Excavating The Empty Tomb - The Gospels based on Homer's Odyssey?

[write4change]

Sigma,

To clarify -- my husband's daughter married Dr. Peikoff and they had a daughter together who was really angry at ten about her father and the new 25 year old. At 21, she is now living in New York City again and living well and a reporter for one of Rupert Murdock's newspapers. Now she has nothing critical to say of her father because that is where the money is. Rand did not adopt Dr. Peikoff until her husband died.

Nathaniel Brandon probably did more to damage the US education system than any one person I know. His creation of the concept of self esteem over the concept of self respect is IMHO a huge bullsh t idea that is so destructive. His so called doctoral degree came from a non accredited university at the time--it has since been accredited and in its beginning gave much credit for those with money for life experience. The concept of self esteem is that the pscyche must be protected from negative projections of other people at all costs. Ways of doing this is constant reinforcement of affirmations and self affirmations like god don't make no junk.

The problems with that is no matter how much you hear good job or good boy, the inner you still knows bull****. When education was focused on teaching skills that gave the self confidence it could actually learn to do things and learn to respect the things you do--we had sounder educational programs. Nathan was the one who actually conceived the idea of creating a philosopy out Rand's writings. At 25 he was her lover and they told both their spouses they were just going to have to put up with it. There were huge ramifications of this kind of behavior in the sexually repressed 50s. From his concepts of self esteem which is more style than substance, came the more acceptable rationalization for essentially being immoral regarding doing business. You have no obligation to be honest if the person is too stupid to be aware of your misrepresentations.

One of Ayn's first indepth character analysis was her fascination with a serial killer who she found to have the courage to fulfill his own needs first.

I am glad to see how you evolved from being young. I have never been able to get through Atlas and I have tried many times. I am also a serious science fiction buff and that is why I found her writings to be so lacking. Asminov had stilted characters in the Foundation Series but nothing to my mind compared to the unreality of hers. But I am also aware that my bias to her writings are intense.

When Peikoff divorced his wife--they don't believe in alimony etc.--she was hired to write the script for Atlas for a cool one million. She had never written anything before or since to my knowledge. She was immediately voted into the writers guild and allowed to attend and vote for the oscars. I can tell you if this was a known fact there would be huge bruhaha. A lot of writers of movies actually produced do not make the writers guild. I can not get thru Shrugged on Netflix yet and she has no screen credit for that script. It is interesting that this movie could not get made for 40 years. Why because the reality is that most people do not want to see it. The theaters for one week were essentially empty. As Abraham Maslow said good art in any form is universally recognized across all classes and cultures. I always bear that in mind. Randians are usually initially sucked in because they are told --- you are frustrated because you are so special and most people fail to see the greatness in you that you can rationally proclaim to exist. Prior to this, people did not go around proclaiming how good they are --- they had to demonstrate it.

Our economy is going down the tubes because the banksters were able to convince people that free market was god -- even though all the proof exists that the free market never existed and capitalism only works with checks and balances and so it goes.

The essence for me is that none of these people work their talk. They always want something for nothing for them because they deserve it because they are so special but everybody else deserves bupkus.

[sigma6]

Hmm, some of my fave topics, psychology, economics, sci fi, some historical elements, you Americans live large! I am still tickled that I am communicating with someone connected to the books that had such a huge impact on me, was trying to dig up those books too, (couldn't find Branden's book either!, but I read it several times) I still like it, there were some concepts that I thought were keen observations. But again given the types of relationships you describe I would like to read it again. I don't recall him expounding behaviourism in that book necessarily, or Skinner's operant conditioning model, a hugely inefficient method for teaching intelligent subjects. Positive and negative reinforcement is universal and will work with earthworms, to pigeons, to circus animals, and humans, but good trainers realize that more holistic methods will always be more effective, the more intelligent the subject. I think you meant he was trying to create a psychology based on her philosophy, which was another model that he clearly exposed to me, ie. all faculties of psychology are in fact extensions of a particular philosophical origin. Not necessarily a bad thing, but students should be aware of this.

He had a model of emotions which I thought was brilliant, the idea that an emotion is unique and special because it is a combination of the psychological and the physical. i.e. one cannot experience an emotion without an autonomic physiological response, that physical response is an unconscious summary or accumulation of all similar past experiences to that particular (or very similar) stimuli, all unconsciously tabulated, graded, weighted, averaged and summarized as an instantaneous physiological expression (autonomic response) , a survival mechanism meant to give us an instant and unmistakable feedback to external stimuli based on past accumulated experience, an automatic overall 'good for us' or 'not good for us' response. I think that is a brilliant insight. I do believe that our minds record each and every experience intact (Penfield experiments), and that they are retrievable by the subconscious.

The implication being that this system can also fail us if we are not careful. In particular is the idea that it is based on 'perception' of experience, we must be very careful how we perceive such experiences, as each perception of each experience will eventually contribute to future 'emotional' responses to external stimuli. He gave the example of how an overtly emotional response in childhood, to a ferocious dog for example, could overwhelm the system and create a phobia... OK, in retrospect I can see that being a form of behavioural conditioning, but it is vastly more complex analysis, with more powerful implications. Anyhow, self evaluation and self analysis of our past experiences and how we choose to perceive our immediate experiences, (both exercises of rational thought can play a huge role in 'fine tuning' what will eventually become our 'emotional responses' to stimuli in the future. I think this is a hugely insightful and profound model that explains much and provides practical application. It also is one of the few psychological models that embodies a relationship between 'emotion' and 'reason' (or at least a 'potential' relationship should we 'choose'...)

Which leads me to another of his insights. He introduced the idea that man is a being of 'volitional consciousness' This is another profound observation that explains much. i.e. it explains why some people excel where others do not (this is not the only reason of course). ie. each individual has the potential for all manner of conceptual thinking, but it is not automatic, it is an exercise of will, a decision, it is 'volitional'. If that decision isn't made, that individual could very easily fall into a state of purely emotional responses, which in turn are nothing but an accumulation of past emotional experiences. (The phobic adult who is afraid of dogs for ex.) This was ahead of it's time, today we can see this as a computer model, and we are in fact the 'programmers' of our own thinking. Garbage in, garbage out. The more rational, more positive, more analytical tools we develop, such as maths, geometry, statistics, logic, reasoning, all algorithmic 'functions' that need to be developed before they can be utilized the more intellectually capable we can become to solve problems and build our future. The 'Spock' logic as a virtue element is there. And he had a few more ideas I can't completely articulate that I thought were profound. No disrespect.

Of course I can't approve nor really judge his personal life based on what you told me. That is pushing the boundaries of existentialism a little too far imo, and truly surprises me that would be his style. Ayn Rand I could see her going that way. Experimenting with one's moral values is playing with Karma, very risky, very predictable outcomes imo. Then again how does one learn that? but by testing reality, problem is when terrible consequences result if one is not just as honest with measuring the results! as most are not, one can end up in a world of hurt and pain and denial that they never escape from, again it flows back to Branden's model. If we fill our memories with recordings of inaccurate or false perceptions (ie. if we 'lie/deny to ourselves' we are destroying the functionality of our future emotional responses) It inevitably gets down to some measure of truth, or accurate feedback. That is why I think 'Truth' and 'Love' are fundamental, and irrefutable foundations for any model of psychological health. Although I know nothing is simple here, but at least in this (albeit limited) sense one truly gets out of life what one puts in everything else not withstanding. I try my hardest to avoid lying to myself or others for this very reason, and can't understand how he would have missed this, as what you describe could only have lead to a lot of unimaginable pain and suffering ultimately.

P.S. I hero worshipped Asimov, lol, I miss reading his stories.

[jagman]

Satan is a liar and a master at manipulating the masses... If through his deception, He can make you believe Jesus never existed or atleast make you believe he was not Gods son, His deception is almost complete. After that, He only has to decieve you into following him.

[sigma6]

Posted by jagman (here)
Satan is a liar and a master at manipulating the masses... If through his deception, He can make you believe Jesus never existed or atleast make you believe he was not Gods son, His deception is almost complete. After that, He only has to decieve you into following him.

Yeah, I used to feel that way too Jag, but I just don't think it's that simple anymore, I would encourage you to view some of the videos and web links put up, and share your opinions on the research dug up so far... there are some pretty tough questions that need answers...

[observer]

Posted by jagman (here)
Satan is a liar and a master at manipulating the masses... [emphasis added by observer]
If through his deception, He can make you believe Jesus never existed or atleast make you believe he was not Gods son, His deception is almost complete. After that, He only has to decieve you into following him.

The portion of your comment that I emphasized is most accurate, jagman.

The problem with the rest of what you say is that the lie Satan created, the Roman sponsored religion, Trinity Christianity was one of Satan's best works. It created nearly two thousand years of obscene pain and suffering under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire, Catholicism.

The entity, Yashu ben Joseph (Yeshua/Yashuah ) surely was an historical figure. His literal teachings were excluded from the text of the New Testament in lieu of a mythical concoction which was edited and re-edited repeatedly over a four hundred year period of time prior to the final canonization of the Bible.

Trinity Christianity, and the entity Jesus are a mythological creation of (what you call) Satan, (what I call Archon/Reptiles)

If you truly want to educate yourself as to what the historical entity, Yashu ben Joseph really gave to humanity, you should study the Nag Hammadi Library. Those text were unearthed in 1945 and were unmolested by the Archon influence for nearly two thousand years.

You will clearly see that Yashu was telling us that we all can be 'Sons of God'. You will also gain a clear understanding that Yashu was excluding himself from the god of the Old Testament, Jehovah/Yahweh whom Yashu referred to as the Devil.

Once you have studied the excluded Gospels and other text of the Nag Hammadi Library you will get an understanding of why these text were excluded from the Roman sponsored Bible.

As Lloyd Pie has said, "everything we think we know is a lie".


For an in-depth study into the actual words of Yashu ben Joseph, see here.

[sigma6]

I really like Richard C Hoagland's line... "The lie is different at every level"... now that's insight.

A perfect nutshell of how a pyramidal organization based on secrecy would operate. Build the pyramid, instill mindless loyalty, add compartmentalization, feed false information at each level, install police and eliminate any strays. Each level can only see so many levels above...

That's how 1% can leverage their control against 99%, whom wouldn't even know who is at the pinnacle.

[RedeZra]

Posted by observer (here)
The problem with the rest of what you say is that the lie Satan created, the Roman sponsored religion, Trinity Christianity was one of Satan's best works. It created nearly two thousand years of obscene pain and suffering under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire, Catholicism.

......

You will clearly see that Yashu was telling us that we all can be 'Sons of God'. You will also gain a clear understanding that Yashu was excluding himself from the god of the Old Testament, Jehovah/Yahweh whom Yashu referred to as the Devil.

Gnosticism could not cope with God of the Old Testament

who once flooded the whole earth incinerated Sodom and Gomorrah made war against the Nephilim in Canaan and gave mankind the Ten Commandments writ in stone

while Catholicism embraced and incorporated God of the Old Testament as the God of gods and men and the Father of Jesus Christ


so in Catholicism Israel and the Jews are not devil worshippers

[panopticon]

I've really enjoyed the information provided in this thread and the civil way that it has been discussed.
It is good to know that even though we may hold different perspectives we can respect the rights of others to theirs.

I'd like to thank write4change for providing a personal insight into the members of Rand's inner circle.

I have had no exposure to Randian philosophy (it isn't well known in Australia) and only became aware of it through my research into some "right-wing" think-tanks in Australia and through the Adam Curtis' documentary I posted earlier. I am going to read the book sigma6 suggested (as time permits) but as Rand's philosophy incorporates laissez-faire capitalism I don't know how useful it will be to me outside of understanding those think-tanks philosophy (much as having read Marx assists in understanding the State-socialist philosophy).

When I mentioned Rand I wasn't anticipating the expose, nor the interesting conversation that has resulted. All in a thread discussing the historicity of Jesus. Excellent!
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[panopticon]

Posted by RedeZra (here)
Gnosticism could not cope with God of the Old Testament
who once flooded the whole earth incinerated Sodom and Gomorrah made war against the Nephilim in Canaan and gave mankind the Ten Commandments writ in stone
while Catholicism embraced and incorporated God of the Old Testament as the God of gods and men and the Father of Jesus Christ
so in Catholicism Israel and the Jews are not devil worshippers

G'day RedeZra,

You and I have discussed this before in some depth and I would once again point out to you that the reason the Old Testament was incorporated into the Bible was to give the newly formed "Christian Churches" (there were many varieties and "flavours" in its beginning) a longer history. This was so they could compete with the many older and more powerful religions present at the time (circa 100 CE - 350 CE). In other words it was more impressive for them to say "Ours is a religion with a thousand years of history" than to say "Ours is a religion with a 100 year history".

You know about Marcion's "Bible" (the first grouping of Christian writings) and that it didn't incorporate the OT because he viewed, as did many others, that the God of the OT was nothing like the one depicted in either Christianity or the collected works of many Christian writers from the period (excluding 'Revelations' which was almost not included in the Bible). Marcion was the first to be declared a heretic... His "church" continued on into the third century CE when, I think from memory (please correct me if I'm wrong), it was finally "cleansed" by Constantine's mob.

We've also debated ad nauseam the lack of evidence that a world wide flood event occurred and the same goes for the Sodom and Gomorrah story. I have stated that there is evidence for a localised flooding event that would have had an effect in the region and this is in all likelihood the origin of the Epic of Gilgamesh/Atrahasis flood myths (that pre-dates the one from the Tanakh and is in all likelihood the origin of the story).
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[RedeZra]

Posted by panopticon (here)
G'day RedeZra,

You and I have discussed this before in some depth and I would once again point out to you that the reason the Old Testament was incorporated into the Bible was to give the newly formed "Christian Churches" (there were many varieties and "flavours" in its beginning) a longer history. This was so they could compete with the many older and more powerful religions present at the time (circa 100 CE - 350 CE). In other words it was more impressive for them to say "Ours is a religion with a thousand years of history" than to say "Ours is a religion with a 100 year history".

hi Pan

yea i know we have talked about this before but the Old Testament or the Hebrew Tanakh is often quoted in the New Testament and so it is imo a natural backdrop to Jesus Christ

and His following who were persecuted first from Jerusalem and then from Rome

til Constantine the Great forbade religious persecution and helped establish what would become the Catholic Church as the Religion of the Roman Empire

Posted by panopticon (here)
You know about Marcion's "Bible" (the first grouping of Christian writings) and that it didn't incorporate the OT because he viewed, as did many others, that the God of the OT was nothing like the one depicted in either Christianity or the collected works of many Christian writers from the period (excluding 'Revelations' which was almost not included in the Bible). Marcion was the first to be declared a heretic... His "church" continued on into the third century CE when, I think from memory (please correct me if I'm wrong), it was finally "cleansed" by Constantine's mob.

Jesus as He is depicted in the New Testament is as strict as Yahweh of the Old Testament

and refers to the Torah as the Law

Posted by panopticon (here)
We've also debated ad nauseam the lack of evidence that a world wide flood event occurred and the same goes for the Sodom and Gomorrah story. I have stated that there is evidence for a localised flooding event that would have had an effect in the region and this is in all likelihood the origin of the Epic of Gilgamesh/Atrahasis flood myths (that pre-dates the one from the Tanakh and is in all likelihood the origin of the story).
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

there is evidence for a world wide flood in what is called polystrate fossils and the general fossil record is evidence of a sudden burial under mud

then we have marine fossils in the mountains and frozen mammoths indicating a sudden cataclysmic event

[jagman]

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Posted by jagman (here)
Satan is a liar and a master at manipulating the masses... If through his deception, He can make you believe Jesus never existed or atleast make you believe he was not Gods son, His deception is almost complete. After that, He only has to decieve you into following him.

Yeah, I used to feel that way too Jag, but I just don't think it's that simple anymore, I would encourage you to view some of the videos and web links put up, and share your opinions on the research dug up so far... there are some pretty tough questions that need answers...

Hi Sigma, I hope you dont think my comments were pointed at you. I applaud you
for using critical thinking when discussing the Bible or God. He doesn't want mindless
robots following him. ( Thus Freewill. )

I'm not a prophet and I'm also not a real big fan of organized religon. ( the hypocrisy)
The Lord took pity on me once and He sent an angel to me in my darkest hour.
I used to wonder why? There was nothing special about me. ( In my mind I thought.)
I was just a man at the end of his rope who on bended knee who asked God for help.
Sigma, I would encourage you to examine all the possiblities.

Luke 11:9 So I say to you: Keep asking, and it will be given you. Keep searching, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened for you,

[sigma6]

Yes thanks everyone for all feedbacks... personally I definitely think there are other entities out there, good and evil, a spiritual element and supernatural phenomena. I guess I have always tended toward alternative interpretations. I am fascinated with the Bible from a historical and legal point of view as well as a philosophical text. I believe it has several layers of hidden information in it, hidden code. Problem is most people don't actually read it. Everyone who is a bibliophile should read it once. Even Hitchens recognized it as a 'must read'. I intend to analyze it a second time (and take notes!)

Having achieved a single reading has given me a different perspective, I now see it as one reference within the context of a larger library of many other world views. I now cross reference it with other works. It makes reference to Sumerian texts (as well as all the other cultures mentioned), Nephilim, spirits, a plurality of Gods (besides Trinity) names the Anak, a reference to Annunaki, its influence is everywhere, from history to prophecy. It enriches my reading of Sitchen and Shakespeare to Michael S Heiser, Chuck Missler, David Flynn, Bart Ehrman, and many others. I encourage people not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't have complete answers, I don't give up and I have no problem living with the uncertainty, that is the nature of science, not pretending to know what you don't know. I'm at the stage, where I feel the more I learn the less I know. I now seek the mystical, the profound...haha (wish me luck...)

[nosgib]

Interesting isn't it, you take on the current philosophy of
mankind and one gets ridiculed for it . But I will persist.
The New Testament has been hijacked by those with a
vested interest in doing so.(now plenty of people have said that previously) "But" when one writes a Oracle knowing that shortly I will turn the expose into a chronicle then gets
Stonewalled by Everyone, it's no wonder this Planet and
the Human Being is facing the problems (currently) and what
is to come.
A Cure for Cancer and proof of God
The cure is n 60 www.revelations.iinet.net.au
The Record is a extrapolation of my journey.
(also I have been told that the (old) testament takes precedent over the (new) So carrying on from Exodus and proving creation is one big call (thus it requires a Cure to do so).…Regards.

[panopticon]

G'day RedeZra,

Posted by RedeZra (here)
hi Pan
yea i know we have talked about this before but the Old Testament or the Hebrew Tanakh is often quoted in the New Testament and so it is imo a natural backdrop to Jesus Christ
and His following who were persecuted first from Jerusalem and then from Rome
til Constantine the Great forbade religious persecution and helped establish what would become the Catholic Church as the Religion of the Roman Empire

I agree with much that you've said above as the Tanakh assists in understanding the underlying cultural perspective of the Jews at that time. I also agree that the Jews, Christians and many other groups were persecuted in Jerusalem following the revolt (66 CE - 70 CE) and that the Christians were persecuted in Rome (though at a later period).

What I would point out is that Constantine first stopped religious persectution and then re-instigated it (from memory a decade later) to focus on the religions and cults that were very powerful at the time and at odds with both Christianity and his rule as Emperor. The adoption of Christianity as the State religion has been interpreted by many scholars, and rightly so in my opinion, as a way of consolidating power and control within Constantines hands. Please note that I am not saying that Constantine was only using Christianity as a tool of oppression without a belief that he was doing the "divine will" (I can not find evidence that this was the case). I am merely stating what occurred. The rivals of the newly adopted Catholic Church were dispossessed, persecuted and had their property taken by the State.

Posted by RedeZra (here)

Posted by panopticon (here)
You know about Marcion's "Bible" (the first grouping of Christian writings) and that it didn't incorporate the OT because he viewed, as did many others, that the God of the OT was nothing like the one depicted in either Christianity or the collected works of many Christian writers from the period (excluding 'Revelations' which was almost not included in the Bible). Marcion was the first to be declared a heretic... His "church" continued on into the third century CE when, I think from memory (please correct me if I'm wrong), it was finally "cleansed" by Constantine's mob.

Jesus as He is depicted in the New Testament is as strict as Yahweh of the Old Testament and refers to the Torah as the Law

I agree completely with you here. The modern "flavours" of Christianity are at odds with much that appears in the New Testament. I was stating that the depiction of Jesus in the NT was distilled into a particular "flavour" by the fledgeling Church in the way they adopted certain writings as canon and that the inclusion of the Old Testament (Tanakh) was not a "divine act" but that of man.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Posted by RedeZra (here)

Posted by panopticon (here)
We've also debated ad nauseam the lack of evidence that a world wide flood event occurred and the same goes for the Sodom and Gomorrah story. I have stated that there is evidence for a localised flooding event that would have had an effect in the region and this is in all likelihood the origin of the Epic of Gilgamesh/Atrahasis flood myths (that pre-dates the one from the Tanakh and is in all likelihood the origin of the story).

there is evidence for a world wide flood in what is called polystrate fossils and the general fossil record is evidence of a sudden burial under mud
then we have marine fossils in the mountains and frozen mammoths indicating a sudden cataclysmic event

This is an oft stated hypothesis used by creationists and ignores the many understandings that geology has provided. The phenomenon of polystrate fossils has nothing to do with a world wide flood. Its use by creationists as evidence of such a cataclysm ignores that it is an isolted phenomenon that occurs under special conditions. As for marine fossils being found on mountains that is also a much used agrument that ignores geology and an understanding of fossil formation. The movement of tectonic plates, and what is known as "tectonic uplift", explains this quite well.

One question though... How do you reckon that Mammoths were snap frozen by a flood?
I do agree with you that this was caused by a cataclysmic event just the isolated groupings of frozen Mammoths in and around the Arctic circle do not, to my mind, point to a world wide flood. Though an isolated flooding event in conjunction with other events (volcanic eruption causing a drop in world temperatures for example) explains it.

Thank you, as usual, for both the interesting and civil discussion.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[panopticon]

Posted by nosgib (here)
Interesting isn't it, you take on the current philosophy of
mankind and one gets ridiculed for it . But I will persist.
The New Testament has been hijacked by those with a
vested interest in doing so.(now plenty of people have said that previously) "But" when one writes a Oracle knowing that shortly I will turn the expose into a chronicle then gets
Stonewalled by Everyone, it's no wonder this Planet and
the Human Being is facing the problems (currently) and what
is to come.
A Cure for Cancer and proof of God
The cure is n 60 www.revelations.iinet.net.au
The Record is a extrapolation of my journey.
(also I have been told that the (old) testament takes precedent over the (new) So carrying on from Exodus and proving creation is one big call (thus it requires a Cure to do so).…Regards.

G'day Nosgib,

I don't recall ridiculing your posts in the past...
I visited your page and (from a cursory view) while I don't agree with your beliefs I support your right to believe what ever you wish.
They are your personal beliefs and as such if you were to say, an example at random, 'The original painting of the last supper was painted 2000 years prior to the event happening' I would require you, or anyone else for that matter, to provide evidence to support your claim if you were to state them as fact to me.
Other than that your beliefs are your beliefs and I have no interest in ridiculing you for them.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[sigma6]

One question though... How do you reckon that Mammoths were snap frozen by a flood?
I do agree with you that this was caused by a cataclysmic event just the isolated groupings of frozen Mammoths in and around the Arctic circle do not, to my mind, point to a world wide flood. Though an isolated flooding event in conjunction with other events (volcanic eruption causing a drop in world temperatures for example) explains it.

I would disagree, volcanic eruption wouldn't be able to flash freeze a woolly mammoth... not quick enough. The most fitting hypothesis imo, would be a pole shift. That would create mile high tsunamis, floods, earth quakes, temperature shifts, and could have happened within hours, the woolly's were eating summer greens one moment, and then in the next moment they were deluged by a couple hundred foot arctic tsunami racing toward them at 300 miles an hour (or that sort of thing...)

[sigma6]

for what it's worth, I have NOT read through all this, but someone referenced it for me and just to show I'm willing to look at anything, I will post it here so I can find it later... if it's crap I might delete it... (but it looks interesting...)

King Arthur and Khumric British History
http://www.kingarthurslegacy.com/

[Hervé]

Posted by sigma6 (here)

One question though... How do you reckon that Mammoths were snap frozen by a flood?
I do agree with you that this was caused by a cataclysmic event just the isolated groupings of frozen Mammoths in and around the Arctic circle do not, to my mind, point to a world wide flood. Though an isolated flooding event in conjunction with other events (volcanic eruption causing a drop in world temperatures for example) explains it.

I would disagree, volcanic eruption wouldn't be able to flash freeze a woolly mammoth... not quick enough. The most fitting hypothesis imo, would be a pole shift. That would create mile high tsunamis, floods, earth quakes, temperature shifts, and could have happened within hours, the woolly's were eating summer greens one moment, and then in the next moment they were deluged by a couple hundred foot arctic tsunami racing toward them at 300 miles an hour (or that sort of thing...)

A pole shift wouldn't still be fast enough to flash freeze freshly ingested vegetals, the latter having been known to be served as "fresh salads" at "Explorers' Club" reunions when properly thawed.

The likely scenario is something as depicted in the movie "The day after tomorrow" where the air cover is somehow removed in a blink of an eye (never mind, in the movie, helicopter still flying with no air to sustain their flight... they should have hit the ground before starting to freeze).

Removing the air cover and deep frozen "space" (a few degrees above absolute "zero") hitting the ground could have been accomplished by a large meteorite sucking out the air cover, creating a high wave tsunami and a pole shift when hitting the ground.

That's about the only thing which could account for all the current known facts and our known current technologies.

[panopticon]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)

One question though... How do you reckon that Mammoths were snap frozen by a flood?
I do agree with you that this was caused by a cataclysmic event just the isolated groupings of frozen Mammoths in and around the Arctic circle do not, to my mind, point to a world wide flood. Though an isolated flooding event in conjunction with other events (volcanic eruption causing a drop in world temperatures for example) explains it.

I would disagree, volcanic eruption wouldn't be able to flash freeze a woolly mammoth... not quick enough. The most fitting hypothesis imo, would be a pole shift. That would create mile high tsunamis, floods, earth quakes, temperature shifts, and could have happened within hours, the woolly's were eating summer greens one moment, and then in the next moment they were deluged by a couple hundred foot arctic tsunami racing toward them at 300 miles an hour (or that sort of thing...)

A pole shift wouldn't still be fast enough to flash freeze freshly ingested vegetals, the latter having been known to be served as "fresh salads" at "Explorers' Club" reunions when properly thawed.

The likely scenario is something as depicted in the movie "The day after tomorrow" where the air cover is somehow removed in a blink of an eye (never mind, in the movie, helicopter still flying with no air to sustain their flight... they should have hit the ground before starting to freeze).

Removing the air cover and deep frozen "space" (a few degrees above absolute "zero") hitting the ground could have been accomplished by a large meteorite sucking out the air cover, creating a high wave tsunami and a pole shift when hitting the ground.

That's about the only thing which could account for all the current known facts and our known current technologies.

Thanks for the input everyone.

Your responses made me examine the underlying premise of my question to RedeZra (it's a buggar sometimes being a quasi-deconstructionist) as I am unsure what is myth, what is "Hollywood" story-telling and what is "real" in this instance.

I thought I'd investigate this question on "snap frozen" mammoths a little (it's raining here so work is at a stand still for the moment) and came across this interesting paper: 'Frozen Mammoths and Modern Geology' by William R. Farrand (Science, 1961) which he states on pages 733-734:

There is no direct evidence that any woolly mammoth froze to death. In fact, the healthy, robust condition of the cadavers and their full stomachs argue against death by slow freezing. On the other hand, the large size of their warm-blooded bodies is not compatible with sudden freezing. In addition, all the frozen specimens were rotten and, in most cases, had been somewhat mutilated by predators prior to freezing. This is attested to by many first-hand accounts (2, p. 60; 15; 20, p. 274; 31). Although some of the flesh recovered from the cadavers was "fibrous and marbled with fat" and looked "as fresh as well-frozen beef or horse-meat," only dogs showed any appetite for it; "the stench ... was unbearable" (1, pp. 119, 129). Histological examination of fat and flesh of the Berezovka mammoth showed "deep penetrating chemical alteration as a result of the very slow decay," and even the frozen ground surrounding a mammoth had the same putrid odor, implying decay before freezing (2, p. 60). Furthermore, the stories of a banquet on the flesh of the Berezovka mammoth were "a hundred per cent invention" (2, p. 60).

And then later in his conclusion (p. 734):

The well-preserved specimens, with food in their stomachs and between their teeth, must have died suddenly, probably from asphyxia resulting from drowning in a lake or bog or from being buried alive by a mudflow or cavein of a river bank. Since only the heavy-footed giants of the fauna -- the mammoths and woolly rhinoceroses -- have been found in a frozen state, it is very unlikely that a catastrophic congelation occurred in Siberia. On the contrary, the frozen giants are indicative of a normal and expected (uniformitarian) circumstance of life on the tundra.

There's more explanation/evidence in the paper (naturally) and I've only copied some of the pertinent bits to do with their freezing/death.

So my question here is: What evidence is there that "flash freezing" occurred and what evidence is there for the "explorer club" story?

I wonder how much is of the "tall tale" variety told at the bar to illicit free grog from fawning companions...
I had not looked into this before and am interested if anyone else has any evidence of it occurring...

Also came across this site (appears quite new) that is a group of scientists/explorers who search out woolly mammoth, woolly rhinoceros and other fauna/flora frozen in the Siberian and Alaskan permafrost:
http://mammuthus.org/

I look forward to your replies.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Hervé]

Posted by panopticon;499519[...

So my question here is: What evidence is there that "flash freezing" occurred and what evidence is there for the "explorer club" story?

[...]

Sorry, gona have to ask the few select who ate it and found it delicious... probably all dead of old age by now.

That was the only evidence that these mastodonts were flash frozen since the vegetables in their stomach would have had to freeze under 60 seconds in order to exhibit the freshness and crunchiness of said vegetables once defrost. That would mean these woolly beasts would have had to be thrown in a pool of liquid nitrogen of some sort and swallowed some. Hence my post above.

If that evidence is a tall tale instead of a OOPA... well, back to square one.