The following is my reply to a letter by Ben Ratcliffe. Sections from Ben's letter are in <blockquote> sections.
Ben,
Thank you for your e-mail message. I shall respond to in detail in the following paragraphs.
Let me begin with your question regarding the Buache map of 1737 and the question of isostatic rebound. You state:
i disagree with your statement that the "Philippe Buache map of 1737 fails miserably in any way to accurately portray... the bedrock surfae [sic] as adjusted for isostaic rebound."
Actually, this is a quote by Heinrich which is cited in quotation marks in my essay, but I do happen to agree with it.
now, i may be confused, but as i understand it, the isostatic rebound is the land rising after it has been covered with ice.
This is correct. Isostatic rebound is a gradual process by which land that has been covered by a heavy mass, specifically glacial ice, rises after that heavy mass has been removed. There are a few reasons and variables for it, of which I will mention two. First, heavy masses, such as glacial ice, depress the land upon which they rest. A prime example of this is Greenland, which is completely covered by ice; the underlying "land" has been depressed and is to a great extent below sea level. This is also the case with Antarctica. That is, the "elevation" of a landmass covered by ice is different than that of the same mass without such cover. Secondly, different types of rock, etc. undergo different degrees of compression, and naturally, rebound in different fashions. The result is that when ice, for example, is removed, the underlying land mass has a tendency to "rebound" -- to "spring back up" and achieve balance; this is quite understandable, not only because of the "compressed" nature of the rocks upon which the ice/snow was resting, but also because such continents (the lithosphere) rest upon the asthenosphere, and when compressed and despressed, they sit "deeper" in the asthenosphere (a comparable situation is as follows: very tall mountain ranges have deep "roots"; lower ranges have more "shallow" roots).
now, if ECD is true, it wouldn't have been covered with ice when the source maps for Philippe Buache were drawn. so why would they have to account for land after being covered with ice?
If ECD were true, then yes, at the time the sources to the Buache map were created Antarctica would not have been covered by ice. Isostatic rebound is process by which land masses "return" to their unglaciated state; it is not so much isostatic rebound that would have to be taken into account, but rather the non-ice covered topography of Antarctica.
Put more simply, let's assume ECD for a moment and consider Anarctica without ice and situated about 30 degrees further north. Such an Antarctica has a certain topography, including the outline of its coast. Now, through ECD, Antarctica moves south and acquires an ice sheet; by way of this ice sheet, the Antarctic land mass is depressed, and hence, it (the land) has a different coastline than it previously had without ice. The problem is that the Buache map most accurately represents the subglacial coastline of the current, ice-covered Antarctica, not the one assumed by ECD that was not covered by glaciers.
also, since all of canada was covered by ice sheets, wouldn't our land be affected by isostatic rebound? i'm pretty sure that it isn't...
Funny that you should ask that - and quite appropriately. Alas, your conclusion/assumption is wrong. In fact, Canada has, and is still undergoing isostatic rebound, as is much of the rest of North America. In my paper I mentioned Scandinavia (particularly Norway/Sweden and the fjords), further research uncovered a slew of recent geology articles about isostatic rebound in North America. For example, it is necessary to remeasure the elevation of the Great Lakes (that is, their shores, for example) every 30 years or so because of isostatic rebound. A number of articles deal with isostacy and islands, as well as such rebound in mountainous areas. Isostatic rebound is a slow process; a few inches a year, for example, and is hardly noticed by you or me, but is an effect that can be -- and is -- measured.
can you prove to me beyond a doubt that the asthenosphere wouldn't allow for "rapid" (being over, say, 800 years) slippage of the crust?
Beyond "a doubt"? Not likely; you can always have doubts. You can, for example, always disregard published data and prior results and doubt whatever claims are made by people, but that isn't the point of this excursion. However, in answer to your question, "I" cannot prove this, since I am not a geologist, and I don't have time to research the necessary articles at this time; however, all geology texts will tell you that the asthenosphere is not liquid, per se. It is composed of highly viscous rock; we are not really talking about a simple boundary such as a ship or raft floating on a body of water. If the lithosphere were to slip across the asthenosphere in such a rapid manner, the results, due to friction, for example, would be highly cataclysmic. This final aspect cannot be doubted. Let me introduce another analogy; the lithosphere on the asthenosphere is not like a boat on water, as mentioned above, but much more like your finernails (semi-rigid) upon the underlying soft tissue; rapid movement of the fingernail can be achieved, in theory (and, in practice), but results are cataclysmic (very painful, bloody, etc.)
That no evidence for such cataclysmic events has come to light -- centered around that time frame (that is, a span of several centuries, about 11,000 B.C., for example) -- one would have to say that even if ECD were possible, we have no evidence that it has actually occurred. For example, as I state, the "puzzle" analogy breaks down because on a sphere, the only method of moving the "whole puzzle" is around an axis (in terms of algebra, rotation around an axis is the only isometric form of movement on a sphere), and since an axis has two poles, and such movement results in varying torque, etc., one would expect extensive geologic trauma (warping and folding of rocks, volcanic and seismic activity, etc.) at the "poles" of this axis of rotation; Hancock provides no evidence for this.
In conclusion, regarding this issue, while it might be possible, no evidence exists; hence, ECD remains merely a conjecture.
hancock does consider volcanism in his book. he speaks of several myths which talk about volcanism and earthquakes. is this not a valid point?
If there were any documented evidence in the geologic record, there would be something to consider here. Hancock, however, is not critically applying the concept of volcanism and cataclysmic events to evidence; he is only restating well-known myths, ones which have been passed down for ages, and which may have some distant origin in historical events, but as a whole cannot be taken as valid evidence.
For example, as Hancock points out -- many, many cultures speak of Great Floods. Hence there was, historically, a Great Flood, no? Well, perhaps, perhaps not, but there is no evidence that can be examined. Without such evidence, the best that can be done is say, hmm, perhaps something happened at such and such a time, and perhaps we should look for things to support this belief. Hancock, however, is merely restating old myths, ones which have been used by some to try to prove Christianity (or, a Judeo-Christian-Islamic worldview); if everyone has a flood story, then the flood story from the Bible is true - hence, "our" religion is true. This fails to take into account several aspects. Common myths are not evidence of shared experience; myths are merely tales, and as such they "travel" - they get traded from culture to culture, integrated, changed, and passed on again. It is quite possible that a single culture had a flood myth, or that two distant ones had different sorts of such myths, for example, and that over time and through trade, etc., these myths spread and became adapted by many peoples. This cannot be easily proven; however, evidence for this is 1) cultures older than the Hebrew/Semitic culture have a flood myth, and it seems to have been borrowed. 2) Furthermore, Christianity, for example, seems have borrowed heavily from a wide variety of sources in order to compose its own mythology. (an aside: let's take folktales in Central/Eastern Europe: Rom (Gypsies), Czechs, Germans, Russians, Greeks, etc. all share many of the same folktales [mostly legends and "Maerchen" or fairy tales] -- you find the same stories in many cultures. For example, there is a "phoenix" tale in Russian folklore [hence, Stranvinsky's "Firebird" Suite] -- the common nature of these tales does not make them true. That they have been shared, traded, and adapted "as one's own" in many cultures, however, is supported.)
but it seems that rather than gather new evidence for new theories, scientist cling to the old theories, and try to disprove the new ones. shouldn't it be the other way around?
Nope. Both views are wrong. The problem is believing that science either has to support new theories or support old ones, a belief perhaps based in the view that science has to "prove" things, which is also false. The fact remains that a lot of science revolves around this principle, but that does not tell us what science "should be".
The term science developed from words meaning "to know" or "to have knowledge" ("sciens" from the present participle of the Latin "scire" - to know). Theories in and of themselves have no value; their value is in how well they describe the natural world -- how well they describe "reality". This is extended in that good theories "should" predict further results. They cannot, however, contradict prior data that is taken to be true; if they did so, they would not provide a good model of "reality". Taking relativity as an example, it does not contradict Newtonian mechanics, instead it provides the same or better results given the same data. Hence, it provides an "as good" or "better" model than Newtonian mechanics.
So, in response to you statement/question -- the goal of science should not be to support new theories in order to disprove old ones. The fact that this is what happens (relativity as a new theory replacing Newtonian mechanics, for example) is beside the point, basically. As a note regarding plate techtonics and ECD - it is definitely *not* the case that an "old theory" (plate techtonics) is being supported to disprove a *new* theory - ECD. ECD is older than plate techtonics (Hapgood's book came out [originally] in 1953; plate techtonics did not become a theory until the *late* 1960s); it is rather that ECD is an old theory -- although there ware never really any support for it -- that was replaced, or made obsolete, by plate techtonics.
you also claim that hancock's recognition of an "as yet unidentified culture" is absurd. why?
It is perfectly fine to speculate about unknown things, including cultures. For example, I speculate and believe that extraterrestrial life exists; it's a very large universe, and I do not believe that "we" are the center of it and the only sentient beings in it. However, that is different than claiming that Klingons or Romulans exist. Hancock is claiming the actual existence of something for which there is no actual evidence because there is something he can't explain. What he is doing is not "science", it is mythology and religion. It is the same as saying, because the world is complex and there are things about nature that I don't understand, god must exist. One can believe that, if one wishes to, but it is not a move based on reason, logic, or science (which are not the same thing).
you not once mentioned all of the other details of his book. such as the pyramids, the altiplano in south america, with lake titicaca, or the olmec civilization.
You are correct. There is a simple reason for this omission: my paper was an essay on ECD, not archaeology, mythology and history. All the details and "evidence" from these sources he introduces are quite interesting, and some are outstanding problems and projects within such fields as archaeolgy. Some these tidbits have been stumping scientists for decades. (the layers of mica in the Central American constructions, for example, fascinates me; in contrast, all the numerology stuff Hancock goes into is merely that, numerology) Their presense, however, has no bearing on the merits of ECD, and it is a logical fallacy to bring them in.
Hancock makes the mistake - a mistake, although it was quite intentional on his part, I'm sure - of trying to argue the existence or truth of a theory (ECD) by way of the pyramids, the "drawings" in South America, etc. The problem is, there is no direct connection between the pyramids and ECD -- instead, Hancock provides a long "chain" of connections: ECD would allow Antarctica to be further north, which would give him a place to put "Atlantis", which would then give him a "connection" between Egypt, the Olmecs, Incas, etc., which would then let him explain this "similarities". He never proved 1) a connection between this cultures, only similarities, 2) the existence of Atlantis, for which there is no hard evidence, only conjecture or 3) ECD. Those are a few reaons why I didn't include the Olmecs, Eygptians, etc. -- they don't matter.
Hancock tries a similar tactic elsewhere in the book; he claims that basically we either need ECD (to get Atlantis) or we have to accept "aliens" -- since the latter (aliens) is so far-fetched, doesn't it "make sense" to consider ECD? The obvious answer is: no.
you make an unfair insult to him when you say this.
I don't think I am providing an "unfair insult" to Hancock. One, I am not attacking Mr. Hancock, but rather the ideas he is proposing. My reasons for doing this are pretty obvious: Hancock writes well -- his book was loads of fun to read (I really enjoyed it) -- but he's full of shit.
Let me give you a few other examples. Let's take Hancock's next book, "The Message of the Sphinx" (written with Robert Bauval). It is a fun read, although not nearly as good as "Fingerprints of the Gods". As a recent TV special demonstrated, a lot of the stuff presented in that book -- the whole 'hidden door' and special rooms, etc. that were hypothecized in Hancock and Bauval's book -- was merely bunk. The same is the case with "Fingerprints of the Gods"; it's fun to read and mildly thought-provoking, but contains little real scholarship. A more extreme case is "The Bible Code" by Michael Drosnin, who like Hancock, is/was a reporter/journalist (for The Economist, etc.) The book is nothing but conjecture, lies and myths, but a compelling tale is told -- in a similar fashion to the way Hancock composed his story, Drosnin creates an interesting argument, but an argument based upon carefully selected and misleading texts. In any case, Drosnin's book is a whole other topic, so I won't go into it now.
Back to Hancock -- any insults (by me) conveyed in my work towards him and his work, as such, I find are totally deserved. "Fingerprints of the Gods" makes interesting fiction, but that's all it is.
thanking you in advance for the response,
My pleasure.
- Steve Krause
Below is the text of Ben's letter to me:
From: "Ben Ratcliffe" <sratclif@sentex.net>
To: >faust47@geocities.com>
Subject: concerning earth crust displacement
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 21:48:42 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
hi. i am 19 year old high school student, living in canada. i was reading you're article about ECD. i disagree with your statement that the "Philippe Buache map of 1737 fails miserably in any way to accurately portray... the bedrock surfae as adjusted for isostaic rebound." now, i may be confused, but as i understand it, the isostatic rebound is the land rising after it has been covered with ice. now, if ECD is true, it wouldn't have been covered with ice when the source maps for Philippe Buache were drawn. so why would they have to account for land after being covered with ice? maybe you could clarify this for me. also, since all of canada was covered by ice sheets, wouldn't our land be affected by isostatic rebound? i'm pretty sure that it isn't...
can you prove to me beyond a doubt that the asthenosphere wouldn't allow for "rapid" (being over, say, 800 years) slippage of the crust?
hancock does consider volcanism in his book. he speaks of several myths which talk about volcanism and earthquakes. is this not a valid point?
you talk about science, and how it works. i agree that it is open to new suggestions... but it seems that rather than gather new evidence for new theories, scientist cling to the old theories, and try to disprove the new ones. shouldn't it be the other way around? you also claim that hancock's recognition of an "as yet unidentified culture" is absurd. why? you not once mentioned all of the other details of his book. such as the pyramids, the altiplano in south america, with lake titicaca, or the olmec civilization. you make an unfair insult to him when you say this.
i would like a response, if you don't mind, because all of this stuff is very interesting to me. but, if you could, send a response to Teddybear617@hotmail.com, because i don't check this email account.
thanking you in advance for the response,
Ben Ratcliffe.
Below is Ben's 2nd letter, in response to the one I wrote to him:
X-Originating-IP [209.112.4.221]
From "Ben Ratcliffe" <teddybear617@hotmail.com>
To spkraus1@students.wisc.edu
Subject Re Regarding ECD and Hancock
Date Sun, 02 May 1999 220645 EDT
Mime-Version 1.0
Content-type text/plain; format=flowed;
thank you for replying to my message. i really appreciate it. i would like to say, though, on the point of flood myths. it has been shown that indeed a flood did occur in the middle eastern area. hence the flood "myths" of several of those religions in that area.
btw, i agree that Message of the Sphinx isn't nearly as good as Fingerprints. i am currently reading it.
thanks again.