{"id":3432,"date":"2002-12-14T00:00:43","date_gmt":"2002-12-13T23:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/?p=3432"},"modified":"2024-02-23T17:02:58","modified_gmt":"2024-02-23T16:02:58","slug":"how-can-65-million-years-completely-vanish","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/2002\/12\/14\/how-can-65-million-years-completely-vanish\/","title":{"rendered":"How can 65 million years completely vanish?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Review of a revolutionary book by Christian Bloess<\/a>: Ceno-Crash<\/em> <\/strong>(Berlin 2000)<\/p>\n

That question raised above is answered by a carefully scientifically written book by Christian Bl\u00f6ss, Ceno-Crash<\/em> (Berlin 2000). He says what several authors in a line from H\u00f6rbiger to Muck taught \u2014and this reviewer, too \u2013 but here backs his position up with solid evidence. This is the topic : that recently there existed a high civilization possessing amazing technical capabilities in the relatively recent past, until catastrophe destroyed it.<\/p>\n

I want to state here the conclusion of this revolutionary book: “The objective consideration of possible evidence of advanced civilizations that may have existed before the Stone Age cannot avoid the conclusion that there is a high probability that forms of human culture existed in the past and that we have not known anything about them nor are part of them. The existing knowledge paradigm does not recognize this in any way.” (p. 214)<\/p>\n

Carefully formulated \u2014as always with Bl\u00f6ss\u2014 but unmistakably placed before us on the table-we must revise our outdated views, and begin with a new, completely open-mind! Bl\u00f6ss not only redesigns that “Atlantis”-variation of historical science, showing for the first time and quite clearly, the chronological framework for that prehistoric high culture. The catastrophe separating Cretaceous and Tertiary, assumed by all to have led to the extinction of myriad animal species- especially dinosaurs- is in fact the very same event we\u2019re told is the end of the Ice Age; which itself was merely 5,000 years ago instead of 10,000.<\/p>\n

This makes their artificial extension of the Neolithic superfluous, that Age and those difficulties highlit by Heinsohn suddenly becomes solvable and furthermore the hitherto inexplicable (and completely unreal) Mesolithic is simply eliminated. Then there\u2019s the problems of human development during the “Stone Age\u201d being over burdening with all those numerous unfounded millennia when mankind experienced these catastrophic events, is all contrary to the reality which astronomy, maps and metallurgical knowledge describe.<\/p>\n

“If the end of the Ice Age \u2014or whatever event is hidden behind the relevant evidence\u2014 were allowed to move closer to the” Bronze Age”\u2014 to within a few centuries even\u2014 then the question of advanced cultures would automatically become an elephant in the room. Or is homo sapiens supposed to have entered history for the first time with this phrase.” (ibid). Bl\u00f6ss opposes thoughtless spinning out of old catastrophe theses (as with the Viennese couple the Tollmanns) or a relapsing into the biblical chronology (Zillmer, e.g. p. 119) by rigorously focusing on the question of dating: What are these scenarios based on for millennia (or even millions of years)? How did these numbers come about, what do they achieve? They mystify!<\/p>\n

“We originally concentrated on questions of finding a chronology … Now it becomes clear that fundamental errors in history, including paleoanthropology, can only be effectively identified and cleared up when the timeframe, which is significant for the origin and development of the human race, becomes illuminated and now free of prejudice can be utterly repositioned.” (p. 214). After carefully reading this book, this might be an absolute requirement for all scientists. Bl\u00f6ss shows with his analytical sharpness, what all previous dating approaches suffer from: They are circular conclusions that are based on preconceived assumptions – even preconceived dates – and are hence unworthy of real science. Utterly so.<\/p>\n

In detail (Chapters 4 and 5) he attacks the approach taken by geologists and paleontologists drawing up their chronology. He presents the three cardinal errors of scientists: actualism, gradualism and evolutionary theory.<\/p>\n

First of all, a methodological deficiency is denounced: Due to an allegedly scientific procedure, differently characterized but simultaneously created layers are laid one after the other due to their unexplained dating. This doubles the two jointly occupied periods. And further: Since species are supposed to have emerged gradually one after the other through evolution, the species placed one after the other must be connected by a missing intermediate time, which constitutes a further time slot. Without a discussion about the duration of stratification or development processes, these errors must surely be recognized as absurd in themselves. Added to this is the stratification, which extends over millions of years but which in fact often take place in far shorter time periods, such as can be seen, for example, from the folding of high mountains: Only plastic material can deform to this extent, and only when its fresh, not after millions of years of hardening. It would break! The fossils, imprints and weathering traces lying on the surface of the earth would have to have been pressed for millions of years under kilometer-high layers according to the current scheme- which is simply not the case.<\/p>\n

The problem becomes particularly difficult for geologists when layers are in “reverse” order. Crazy scenarios have to be devised here that cannot be backed up by what\u2019s found in nature. As a preliminary result one could formulate: The currently taught sequence of formations and their duration are incompatible with meaningful considerations. Similar to the previous book C14-Crash<\/strong><\/em> (Graefelfing 1997), written jointly with Hans-Ulrich Niemitz<\/strong>, the historical development of the individual chronological approaches is presented and their unscientific manner of origin is revealed. In this new book, Bl\u00f6ss (in Chapter 6) examines above all the potassium-argon method of age determination and the “sea-floor-spreading” theory and recognizes that the basic assumptions are based on completely outdated thought patterns: Uniformity and Actualism.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Mammoth model at the Rancho la Brea Tear Pits Museum | Jerry and Roy Klotz<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Once the possibility of a cosmic cataclysm is considered, these assumptions are eo ipso worthless. If geologists include the final Cretaceous impact (as one has got used to calling this first academically debatable catastrophe) as a reasonable explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs, but insist on the dating at 65 million years, then they are making a mistake which screams to heaven. Deposits, which according to popular belief have been calculated over millions of years, can equally have occurred in days or weeks, including a catastrophe. H\u00f6rbiger had made this clear as early as 1913 with great precision. Animal mass graves like the one at Rancho La Brea (California) did not emerge over long periods of time, says Bl\u00f6ss (p. 193 f), but are rather the result of a single overwhelming event. This also applies to all other fossil cemeteries.<\/p>\n

This turns the long development process into a short-term scenario that sweeps aside Darwin and Haeckel as well as Lyell and Agassiz and – quite frankly – all the latest attempts to save those explanatory models. “If stratification is actually event-oriented, then the global synchronizability of the testimonies can no longer be taken for granted. At the same time, it would be naive to always assume a global connection for any typical strata, especially if they are to last millions of years . 70 million years of the global process of deposition of charred particles would be such an implausible scenario.” (p. 117) It is not only unbelievable, but totally absurd, as H\u00f6rbiger found out. Every layer of coal, every seam, must have been connected with a single revolution of the earth, and therefore formed in a day! After Bl\u00f6ss, visions are awakened that are of the first magnitude: instead of omitting 300 years in the Middle Ages, instead of sinking a few millennia of early oriental history, the entire Cenozoic era \u2014Tertiary and Quaternary together, i.e. around 65 million years\u2014 is deleted without replacement. Or to put it briefly (after Wilhelm B\u00f6lsche): We are still stuck in chalk.<\/p>\n

This tremendous stroke of genius is well-founded and even explainable in an understandable way. If this isn’t a revolution in science! And to this comes the conclusion for the layperson that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries (p. 67). This idea is really as old as the heroic legends when you use the native dragon instead of the dinosaur. This idea was widespread in the baroque era, H\u00f6rbiger brought it back into discussion, Edgar Dacqu\u00e9 even announced it from his chair for geology in Munich, and the reviewer not only wrote in 1977 (“Das Erbe der Giganten”) and 1988 (“Wiedergeburt”) claims like this, but has recently interfered again with more daring hypotheses (in Mehner ed., March 1999): Many of those prehistoric Cyclopean walls, neither strategically nor otherwise apparently useful, would have been built as defensive walls against those primeval creatures. Use common sense!<\/p>\n

However, criticism can be made, especially since it is a type of errors that also appear in other publications. It is not necessary to try to maintain the sequence “Bronze Age – Iron Age” and to explain it with a change in the atmospheric composition (p. 81). This order comes from mythical interpretations, from the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament and from Hesiod among the Greeks. One should rather speak of the metal age, because the production of steel and other metals was probably “invented” at the same time. A simple explanation for the series connection of the two types of movement would be that iron rusts faster (and thus disappears more quickly) than bronze. Leftover iron objects are therefore usually younger than bronze pieces. Rudolf Virchow’s misjudgment about the Neanderthal skull is often quoted (also by Bl\u00f6ss, p. 91), whereby one usually ignores the fact that Virchow (1821-1902) was not only a great doctor, but also achieved a lot in the archaeological field ( his political commitment also deserves the highest respect) – but: is it really certain that the few skulls of the Neanderthal type are not a “pathological” special form? Virchow claimed that the skull found in Neandertal came from a person who had suffered from rickets and arthritis and was therefore peculiarly deformed. (Contrary to Bl\u00f6ss’s assertion though, the story of the Cossack who fell there in 1814 does not come from Virchow).<\/p>\n

The embedding of Virchow’s judgment in the creationist worldview of his contemporaries, which Bl\u00f6ss undertakes here, seems to me inappropriate, since Virchow was a materialist and thought in scientific terms. Bl\u00f6ss writes in the same context (p. 92): “In principle, science was a pillar of the Christian religion and was never perceived as a real danger.” On the contrary: Haeckel was terribly hostile and had to fear for his life because Christians saw themselves robbed of their religious foundation by the whole doctrine of \u201cevolution\u201d. There are still states in the USA today where this teaching is prohibited. Regardless of whether it is a pathological case, freak, forgery (like Piltdown) or some fallen Cossack, the Neanderthal is no longer our ancestor anyway. It was Bl\u00f6ss who made it clear to us in an earlier book (Jenseits von Darwin, Frankfurt \/ M. 1988) that the Darwinian family tree is illogical; even in the new scheme presented here, the doctrine of descent no longer has any place, because from now on fossils are only regarded as “markers of a point in time”, no longer as links in a (fragile) chain of successive evolutionary processes.<\/p>\n

In any case, this book is a big clean-up of the geological sandpit. However, it is not just about the 65 million years of the New Earth Era, but about a radical renewal of the scientific thought process. The judgment obtained using the C14 crash about all physical dating attempts is consistently applied here and emphatically dealt with. Everyone reading this will no longer talk about layers of rocks laid down over millions of years, as continues to be in every textbook (and repeated here on p. 66 for forgetful readers), but recognise it for this \u2013 as in Geise 1996 (Synesis No. 16: ” Das Problem mit den Sauriern “). The \u201cdating problem\u201d has now completely undermined all current conclusions.<\/p>\n

A short english text of the book\u00a0\u00a0quoted earlier by Bl\u00f6ss and Niemitz on C-14-Dating can be found here:<\/p>\n

Christian Bl\u00f6ss and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz: The Self-Deception of the C14 Method and Dendrochronology<\/a> (from Zeitenspr\u00fcnge 8 – 1996)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Review of a revolutionary book by Christian Bloess: Ceno-Crash (Berlin 2000) That question raised above is answered by a carefully scientifically written book by Christian Bl\u00f6ss, Ceno-Crash (Berlin 2000). He says what several authors in a line from H\u00f6rbiger to Muck taught \u2014and this reviewer, too \u2013 but here backs his position up with solid evidence. This is the topic : that recently there existed a high civilization possessing amazing technical capabilities in the relatively recent past, until catastrophe destroyed it. I want to state here the conclusion of this revolutionary book: “The objective consideration of possible evidence of advanced civilizations that may have existed before the Stone Age cannot avoid the conclusion that there is a high probability that forms of human culture existed in the past and that we have not known anything about them nor are part of them. The existing knowledge paradigm does not recognize this in any way.” (p. 214) Carefully formulated \u2014as always with Bl\u00f6ss\u2014 but unmistakably placed before us on the table-we must revise our outdated views, and begin with a new, completely open-mind! Bl\u00f6ss not only redesigns that “Atlantis”-variation of historical science, showing for the first time and quite clearly, the chronological framework for that prehistoric high culture. The catastrophe separating Cretaceous and Tertiary, assumed by all to have led to the extinction of myriad animal species- especially dinosaurs- is in fact the very same event we\u2019re told is the end of the Ice Age; which itself was merely 5,000 years ago instead of 10,000. This makes their artificial extension of the Neolithic superfluous, that Age and those difficulties highlit by Heinsohn suddenly becomes solvable and furthermore the hitherto inexplicable (and completely unreal) Mesolithic is simply eliminated. Then there\u2019s the problems of human development during the “Stone Age\u201d being over burdening with all those numerous unfounded millennia when mankind experienced these catastrophic events, is all contrary to the reality which astronomy, maps and metallurgical knowledge describe. “If the end of the Ice Age \u2014or whatever event is hidden behind the relevant evidence\u2014 were allowed to move closer to the” Bronze Age”\u2014 to within a few centuries even\u2014 then the question of advanced cultures would automatically become an elephant in the room. Or is homo sapiens supposed to have entered history for the first time with this phrase.” (ibid). Bl\u00f6ss opposes thoughtless spinning out of old catastrophe theses (as with the Viennese couple the Tollmanns) or a relapsing into the biblical chronology (Zillmer, e.g. p. 119) by rigorously focusing on the question of dating: What are these scenarios based on for millennia (or even millions of years)? How did these numbers come about, what do they achieve? They mystify! “We originally concentrated on questions of finding a chronology … Now it becomes clear that fundamental errors in history, including paleoanthropology, can only be effectively identified and cleared up when the timeframe, which is significant for the origin and development of the human race, becomes illuminated and now free of prejudice can be utterly repositioned.” (p. 214). After carefully reading this book, this might be an absolute requirement for all scientists. Bl\u00f6ss shows with his analytical sharpness, what all previous dating approaches suffer from: They are circular conclusions that are based on preconceived assumptions – even preconceived dates – and are hence unworthy of real science. Utterly so. In detail (Chapters 4 and 5) he attacks the approach taken by geologists and paleontologists drawing up their chronology. He presents the three cardinal errors of scientists: actualism, gradualism and evolutionary theory. First of all, a methodological deficiency is denounced: Due to an allegedly scientific procedure, differently characterized but simultaneously created layers are laid one after the other due to their unexplained dating. This doubles the two jointly occupied periods. And further: Since species are supposed to have emerged gradually one after the other through evolution, the species placed one after the other must be connected by a missing intermediate time, which constitutes a further time slot. Without a discussion about the duration of stratification or development processes, these errors must surely be recognized as absurd in themselves. Added to this is the stratification, which extends over millions of years but which in fact often take place in far shorter time periods, such as can be seen, for example, from the folding of high mountains: Only plastic material can deform to this extent, and only when its fresh, not after millions of years of hardening. It would break! The fossils, imprints and weathering traces lying on the surface of the earth would have to have been pressed for millions of years under kilometer-high layers according to the current scheme- which is simply not the case. The problem becomes particularly difficult for geologists when layers are in “reverse” order. Crazy scenarios have to be devised here that cannot be backed up by what\u2019s found in nature. As a preliminary result one could formulate: The currently taught sequence of formations and their duration are incompatible with meaningful considerations. Similar to the previous book C14-Crash (Graefelfing 1997), written jointly with Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, the historical development of the individual chronological approaches is presented and their unscientific manner of origin is revealed. In this new book, Bl\u00f6ss (in Chapter 6) examines above all the potassium-argon method of age determination and the “sea-floor-spreading” theory and recognizes that the basic assumptions are based on completely outdated thought patterns: Uniformity and Actualism. Once the possibility of a cosmic cataclysm is considered, these assumptions are eo ipso worthless. If geologists include the final Cretaceous impact (as one has got used to calling this first academically debatable catastrophe) as a reasonable explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs, but insist on the dating at 65 million years, then they are making a mistake which screams to heaven. Deposits, which according to popular belief have been calculated over millions of years, can equally have occurred in days or weeks, including a catastrophe. H\u00f6rbiger had made this clear as early as 1913 with great precision. Animal mass graves like the one at Rancho La Brea (California) did not emerge over long periods of time, says Bl\u00f6ss (p. 193 f), but are rather the result of a single overwhelming event. This also applies to all other fossil cemeteries. This turns the long development process into a short-term scenario that sweeps aside Darwin and Haeckel as well as Lyell and Agassiz and – quite frankly – all the latest attempts to save those explanatory models. “If stratification is actually event-oriented, then the global synchronizability of the testimonies can no longer be taken for granted. At the same time, it would be naive to always assume a global connection for any typical strata, especially if they are to last millions of years . 70 million years of the global process of deposition of charred particles would be such an implausible scenario.” (p. 117) It is not only unbelievable, but totally absurd, as H\u00f6rbiger found out. Every layer of coal, every seam, must have been connected with a single revolution of the earth, and therefore formed in a day! After Bl\u00f6ss, visions are awakened that are of the first magnitude: instead of omitting 300 years in the Middle Ages, instead of sinking a few millennia of early oriental history, the entire Cenozoic era \u2014Tertiary and Quaternary together, i.e. around 65 million years\u2014 is deleted without replacement. Or to put it briefly (after Wilhelm B\u00f6lsche): We are still stuck in chalk. This tremendous stroke of genius is well-founded and even explainable in an understandable way. If this isn’t a revolution in science! And to this comes the conclusion for the layperson that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries (p. 67). This idea is really as old as the heroic legends when you use the native dragon instead of the dinosaur. This idea was widespread in the baroque era, H\u00f6rbiger brought it back into discussion, Edgar Dacqu\u00e9 even announced it from his chair for geology in Munich, and the reviewer not only wrote in 1977 (“Das Erbe der Giganten”) and 1988 (“Wiedergeburt”) claims like this, but has recently interfered again with more daring hypotheses (in Mehner ed., March 1999): Many of those prehistoric Cyclopean walls, neither strategically nor otherwise apparently useful, would have been built as defensive walls against those primeval creatures. Use common sense! However, criticism can be made, especially since it is a type of errors that also appear in other publications. It is not necessary to try to maintain the sequence “Bronze Age – Iron Age” and to explain it with a change in the atmospheric composition (p. 81). This order comes from mythical interpretations, from the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament and from Hesiod among the Greeks. One should rather speak of the metal age, because the production of steel and other metals was probably “invented” at the same time. A simple explanation for the series connection of the two types of movement would be that iron rusts faster (and thus disappears more quickly) than bronze. Leftover iron objects are therefore usually younger than bronze pieces. Rudolf Virchow’s misjudgment about the Neanderthal skull is often quoted (also by Bl\u00f6ss, p. 91), whereby one usually ignores the fact that Virchow (1821-1902) was not only a great doctor, but also achieved a lot in the archaeological field ( his political commitment also deserves the highest respect) – but: is it really certain that the few skulls of the Neanderthal type are not a “pathological” special form? Virchow claimed that the skull found in Neandertal came from a person who had suffered from rickets and arthritis and was therefore peculiarly deformed. (Contrary to Bl\u00f6ss’s assertion though, the story of the Cossack who fell there in 1814 does not come from Virchow). The embedding of Virchow’s judgment in the creationist worldview of his contemporaries, which Bl\u00f6ss undertakes here, seems to me inappropriate, since Virchow was a materialist and thought in scientific terms. Bl\u00f6ss writes in the same context (p. 92): “In principle, science was a pillar of the Christian religion and was never perceived as a real danger.” On the contrary: Haeckel was terribly hostile and had to fear for his life because Christians saw themselves robbed of their religious foundation by the whole doctrine of \u201cevolution\u201d. There are still states in the USA today where this teaching is prohibited. Regardless of whether it is a pathological case, freak, forgery (like Piltdown) or some fallen Cossack, the Neanderthal is no longer our ancestor anyway. It was Bl\u00f6ss who made it clear to us in an earlier book (Jenseits von Darwin, Frankfurt \/ M. 1988) that the Darwinian family tree is illogical; even in the new scheme presented here, the doctrine of descent no longer has any place, because from now on fossils are only regarded as “markers of a point in time”, no longer as links in a (fragile) chain of successive evolutionary processes. In any case, this book is a big clean-up of the geological sandpit. However, it is not just about the 65 million years of the New Earth Era, but about a radical renewal of the scientific thought process. The judgment obtained using the C14 crash about all physical dating attempts is consistently applied here and emphatically dealt with. Everyone reading this will no longer talk about layers of rocks laid down over millions of years, as continues to be in every textbook (and repeated here on p. 66 for forgetful readers), but recognise it for this \u2013 as in Geise 1996 (Synesis No. 16: ” Das Problem mit den Sauriern “). The \u201cdating problem\u201d has now completely undermined all current conclusions. A short english text of the book\u00a0\u00a0quoted earlier by Bl\u00f6ss and Niemitz on C-14-Dating can be found here: Christian Bl\u00f6ss and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz: The Self-Deception of the C14 Method and Dendrochronology (from Zeitenspr\u00fcnge 8 – 1996)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":4078,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,30,27],"tags":[95,94],"class_list":["post-3432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-book-reviews","category-catastrophes","category-prehistory","tag-ice-age","tag-tertiary"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2002\/12\/ammoniten.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3432"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3432\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4101,"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3432\/revisions\/4101"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4078"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chronologiekritik.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}