garrett Bardsley’s disappearance the year before played a big part in inspiring the huge community outreach– mobilized largely by the Garrett Bardsley Foundation).  At the same time an uncoordinated free-for-all such as the famous Dennis Martin case, needs to be avoided.

-Search and Rescue will typically set up a 2-5 mile radius parameter. But the volunteer effort should focus on manning the outskirts of the perimeter with volunteer campers by the first night. Search parties tend to all congregate at the base camp (usually the place child was last seen).  This creates congestion and complicates the efforts of search agencies. If possible the perimeter should consist of forest roads, cliffs, rivers or fences.  Send 20-50 volunteers to set up camp all along this perimeter and remain as long as needed. Noisy generators and lights should be encouraged. Also (if it can be negotiated with S&R), send volunteers strategically into the search area (as soon as possible) to set up small dispersed backpacking camps (with fires at night if permitted by forest service regulations). Have them set up their tents and lay out sleeping bags before doing any searching. These not only will give the child a greater chance of finding searchers, but will also serve to scare off opportunistic predators such as bears and mountain lions. With any luck they might come back from a search to find the missing child in one of their sleeping bags. Be sure each site is manned by 2-4 people, encourage volunteers to always use the buddy system and always leave some people at the camp area while sending others back to base camp for periodic updates.

-I have yet to read an account of a ‘lost in the forest’ Utah child who was found dead or alive by dogs or thermal imaging equipment. These tools may be useful but they should not preclude the use and placement of volunteers within the search area. Do not allow search agencies to restrict volunteer efforts on account of these tools. Family must press law enforcement to allow them to do this (if not the first night then the second or third after dogs have been through the area). If dogs or trackers can’t find him in the first day, don’t place much faith in them.  I’d love to be proven wrong on this, but I’ve yet to see any solid research showing that search dogs are more than 10% effective, and that thus it’s a fruitful practice to keep volunteers out of the search area for fear they might interfere with the search dogs job.

-Ask for trail runner volunteers the first day. Find very fit teams who can jog the most likely routes from the center point (point of last contact) to the search perimeter. (Make sure they have whistles and bear mace)  These runners could also travel between the dispersed camps to carry news.

-The one who goes for help needs to help create Google Map marked with base camp and a designated search perimeter to be given to the media. They should immediately create a webpage or Facebook page with maps, and accurate up-to-date information. (Use a digital map with offline capability like ArcGis?) The mom or close friend should be encouraged to talk to the media quickly and often–as the more human connection you can make with people the more volunteers you will get. Someone also need to make a few hundred copies of the map with search parameters and bring it back to base camp to distribute to volunteers. Some volunteers can be urged by the media to ride ATV’s on trails outside of the search perimeter, in the unlikely event that the child hiked farther away from base camp than anyone suspects. Supply line volunteers can also be asked for to provide food and water to search personnel. An update should be passed two or three times daily from the field search leads to the home media and website contacts. The more information you can get people, the more volunteers you can get—and the more effective they will be.  Have someone post links to the search website/facebook page on media article and law enforcement pages.

-Helpful details to get from the family and provide to possible volunteers via the webpage media. What direction did they most likely head (where they playing north, south, east or west of camp previous to going missing). Has the child been taught what to do when getting lost and what is their disposition (are they more likely to stay put or try and find their way out)?  How fit is the child (is it common for them to hike several miles or are they more likely to slowly saunter in circles)?

-if no helicopters are available, use drones if possible?

-A printout should be provided for volunteers from the webpage or Facebook page and base camp with some guidelines. It should include 1) Coordinates to base camp and where to go for instruction. 2) A list of oft-overlooked things to bring such as bear spray/mace, whistle or blow horn, flashlight, first-aid kit, compass.

-Once volunteers are mobilized the trick is getting them organized. Search agencies will want two to four large search lines (with 20-30 people each) who will sweep out from the point of last contact and thoroughly comb the designated areas within a mile or two of base camp.  But someone needs to organize smaller search groups (3-6 people) who hike the backcountry and do quick sweeps of the more remote regions sweeping in from the parameter camps.

-Speed is of the essence!  By day two cold conditions and hypothermia can bring loss of consciousness or make lost people do irrational things. Resist the urge to be optimistic to the point where things that could have been done, aren’t done.

-By day three or four volunteers need to be told to look in trees with large branches and under pine bows and other cover where predators are likely to stash or bury their prey.

-It is important for well thought-out checklists of things to do to be created, before an emergency like this.  As illustrated in Atul Gawande’s book “The Checklist Manifesto”, professionals such as airplane pilots and surgeons have been found inevitably to make mistakes in high stress situations unless a checklist exists which can help them remember and practice what they already know. Gawande’s research team has taken this idea, and developed a safe surgery checklist, and applied it around the world, with staggering success.

-I need to create a mockup web page, map and hand-out with step by step instructions that could be used as a template for a search situation. This boy may had lived had he been found earlier. With the skyrocketing increase in tourism of Southwestern Utah’s forests this situations may become more prevalent. Perhaps it would be helpful to create a few brochures, training curriculum or even some training videos to pitch to the dept of public safety or the FCAOG (Five County Association of Governments for Southwest Utah), who work to coordinate resources for local sheriff’s offices.

-When possible, equip even young children with survival items in a back-pack, when hiking in the woods. Including a laser pointer or small LED light, a whistle, a thin poncho or garbage bag with a hole cut in it. Teach them the two essentials, stay warm and stay put. Teach them they should only move if it is needed to stay warm. If they must move to find shelter in order to stay warm (ie. from rain), they need to build arrows to show where they went.

 

example of a map showing base camp, search perimeter,  perimeter camps, and high priority search areas.

example of a map showing base camp, search perimeter, perimeter camps, and high priority search areas.

References
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zKU37Xu8MQ1s.k_W4h_jPgygQ&usp=sharing
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/us/after-four-days-a-boy-scout-missing-in-utah-is-found-alive.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/13/jared-ropelato-boy-scout-utah_n_926335.html
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595086737/Searchers-find-missing-Boy-Scouts-sock.html?pg=all
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/01/local/me-bones1

 

See also What Was I Thinking?! :( Thoughts on Inspiration and Intuition from the ill fated Search for Jerold Williams

Navajo Sandstone

The Navajo Sandstone is a geologic formation in the Glen Canyon Group that is spread across the U.S. states of southern Nevada, northern Arizona, northwestColorado, and Utah; as part of the Colorado Plateau province of the United States.

The Navajo Sandstone formation is particularly prominent in southern Utah, where it forms the main attractions of a number of national parks and monuments including Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area,[3] Zion National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and Canyonlands National Park.

Navajo Sandstone frequently overlies and interfingers with the Kayenta Formation of the Glen Canyon Group. Together, these formations can result in immense vertical cliffs of up to 2,200 feet (670 m). Atop the cliffs, Navajo Sandstone often appears as massive rounded domes and bluffs that are generally

 

Appearance and provenance

Navajo Sandstone frequently occurs as spectacular cliffs, cuestas, domes, and bluffs rising from the desert floor. It can be distinguished from adjacent Jurassic sandstones by its white to light pink color, meter-scale cross-bedding, and distinctive rounded weathering.

The wide range of colors exhibited by the Navajo Sandstone reflect a long history of alteration by groundwater and other subsurface fluids over the last 190 million years. The different colors, except for white, are caused by the presence of varying mixtures and amounts of hematite, goethite, andlimonite filling the pore space within the quartz sand comprising the Navajo Sandstone. The iron in these strata originally arrived via the erosion of iron-bearing silicate minerals.

Initially, this iron accumulated as iron-oxide coatings, which formed slowly after the sand had been deposited. Later, after having been deeply buried, reducing fluids composed of water and hydrocarbons flowed through the thick red sand which once comprised the Navajo Sandstone. The dissolution of the iron coatings by the reducing fluids bleached large volumes of the Navajo Sandstone a brilliant white. Reducing fluids transported the iron in solution until they mixed with oxidizing groundwater. Where the oxidizing and reducing fluids mixed, the iron precipitated within the Navajo Sandstone.

Depending on local variations within the permeability, porosity, fracturing, and other inherent rock properties of the sandstone, varying mixtures of hematite, goethite, and limonite precipitated within spaces between quartz grains. Variations in the type and proportions of precipitated iron oxides resulted in the different black, brown, crimson, vermillion, orange, salmon, peach, pink, gold, and yellow colors of the Navajo Sandstone.

The precipitation of iron oxides also formed laminea, corrugated layers, columns, and pipes of ironstone within the Navajo Sandstone. Being harder and more resistant to erosion than the surrounding sandstone, the ironstone weathered out as ledges, walls, fins, “flags”, towers, and other minor features, which stick out and above the local landscape in unusual shapes.

 


 

 

SOUTHWEST UTAH

Because of its thickness, massiveness, color, and its decorative carving, the Navajo sandstone is the most conspicuous and best known unit in the Mesozoic sequence in the plateau country. It has been described in many scientific and popular publications and pictured in pamphlets and on postcards issued by tourist bureaus and transportation companies. In Utah it surrounds the Henry Mountains, forms the famous White Cliffs and the walls of Glen Canyon. Complete sections are exposed in Paria Canyon, Kanab Canyon, Parunuweap Canyon, Zion Canyon, and LaVerkin Canyon, and in scores of other deep, narrow gorges that carry water from the Kaiparowits, the Paunsaugunt, and the Markagunt Plateaus. Generally throughout its expanse, the Navajo sandstone lies nearly flat and its sharply truncated edges are unscalable walls of commanding height. In eastern Southwest Utah part of the Navajo retains its normal attitude and is expressed in the topography as vertical cliffs; other parts have been steeply upturned and stand as ridges. The towering escarpment that rims the Kolob Terrace at the heads of Spring and Kanarra Creeks and outlines the lava-capped Square Mountain has been developed by cutting into Navajo sandstone, here fully 1,500 feet thick. Northward across the canyons of Murie, Shurtz, Squaw, and Coal Creeks, where horizontality of bedding is replaced by progressively steep inclination, the edge of the sandstone stands on the skyline as a rugged ridge, here and there broken into pyramids and domes. The Red Wall, prominently in view from Cedar City, is. the base of the uptilted Navajo, from which much of the underlying Chinle formation has been stripped.

Observations at many localities show that in composition and texture the Navajo sandstone in eastern Southwest Utah differs little from that exposed elsewhere. Its salient physical features were long ago outlined by Dutton in his pioneer study on the geology of Markagunt Plateau (1).

“The lithological characters of the Jurassic white sandstone render it a very conspicuous formation. Through a thickness of more than a thousand feet, sometimes of nearly two thousand feet, it is one solid stratum, without a single heterogeneous layer or shaly parting. A few horizontal cracks are seen here and there, but inspection shows that they are merely the seams where two systems of cross-bedding are cemented together. In general, it is one indivisible stratum. This massive character has had its effect upon the cliff-forms that have been sculptured out of it. These forms are bold headlands and gigantic domes, usually without any minor details, but simple in the extreme, and majestic by reason of their simplicity. . . . But of all the features of this rock the most striking is the cross-bedding. It is hard to find a single rock-face which is not lined off with rich tracery produced by the action of weathering upon the cross-lamination. The massive cliff fronts are etched from summit to base with a filagree as intricate and delicate as frost-work.”

Supplementing the original description by Dutton, lithic and strati-graphic observations recorded by later students reveal that the dominant cross bedding varies in style from place to place and is locally absent and that the sandstone includes thin, lenticular beds of dolomitic limestone, and in places argillaceous shale and calcareous conglomerate. Detailed examination shows that the Navajo sandstone in Southwest Utah is essentially an aggregate of clear quartz grains of which about 75 percent measure 0.08 to 0.75 millimeters in diameter ; that most of the grains are imperfectly rounded, though many are spherical and some plainly etched; and that, in addition to the dominant quartz, the rock contains fragmentary feldspar, mica, magnetite, more rarely zircon and tourmaline. The cement of the Navajo sandstone consists of loosely compacted lime or dolomite, and iron. The amount and chemical state of the iron oxides are indicated by the color tones: yellow, buff, tan, red, In a few places where leaching has removed the iron, the rock is white, but such great thicknesses of white rock as give character to the White Cliffs in Kanab and Johnson valleys and the Great White Throne in Zion Canyon are absent.

The Navajo sandstone is profusely jointed. Sets of roughly parallel joints with various trends and inclinations cut the sandstones into huge slabs. The major vertical joints are several hundred feet apart and are traceable for as much as a mile. But in places planes of fracture are so closely packed as to form “shatter belts.” On flat surfaces the rock joints, open or filled with calcite or iron, appear as surface markings and here and there provide runways for rills. On canyon walls they outline blocks, sheets, and slivers of rock preparatory to their removal by frost and combined with the bedding planes-horizontal, oblique, and curved-determine the shape of talus blocks. The uniformity of grain, the cross bedding, the weak cement, and the joints facilitate the production of the large and small scale erosion features, many times described as characteristic of the flat surfaces, the cliffs, buttresses, and canyon walls developed in the Navajo sandstone.

In Dutton’s (2) opinion, the sands that compose the Navajo were deposited in the sea: “The Jurassic sandstone appears to have been a littoral or offshore formation thrown down along the coast of the Mesozoic mainland, which occupied the region now forming the Great Basin . . . its red color becomes more common as we recede from the old shore line towards the east.” In common with his co-workers of the Wheeler and Powell survey, Dutton treated the Navajo sandstone as basal Jurassic, though recognizing the possibility that it may be “a mere upward continuation of the Vermilion Cliff series” (Chinle formation: Upper Triassic). More recent studies of sedimentation in the plateau country have compiled evidence that the Navajo is a terrestrial deposit, much of it eolian,20 and that its age is probably Middle Jurrassic.

In tracing the Navajo sandstone northwestward from its type locality in the Navajo Reservation, Arizona, it was noted that the part characterized by curved and angular crossbedding, laminae, and lack of division planes decreases in thickness. Particularly in areas where the Kayenta formation and the Wingate sandstone are lacking and the Navajo rests directly on the Chinle the usual single massive stratum is replaced by a massive stratum and below it a sequence of somewhat regular beds. In Southwest Utah fully half, in places nearly all, the Navajo is displayed as thick and thin layers composed chiefly of wedge-shaped groups of oblique crossbeds. These observations suggest that eastern Southwest Utah lies near the edge of an ancient interior basin where sediments deposited by streams were but slightly rearranged by wind.

 

SOUTHEAST UTAH

In the San Juan country the Navajo sandstone is exposed in the east and west flanks of the broad Monument up warp. The sandstone forms the crest and eastern slope of the “Comb”, the prominent ridge that crosses the San Juan and extends northward between Comb Wash and Butler Wash as a steeply dipping monocline, and continues to crop out along the east base of Elk Ridge and across the Causeway into the Indian Creek country.” The walls and mosques and alcoves that make the “wonderland” of the Allen Canyon country are chiefly exposures of Navajo sandstone.

In the remote Red Rock Plateau the Navajo is magnificently developed. The plateau is essentially one great sheet of sandstone, cut into huge segments by the San Juan, Castle, Moki, Red, and Colorado Canyons. On this plateau the Navajo shows its characteristic features of erosion. Along canyons and at their boxlike heads it forms vertical or even undercut walls-sheer cliffs 400 to 600 feet high that can be ascended only at fracture zones or on sand dunes that extend from the bottom to the rim. A traverse of miles of canyon floor may reveal no place where the walls can be climbed. Though the Navajo stands first among cliff makers in the plateau province, it does not form platforms or mesa tops. Unlike the Dakota(?) of Sage Plain and the Shinarump of Elk Ridge, which form extensive nearly horizontal plateaus, the Navajo shows very uneven surfaces. Its composition, texture, and structure combine to produce smooth or ribbed mounds on which stream ways are poorly defined. Between the San Juan River and upper Castle Wash and at the junction of the San Juan and the Colorado the surface of Red Rock Plateau is a maze of domes and saucer like depressions. The intricate network of narrow, deep canyons that carry the run-off from bare slopes seems to be arranged with little regard to surface topography.

The published descriptions of the Navajo sandstone in the Navajo country and in the Kaiparowits region apply equally well to the San Juan country and need only be ‘generalized here. In fact, the composition, structure, texture, and style of bedding of the Navajo are remarkably alike throughout the Colorado Plateaus: the differences relate chiefly to thickness, color, and degree of massiveness. Essentially the Navajo is a single massive bed of fine-grain ‘ marvelously cross-bedded sandstone composed of crystal-clear grains of quartz cemented by lime and iron. Cross-bedding is a scrollwork of curves and parallel lines etched on the surface and strengthened here and there by projecting seams of quartz and rows of cylindrical iron concretions. The Navajo sandstone includes lenses of thin regular bedded sandstone and lenses of resistant limestone a few inches to 5 feet thick and a few hundred feet long. On the rim of Lake Canyon dense blue-gray dolomitic limestone near the top of the Navajo caps low mesas and provided building materials for the walls of prehistoric structures. Numerous vertical and oblique joints outline slabs on cliff faces and in conjunction with cross-bedding determine the position and shape of buttresses, recesses, and alcoves on canyon walls and the caves once occupied by Cliff Dwellers.

As most of the Navajo in the San Juan country has been long exposed to erosion, its original thickness has been reduced. At Comb Ridge and in the Allen Canyon country 300 to 600 feet remains. In the south wall of Wilson Mesa, where the Navajo is overlain by younger strata, a complete section measured 880 feet. At most places west of the Colorado River measured thicknesses exceed 1,000 feet; at Zion Canyon, nearly 2,500 feet.

 

NORTHERN ARIZONA

STRUCTURE, TEXTURE, AND COMPOSITION.

The Navajo sandstone is nearly everywhere cross-bedded on a scale which for extent and perfection of detail is difficult to exaggerate. Angular cross bedding was observed, but the prevailing type is tangential; curved laminae become tangent to adjoining surfaces. Starting as highly inclined arcs of small radii the cross-bedding laminae gradually decrease in curvature until they merge into contact with the underlying strata. In some places the arcs are tangent to horizontal surfaces or meet them at angles of 1� or 2′; elsewhere arcs of various radii are tangent to one another. (See Pl. XII, A.) Many groups of curved laminae are sharply truncated along horizontal or inclined surfaces. In places the curved laminae have uninterrupted sweeps of 200 to 300 feet; commonly their length is measured in tens of feet, and many cliff faces are decorated by close-set loops and arabesques comparable with the lathe work in steel engraving. In general the cross-bedding laminae are outlined by layers of weakly cemented quartz grains that determine planes of fracture, but in places major joints exert a stronger control and furnish erosion remnants decorated on all sides by intersecting curved lines.

To the tangential cross bedding are due the exceptional erosion features of the Navajo sandstone the innumerable pockets, recesses, and alcoves bounded by curved planes which characterize this formation. Overhanging cliffs are common, and the beautiful arc of the Rainbow Bridge is only an unusually perfect example of the control exerted by curved lamination.

The prevailing color of the rock is light red and is surprisingly constant over large areas. Among the Segi Mesas and on the Rainbow Plateau the red tint is so boldly applied that no other color appears in the view. In places, however, dark reds and maroons are seen, and not uncommonly orange and even tan colors add variety to the landscape, and patches of white are not unusual. In the Echo Cliffs the rich red tints of the Navajo sandstone fade into yellow gray and become nearly white in the vicinity of Bitter Springs but the Wingate and the Todilto retain their dominant tones. It is interesting to note that all parts of the La Plata in Colorado are described as white and that the White Cliff sandstone of east-central Utah has been correlated with the La Plata.

The Navajo sandstone is composed of translucent quartz grains, with small amounts of feldspar, rare fragments of zircon, magnetite, garnet, pyroxene (?), and tourmaline (?). In two thin sections examined the grains are imperfectly rounded but without sharp edges; a third specimen consists of almost perfect spheres. The grains are of two sizes; probably 90 per cent of the rock consists of grains ranging between 0.15 and 0.25 millimeter in diameter; the other grains, formed as an interrupted coat on cross-bedding laminae, average about 0.65 millimeter. Only at a few localities were much larger pebbles of quartz, of shale, and of sandstone noted. In general the cement is calcite, with large or small amounts of iron oxide, which is reflected in the varying color of the rock. Hand specimens from the Echo Cliffs and the Chinle Valley have siliceous cement. In places the cement is stained green by copper, and in the White Mesa copper district the original cement is partly replaced by malachite and chrysocolla. Much of the cement is weak and grains of calcite and of kaolin are disseminated; the rock is consequently friable, and even where continuously swept by the wind crumbles under foot. It was found possible to trail a man who had strayed from camp by the hobnail prints he made on a bare ledge. In many places the joints in the Navajo are lined with quartz, and their position is indicated by a tracery of thin white ridges intersecting at various angles. In Copper Canyon, on Shato and Kaibito plateau and to a less extent elsewhere, some joints are lined with chrysocolla and other copper minerals.

The limestone, which is an almost universal feature near the top of the Navajo sandstone, is in lenses. The thin outcrops rarely extend more than a few hundred feet, and most of them are measured in tens of feet. The lenses are usually less than 1 foot thick and break up into shaly beds including sandstone. They are exceedingly resistant, however, and form the caps of low mesas and buttes, irregularly distributed over the otherwise smooth surfaces of Navajo sandstone exposures. The two specimens submitted to analysis proved to be dolomite. Chert and chalcedony are commonly found with the limestone.

CONDITIONS OF DEPOSITION.

The significant features of the Navajo sandstone are uniformity of grain, cross-bedding, and red color. Specimens taken from ledges 200 miles apart are indistinguishable in the laboratory by texture or composition or color; tangential cross bedding is persistent. The structure and composition of the rock suggests aridity and the uninterrupted control of the winds, and the “live dunes” now being formed on the floor of Chinle Valley differ only in color from the “frozen dunes” displayed in the bordering rock walls. There is little doubt that desert conditions prevailed in this region during part of Jurassic time, but the boundaries of this ancient Sahara and its relations to highlands and oceans are unknown. The thin lenses of dolomitic limestone and limestone conglomerate in the upper part of the Navajo sandstone probably represent local bodies of water of ephemeral character. It should be borne in mind, however, that these calcareous beds are in the stratigraphic position of the marine limestone of Kanab, described by Gilbert.

AGE AND CORRELATION.

No fossils have been found in the Navajo sandstone, and its age, like that of other formations of the La Plata group, is determined by stratigraphic position and lithologic similarity. It is the equivalent of the upper La Plata sandstone 2 of the La Plata Mountains, from which it differs in no essential except color and thickness.

On Dutton’s geologic map and sections 3 the massive “white sandstone” (Jurassic) is extended to cover the western edge of Kaibito Plateau. He says: “The extension of the Jura south of the Colorado and its exposure in the line of Echo Cliffs has been traced for nearly 60 miles.” In my view the sandstones forming the crest and escarpment of Echo Cliffs and the walls of Glen Canyon, mapped by Dutton as Triassic, belong in the La Plata group and Dutton’s descriptions and illustrations of the “Jurassic white sandstone” suggest lithologic equivalence with the Navajo and also with the massive phase of the McElmo. The upper limit of the La Plata along the southern base of Kaiparowitz Plateau has not been established. Sections on Warm Creek and Sentinel Creek include more than 100 feet of calcareous and gypsiferous shales and thin sandstones between typical Navajo sandstone and massive strata assigned to the McElmo.

I have been unable to recognize with assurance the Navajo sandstone in the Lower Cretaceous and Jura-Triassic strata along the San Juan described by Newberry, or in the Lower Dakota, Upper Dakota, and Triassic mapped by Holmes in the Carrizo Mountain area.

Grand Canyon

One of the most prominent and distinctive formations in the Colorado Plateau is the massive Navajo Sandstone. It weathers into nearly vertical cliffs and dominates the landscape wherever it is exposed. In the vicinity of Lee’s Ferry the Navajo Sandstone is approximately 1,400 feet thick and caps the high Vermillion and Echo cliffs behind the boat landing (Text-fig. 3). Exposures of the formation are abundant throughout much of the Navajo country to the northeast. In Utah the Navajo Sandstone forms the prominent White Cliffs north of Kanab and the walls of Zion Canyon. Precipitous canyons controlled by joints (fractures) (Text-fig. 3) are cut into most exposures of the formation and produce some of the most rugged and spectacular scenery of the West.

Large scale cross-bedding characterizes the Navajo Sandstone wherever it is exposed. Many outcrops contain some of the most spectacular development of this structure to be found anywhere in the world.

Navajo Sandstone consists of well-sorted, rounded grains of translucent quartz, many of which are etched and frosted. This, together with the large-scale cross-bedding, indicates that the Navajo sediments accumulated in a vast desert which covered much of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico during early Jurassic time.

Post Formats is a theme feature introduced with Version 3.1. Post Formats can be used by a theme to customize its presentation of a post.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus – more on WordPress.org: Post Formats

A Post without Image

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Read more