Some effects of cosmic catatrophes

“… cosmogenic isotope data suggest that 41,000 years ago a supernova exploded about 200 light-years (60 parsecs) from Earth. Initially, a flash of lightning lasting a few seconds would have dazzled observers, even with their eyes closed, on one side of Earth facing the supernova. The experience would have been much like that of a Hiroshima survivor, except that no blast wave followed.

Instead, the sky burst into an array of colours as the enormous wave of cosmic rays lit up the atmosphere. A new giant star, larger than the moon, appeared in the sky, visible night and day, and became increasingly brighter for twenty-one days as the cloud of dust ejected from the supernova expanded and thinned.”

“The remnants of the supernova remained visible in the night sky for about a decade, growing dimmer as it faded from view.”

“The era around 40,000 years ago was a period of major changes in the evolution of mankind. Neanderthals began to decline, and Cro-Magnon people mysteriously evolved into modern humans. … In addition, a mutation in human brain size appeared at that time that coincided with the emergence of traits such as art and music, religious practices, and sophisticated tool-making practices.”

“Major changes in species, including humans, occur through mutations, and the high cosmic ray rate from the supernova would have accelerated the mutation rate dramatically. One example which appears to bear this out is the evolution of blood types in human beings. Our early ancestors had only type O blood.”

“DNA evidence suggests that B type blood probably originated in Central Asia or Africa, where the percentage is uniformly highest.” … “For type A blood, the picture is more complicated, with apparent origins in Europe, Canada, and Australia.” … “Although type O blood is common everywhere, it is nearly universal among natives of South and Central America, and much more common in North America than in Asia or Europe.”

“The supernova may have a link to at least two of the races, Asian and Caucasian, as suggested by Nei (1982) and Gong and associates (2002). They presented genetic evidence showing that the two races split off from each other about 41,000 years ago, meaning that some major mutation occurred at that time.”

“… intense radiation is capable of producing the major mutations that account for the skin colour we see in the Asian and Caucasian races.”

“… at the time of the mutation, art, music, and advanced tool-making suddenly appeared to flourish, suggesting that there was a direct connection.”

“That brilliant burst of radiation silently re-arranged humankind’s DNA and unleashed a burst of brilliant cultural creativity that progressed from launching innovative new mammoth spears to launching innovative new rockets to the moon.”

Comment: Is there not a difference between creating new tools enabling survival, and technological tools directed to exploiting any minerals which may be found in outer space or, worse still, to exercise control of fellow humans on Earth who are ‘not us’ but ‘them’?
The extracts above are from ‘The cycle of cosmic catastrophes: Flood, fire, and famine in the history of civilisation’ by Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith.

Advertisement

Are we all that sensitive?

Should those of us who live in a modern cosmopolitan metropolis encapsulating a wide conglomeration of ethnic origins, religions and associated cultures, and skin colours, behave as if we are bonded more by tribalism than by citizenship?

Whether Early Man had been created as ‘the Adam’ by the Anunnaki from planet Nibiru to work their gold mines, as claimed by Zachariah Sitchin, based on his reading of Sumerian writings, or had evolved in the jungle from chimpanzees (the genetic difference being apparently about 1.4%), would it not be likely that these proto-humans clustered together, for safety, efficiency in gathering and then in hunting, and mutual comfort?

This is to suggest that protecting the group which lives and moves together is the primordial bond between members oF the group. Prior to the establishment of that relationship, one would expect the display of that instinctive bond between genetically related individuals.

Beyond the individualism of the nations of the West, it would seem that the tribal bond underpins the communalism of Asia – and other geographical regions. The bond is strengthened by a shared religion and associated rituals, cultural values and practices. Yet, this bond can be fragmented by caste (some concealed), class, and doctrinal religious differences.

Just as the male lion kills the cubs birthed within his pride but sired by males which had preceded him, so tribal pride in human societies opposes miscegenation (marriage outside the tribe). This may be associated with disparaging labels and comments about selected attributes of the other tribes. Anyone who has lived long enough to observe a culturally mixed population over time, or the admixture of cultures in modern times through immigration, can testify to the reality of pejorative (often casual) comments about others ‘not like us.’

Although the White Australia policy has been officially buried, emanations from the grave can fuse with inherited ethno-cultural prejudice. So what? Prejudice is a very human attribute; is there anyone live who has not, ever, felt an antipathy towards someone – a sibling, a fellow student, a foreign accent or even food or clothing style? When one chooses to live within an admixture of tribes, could one then claim to have a right to be sensitive to pejorative comments, utterances, and throw-away remarks? Is there a need to be thin-skinned?

What happened to self-confidence based on pride in one’s inheritance? Instead of going around saying “Ah! Woe is me,” how about standing tall, while ignoring the yobbo (who can be found everywhere)?

Were there ‘black’ people all over the globe historically?

When I read that the first emperor of China, Chin (Qin) Shi Huang Di (Di identifying him as emperor) had been black, I began to wonder whether the word black meant coloured; and that coloured might have covered all shades of brown (to black). The theory that modern Man had ‘come out’ of Africa may have led to the erroneous belief that, as African, he had to be black in colour.

In New Zealand, I discovered what seems to be officially accepted – that the Maori people had originated in Taiwan. That sounded improbable until I read more recently that there had been a tribe of ‘black’ people in Taiwan. I can only assume that these people were also brown in colour, judging by the skin colour of the Maori people, and their Polynesian neighbours. These peoples may have been escapees from the drowning Sundaland.

The infusion of European genes into ‘black’ Africa and ‘brown’ India has not altered the colour of the resident populations to any substantive extent. Moving into and out of freezing terrain in northern Europe, caused by the so-called ice ages expanding and retreating, has apparently not altered the skin colour of the affected populations.

I have also read that there have been ‘black’ communities in southern China. They had to be brown, not black as in negroid – unless an ancient negroid population (the Olmec?) had somehow spread itself all over the globe. If so, they would have to have been extraterrestrials, or transported by  extraterrestrials.

Sensibly, one would have to conclude that brown (in a variety of shades) was the original colour of mankind; and that the precursor of white people was a natural genetic mutation which, over thousands of years, led to whitish people (with blue eyes). A significant blast of cosmic radiation, about 40,000 years ago, along the surrounds of the Tropic of Cancer would, more credibly, explain the skin-whitening of the affected people.

Since great artistic ability, displayed in cave paintings and on decorated stones, had apparently arisen about 40,000 years ago, a vast cosmic radiation cannot be ruled out as a skin-colour changer. Beauty can flower from the ashes of death. The original colour of mankind, according to yet another report, was described as honey to milk coffee.

How then did the black people arise? Indeed, couldn’t some extraterrestrials have been jet black, since the sun cannot make brown jet black, any more than a lack of sunlight can turn brown skin to white?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could Man be a privileged species?

There is a view that Earth was specially prepared for mankind. Why would what appears to be no more than a small molten-rock ball, with a permeable cover allegedly capable of being made to slide over the interior by powerful external forces, be waiting to provide a home for mankind?

Since complex organic compounds and bacteria have been found in space, could it be possible that fully-formed humans also came to Earth from ‘up there,’ as claimed in the folklore mentioned in a recent post? Or, were the arrivals from space (the ETs, extraterrestrials) advanced beings who merely ‘seeded’ (impregnated) Earthlings, thus allowing the descendants of their progeny to believe that they had ‘descended’ from ‘up there’? This then raises the question: how did these Earthlings come about?

Sumerian writings, drawn upon by the authors of the Bible and by Zachariah Sitchin, say that ETs from planet Nibiru created ‘the Adam’ (mankind) by implanting their genes into an animal species on Earth. This allegedly occurred 300,000 years ago, almost 145,000 years after their arrival – so said Sitchin.

Is there any point in asking how motile air-breathing animals initially arrived on Earth? Do we know? And how they evolved into the species allegedly manipulated by the Anunnaki? That all life forms on Earth share a gene pool, except for the 223 exceptional genes (refer Sitchin) not found in species other than Man; and that the genetic difference between chimpanzees and humans is only about 1.4 %; suggests that we did all originate on Earth.

If Earth is compatible with humans, then it is also compatible with the bacteria, the vegetation, and certain life-forms which enable us to survive.

Our morality does, however, suggest a close link with the carnivores in the animal kingdom, except that we will kill fellow humans and other animals even when we are not hungry for sustenance. Yet, our ethereal souls can uplift us to great heights, offering hope that we can repeatedly recover from each cosmic cataclysm; that is, that the human species will earn its right to live on Earth.

Darwin, Gaia, and Attenborough

In the Darwinian explanation of evolution, life forms compete for survival. They do so by adapting to the environment. Their path is one of chance. Random genetic mutations may provide, in time, a competitive advantage over others of the same species. Since intra-species evolution (but not inter-species evolution) has been proven, one could then focus on apparent anomalies.

I instance the change in colouration achieved by some insects which makes them invisible (in effect) against the colouration of the tree trunk or leaf against which these insects are sited. Do random mutation plus ‘natural selection’ ex plain this achievement adequately?

Perhaps Gaia had something to do with this. Remember James Lovelock? He claimed that there is a living entity which achieves balance in the health of Earth; which looks after Earth. This is a wonderful concept. Instead of random autonomous processes affecting survival, Gaia, the spirit guide of Earth, endeavours to influence the survival of life and its environments, in a balanced manner, as a self-organising system. Self-governing systems are apparently to be found in the Universe, at both macro and micro levels.

Then came David Attenborough on TV with his displays of adaptation in the relationships between plants and animals. The way he describes what happens suggests wilful evolutionary change by one party, to counter excessive damage by the relationship partner; this then produces a wilful evolutionary counter-change by the partner.

I instance a plant which apparently developed thorns to minimise the damage being done by a particular animal. In time, this animal developed a counter to deal with the thorns. The outcome was a balance in respective needs. What is significant here is that purpose (intention) seems to be involved.

Perhaps purpose is also provoked in Darwinian adaptation and in Gaia balance.

A dearth of adequate explanations

Of what use is the mechanistic material paradigm in explaining some very real experiences which are non-material and not mechanistic in process (in terms of Newton’s laws). As a layman, I do appreciate that we have worked well within this paradigm to place satellites in space – and also achieve all the rest of our scientific advances.

However, where are the explanations for these real experiences of mine?
• I am floating horizontally just under the ceiling, looking down upon my body laid out on a single bed. But I am still here.

• I saw, during my sleep one night, the dead body of my father laid out in a particular manner, six days before he died. There was no fear associated with this experience. On the seventh day he was laid out exactly as in my dream. I had no say in the presentation.

• A total stranger foretold our meeting six months ahead when I was in another country. No one involved in my life had any plans for me at that time; neither had I.

• I saw, together with a number of others, a live body lying on a mattress suspended in the air. The ropes attached to the corners of the mattress dangled in the slight breeze.

• The spirit of my favourite uncle manifested himself to my clairvoyant. Without ears and eyes of substance, he could apparently see me, hear me, and then respond to what I had said to the clairvoyant. Without a brain of substance, he recalled relationships in his mortal life; that is, his mortal memory was clearly intact. His communication with the clairvoyant was silent (through their minds?).

• Way back in the 1940s, a friend of mine and I saw what had to be a spaceship in the sky. It changed directions thrice, before disappearing most speedily into the distance.

These were real experiences. Of course, I have read many an attempted explanation by professional scientists which explained nothing about certain challenging circumstances. I instance ‘punctuated equilibrium.’ This seems to be an attempt to deny genetic mutations caused by cosmic catastrophes. These can apparently produce new and completely functional species. I have read that this process might take about 71 generations over 2,000 years.

The apparently purposive adaptation by some insects to achieve an external colouration to match precisely the tree trunk or leaf on which they normally site themselves cannot be adequately explained by Darwinian evolutionary processes. The adaptation might be seen to be too successful to be the result of random processes. Is purpose involved?

Surely, God’s Will, the Big Bang cosmogony, Darwinian evolution, and all the theologians one might fit onto the head of a thumbtack, as well as the scientists working successfully within the current mechanistic material paradigm have not provided explanations about non-material events necessary to satisfy rational minds.

But then, what is a rational mind? For, the Hindu metaphysical paradigm says that the mind is only an instrument of Consciousness. Then, what is Consciousness?

A possible explanation of a cataclysm

‘The cycle of cosmic catastrophes: flood, fire and famine in the history of civilisation’ by Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith offers a very detailed scenario to explain the cosmic event which culminated about 13,000 years ago. The authors postulate a supernova explosion – which is apparently probable.

The sequence of events presented in this book is as follows: an initial radiation wave, affecting mainly Southeast Asia and Australia, about 41,000 years ago; the first shock wave, “unnoticed by those on Earth” about 34,000 years ago; the second shock wave about 16,000 years ago; and a most destructive debris wave about 13,000 years ago. It was this wave which caused the horrendous damage experienced by all on Earth; and it seemed to have impacted on other parts of the solar system as well.

“Much of the human race perished in or near Southeast Asia” from the first radiation wave. However, “Human genetic mutation led to a larger brain size, fostering art, music, and a burst of creativity.” There were, overall, significantly adverse water-and-ice effects, as well as climate-related effects and biosystem effects – all pretty horrible – from the bombardments. The survivors among Native American tribes provided evidence of their experience of the terrible events which culminated about 13,000 years ago. These are quoted in the book.

Yet, about 45,000 to 30,000 years ago, Cro-Magnon humans, who were “like human people,” “appeared suddenly,” and Neanderthal humans “began to disappear or assimilate.”

One nearby supernova explosion led to all that? What was the alternative – total annihilation of all forms of life on Earth? Except possibly the ubiquitous bacterium!

Cosmic collisions trigger extinctions

“In 1980, Luis Alvarez and a group of other scientists discovered evidence for the extinction of the dinosaurs by a huge impact event which researchers eventually linked to a hidden crater on the Yucatan Peninsula. Before their research, no one had found a strong connection between impacts and extinctions. Not long after that, in 1984, Paul Raup and Jack Sepkoski proposed that the dinosaur extinction was only one of about ten large extinctions that seemed to follow a regularly recurring pattern at about 26-million-year intervals.

Of the ten, the largest occurred about 65, 210, 245, 364, and 440 million years ago … the one 245 million years ago was particularly catastrophic; an incredible 90 percent of all life disappeared from the planet.” (Extract from ‘The cycle of cosmic catastrophes’ by Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith on mass extinctions.)

A more recent extinction was only 2 million years ago (refer Benitez and colleagues in the above book). It might be linked to supernovae. However, “ Supernovae are one of the several mechanisms that can produce extinctions … “

“ We do not believe or suggest that just the supernova or just the impacts caused the extinctions of the megafauna – it was more complicated than that. Some percentage of plants or animals perished from each of the following causes, although some are more important than others:
• Supernova radiation, both directly and through genetic damage
• High-velocity supernova particle bombardment
• Impact blast wave and heat
• Impact-related flying debris
• Fires, both directly and through destruction of the food supply
• Toxic chemicals and heavy metals in the air and water
• Event-related climate changes, directly and by destruction of the food supply (chill theory)
• Epidemics induced by radiation and by ecosystem destruction (ill theory)
• predators, both human and animal, that hunted the surviving animals(overkill theory) “

The most recent extinction was only 13,000 years ago!

Evolution or cataclysm?

What was the skin colour of the earliest of the homo species? More relevantly, what was the skin colour of homo sapiens? Would it have been somewhere between black and white? Although modern Man came out of Africa (refer Oppenheimer), it does not mean that our ancestor was black. In fact, the colour of Neanderthal Man was recently assessed as coppery brown. Perhaps, taupe (dark-brownish grey) is the near-norm for humans and many animals (and many of the birds in my district).

I have read that the original colour of mankind was tan (dark honey). Prolonged exposure to the sun (say, at the coast) would obviously darken that skin, but that does not explain black skin colour. Furthermore, relatively dark-skinned people have been reported as resident in Taiwan, on the Chinese mainland, and Central America.

How then explain the whitish people – spread across the globe from East Asia to Europe and further West? Living away from the sun for eons cannot whiten a brown body. A suggested explanation is that a blast of cosmic radiation from a supernova, affecting the terrain centred on the Tropic of Cancer, occurring about 40,000 years ago, resulted in the descendants of the survivors becoming predominantly white (with a more coppery touch in the European peninsula of Asia). The Cosmos, rather than evolution, may have been responsible for all those denied a lovely colouration (I do admit my bias!)

As for black skin, could evolution, working through natural selection, have favoured those humans living in hot, tropical lands who had developed near-black to black skin through random mutation? The trigger for random mutation of our genes may most likely be the torrent of radiation flowing from the sun, as well as from space – and of which we are not aware!

The only explanation left is that the alleged 223 extra-terrestrial genes in Man were predisposed to black skin.

How did religiosity arise in Man?

One can imagine that, very early Man, in spite of habitually moving upright on 2 legs, behaved no differently from the animals when best by awesome, terribly frightening thunder and lightning accompanying heavy rain. As well, there may have been devastating explosions caused by a few deadly sporadic impacts by meteors, or even larger lumps of cosmic rock.

For instance, reportedly, there is a vast vertical tunnel about 20 kms deep into the sea adjacent to Chile. That might explain the sudden rise of the Andes mountain range; as well as the presence of sea shells at the top of this range. How would mankind – early or advanced – cope with that, or similar bombardments from the sky?

Did the feelings of awe and fear lead, somehow, to attempts to propitiate those imagined to be responsible for the clamour and catastrophes continually cast upon them? However, to conceive of an act of propitiation would surely require a brain far superior to that of Early Man. The latter may have evolved from, or been based upon, our alleged near-cousin in the animal kingdom.

Could random mutation somehow expand the conceptual capacity of the human brain? Or, did the extra-terrestrials who had introduced the extra 223 genes into Man been responsible? Or, did a cosmic cataclysm, in the form of an exceptional burst of radiation, alter the human brain, increasing its capacity for conceptualisation? This issue has nothing to do with brain size.

An interesting thought: did not THE Adam (refer the Bible), whether created, wrought, or evolved, have to learn about morality, about right or wrong behaviour? It does take a certain level of brain function to learn, as evidenced by animals (as well as people, of course) being trained. For instance, I trained a German Shepherd pup in 2 months, but failed with a pedigreed pup of another breed over 4 months.

Did the eventual move from propitiation to a full-blown religiosity require a further development of the human brain? If so, what were the physical causes? Or, were there social relationship causes; that is, learning to do things in a collective manner?