Thursday, 14 May 2015

Rivers in the past were larger than today - not a revelation just good old fashioned common sense!!

Robert John Langdon

Some four years ago, I launched the first book of my trilogy 'Prehistoric Britain' called The Stonehenge Enigma, to mixed reviews.  The original book was crammed with statistics and geological concepts like 'isostatic transformations' as I wanted to show scientific evidence of how groundwater could have been higher in the past flooding our landscape.

Rivers larger in the past - diagram
Fig 1. River Evolution - Standard model (Larger in the past than today!!)
This attempt to convince the academic world that our history was fundamentally flawed failed because the 'experts' were unable to understand the simple concept of the argument - 'that rivers were higher in the past'.  Famous archaeologists such as Julian Richards suggested the flooding I proposed was caused by raised 'sea levels' rather than the groundwater in the hypothesis and termed the picture on the front cover of the book - 'Stonehenge-on-sea', in an attempt to discredit the information.

Rivers larger in the past - terraces
Fig 2. The River Avon's terraces - bigger in the past!!
Mike Parker-Pearson literally  'runaway' from me when we meet (by chance) on his Bluestone dig and I explained how his site must have been occupied AFTER the construction of Stonehenge as it was located immediately by the river Avon unlike Stonehenge, and so would have been under water at the time of Stonehenge's construction - which was the last thing he wanted to hear as he had been telling people it was pre-Stonehenge (which subsequent carbon dating have proved me to be correct).

My hypothesis in layman's terms is very simple (as in most sound fundamental scientific ideas) - RIVERS IN THE PAST WERE LARGER THAN TODAY

Rivers larger in the past - terraces 2
Fig 3. Lower Thames - towards the sea

It's not rocket science and you don't need a PHd to understand the principle behind it - yet the archaeological world refuses even to discuss the matter.  On previous blogs I have shown how both British Archaeology and Current Archaeology magazines REFUSED MONEY and place my adverts within their magazines, with Current Archaeology finally admitting that they 'did not wish to discuss the issue' - academic censorship prevailed.

Rivers larger in the past - terraces 3
Fig 4. How the terraces look on a geological Map (looking down)
Clearly all of the Geological evidence shows that 'rivers were bigger in the past' - this is undeniable, so what is the problem with the academics?

The argument revolves around the 'dates' attributed to the terraces - pure and simple.  Now I not suggesting that these terraces were all 'formed' after the last ice age, that would be foolish.  What my hypothesis states is that they were 'last full with water' after the last ice age and remained full for thousands of years thereafter.  And to show this use Britain's largest and most famous River the Thames for this purpose.

From the Picture (Fig 3.) you see the Thames dropped 40m in just 10k years that's about 0.4cm per annum and we know that this river system is recent as the Thames emptied into the North Sea in Suffolk prior to this ice age - so this asks fundamental questions which Geologist have failed to answer:

  • If the Thames was 40m higher at the start of the Mesolithic Period (directly after the last Ice Age) where did all the extra water come from?

  • If the extra water was from the melting of the glacial ice (that melted quickly - according to Geologists) why are there TEN terraces on the Avon (according to Maddy et al 2000) rather than one?

  • How long does a river need to be at a certain level before it develops a terrace - and if the water ran away at a constant rate and did not settle - why are there any terraces anyway?

  • If we can see that these rivers were larger in the past, why would not the same process that created these higher rivers (from the melting ice of an ice age) not be duplicated during the last ice age?

  • And finally, if the Thames was 40m higher in the recent past wouldn't the other rivers that feed the Thames even today (like the Kennet and Avon) also 40m higher as they would also have access to the same water source?

Rivers larger in the past - Thames
The Thames Today

Rivers larger in the past - Thames 2
The Thames at the Start of the Mesolithic

If we now go back to today's river levels and increase the Avon by 40m like the Thames - look what happens.

Rivers larger in the past - Stonehenge
The Avon is about 65m above sea level near Stonehenge add another 40m and its 105m and turns Stonehenge into a peninsula
This increase in the size of the rivers flooding the landscape in comparison to today is what I call 'Post Glacial Flooding' and is the basis of my hypothesis.  If geologists know that 'an ice age' cut the higher levels of our existing rivers in the past, why do we assume that the last ice age did not do the same - what evidence is there that the last ice age was any 'smaller' and not fill these rivers just as they did in previous ice ages?  Surely, the fact that terraces exist must make us conclude that the river height must have remained constant for a considerable time, during this process to make these terrace - so it would be impossible for these rivers to disappear after the ice age quickly.

But is this really rocket science or just plain old 'common sense' ?

And why are the academics so afraid to discuss this work to such an extent they censored my findings?

I'll let you the reader (and there's now been over a million of you) decide the likely truth of the matter!!

No comments:

Post a comment