An exchange with Mario Buildreps:
mariobuildreps.com
Anomalous Howard
March 9, 2019 at 12:25 am
Outstanding work and presentation Mario. Congratulations on putting this all together and sharing it. I would like to ask of your thoughts on the events of the Younger Dryas Boundary and the apparent abruptness of those events.
Thank you,
AH
Reply
Mario Buildreps
March 9, 2019 at 9:25 am
Thank you for your comment and compliment, Howard.
We have published an article on the Younger Dryas temperature excursion and explained how to interpret this event: mariobuildreps.com
Our conclusion is that the Younger Dryas event was not unique. If you examine the number of temperature excursions over a period of 100,000 years instead of only some 15,000 years you discover there were more similar temperature excursions as that of the Younger Dryas. And because there were more similar excursions the likelihood that it was caused by a massive meteor impact suddenly drops to zero. That is something most researchers have never done. They don’t even seem to look beyond the first corner. That is a tragedy, especially because these people have chosen to “inform” less talented people about the “truth”. That is in our opinion a very large responsibility that some informers don’t seem to feel that way.
Because the temperatures regarding the Younger Dryas event are registered ONLY in the Greenland ice sheet and not in the Antarctic ice sheet it was a local event. That is maybe one of the reasons that people have started to speculate about meteor impacts. That is tempting because they are so spectacular. The most probable cause for the Younger Dryas event and the many other similar events are changes of oceanic circulations. The North Atlantic Drift as we know it today has a massive impact on temperatures of Northwest Europe. If it shows serious hiccups for a while due to decreased solar activity the average annual temperatures in North West Europe would drop overnight between 6 to 8 degrees C. The impact this would have on the relative small artic region is a multiple of this, hence the large excursion we witness in the Greenland ice sheet. Most of the harbors in Europe would freeze completely during Winter time. These simple facts seem to be completely disregarded when studying events like the Younger Dryas.
Reply
Anomalous Howard
March 9, 2019 at 10:51 am
Thank you very much for your reply Mario.
You are of the opinion, then, that the quick melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet does not present a so-called “energy paradox” that might be understood as a result of a large solar outburst (enormous CME) as per Robert Schoch as well as Doug Vogt?
I know Randall Carlson has looked in the direction of a meteor impact and I agree with you that is very unlikely. What I think is most informative with Carlson’s ideas is the evidence for a truly massive meltwater scarring across the northwest states of the US.
Also indications that a large portion (but not nearly all) of the ice sheet melted in as quickly as a matter of days.
Mario Buildreps
March 9, 2019 at 11:28 am
Most probably not. The first thing that researchers who believe in a CME would have to address before jumping to any conclusion would be the match between eccentricity and the occurrence of ice ages. They are one on one, and nothing else is. The second thing would be the reason why the Greenland ice sheet is still there, why would it be untouched by this alleged massive solar outburst? The third thing they would have to address is why the Greenland ice sheet was the central region of the combined ice sheets (Laurentide+Greenland+Eurasian)? The fourth thing they would have to address, is why is the Greenland ice sheet there at all? There are probably many more things that need to be addressed but these are just a few of them.
Sure, there were spectacular melting events that were catastrophic but certainly not within matters of days. This process takes millennia, and that is one of the main reasons that so much evidence is gone – the time scale was immense in combination with the size of events that was also immense.
The melting of ice sheets within days sounds spectacular and thrilling but that is impossible. The heat of fusion simply prevents this. It would take the sun hundreds of years to melt the Greenland ice sheet alone if ALL the solar energy that hits the earth’s surface would be dedicated to melt the Greenland ice sheet alone. Number rules the universe.
Describing spectacular events as alleged facts based on certain observations, and not looking broader, are good for drawing attention, but if you perform calculations you see why this is untrue. Of course, you could try to argue that a CME would be thousands of times more powerful than the sun’s current activity, but then please show me the evidence for this claim. It is nowhere present, not in a single ice sheet. And if it would be a massive solar outburst, which was thousands of time more powerful than the sun’s current activity, how would the planet survive this? What would happen to the atmosphere? To the plants, animals, and all other life? There are extinction events, but how do they relate to alleged CME cycles? Where is the evidence to keep up the claim? How would such an event look like in the Antarctic ice sheet?
Anomalous Howard
March 9, 2019 at 4:35 pm
Mario,
I agree with you that the CME theory is, by its nature, a contentious one.
The researchers who express it do not dispute Milankovitch cycles as the driver of the great ice ages.
Of course the CME would have come at a time when the Milankovitch influence was already working to end the last period of glaciation nearly 13,000 years ago. According to the theory, it would have come while the northwestern part of the Northern Hemisphere was facing the Sun during Summertime. The tilt of the Earth would put Antarctica out of its path.
A CME, basically being a small chunk of solar material of varying density throughout, would need to have a denser portion that struck a region most likely north of Washington, Oregon and Montana. It would create the same type of debris field that many researchers refer to as the YDB field and would be the reason for what is known in geology as the “black mat”.
Articles to both these terms are at phys.org
and researchgate.net
Further, their thinking goes that the force of the CME would have swept away part of the atmosphere existing over that area of North America which would have been replaced by a swift movement of the atmosphere mainly from Siberian regions. That rush of atmosphere providing an instantaneous drop in air pressure and temperature there which would explain the as yet unexplained flash frozen mammoths found there. It would also explain the masses of megafauna bones found in dense large quantities along a line in Siberia.
Accordingly, Africa and Australia would have come out a lesser extinction impact on megafauna which is seen particularly in the remaining extent of large African mammals.
I realize it sounds like a very spectacular event but there seems to be a continual mounting of evidence to support it.
The geology of the American northwest particularly shows very good evidence of a rapid onset of a short term flow of water at a depth of about 1,000 feet or more all across the topography where a rapid, partial melt-off of the Laurentide ice sheet would have flowed. youtube.com
I believe that none of this would in any way be incompatible with your very compelling holistic approach in developing the theory of crustal displacements and the dating of civilizations and their architectural wonders around the world.
One question I would ask, how is it that the intersecting alignments at the 5 polar locations remain intact over the years if the crust is in motion as the rotational axis of the Earth is also changing? Would not just a rotational axis shift preserve such consistency over time? It seems that a moving crust would also shift the relative positions of the ancient sites and serve to create inconsistencies between their clustered alignments relative to the pole they were aligned toward.
It might be helpful if you were to create a video showing how the crustal displacement proceeded in order that the alignments remain consistent.
Reply
Mario Buildreps
March 9, 2019 at 5:11 pm
Thank you for your input, Howard. To answer your question shortly, the crust deforms around the core. The direction of the spin axis does not change other than already proposed by Milankovitch. And because the crust deforms around the core (that keeps spinning according to Milankovitch’s tilt and precession cycles) moves the spin axis to another position on the crust. A structure that is once built in a certain direction cannot be changed by itself unless there were deformations of the crust, and that appears to be the case. The orientation patterns of many structures follow a certain node forming pattern.
The mathematical implications are also clear about another thing: the geographic North pole migrates, the geographic South pole hardly moves.
There is a lengthy explanation in the comment section on the FAQ page: mariobuildreps.com
I think I'll leave it at that.
So, I wonder how it is that Diamond of Oppenheimer Ranch Project can try to tie this in to the Hapgood/Chan Thomas proposition of a sudden catastrophic crustal displacement. Mario clearly states he believes that proposition to be nonsense.
I also wonder why Ben Davidson of Suspicious 0bservers is pushing the same proposition.
"The secret services do not know much more than the general public and are groping on this topic as much in the dark as everyone else. Many of the material in this document is based on research of Charles Hapgood. I love the work of Charles Hapgood (who doesn’t?), because it is original. But because his work neglects too much good scientific data it is unreliable. Most of his claims rely on just a few observations. Hapgood neglected the Milankovitch cycles completely. The ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica were not yet available. Hapgood concluded that the geo pole was at the Hudson bay and based his conclusion on magnetic pole movements. But if the crust shifts and the magnetic pole moves you cannot establish a correct position on magnetic pole movements alone – this equation simply lacks data.
It is suggested by Hapgoods and other researchers that the crust would shifts within matters of hours, maybe a few days. There is no force present to make that happen. This timelines is simply nonsense and not supported by any well documented scientific data." |
