Theos-Talk Archives (March 2000 Message tt00030)

Dallas,

The title is "Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a cosmic catastrophe in
9500 B.C.".

Authors are D.S. Allan & J.B. Delair.

The book is available in the Blavatsky Net Bookstore which is at
www.blavatsky.com.  The store can also be reached from the upper left side
of the homepage at www.blavatsky.net.  Within the store just click on
"Atlantis found" on the left side of the front page of the store.

We are hoping people will buy the book from the BN store to help support
this site.

Thanks for enquiring.

Reed


At 06:19 AM 3/10/00 -0800, you wrote:
>
>March 10th 2000
>
>Dear Reed:
>
>
>
>Many thanks for your comments on the RISE and FALL of CONTINENTS,
>OCEANS, and the CHANGE in inclination of the POLES, etc.
>
>It is not clear if the name of the book is CATACLYSM .
>
>Could you please let me have the Title and the Authors and
>Publishers.
>
>I am sure that a good number of students of Theosophy would like
>to be able to read and review the evidence presented.  I know
>that I would.
>
>Do help,
>
>Thanks
>
>Dallas
>
>
>dalval@nwc.net
>
>==========================================
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Reed Carson [mailto:carson@blavatsky.net]
>Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:37 PM
>To: basic@blavatsky.net
>Subject: [bn-basic] oceans are puddles
>
>
>Dear Bill,
>
>I was delighted to hear your remarks and you have affected my
>thinking, I
>think, for the better.  Let me say first that in my opinion, what
>you are
>saying is very important.  I think other people should be giving
>heed to
>what you say on the importance of that book, Cataclysm!, and on
>the state of
>modern science.
>
>So I don't mislead you yet again, let me say definitely, I never
>supported
>the glacier proposal that Dennis advocated.  As you say, the
>glacier
>explanation is antiquated by current science.  I was simply going
>as far as
>I could to give a consideration of the other person's view.  But
>if I
>mislead you then I was not communicating clearly enough and I
>have thought
>about that.  I should have made my position more clear for the
>sake of
>others on the list.
>
>Also I certainly do agree that HPB is much closer to the truth of
>the cause
>of such crises in the earth.  My own view is that she is not only
>"closer",
>but she is right.  My intent with all those quotes from HPB was
>to show how
>much knowledge is in the SD and to work up to the Theosophical
>view of the
>earth going up and down.  This is a differing view, as you may
>know, from
>the "modern" plate techtonics theory in which the emphasis is on
>plates
>moving sideways.  Again I am delighted if those quotes served to
>persuade
>you that she knew more.
>
>You say: "You seem to be justifying the old scientific view".  I
>should
>'fess up.  When I saw the summary of the book my jaw figuratively
>dropped
>and I placed the book into the bookstore because of its high
>confirmation of
>Theosophy. I am delighted that you have found it and brought
>attention to it
>on this list.  Until now, no one has mentioned it.
>
>Let me quote some points from that book that will end up being
>quite
>relevant to Theosophy, and in my opinion at least, to other
>discussions
>currently occuring on this list.
>
>First we dispose of the glacier theory.  On page 67 the book says
>
>"The orthodox concept of immense sprawling polar ice-sheets
>which, after
>long ages, slowly melted away, is, like the modified versions of
>it
>developed since, so full of fatal shortcomings and so at variance
>with
>inescapable field evidence, that the standard notion of the Ice
>Age must now
>be regarded as funamentally flawed and almost certainly a
>chimera.  Indeed,
>any application of it hemispherically, as was formerly common
>practice, is
>undoubltedly fallacious."
>
>This is strong language but well supported. Let's move on. In
>that book on
>page 179 it says:
>
>"despite their relatively great overall volume and the
>tremendouss pressure
>they exert upon the crust, compared to the size of the Earth the
>oceans are
>little more than puddles occupying hollows on its surface, and
>immeasurably
>smaller than the oceans of semi-fluid molten magma that underlie
>the crust.
>Indeed, the estimated total amount of magma within the Earth
>exceeds the
>oceans in volume 1000:1 and in mass 5000:1."
>
>In other words, after disposing of the glacier theory, we need to
>put the
>earth and oceans in a different perspective relative to each
>other.
>
>Here is the quote that I think confirms HPB's views on page
>186-187 where
>the book quotes another source on the Atlantis convulsion:
>
>"Based on spherical volumes, with the diameter of the Earth about
>8,000
>miles, it can be seen that the oceans of magma are infinitely
>greater than
>the relatively thin and shallow pools of water lying on top of
>the Earth's
>crust.
>Hence the tidal upheaval from within the Earth must have been
>very much
>greater than the tidal upheaval on the Earth's surface, involving
>her
>relatively minute oceans.  Therefore upheaval or thrust
>internally and
>compression externally must have been simultaneous; only their
>proportions
>were different. With this volume of magma in tidal upheaval, the
>Earth's
>crust acted something like a bellows.  And Earth's relatively
>shallow oceans
>merely washed around as the Earth's crust heaved and sagged."
>
>This is what HPB said!!  Land goes up and down - the final
>conclusion of my
>last letter.
>
>The book proves the reasonableness (of HPB's view) by another
>quote on p32:
>
>"Either the land must have sunk two or three miles, or the sea
>must once
>have been two or three miles lower than now.  Either conclusion
>is
>startling.  If the sea was once two miles lower, where would all
>the extra
>water have gone?"
>
>Now by the way, how did she know?  Did the masters "reconstruct"
>this
>knowledge?  From what?  Did they "reconstruct" it when it has
>taken so much
>of even the science of the just past century to reach this
>conclusion?  I
>think the answer is simple.  They didn't forget it.  The same way
>they
>didn't forget other information.
>
>On an entirely other point, here is the text describing the book
>in the
>bookstore:
>
>"A student reading the statements of Blavatsky in the late 19th
>century
>could easily despair of their validity. She said the earth had
>tilted on its
>axis in the past [which it shouldn't have done due the principle
>in physics
>of conservation of angular momentum]. She asserted repeatedly
>that there had
>been a civilization of Atlantis and gave details from her
>training with
>teachers who preserved the information. She argued repeatedly for
>the
>correctness of corroborating myths and legends. Now if one reads
>this book,
>Cataclysm, one finds her assertions validated with a torrent of
>scientific
>evidence accumulated in the 20th century. The book is filled with
>meat and
>yet written in a style that is easy to digest and understand. But
>here is
>our most dramatic point: One of Blavatsky's teachers wrote a
>letter to
>Sinnett in 1882 stating flatly that Atlantis sunk "11,446 years
>ago". That
>is 9,564 BC. After extensive combining of different scientific
>evidence,
>this book concludes that an earth-wide catastrophe occurred
>[suitable to
>sink Atlantis] around 9,577. The scientific estimated date
>differs by just
>13 years from the date given by those who preserved the records!"
>
>This is astonishing!  One of the masters asserted in 1882 that
>they knew the
>exact year of the sinking of Atlantis!  And now, after this book
>combines
>much much evidence, it is found that the best scientific
>evidence, when
>averaged together, suggests that an earth-cataclysm occured in
>the same time
>period.  And the scientifically determined date is within 13
>years of that
>stated by the masters. !
>
>Again the same questions arise.  If the masters "reconstructed"
>Theosophy,
>contrary to what they say, then how did they reconstruct this
>exact date?
>Is the correspondence with the scienticfic view a coincidence?
>Read the
>book and you won't conclude that.  I think the answer is again
>simple. They
>didn't forget when it occured.  As they didn't forget other
>things.
>
>Bill, there are other ways in which this book relates to the
>teachings of
>HPB.  I recommend you note p 182 and the observation that the
>inclination of
>the axis of rotation of the earth has changed.  Then you can find
>the same
>thing in Theosophy, at least in general terms.
>
>Bill, how did you like the interweaving of myth and science?  You
>can find
>HPB asserting the truth in myth many times and ways.  And the
>mythical
>figures in that book are also mentioned by HPB but I don't recall
>the
>details.  Also the interaction of cosmic bodies as considered in
>the book
>remind me much of similar comments by HPB but I don't have quotes
>at my
>fingertips - and this letter is getting long.
>
>Personally I think there are numerous other little items that of
>use to
>Theosophists, concerning the Gobi desert and others.
>Unfortunately I can
>only skim the book and will have to leave this work of detailed
>comparison
>to someone else.
>
>While we are on Atlantis and the overarching implications it has,
>please
>consider again the prediction made by HPB and analysed on the
>Atlantis page
>on this site.  She asserted that if the mid Atlantic ridge could
>be traced
>further (than done by the Challenger) that it would proceed
>southward into
>the South Atlantic under the cape of Good Hope in Africa and up
>into the
>Indian Ocean.  This century her assertion has been proven true.
>It turns out
>that the ridge today is known as the path of an important plate
>techtonic
>boundary.
>
>So I ask "how did she know"?  And more importantly I think, "why
>would
>'tibet mystics' engaged in reconstruction of a primitive religion
>be
>concerned with the path of a plate techtonic boundary?  Why would
>they care
>and how would they know? Any answers?  Here is mine.  That land
>mass under
>Africa follows the above water connection that connected Lemuria
>and
>Atlantis, just as asserted by Theosophy. (Which of course relates
>to our
>topic of evolution if we explore it.)  And how did they know
>that?  Simple.
>It was remembered.
>
>So Bill there is much to say here but the letter is long enough.
>I will add
>that because of your challenging my statements I have made
>significant
>changes in the bookstore in order to communicate more
>effectively. I think
>you and others will enjoy them if you look.  Many of the changes
>are small.
>But they are designed to help others more readily find the value
>there.
>Amongst other changes, today the name of the store was changed to
>"Blavatsky
>Net Bookstore" for clarity.
>
>Also Bill, if you are enjoying overhauling your view, I recommend
>that when
>you finish this book, you explore "Forbidden Archeology" in the
>store.  It
>is very relevant to the topic of evolution.  Theosophy asserts a
>history of
>an entity reasonably called "man" that is more than 18 million
>years?  How
>can that possibly be reconciled with traditional science.  The
>book I am
>recommending provides a sensible answer.  The bones have been
>systematically
>misclassified.
>
>Also we may observe that these books are not for everyone.
>However, as a
>collectivity, we Theosophists ought to know that HPB is being
>increasingly
>confirmed.  Collectively we will need to increase our knowledge
>base.
>
>Thanks for your comments,
>Reed
>
>
>At 11:32 PM 3/2/00 EST, you wrote:
>>Reed,
>>
>>After I posted my remarks on the Atlantis discussion, I read
>your posting.
>>
>>All I can say is that you cover a lot more ground, but the new
>book CATACLYSM
>>goes to even greater depth.  You seem to be justifying the old
>scientifid
>>view about the role of the Ice Age and idea that the changes
>occurred over a
>>long period of time that included Lemuria as well as Atlantis.
>H.P.B. is
>>much closer with her ideas as to the CAUSE of major changes to
>the Earth's
>>surface..  She recognized that the rearrangement of the
>continents was a
>>CATACLYSMIC disaster, which was anything but gradual.  From your
>comments on
>>her remarks  on this subject, it appears to me that she knew
>more than she
>>was telling.  The new book must be changing a lot of old
>geological thinking.
>>
>>Willgram
>>Bill Quinn
>>
>>---
>>Current topic is at
>>http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm
>>You are currently subscribed to bn-basic as:
>carson@blavatsky.net
>>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>leave-bn-basic-5269940B@lists.lyris.net
>>
>
>
>---
>Current topic is at
>http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm
>You are currently subscribed to bn-basic as: [dalval@nwc.net]
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>leave-bn-basic-5269940B@lists.lyris.net
>
>
>
>-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
>Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
>teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
>"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.