My plan was to work in a few references to the Moon book whilst concentrating on Dangerous but it’s occurred to me that – given the insight of most of the comments – further analysis of the latter may not be really necessary. You have a pdf and if you’re not curious enough to read that (or buy the book) after my blabbing, it’s unlikely you will ever be. If you do read the book, I’m hoping my last few posts will give you the context you need to understand what’s really going on with it.
All the Walnut Canyon cliff dwellers’ work involved stones easily carried by one or two people. But what came before them?
Meanwhile I’ve been mulling over the Moon book and after further research have to apologize to those who went and bought it at my recommendation. I should have known something was wrong when one of the authors, Alan Butler, failed to respond to the three emails I sent him inquiring about the provenance of his astronomical numbers: His book fails miserably here (no citations at all), which is odd, given that the very premise of his (and co-author Christopher Knight) book utterly depends on the accuracy of astronomical times and distances.
Long view of one canyon side. Click to enlarge.
I finally did what I should have done before mentioning the book at all. I should have done some simple searches! Having done so, the reasoning behind Butler’s silence jumped off several website pages at me: The numbers/calculations work had already been done by other researchers long before their book, which he was loathe to admit. The unstated subtextual assumption of Moon was that the authors had noticed the many cosmic ‘coincidences’ all on their own. (They would undoubtedly deny this, but I don’t usually get subtexts wrong.)
I don’t believe sedimentary rock will naturally form rectangles via erosion.
Among several other problems were the two or so pages spent supporting the Apollo hoax, which is a huge tell, plus their reliance on mainstream science/NASA for big picture theorizing. I was all too willing to overlook these shortcomings if only the numbers were accurate – which they largely are.
So I’m back on Chance & Necessity, what these words mean and how they relate to the existence of a ‘higher power.’ Deep research is involved, which will take some time, and I do intend to conflate the two books plus other subject matter in the upcoming post. Give me some time. Lemme think.
#
Meanwhile, Logan and I visited the Walnut Canyon Monument
Is this the site of a pre-diluvian cataclysm?
near Flagstaff, Arizona and I found myself doubting another ‘official story’: Please take a look at the photos I’ve included here and see if you think the rock formations are natural or man-made. The Federal custodians of the Monument all insist that the cliff dwellers, from around 1100 to 1250 A.D., did only minor refinements to the naturally existing formations.
I’m not a geologist but my common sense tells me that the sedimentary rock formations that surround the canyon look like they could be very ancient ruins of some long-gone culture, and the more recent cliff dwellers merely took advantage of already-existing but long abandoned construction.
Use comments for your opinion.
See if you can separate the ‘natural’ from the man-constructed. According to the geologists, it’s all natural. I’m having trouble accepting this.
Allan
In my experience, right angles do not occur naturally. Whaddya think?
I did not intend to call you a jackass. If I did, I surely apologize.
— Chris