On the question of extinct mammoths

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

There lived such an animal - a mammoth.

They reached a height of 5, 5 meters and a body weight of 10-12 tons. Most of the mammoths became extinct about 10 thousand years ago during the last cooling of the Vistula Ice Age.

Science tells us this, and draws just such a picture as shown. True, not being very concerned about the question - what did these woolly elephants weighing 4-5 tons or more (up to 12) eat on such a landscape? “Of course, if they write like that in books,” the Aleni nod. Reading very selectively, and considering the above picture. About the fact that during the life of mammoths on the territory of the present tundra birch grew (which is written in the same book, and other deciduous forests - that is, a completely different climate) - somehow they do not notice.

“However, they died a long time ago,” agrees the reindeer herder, cutting off a piece of meat from the found carcass to feed the dogs.

"Hard" - says a more vital geologist, chewing a piece of barbecue removed from an impromptu skewer. And to hell with him, that the kebab is supposedly 10 thousand years old. And the mammoth did not want to mummify.

Some, however, argue that not all are extinct, and even cite photographs and form:

But let's not bother with "intrigues and nonsense." Everyone is able to form their own opinion about this video.

Delov - then - just some 10 thousand years have passed. As if. Anything can happen. Nessie, mammoths, paponts and other show-offs …

One more point. Mammoths are rightfully called fossils. Because in our time they are simply dug. In order to extract tusks for crafts.

It is estimated that over two and a half centuries in the northeast of Siberia, tusks belonging to at least forty-six thousand (!) Mammoths were collected (the average weight of a pair of tusks is close to eight pounds - about one hundred and thirty kilograms).

Tusks of mammoths DIG. That is, they are mined from the ground. Somehow the question does not even arise (and this is reflected in the title of the article) - why have we forgotten how to see the obvious? I have never met the suggestion that mammoths dug holes for themselves, lay in them for hibernation, and then fell asleep. But how did they end up underground? At a depth of 10 meters or more? Why are mammoth tusks digging from cliffs on river banks? Moreover, in large quantities. So massively that a bill has been submitted to the State Duma that equates mammoths with minerals, as well as introduces a tax on their production.

As science says, the area of distribution of mammoths was huge -

But for some reason they are digging en masse only in our north. And now the question arises - what happened that whole mammoth cemeteries were formed here?

What caused such an almost instantaneous mass pestilence?

Let's try to think for ourselves. There is what. If you don’t cry.

Then the following logical chain should be built

1. There were a lot of mammoths.

2. Since there were a lot of them, they should have had a good food base - not the tundra, where they are now found

3. If it was not tundra, the climate in those places was somewhat different, much warmer.

4. A somewhat different climate beyond the Arctic Circle could have been only if it was not the Arctic Circle at that time.

5. Tusks of a mammoth, and even whole mammoths themselves, are found underground. They somehow got there, some event happened that covered them with a layer of soil.

6. Taking as an axiom that mammoths themselves did not dig holes, only water could bring this soil, first rushing in and then descending.

7. The layer of this soil is thick - meters, and even tens of meters. And the amount of water applied to such a layer must have been very large. Oceanic, so to speak, quantity.

eight. The carcasses of mammoths are found in a very decently preserved state - if their meat can be eaten, it means that the event that killed them took place not tens of thousands of years ago, but relatively recently. And immediately after the washing of the corpses with sand followed by their freezing, which was almost instantaneous. Even if not instant, then very fast.

Now, having built such a "mammoth" logical chain, let's look at other facts. Then try to bring them together. And we will choose the facts that cannot be falsified in the “sources” or “covered up”. That is, for the mass. We need to try to at least roughly calculate the date of the event that led to such a massive "mammoth" (and not only) pestilence. Let us ask ourselves a question that seems to be completely irrelevant to the topic under consideration - what is the average age of forests in Russia? I'll just express my judgments, I hope that nobody was banned from Google, and my arguments will be checked and, possibly, refuted. So, the average age of the forests of Siberia (the western part is incorrect to take into account - there are constant wars and the population density is higher) - only about three hundred years. This is despite the fact that the age of the same trees in other parts of the territory can reach 800 years. This means that the dating of the "event" assumed by us can already very roughly fluctuate within the range from 800 to 400 (still time must pass before "draining") years ago. Drainage - what it is and why - this will be discussed below.

The next fact. You can't get away from it either - the Caspian and Aral seas are salty. But these are not seas, but lakes. Very large inland lakes. They only take in the flow of freshwater rivers. Where does so much salt come from? And the eastern part of Lake Balkhash, which lies much higher, is also salty. And the western one is fresh. Because the river flows there. And the river Ili has already “freshened” half of the lake with its freshwater runoff. It is much smaller in size than the Caspian Sea, and that's how it happened. You can even try to calculate how long it took Balkhash to become half insipid. Intuition tells me that this period will also be within 400-800 years.

And one more fact - I will take it out in a separate article. Because not his own, on this topic the person has already conducted his own investigation. Almost all of Russia's historic cities are 82 meters above sea level. Why? Yes, because in those days they themselves stood at the level of the internal, Russian sea, and were ports. After all, the seas bind, not separate. If there are ships.

Now let's step back a bit from factuality and start looking at pictures. Immediately I must make a reservation - they were posted on the site much earlier by a person with the nickname bska, and, further, I will mainly cite the materials posted by him earlier.

So, let's start with what our Arctic Circle looks like today. Famous and familiar:

And unusual, but which fully justifies the presence of mammoths in a climate with a good food base. The pole is different! Ours, the present, and the ancient one, located in the Baffin Sea.

Why there? Let's take a look at the allegedly genuine (I do not argue) Mercartor's map:

Doesn't it seem strange? It seems that the outlines are familiar. Nearly. Only the lines of the meridians are somehow "wrong". In its modern form, it looks like this:

And on this old map, the lines of continuation of the meridians will also converge at the other pole. In the same place … in the current Baffin Sea.

Mercator must have redrawn the maps from an earlier source. Or not Mercator, but simply, an older card. But - the pole is different there! And with such its location, everything turns out quite logically - the mammoth habitat falls into the zone of the current Central European climate, where wool is only in winter from the cold, and the rest of the time there is a very decent food base. If gladioli tubers were found in the stomachs of frozen mammoths, then this is not tundra.

It remains only to figure out what exactly is meant by the pole shift, and how this action could occur.

Clearly understanding that the gyroscope, called the planet Earth, is probably impossible to force to change its position in space (change the axis of rotation), we will try to approach it differently. Our ball, after all, is not a homogeneous solid, but a "layer cake".

And the Pole for us is only a certain conditional exact on the surface around which the rotation takes place. On the Earth's crust, that is. Which (crust) is very thin (if you compare it with the dimensions of the entire planet), and this crust seems to "float" on its liquid base. And even closer to the center is the core. It also rotates and is also very massive. But it is already easier to act on the nucleus - the force applied for this will be less. But what kind of power could it be? I do not consider all sorts of assumptions such as a huge meteorite impact on a tangent, capable of "cranking" the earth's crust relative to the mantle. The impact, most likely, took place precisely on the nucleus, and its nature was magnetic.

After all, our magnetic pole is moving?

And its movement is due precisely to the "wiggle" of the nucleus.

I quote

Sergei Tsimbalyuk, independent researcher

And the prominences can be like that …

(Solar prominence shows the size of our planet for comparison)

And such an effect of the Sun could well make the core "move". Yes, it is also massive, but it could well “turn over” in the surrounding viscous mantle from the influence of the magnetic field of the solar ejection. After a while (the ejection ended) the nucleus took its almost original position, but this was enough for the moment from the movement of the nucleus to be transmitted through the viscous shell and the crust, which also began to move. She started to move. The axis of rotation has not changed! Our ball is too massive for that to happen. The pole point has changed for us on the surface. The bark simply slipped, and another terrain “drove up” to the place of the pole - the point of the axis of rotation. Yes, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes … And who promised that it would be easy? But, the worst thing that can have an impact in such a scenario is water. It is liquid, fluid, and from such a "turn" will not follow strictly the solid lithosphere.

And a huge wave will arise. Imagine - the coast of the Arctic began its movement in the direction of the north-north-west, with the ocean in front of it. Water, having its moment of inertia and its viscosity, remains in place. And on the territory of Siberia, to the left and right of the Ural Mountains, there is a water stream. If it is correct, then the water is in its old place, and the solid lithosphere is moving towards it. The result, however, is the same - the territory of Siberia, together with mammoths, forests, a moderately warm climate, etc., is under water, while at the same time finding itself much north of its previous position. The mammoths, with which we began our examination, are drowning. They are thrown with raised sand, and, once in the north, all this quickly freezes. Since the territory of Siberia is a plain, water rolls along it until it meets an obstacle - the mountains. They are all in the south - look at the map. Having risen there by a wall (mountains are still), it rolls back into the ocean, dragging trees, corpses of animals, etc. to the coast. And so several times - back and forth. Reflected off the American - Canadian coast. With decreasing amplitude.

Ocean water does not leave all and not everywhere - it remains in the lowlands. In the form of the Caspian and Aral salty seas so familiar to us. And in those days - a single sea. What we see on another ancient map:

17th century map.

Everything is really bad here - everything has become a single water space - from the Black Sea to the Arctic Ocean. With a channel to the Baltic and even to the Persian Gulf. There is another card

Theatrum historicum "Atlas nouveau", Amsterdam, 1742.

Here the Caspian and Aral are united, and there is no more general flooding.

If you look at a modern map, then it matches very well along the elevation lines. What you can see for yourself by running the program

50.12013 & z = 10 & e = 53

and, setting the level of heights in meters on the left, see how much the water has risen. That is, the height of the wave crest.

It turns out 150 meters. Maybe a little less, our ball is not perfectly round, but flattened. But all the same - very serious.

This rise was short-lived and lightning-fast, the water quickly disappeared. The rest filled the lowlands and floodplains of rivers with an amendment of +30 +50 meters, depending on the drying and density of the soil.

On the opposite side of the ball - in South America - the situation is worse - immediately from the coast (and there are depths) - the Andes. And the resulting wall of water is higher. Water rushes through the mountain range along river canyons, reaching (in current geography) Lake Titicaca, and leaving salty ocean water in it.

If everything really happened as I describe, then it becomes clear where the great state of Tartary went. Why are there almost no traces of him? Why the northwestern part of the Black Sea is shallow - everything washed away by the wave brought there. Why is the entrance to the Hermitage through the basement - in the place that is now called St. Petersburg, the city existed before, only it was drifted by sand from the Baltic. And many many others. This is for those who are interested in the history of the territory of present-day Russia - not for aleni, that is.

I do not specifically describe this much more here, but leave it for discussion and subsequent publications on the topic.

And this catastrophe happened not at all in "time immemorial", but, in my estimation, in the 14-15th century. Which, however, does not at all cancel out earlier catastrophes and floods. Perhaps even they are cyclical. Or dependent on an external factor.

Pyramids can be cited as another proof of the change in the position of the pole in the relatively recent past. It is believed that they are oriented strictly to the cardinal points. But not all of them are strictly north-south. There are more ancient, antediluvian ones. We look:

But - and this is a topic for "later".

And now - I invite you to discussion.

Because the point of view of "official" science - mammoths were exterminated by ancient hunters!