Work of Harley Borgais

harleyborgais · **#1181** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 23, 2011 7:49 am

I am really hoping that more of "How We Exist" can be proven wrong soon, because I am working on another edit and posting it as .html this time so I can link the images here.

So are there any more points in "How We Exist" that can be specifically proven wrong?
(Of course we need to have evidence or its pointless to respond)

Spearthrower · **#1182** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 23, 2011 9:52 am

harleyborgais wrote:Oh, the ejected mass is I guess it was 9:1, someone else posted that, and that the meteor was about 10 miles diameter.

The accuracy of those numbers wasn't that important. Anyways, here is what I am thinking now, given the latest info....

There were more than ten meteors large enough to put many cubic miles of water into the range of earth orbits.
The water would be mostly vaporized as it goes up and would be mixed with minerals.
The molten rock would mostly expel the water as it hardened on its way up.
The water would begin to freeze as it passe the highest lenticular clouds about 50 miles high.
The water would be mostly small, but also large chunks as it froze.
Some portion would achieve orbit.
Water 100-22,000 miles high would be frozen most of the time, like comets are, but...
Whenever ice is hit directly by the suns light when well out of the atmosphere would melt, but refreeze as soon as out of the radiation.
Larger solid chunks would break up into smaller bits, but they could melt and refreeze into sheets over time.

The amount of water to make an ice sheet able to noticeable reduce the UV light on earth is all I am suggesting.
The UV light does ionize and cause free radicals which are ions which do harm all life forms, including plants.
Plants use the lower range of visible to infra red light wavelengths. Lower UV light does not Ionize, but also barely gets through the atmosphere.

Less free radical production = longer lives.

Meters could punch through this without bringing it down, and it would not increase the pressure on the atmosphere for the same reason...

The forces of gravity pulling down, and centrifugal force throwing it out (from tangent velocity) are balanced, which is why it orbits, the other material knocked out of this balance looses orbit, but the entire structure does not have the durability to be brought down by one meteor, especially when in the sunlight, and some of the water melts briefly.

It would take a meteor shower to really bring it down, and probably on the dark side (meteors from the belt past mars of further).

When it came down, it would melt, but could not heat further than boiling temp for water.
It would become clouds, which would be excessive, and could take a while to fall.

Torrential downfall could flood all the lands, but I still don't think the original texts really said all the mountains or all the life on the entire planet. I illustrated what the original Genesis said earlier to show the difference.

Further more, the direction of orbit -around the equator or poles-, does not really matter if the gravity and velocity are the main factors, and if the magnetic field is not significant, except for the fact that the earth bulges around the equator, giving a more elliptical path for polar orbits. This would effect angles of orbits.

If you look at the angles of orbits on the wiki pages and envision meteors forming craters wider than 100 miles (the min. orbital height), than imagine all that matter shot into space, you can then see how a good portion of that matter will orbit.

Since the statistically most probable angle of impact is in the middle, at 45 degrees, the ejected material would most often have a trajectory slanted in one direction, increasing the overall amount that orbits, and decreasing the chance of colliding with material sent in other directions.

Life forms with protection from UV rays, and those who do things like eat clay and other free radical removing detoxifiers, live longer, and grow larger than life forms exposed to more UV radiation.

Whales, urchins, sea turtles and tortoises, parrots, squid, the largest mushroom, and the largest forest that is a single tree, these all avoid UV radiation and grow large and live long.

Short lived things include fruit flys, Humans somewhat, dogs, cats, most reptiles and amphibians (the more armor and time under water or under ground the larger and longer lived).

The Free radicals in nearly ever single un-natural thing we eat or drink contribute to nearly every disease known to man.
That even effects contagions because it effects our ability to defend against them.
So free radicals shorten lifespans. Ions cause reactions, and harm cells.

In the past, the Carboniferous period from about 390mya - 290mya there were huge trees, lots of oxygen, then the largest death ever, then great diversification of life, and curiously little oxygen. Gradually things got larger again, then 200mya another great death. Now dinosaurs rule, the non scaly things could not handle the toxic and harsh environment from the meteor and volcanic activity that usually follows.

65mya the next great big meteor kills the dinos and underground mammals flourish after.
Again, animals start getting really big, until about 14,000 down to 10,000 years ago when most of the large animals which had adapted to the cold environment, could not handle the sudden change. As seen in the ice record, the temp increases following dust in the air, and co2 follows temp, because it is released from the ocean with heat. So the cooling is slow, the heating is rapid.

Also, there is a pattern found (linked earlier) showing three cycles which overlap to cause the ice and warm ages on an irregular pattern. one 100,000 years, one 40,000 years, and the other is 26,000 or 52,000 I think.

So I think that perhaps 75,000 years ago a meteor hit odessa texas, and perhaps also near the UK, and likely many others as well, and the shower brought down the ice once and for all, but only because it had settled into a sheet over a long process of freezing, clumping, breaking, melting, refreezing, and gradually spreading out in orbit.

That unusually heated the environment, flooded everywhere, especially the Mediterranean I think, and made it so only the blood lines of five Homo Sapien -Sapien Females from that time were able to continue to this day, thanks to the long time the world would have taken to recover from that flood.
Also remember, the world was frozen 75,000 years ago, so the smaller impacts would be lost, but we do have the larger ones, and the increased heat would melt much ice, which would add to the flooding, but that would refreeze soon, and cause even more problems. That would be a lot for life to handle, unless you lived high in a cave perhaps, or had an ark.

Seriously Harley - this isn't even worth the time to read, let alone respond to.

Science isn't conducted by just throwing out what we think might happen, it's about finding evidence as to what did actually happen.

Spearthrower · **#1183** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 23, 2011 9:57 am

harleyborgais wrote:I am really hoping that more of "How We Exist" can be proven wrong soon, because I am working on another edit and posting it as .html this time so I can link the images here.

So are there any more points in "How We Exist" that can be specifically proven wrong?
(Of course we need to have evidence or its pointless to respond)

Well, how about posting them in a clear format? I don't even know what you're talking about let alone be able to respond to it. If it's on how we humans exist, I can probably present a strong critique. If it's into the realms of physics, it's out of my area of expertise.

If it's somewhere back in this thread, then can you either present a link or quote yourself? If it's on your site, can you summarise the key points here?

Please try and attain a clear format; reading your posts gives me vertigo, so quickly do you leap from one point to another, then reverse and add on points to your initial claims... it's not very coherent.

Simple bullet points would be good.

Sovereign · **#1184** by **Sovereign** » Jul 23, 2011 7:31 pm

harleyborgais wrote:
Lucek: However you still haven't covered my actual point that the maximum amount of ejecta with perfect non-real-world physics is only a fraction of the water already in the atmosphere.

How not, I calculated the amount of water from the meteor 65mya as 9,000 cubic miles, -using your ratio of 9:1 and the 10 mile diameter or the meteor (obviously rounded up, but these are guesses anyways). It figures at .13mm thick if at elevation of 100 miles and spread all the way around the planet.

-----------ALRIGHT PEOPLE, LETS FOCUS ON THIS ONE POINT FOR A BIT... ---------------------------------

What happens to 9,000 cubic miles of water when it is propelled into orbital trajectories?
Considering the sea of space junk up there now, why would water NOT stay in orbit indefinitely?

Didn't we already cover this several months ago in this thread? Space junk and water are not the same thing. Space junk is not a continual layer and it is solid on both the sun side and the dark side of the Earth. You keep forgetting about orbital velocity which lucek keeps pointing out among other things. If there was a continual water canopy, how did the water at the poles stay in orbit? That is a key question you have to answer. Also, in space, water goes from solid to vapor bypassing the liquid phase in the presence of the sun at the distance we are from the sun. You didn't look up the heat of vaporization tables like I told you to a while back. When the ice transitions to gas, where does it go in space and how does that gas refreeze back into a canopy? What's the mechanism? Also, how thick was this canopy and how high above the planet was it? There was no canopy ever and there is no model to show that there was because everyone who's started to model it has realized it's bullshit, which is why creationists have abandoned the idea wholesale except the ones who can't do math.

harleyborgais wrote:Spearthrower,

If you would post some links proving the origin of fossils on top of mountains, that would be great. Collecting reference links is one goal I have for this thread. Those are what really help people figure out the truth (regardless of the conjectures we post).

Um, I posted some links and told you to message the geologist who made those videos so you could get a better understanding of geology and why there were fossils on top of mountains. What happened to that? Did you not watch them? Did you not contact that geologist? I checked the thread, those videos are still working.

harleyborgais · **#1185** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 5:52 am

Here is the most 2nd recent draft "How We Exist":
http://www.freeornottobe.org/freeornott ... st%20(v3.0)3.10.2011.rtf

I am working on the latest one, making it .html code, and including all the corrections I have learned so far.

harleyborgais · **#1186** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 6:33 am

Sovereign,

Not sure if you have seen it all, but we have done the math for the Meteor impact 65mya, and it put water into the correct elevation for sure.

Does anyone dispute this much of it?

So what the water would do up there is the key point remaining.

HERES THE CATCH...Everyone has a different idea of what would happen, but no one can prove it so far.

I am working on it, just copied the triple point chart for water from wiki and added the values missing from the triple point and higher critical point. (really wish I could upload images instead of only link them)
---------------------

Now,
The Highest Lenticular clouds reach about 53 miles high, and the lowest orbit is about 100 miles, up to 22,000 miles for Geosynchronous orbits.

The triple point is freezing temp (32F) and AT 0.006 times pressure at sea level.
http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math ... source.htm

The elevation for that Pressure is around 150,000 ft/5,280= 28.4 miles high.
---Can someone verify this please?---------

That suggests that half way to the lenticular clouds water cannot be liquid, and certainly not in orbit....
BUT IS THAT RIGHT?

Now for temp...
The top of mt everest fluctuates from at least 131F to -90F.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremes_o ... _continent

So in the orbital and lenticular cloud ranges water is back and forth between gas and solid, but never water.
---------------------------

So, for the polar orbit...

If gravity and tangent velocity are really the only things to orbit, then a polar orbit is not different from one around the equator, except that is more elliptical (less circular).
-------------------
Now for trajectory....

The least likely angles of impact are obviously the extreme angles of 90 and 0 degrees. The most likely is in between, near or at 45 degrees. I referenced a physics modeling program from purdue university on that angle and was criticized.

Who would you rather trust to give you that number other than someone who put all that time into analyzing the data needed to create such a program to model meteor impacts?

-----------------
I did watch the geology videos, I did message the lady, and her response was simply no. At the least I was expecting some reference of insight, but she did not want to bother. I asked about what archaeological evidence there is for 4,400 years ago, if there was any evidence of a flood, and she just said no.
That response has no real value just as my claims alone do not either. Only the evidence matters, and that is what I was looking for, but she did not want to help
---------

There seems to be no model of the behavior of space in orbit, but no one can dispute the facts that several meteor impacts (probably far more than 10 that we can find) have ejected water and material into orbit. So why has that never been modeled?

There is the issue of tektites, which formed from impacts and are sent into orbit, I found one.
There is debate on whether that is how they form, but it seems the simplest answer to fit the evidence, and there is no better explanation.

----------- The mechanism ------------------

So, the water did go into orbit, but did it stay?
The water will go up and be steam then. It will freeze along the way when it cools to 32F. Above the 28 miles calculated above it will go from solid to gas at 32F.

So it will occasionally sublimate to gas if it is orbiting, when the sun directly strikes it.
When it does that the molecules will push apart and space out as much as they can.

Also the larger chunks will collide and break up. Space junk is mostly small bits thanks to that.

So any water that does attain orbital trajectory will become tiny solid particles and they will spread out.

We all know that these collisions make things fall, but only some of it falls.

Still working on the rest, this just moved me a tiny bit closer to a scientific conclusion, which no one else here has made yet.

You are all sure this is not possible, saying I have not proved it, but I am doing it bit-by-bit, and no one else can disprove it so far, scientifically, with objective truths, observable facts.

-------------------------------
Additional notes,
When the H2O molecules go from solid to gas, they will spread, but they will not lose their orbital momentum because of that.
Remember there is not much atmosphere up there to provide resistance.

"The Kármán line lies at an altitude of 100 kilometres (62 mi) above the Earth's sea level, and is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space.[2] This " wiki

So the lenticular clouds almost reach the edge of the atmosphere, and there is basically no atmosphere in orbit.

So where are the remaining faults in this theory?
Why [in fact] would the water NOT stay in orbit?
(I Keep asking this, but no one can directly prove why not, and I am proving why so bit by bit).

Spearthrower · **#1187** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 24, 2011 6:40 am

harleyborgais wrote:Here is the most 2nd recent draft "How We Exist":
http://www.freeornottobe.org/freeornott ... st%20(v3.0)3.10.2011.rtf

I am working on the latest one, making it .html code, and including all the corrections I have learned so far.

I'll wait for the html - that file's wanting to take the better part of an hour to download.

harleyborgais · **#1188** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 6:58 am

And for the topic of those videos, erosion, the grand canyon, and the continental shelf.

I do not propose the Grand canyon to be as young as 4,400 years old. If I did say that, or sounded like it, that was a mistaken idea. It is clearly older, shown by a great reference I posted back there which showed the geologic history of the grand canyon.

Here is what I do propose regarding these things....

That during the last ice age, 14,000 to 10,000 years ago roughly, while the ice was really melting...
There was a much lower sea level, probably right at the continental shelf.
Below that line does look like about 100,000 years of erosion which is the length of the last Ice age.
(note: these are rounded off numbers)

There are cities 10,000 years old and possibly up to 30,000 years old, around 70ft to 170ft under the ocean, the oldest and deepest are just west of india.

The continental shelf is less than 500ft down, so the water level has been rising for possibly the last 26,000 years or so (if the precession of the orbit is related to ice ages, which it is, the determining factors were referenced in a much earlier post).

Also, the last great concentration of dust in the earths atmosphere was about 28,000 years ago, when the neanderthals died off.
(See ice core data.)

I think the 26,000 years is possibly how long it takes the earths ellipse to rotate fully, relative to the constellations.

The main point I was trying to make is that the water from the flood would have added to the water above sea level.

According to mitochondrial ancestry the bottle neck of only five female DNA lines, from 75,000 years ago may line up with the above numbers, in that the sea level had to go from 500 feet lower than now, to 170ft lower than now, between 10,000 or 30,000 years for those cities, and many tens of thousands of years for the erosion below the shelf (presumably the 100,000 years of the previous ice age).

On point I have to give in on is the fossils on top of mountains. The ages of these mountains is the really important thing I was not considering. They have not existed for that long from what I see, only several million years perhaps.
Need to look into that more in the future, but not that important right now.

harleyborgais · **#1189** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 7:01 am

Just found this image showing history of sea levels..
http://sabhlok.files.wordpress.com/2010 ... imer31.jpg

---------------
Sorry the file is so large, but it will be quite a while before the html is done.
If you want to see it, you gotta download it.

Here is why it is so big...
(Note: it is only 26pgs, and it is posted in this thread a few pages back, except without the images, which are crucial)

I used .rtf format because that cannot transmit viruses, nor can .bmp, which I also used.
.bmp makes large files, and when I tried to use other formats in wordpad, it destroyed the document upon re-opening.

I am sorry for your slow connection, it is like 28Mb I think. Just let it go while you are doing something else.

harleyborgais · **#1190** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 8:10 am

Here is a comparison of temp vs elevation (three different sources match roughly)...
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/S ... 01_019.jpg

For water canopy theory
------------
For several historical references:

The ice core data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
more recent temps...http://wisp.physics.wisc.edu/astro104/l ... F08_31.jpg

The Sea Level History:
http://sabhlok.files.wordpress.com/2010 ... imer31.jpg

-----------------------
You can see how the 26,000 year or so precession of the orbit through the constellations is evident in the chart if you measure out something like you pinky that matches 26,000 years, and follow the peaks and troughs.

Also you can see how the water level roughly follows the temp if you combine the images...
And how the dust precedes the temp, which precedes the co2, because meteors and volcanoes cause the dust, which increases temperature, which releases co2 from the oceans, because colder = more co2 absorption.

Then look for significant meteor impact sites that date to all of these peaks on the dust chart and you will find them.
I have started listing them in the .html version, but it will be a long time before I finish and post it.
I plan to have plenty of references and support for every controversial claim and the basic math needed to define the proportions and relationships between the basic forces of nature, and a few other important things.

A later version will have much more.
-----------------------------

According to the temp/elevation chart, above the highest clouds, and into the orbital range, the temperature is significantly higher than anywhere below.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... k3_8CZ7wnN
http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/nov ... n-fig5.jpg
http://wisp.physics.wisc.edu/astro104/l ... F08_21.jpg

--------------
So in orbit, water will be gas in the sun, and ice in the dark, but not liquid, and whatever large chunks may freeze on the way up, would dissipate soon. There is no atmosphere up there, so...

I see no reason why the H2O would not maintain an Earth orbit if sent up by a meteor impacting at around 45 degrees, creating a crater more than 100 miles across, sending tons of water and other matter up there, which would turn to sleet or snow basically, and continue to orbit. There are strong static electric and plasma forces passing up there which could bring the snow/hail/sleet together gently into a soft sheet over a large area.

If it could avoid being brought down for millions of years like I think it did (250 to 19 million, see Extinction events and Nemesis)... then it could spread out.

How it would interact with the other stuff up there, and just how much were up there before we started filling it are still questions to be answered.

harleyborgais · **#1191** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 8:27 am

Here is something for the ancient city of Dwarka, found under the sea, west of India.
The age here says 21,000 years old. The TV documentary claimed 30,000, and that there were two cities, with huge stone structures. Still don't think this is the same find.

harleyborgais · **#1192** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 8:54 am

About the ancient cities...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R4U848Buts
http://satyabhashnam.blogspot.com/2009/ ... vedic.html

And the skulls of supposed alien rulers of ancient cities, sources of advanced ancient knowledge...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omm8Ey8v ... re=related

And here is an ocean depth map...
http://serc.carleton.edu/images/eslabs/ ... rscale.jpg
http://www.mantleplumes.org/images/Cent ... or_800.jpg

If there was an Atlantis it is cleat where it would have been, now I need to figure out the depth at the top of that peak in the middle of the Atlantic, is it less than 500ft deep, less than 200ft, 100ft, these are significant numbers (see previous posts).
If these legends are true, then I would expect to find more of these elongated skulls there perhaps.

Spearthrower · **#1193** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 24, 2011 9:50 am

harleyborgais wrote:Just found this image showing history of sea levels..
http://sabhlok.files.wordpress.com/2010 ... imer31.jpg

---------------
Sorry the file is so large, but it will be quite a while before the html is done.
If you want to see it, you gotta download it.

Here is why it is so big...
(Note: it is only 26pgs, and it is posted in this thread a few pages back, except without the images, which are crucial)

I used .rtf format because that cannot transmit viruses, nor can .bmp, which I also used.
.bmp makes large files, and when I tried to use other formats in wordpad, it destroyed the document upon re-opening.

I am sorry for your slow connection, it is like 28Mb I think. Just let it go while you are doing something else.

I have a 7mb connection: it's your server that's slow! I can download 28mb in a minute from other sites!

Spearthrower · **#1194** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 24, 2011 9:58 am

harleyborgais wrote:Here is something for the ancient city of Dwarka, found under the sea, west of India.
The age here says 21,000 years old. The TV documentary claimed 30,000, and that there were two cities, with huge stone structures. Still don't think this is the same find.

It's at most 6000 years old. Seriously, you put far too much credence into extremely dubious sources.

Further, it's not a 'city' - there are no real cities at this time; it's a settlement with a very small population, built on a trading highway. That's not to say that people didn't live there for millenia prior, but they left no structures prior to this.

Spearthrower · **#1195** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 24, 2011 9:59 am

harleyborgais wrote:About the ancient cities...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R4U848Buts
http://satyabhashnam.blogspot.com/2009/ ... vedic.html

And the skulls of supposed alien rulers of ancient cities, sources of advanced ancient knowledge...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omm8Ey8v ... re=related

And here is an ocean depth map...
http://serc.carleton.edu/images/eslabs/ ... rscale.jpg
http://www.mantleplumes.org/images/Cent ... or_800.jpg

If there was an Atlantis it is cleat where it would have been, now I need to figure out the depth at the top of that peak in the middle of the Atlantic, is it less than 500ft deep, less than 200ft, 100ft, these are significant numbers (see previous posts).
If these legends are true, then I would expect to find more of these elongated skulls there perhaps.

Oh man, this is just pathetic. You seriously undermine your credibility when you can't sort unadulterated guff from facts.

harleyborgais · **#1196** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 10:01 am

Some of them are just links with evidence to consider. First hand accounts and accounts passed down can still be facts, and should be considered as possible at first.

And the last ice age was 100,000 years long, I am correcting my post above now.

harleyborgais · **#1197** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 10:13 am

Actually the download from my server is faster for me because I am a few miles from it, it is a local company, if you are in Thailand, then that is the problem. The latency of the network thanks to all those servers causes you to get less of the 'turns' so to speak on a network hub/router/switcher. Maybe if you just let it go it will get faster.

Apparently the Mahabharata agrees with the 5,000 year old date from what I just watched, and it fits a great deal of scientific evidence from many fields, making me think I should give it more attention. But wasn't that just when it was submerged?

Supposedly the Nazi Bell (Wunderwaffe I think) was found, with all the documents, and it was tested and it moved around, and the design has been translated from the Mahabharata. All very important if even close to truth.

The age of those cities and the dates of flooding must have been determined exactly, but still I have not found the two large cities claimed to be 30,000 years old, 170ft down, close to Dwarka, on a TV documentary a few months ago here in Tempe, AZ.

Spearthrower · **#1198** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 24, 2011 10:19 am

harleyborgais wrote:Some of them are just links with evidence to consider.

The problem is separating the evidence from the absolute nonsense. The entire 'giants' stuff is seriously stupid, I think I lost brain cells just from clicking play.

harleyborgais wrote:First hand accounts and accounts passed down can still be facts, and should be considered as possible at first.

Did I say otherwise?

For example, the Maharabata has Davaraka being built several decades after the Mahabharat War, which places it at 3000 BC, not 21,000 or whatever other fabrications you've made up. That correlates with the archaeological evidence. So we've got a primary source from literary traditions, and hard evidence from the real world. Where then does this date of 20,000 and 30,000 come from? I can tell you: from some idiot sitting in their armchair projecting their wishful thinking onto it, and trying to link it to giants and aliens... that's where.

harleyborgais wrote:And the last ice age was 100,000 years long, I am correcting my post above now.

Yup, that's about right.

Spearthrower · **#1199** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 24, 2011 10:25 am

harleyborgais wrote:Actually the download from my server is faster for me because I am a few miles from it, it is a local company, if you are in Thailand, then that is the problem. The latency of the network thanks to all those servers causes you to get less of the 'turns' so to speak on a network hub/router/switcher. Maybe if you just let it go it will get faster.

Well, as I normally download from sites outside of Thailand, including the US, I don't see why it's particularly problematic because I am in Thailand. I admit that it's a bit slower than the advertised 7mb, but it should still bring down your page in a few minutes - it was getting slower the longer I left it. By the time I switched it off, it was at 4 hours.

harleyborgais wrote:Apparently the Mahabharata agrees with the 5,000 year old date from what I just watched, and it fits a great deal of scientific evidence from many fields, making me think I should give it more attention.

Well, yes precisely. 5000+ years ago is very likely to be the date of the settlement. But 21000 years? Pure fantasy.

harleyborgais wrote:But wasn't that just when it was submerged?

No, when it was constructed. But bear in mind that people probably lived in the region for millenia; they just didn't leave much in the way of material culture behind.

harleyborgais wrote:Supposedly the Nazi Bell (Wunderwaffe I think) was found, with all the documents, and it was tested and it moved around, and the design has been translated from the Mahabharata. All very important if even close to truth.

Complete nonsense. It's nonsense for so many reasons. It's so whacked it's not even worthy of a response.

harleyborgais wrote:The age of those cities and the dates of flooding must have been determined exactly, but still I have not found the two large cities claimed to be 30,000 years old, 170ft down, close to Dwarka, on a TV documentary a few months ago here in Tempe, AZ.

I very strongly suggest that you consider the possibility that the 'documentaries' you get on network TV are not robust sources of information, they are very light on education and very heavy on entertainment. If you listen carefully, you will find that they always put in weasel words like 'Some people say...' or 'Might this have been....?' because it's got precisely bugger all evidence for it.

Go direct to the sources Harley, this would help the credibility of your work a lot.

harleyborgais · **#1200** by **harleyborgais** » Jul 24, 2011 10:44 am

This sits says teeth from a city 120ft deep were dated 9,500 years old:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8965/
--------------------------

I know what you mean about digging through, that is the internet though.
------------------------
The 30,000 was from a Documentary on a prime channel, maybe discovery or history or something like that.
I do not use TV, only internet, and mostly only for information, so I was lucky to catch part of it.

So far, like I said, I cannot find the source, but I did see them.
-------------------------
It seems something happened and the link disappeared, must have pressed something like ctrl Z, like I just did thinking about it. These things happen because my computer cannot keep up with me much of the time. Sorry.
21,000 years old...
http://www.funwadi.com/forum/21000yrs-o ... 75362.html
23,000...
http://satyabhashnam.blogspot.com/2009/ ... vedic.html

I guess you have to watch the videos, maybe they are bad references, but I posted them because I am going through dozens of sites, trying to find the source of that 30,000 year old one from the documentary, and have to keep track of things as I go.

There are already bookmarks off the screen the desktop is filling, the latest folder has hundreds of references in it.....

Some things I need to keep here, connected to the topic/the reason I was saving them, to support/disprove this theory.
It is best to present them here, publicly, so they can be checked and scrutinized.

No need to be offensive when some turn out to be poor sources. A human just cannot read every word of every source they check, especially with a goal this expansive. Limits must be chosen carefully. And no one is perfect.

Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Re: Work of Harley Borgais

Who is online