mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Icecore and other related dating schemes:
Part VIII

Patterns of dust in the ice indicate cosmic catastrophe:

The ancient maps of Greenland clearly indicate that this region was free
of ice, as was much of Antarctica. The tales of ancient man, of a golden
age climate when life was beautiful, is in full agreement with the climate
of the hipsithermal, which must have made the Earth an Eden of clement
weather for our ancient ancestors who recalled this Edenic period in their
myths.

Ultimately, what must be shown is that the deeper ice cores, themselves,
exhibit undeniable evidence that the uniformitarian interpretation of them
is thoroughly wrong. It must be shown that the deeper icecaps were built
up extremely fast, as Velikovsky claimed, and not gradually, as the
uniformitarians propose.

The most fundamental evidence is related to dust, just as Ellenberger and
Mewhinney suggest, but not in terms of their uniformitarian outlook and
interpretation. Nothing in the top layers of the icecaps has anything to
do with Velikovsky's hypothesis. Whatever was presented from these layers
is only related to the uniformitarian, gradualistic interpretation of ice
formation. Pointing to anything found after Velikovsky's catastrophic
events, as Ellenberger and Mewhinney do, has and never had anything
whatsoever to do with his scenario.

It is precisely the same kind of retrocalculation for eclipses that
earlier critics employed. They claimed that, by retrocalculation of the
present celestial planetary positions, they could prove that nothing of a
celestial, planetary, catastrophic nature affected the Earth. To do so,
for Venus' appearances and disappearances, Huber had to throw out 30% of
the Babylonian tablet readings. That is, critics first analyzed the
evidence that postdated Velikovsky's scenario and then said that it
applied to his hypothesis. To do so, they had to throw away much of the
evidence or reinterpret it to explain it away.

Ellenberger and Mewhinney have applied the same approach. They have, as I
have often charged, applied uniformitarian interpretations to catastrophic
evidence--like throwing away the hipsithermal melting data.

Dust evidence is fundamental. According to Ellenberger and Mewhinney, the
dust in the Greenland icecap shows no definite spike where they require it
to be. First, let me remind Ellenberger and Mewhinney about Venus' dust.
What must be borne in mind is that Venus was never a comet! It was, as
Velikovsky proposed, an incandescent planet that looked like a comet on a
cometary orbit. The dust, of course, has to do with the period of darkness
that ensued.

Velikovsky proposed that there were years of darkness associated with his
3,500-year-old Venus catastrophe. As I pointed out in KRONOS long ago, the
atmosphere cleanses itself of dust in only a few months. DUST CANNOT
REMAIN IN THE ATMOSPHERE FOR MANY YEARS. And I cite that work in KRONOS
once again:

A large comet need not even hit the Earth to produce [sufficient blackout]
dust; a near mass would leave enough debris in Earth's atmosphere to
produce a complete blackout....

Toon figures that the dust [in the stratosphere] would settle quickly and
photosynthesis could resume by about three months after the initial
blackout.

Even when computations are made for larger volumes of dust--trillions or
tens of trillions of tons--the sky would be as bright as a moonlit night
in three months after the impact, and bright enough for photosynthesis to
resume in four months time....If [the dust particles] should remain
separate, and therefore, settle more slowly, darkness might last longer
than a year, but this possibility was considered highly improbable. Most
likely, darkness could not have lasted more than a few months no matter
how massive a comet or asteroid had hit....75

Since dust cannot remain in the atmosphere for several years, as is well
known and understood, then the years of darkness cannot and should never
have been ascribed to atmospheric dust, as Ellenberger and Mewhinney have
done. But on this point neither Ellenberger nor Mewhinney were listening.
In order for them to entrap Velikovsky, they invented a new type of
atmospheric physics to keep dust in the atmosphere for many years, so as
to argue a point that is contradicted by fundamental atmospheric science!
The ice could not contain years of dust that settled out of the atmosphere
because immense amounts of dust cannot last for many years in the
atmosphere.

Furthermore, the report of years of darkness were most probably inflated
from reports of months of darkness made by ancient man. Having gone
through such earth-shaking experiences, it would be quite natural and
reasonable for the ancient traumatized survivors to believe that they
wandered through a darkness that seemed to last for years.

But, if Ellenberger or Mewhinney still wish to claim that there must be a
layer of dust in the ice cores, derived from their claim that the
atmosphere held dust for years, then let them explain why the physics of
the atmosphere was different in ancient times to allow for so much dust to
remain there for so long. Again, their entire argument is based on
ignoring basic atmospheric, scientific facts! SO MUCH DUST CANNOT REMAIN
IN THE ATMOSPHERE FOR YEARS!!!

Where, then, during these months of darkness, did the dust fall and how?
According to my source in KRONOS:

The ocean would indeed have boiled above the target site!

The amount of water vapor thrown out into the air would
supersaturate the stratosphere above an area several thousand
kilometers across. The vapor would rapidly recondense...out of
the atmosphere. Croft estimated that most of the vapor would
return to the Earth's surface in a few months. Total
precipitation would amount to [1,000] meters or so coming down
at an average rate of 5 to 10 meters or 200 to 400 inches per
day, [and] rain and snow would have cleansed the air of dust and
accelerated the return of sunlight.76

This data shows that the dust was removed from the atmosphere by rain and
snow. In the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the immense load of dust in the
atmosphere would have descended with enormous falls of snow. This would
have produced enormous amounts of dust in the icecap, not as one unique
layer but as an unusual amount of dust throughout the ice. Again, I am not
discussing cometary dust but planetary dust from Venus and from the Earth.

Long ago, Ellenberger attacked my view on this point, saying that

"Mr. Ginenthal's attempt to reinterpret the `Worzel
ash'...is unconvincing. In accepting a volcanic origin, he
ignores the point that its support for Velikovsky resided in its
having a cometary origin and worldwide distribution."77

Ellenberger has turned an incandescent planet on a cometary orbit into a
comet. Although Venus could have some cometary material or comets in orbit
around it, it was never a comet, based on Velikovsky's theory. It was a
planet and most of the material in its tail would be planetary volcanic
debris and dust. This misconception on Ellenberger and Mewhinney's part is
common to Velikovsky's critics.

Patrick Moore used it in Can You Speak Venusian, claiming that Venus was a
comet which converted itself into a planet. If he, Mewhinney or
Ellenberger had paid any attention to what Velikovsky said about Venus,
they would never have made this mistake. Lastly, if the material fell into
the ocean during a planetary upheaval, it would not leave a uniform layer
because the ocean would take several months to subside from its agitation.
Ellenberger has applied uniformitarian assumptions to a catastrophic
theory and confused protoplanet Venus with a comet.

If Venus was born 10,000 or more years ago and had an obit out to Jupiter,
it would have lost most of its cometary dust long before its first
encounter with the Earth. Its dust, left on Earth, would have been mostly
volcanic and planetary in nature. This is so because it was not made up of
cometary material but of planetary material. Its cometary matter would
have been emitted into space from its stupendously hot surface first. As
is known, comets emit their cometary materials as they near the sun and
receive warmth. A body that was incandescent at birth would have lost much
of these materials.

That is why Venus would have left planetary and volcanic dust in Earth's
atmosphere at the time. Although actual comets probably had accompanied
Venus as Venusian satellites, they would have had fewer direct tail
contacts with Earth because they would have been in Venus' gravitational
sphere of influence and must have orbited around Venus so that their tail
relationship to the solar wind would cause them to very briefly emit
cometary material into the Earth's atmosphere, along with Venusian
planetary dust.

Thus, in the icecap, there may be regions of this cometary material but,
overall, most of the dust would be planetary or meteorological in origin.
It is this other cometary material that would have provided the
hydrocarbons described by Velikovsky. And it is this dust interpretation
which is an excellent way of determining which process--uniformitarian or
catastrophic--is congruent with the evidence.

According to Robert Silverberg:

During the glacial epochs, such regions as Africa, South America, central
Asia and the southern United States experienced "pluvial" periods of
greatly increased rainfall. A series of pluvial and interpluvial periods,
almost exactly corresponding to the glacials and interglacials of colder
latitudes, has been determined.

During these prolonged rainy spells, lakes and rivers grew, basins now dry
filled with water and deserts bloomed. Nevada contained more water than
Minnesota does today; a vanished pluvial lake we call Lake Lahontan
covered the northwestern part of the state. California's Death Valley had
a pluvial lake more than [100] miles long.

The biggest of the American pluvial lakes was Bonneville, of which only
the shrunken remnant we call Great Salt Lake remains. In the wettest
periods, Lake Bonneville was nearly [1,000] feet deep--Great Salt Lake is
30 feet deep at most--and reached into Nevada and Idaho. There were lakes
in the Sahara; rainfall was heavy in Africa's Kalahari Desert and Asia's
Gobi.78

This information is confirmed by Brooks, who stated that "during the
Quaternary Ice Age,...the rainfall over the non-glaciated regions was
heavier than present rainfall."79

As Hsu pointed out earlier, rainfall washes dust out of the atmosphere.
For thousands upon thousands of years during the Ice Age, rain had
cleansed the atmosphere of dust. Charlesworth explained that the
hipsithermal exhibits "much evidence not only of a warmer but of a drier,
`xeric' or `xerothermic' period."80 

As Pielou explained regarding the end of the Ice Age:

Where newly ice-free land was suddenly exposed to warmth and dryness,
conditions were probably harsh, though not in the sense of being cold. The
proximity of warm land to cold ice produced a steep temperature gradient
and, consequently, strong winds. Continual gales must have swept across
the country before vegetation had developed to act as a brake. As long as
there were no plants to diminish its force at ground level, the wind
picked up quantities of loose dust, sand and grit from the quickly drying
till, producing dust storms that darkened the sky for weeks at a time.81

Needless to say, this and the fact that the hipsithermal was a dry period
would have created a lot of dust in the upper ice region after the Ice Age
ended. Therefore, if the gradualistic claims about the slow buildup on the
icecaps are correct, Ice Age ice should contain very little dust at all as
compared to the post-Ice Age layers.

If Velikovsky is correct, just the opposite should be discovered.  Based
on this analysis, Velikovsky's catastrophe, which he dated at about 3,500
years ago, must begin where the dust in the ice becomes inordinate in
amount. If Ellenberger, Mewhinney and other ice core advocates are
correct, the Ice Age ice dust, which they date to 12,000 years ago, should
be much less than that formed thereafter.

This is the crucial difference between Velikovsky's catastrophic model and
the ice core advocates' uniformitarian model. Velikovsky's theory requires
that the upper icecap regions contain very little dust and that the deeper
region, below a certain point, exhibit large amounts of dust.

The ice core advocates' theory requires the opposite: upper ice layers
should contain much more dust than do the deeper ice layers. This is the
key determining factor, in analyzing the dust evidence, which Ellenberger
and Mewhinney have not discussed. What, then, does the evidence show?

Hammer et al. state that the dust particles in the ice of the Greenland
glacier were "up to 100 times as great in the last Ice Age as at
present,"82 and, with respect to Antarctica, that compared to Greenland
the dust was "an order of magnitude higher."83

How does one create a hundred times as much Ice Age dust in the Greenland
icecap compared to the present under the gradualistic, rainy conditions
posited by ice core advocates when their theory demands just the
opposite?! Their theory regarding dust is contradicted by this fundamental
finding.

This evidence is basic; unless the ice core advocates confront it and all
the other problems with clear and indisputable evidence to the contrary,
they are merely avoiding painful facts. The dust evidence fully supports
Velikovsky's scenario and contradicts the gradualistic model supported by
Ellenberger and Mewhinney.

Under any uniformitarian analysis, atmospheric dust from the normal
regions that produce this material would fall on the icecap and show only
a slight variation of dust even when comparing the present results to
those of the Ice Age. There are no unique dust sources on Earth to account
for 100 times more dust during the Ice Age, particularly when more rain
then, than at present, was cleansing the atmosphere.

The data uniformitarian advocates want accepted is that, for more than
100,000 years, during a highly pluvial period, the atmosphere was 100
times dustier than at present--an absolute contradiction. Observe the dust
in the air on a dusty day, especially if you live in a desert or in
another dry region; imagine that the dust increases by 100 times that
level and stays at or near that level for 100,000 years or more.

The uniformitarian ice core advocates have only their imaginations by
which to account for so much dust. When they speak of dust in the proper
layer of the ice as a test of Velikovsky's theory, they are ignoring the
origin of 100 times the amount of Ice Age dust than what is found at
present. But I think that you, the reader, will not allow your
understanding to be obscured by the critics' evasion of this evidence,
which denies, in absolute terms, the gradualistic analysis of the ice
cores that has been presented.

The point I am making is that the icecaps did not form 100,000 years ago
but 3,500 years ago and that the counting of years makes no sense in terms
of the evidence from the dust because it did not build up gradually. If
the ice built up gradually, there would be far less dust in the supposed
Ice Age ice, as compared to more present-day ice.

Even if we were to reverse the cycle and claim that the Ice Age was a
dusty period, we cannot reasonably expect to find 100 times more dust in
the Ice Age ice than presently.

How do Ellenberger and Mewhinney explain 100 times as much dust in the
deeper ice? Do they ignore this contradiction? What is found completely
contradicts the gradual process Ellenberger, Mewhinney and the ice core
advocates propose. How do they explain this contradiction? One might be
willing to give credence to their views if there was only a tiny
difference between the amounts of dust in the deeper (as opposed to the
upper) regions of the icecap. But a difference of 100 times is so great as
to make the gradualistic conclusion plainly untenable and unacceptable.

Of course, it may be argued that the dust is found below the assumed 8,000
to 10,000- year-old ice and not at the 3,500-year-old layer. However, this
is, once again, based on their assumption that the ice layers truly
reflect the climatic oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 layering. If this was truly
the case, the oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 layering of the ice cores should be
exactly correlated with that of Devil's Hole, which it is not.

Furthermore, as Frederick Hall ably showed, oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 in the
ice cores can be formed by a gas diffusion process and not by the process
ice core advocates support. Lastly, the hipsithermal would have melted
away the evidence of this time period completely!

The dust fundamentally supports the catastrophic concept Velikovsky
proposed. To ignore this contradiction is to be unwilling to deal with
inconvenient evidence.
<>