Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (296)	1/4/2001 10:38:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 23908

Yeah... well, I did some more research on Velikovsky and his views, and apparently he also made some wild and baseless claims trying to link greek and roman gods to the appearance of Venus several thousand years ago. From that perspective, I can see them ridiculing his views, but I think the very idea of perceiving Venus as a "young planet" is a revelation. And the evidence does seem to indicate that it is not as old as Earth since it shares so little in comparison with this planet, except size. I don't buy any claims of recent catastrophic events altering man's existence on this planet, but I would believe that it's possible that something occurred between 5,000-10,000 years ago. After all, I'm still hung up on the evidence of extensive water erosion on the Sphinx in Egypt, DESPITE the fact that the body was buried in sand for thousands of years, with only the head protruding. That tells me that that particular monument must be far older than the pyramids and that the face was resculpted since its condition is less eroded than the body portion. Vertical erosion only occurs due to extensive rainfall and water run-off over considerable time. That alone tells us that the Sphinx must originate from a time far earlier than the Egyptians when the Sahara actually received regular rainfall. After all, the Egyptians relied extensively on irrigation for agriculture. So the question is... if a society advanced enough to build the Sphinx existed thousands of years prior to the Egytians, then what happened to them? And why is it that our earliest signs of civilization commence with the Uruks and Egyptians: eawc.evansville.edu Somewhere in there we're missing thousands of years of progress. Given that the Sphinx required an almost equal technology as the pyramids, we should be able to deduce that some 5,000 years are missing from the civilized human record. And that's a lot of unexplained time. Regards, Ron

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (296)	1/4/2001 10:57:40 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

I don't think it's quite THAT simple. Velikovsky claimed that there were major orbital changes and perturbations in the planets within HISTORICAL times. That caused most scientists to regard him as a crackpot. Had he claimed that these sorts of movements occurred in the early solar system, I very much doubt he would have had the same reaction. I think (at that time, 1950s, 1960s) at worst he would have been regarded as a protagonist of an unlikely scientific theory. Are you supporting Velikovsky's claim of major orbital perturbations in historical times? If so, evidence?