Conference hydra::dejavu

	Or maybe you've never heard of these prophecies?   One
of the best overviews of the prophecies is Jeffery Goodman's
"We Are The Earthquake Generation".     Dr Goodman has his doctorate
from the Colorado School of Mines, and is well qualified to evaluate
the geological predictions of the psychics.   He has previously
written on using psychics to locate valuable archeological digs.
Goodman also presents an interesting summary of the Cayce predictions.

	Just for your information, Edgar Cayce predicted a "warning
sequence" of events that would preceed the destruction of California;

	1) the eruption of Vesuvius
	2) the eruption of Mt Pele on Martinique
	3) a quake under the Indian ocean causing tidal waves in India
	4) Massive destruction by earthquake in Japan.
	5) then California, then later, a pole shift.

	For a more detailed set of prophecies see "Phoenix Rising"
by Mary Summer Rain.

				Alan.

    
    
    Whether these predictions come true or not, there will be some
    people who have learned to live on the earth in a less harmful
    way.  There will be some people who have developed a loving
    respect for this planet and have learned how to survive without
    using poisons.  The overwhelming extent of the pollution we have
    created is catastrophe enough, and it is there for us to see and
    taste and smell.  For some time now I have been feeling an urge
    to go somewhere to be educated "back" to the ways in which we should 
    have been living on this planet all along.  Now if only I could
    find a place locally rather than having to travel out to the
    Northwest :-).
    
    Carole
    

    In the latest Bear Tribe newsletter, Sun Bear advised that Bear
    Tribe members:
    1. store at least a weeks supply of food and water (more if possible)
    2. extricate yourself from the system as much as possible (ex, get
    out of debt)
    3. land is worth more than gold as land will grow food and you can't
    eat gold.
    4. watch the earth for signs of the coming changes.    

    There may have been more but I don't have the newsletter here and
    these stuck in my mind.  I know many people who are preparing for
    earth changes now.  I have a friend (who is an engineer) who is 
    buying a farm in his son's name and getting ready to leave at a
    moments notice.  I have another friend who took all money out of
    an IRA (paying a penalty fee) and used it to buy land in Maine.
    Other people I know have 'contingency plans' in place... they have
    a family camp or place in the country where they can go in an
    emergency.  
    
    There seem to be a great number of people who are doing something
    like this... and it never hurts to have extra spring water and canned
    goods around.  And land is certainly safer than the stock market. 

    Something to think about, for better or worse.  The future is ours
    to create.  If we prepare for the worst, then we may find ourselves
    allowing the worse to occur.  I'm not saying "Don't take precautions,"
    but don't be overly paranoid either.
    
    How many precautions does it take to create a self-fulfilled prophecy?
    
    Dave

     
    I look at this issue from the point similiar to note 659.4. That
    we do in fact create our own reality and that the constant
    watchfullness of the signs of the times adds alot of undue
    paranoia into the system of things. Yes there are certain situations
    that need attending to on this planet,populations explosion,nuclear
    arms, hunger and starvation, AIDS, chemical poisons, prime time
    TV :-), etc...and we must be responsive to these issues.
    
    But, I feel we can make significant changes where we are in the
    present moment, by believing and manifesting Love for ourselves
    and others in our circles of influence. If in fact these Earth
    Changes do occur, I feel in my heart what do I need to fear?
    I feel secure in the knowledge that living is more than survival,
    and "Having It All". 
    
    I choose to look at the future in a way that can make the ideal
    of us, all of humanity, as One Loving Family who can respond to
    each other in compassionate loving ways. That is my Free Will
    choice that I desire to create. 
    
    So in this way, I desire to step out of the prophectic blueprints
    of the past and create a better beginning for all of us.
    
    -Arthur
    -Arthur

    
    	Has anyone scaled Geological time to our perception of time?
    It could be that, by the time "California falls into the ocean",
    we'll have long since achieved utopia or our ultimate destruction.
    What is the time period of the cyclical destruction of the Earth
    - the one that got the dinasaurs - 100,000 years? I dont know, I
    just guessed a big number...
    
    	It may make better sense to plan a move to, er, higher ground
    with someone five generations away in mind. Of course, by then,
    who knows what they'll be thinking, or if they'll respect your intent!
                                                                         
    	Joe Jas

    I saw an interesting NOVA on earthquakes and .... I'd plan on moving
    to higher ground a little bit sooner if I lived in California_:-}.
    Mary

    RE: .6
    
    Seems I heard that before the year 2000, many of these will come
    to pass.  Read Revelations and Nostradamus - compare the two!
    
    We are already seeing the "disease" and other if you open your eyes
    wide enough.

    Oh PLEASE, you guys.  California can't "fall into the sea" any more
    than Lake Michigan can evaporate.
    
    Despite the best (or worst) efforts of so-called prophets through
    the generations, the world just keeps on a-turning.
    
    John M.

    John, John, John,... you're so pessimistic_;-)  

	RE: .9   Hi John,
    
    You suffer from great ignorance of geology?   I live in Colorado,
    and all around me is the geology of features that have been under
    an ocean.   How might this have happened?   If the ground cannot
    move, why are there so many ocean fossils to be found on dry land?
    
    Your world view apparently contains delusions of eternal stability?
    Or perhaps you just imagine that it won't happen now?   It has been
    noted that swift changes in water tables can cause earthquakes,
    so, can you possibly find it in your mind to admit that we humans
    may actually have the power to trigger geological changes?   Or
    that we might just be alive when these changes happen?
    
    It looks to me like the next geological quick-change may be happening
    any day now in Yellowstone park.   I doubt if humans are triggering
    this one, but then who knows?  What difference might the presence
    of a dam and lake have had on that geology?   
    
    We can drain rivers, make new lakes, drain some water tables, and
    even move a few mountains of coal.   We better hope none of this
    starts any faults moving.    I lived in Denver when the Rocky Flats
    people caused earthquakes in Denver, whey they were disposing of
    Nuclear waste by pumping it underground.
    
	I actually don't think that *all* of California will fall under
    the ocean.   Just some of it.   I find the predictions plausable,
    but I still read them with a critical mind.   I think it's quite
    possible that these predictions are correct.

    		Alan.

    
    No one's really answering the question I ask in .0.   The question
    is:   
    
    	What precautions are reasonable ?   What precautions can we
    reasonably take to prepare for the predicted earth changes?
    
    Can I assume that all of you who believe that nothing will change,
    will be taking no precautions?   John, would you consider a move if 
    it looked like Mt Rainier might be becoming active?
    
    	Alan.

    RE.8
    
    I really have no problem with sincere concern about the impending
    problems faceing planet earth,ecological,spiritual,econonmic and
    justice types of issues etc.
    
    BUT, the selling of Doom and Gloom of the future and all the fear
    alot of New Agers are talking about only gives you and I a sense
    of hopelessness, with no possiblity of a future.
    
    I would much rather take the track of finding out ways to not just
    run and hide and escape the path of Doom, but discover intelligent
    and compassionate ways to re-create the reality so as to eliminate
    the dangers.
    
    God is Real and still I believe Loves US, and when I found out that
    something more exists other then what rests under my armpits, it
    has given me sincere hope that all is not lost, no matter who
    says what about the future.
    
    -Arthur
           

Note 659.12             
    
Alan, I thought that Mt Rainier would effect the area west of the Rockys.
Would it?

Note 659.13             
    
Arthur, its a matter of cycles and patterns.  Some people interpret change
as "Doom and Gloom of the future" and in a sense I understand that but
thats not how I interpret it.  Change comes and with it upheavel.  If one
recognizes (or thinks they recognize) a pattern of change, one can prepare
for the bad times that will preceed the good times.  We don't really want
to re-create the old reality with the old hypocracy and violence and problems.

Wouldn't it be better to build a new reality that will be better than the one 
we are leaving (or being forced to leave) behind?  Everyone has certain regrets
about leaving the safety of old habits and old ways but where there is life
there is always hope.  One of the things we humans share with the animals is
an instinct for preparing for the approach of earth changes.  I tend to think
that this is what we are doing on a larger scale.  Sometimes I think that
it is God who is changing, or growing, or evolving and that what is happening
is just a reflection that.

Mary           

    	RE: Mary,
    
    		I mentioned Mt Rainier to John, because he lives within
    view of it, and was wondering if he feels himself to be immune to
    the forces of geological change.   As far as I know it is not due
    to erupt.   The changes in Yellowstone are another matter, and it
    is fortunate that that part of the country is not real populated.
    
    RE: all;
    
    	I am not trying to be a "gloom and doom" type, but perhaps I
    am sometimes.   But on the other hand, if great changes *are* in
    store, then isn't it better to meet them with open eyes, and not
    play the ostrich with head in sand?   I, personally, can fight the
    doom and gloom by active doing.   I ask myself "what can I do
    about this?"    Maybe it's only a little that I can do, but I
    feel better after a few preparations than I do with head in sand.
    
    	I find it interesting that most of the replies to this so far
    have been along the lines of "I refuse to believe this", or
    "YCYOR, so you better think only good things".   I think the momentum
    of mass consciousness *could* change to avert prophecised events,
    but I doubt that it will change enough to avert all the problems
    coming out of the future toward the present.
    
    	Do most of you *really* feel that all these prophets are false?
    Or did my note just happen to attract the cynics?

		    	Alan.

    I don't think they are false Alan.  Sun Bear spoke of a Hopi prophesy
    that said "when the Little Sister speaks, the Grandfather answers".
    He said that the Little Sister was Mount St Helens and the Grandfather
    (unless I remember incorrectly) was Mt Rainier.  I saw a National
    Geographic special that spoke of 'steam vents' opening and an increase
    of activity there.  Sun Bear said to watch the earth for signs of
    what is to come.

    
    
    Hi Mary,
    
    You remembered correctly.  And that prophesy was made long before
    Mount St. Helens erupted.
    
    Carole
    

RE: .11 (Alan)

    >  You suffer from great ignorance of geology?   I live in Colorado,
    and all around me is the geology of features that have been under an
    ocean.   How might this have happened?   If the ground cannot move, why
    are there so many ocean fossils to be found on dry land? < 


And you dare to ask me if I suffer from ignorance of geology?!  The deposits
you see are the result of changes that took millennia to accomplish; they didn't
happen overnight!


    >  Your world view apparently contains delusions of eternal stability?
    < 

No, but I am not so foolish as to believe in events that would be geologically
miraculous.


    >  Or perhaps you just imagine that it won't happen now?   It has been
    noted that swift changes in water tables can cause earthquakes, so, can
    you possibly find it in your mind to admit that we humans may actually
    have the power to trigger geological changes?   Or that we might just
    be alive when these changes happen?  < 

There is a helluva big difference between an earthquake and a global disaster.
California is due for some big quakes (what else is new?) but I sure wouldn't
run out and invest in beach-front property in Nevada.
    

    >   I actually don't think that *all* of California will fall under the
    ocean.   Just some of it.   I find the predictions plausable, but I
    still read them with a critical mind.   I think it's quite possible
    that these predictions are correct.  < 


The shelf that is California is simply too thick to fall into the ocean. I find
no scientific evidence that California is capable of doing so.  Of course that
won't stop the "prophets" from making their predictions.  Once a big earthquake
happens and someone's house falls into the sea, the doomsayers will just amend
their predictions (as they always do) and say the prophecies were fulfilled.

It's interesting that the California myth pops up around the turn of every
decade.  I remember a prediction that there would be sea urchins on Rodeo
Drive some time around 1970!  [An aside:  If you want a real belly laugh,
read some of Jean Dixon's books written in the 1960s.  She is living proof
that you can get lucky once with a prediction and cash in on it for the
rest of your life.  It doesn't seem to matter that 99% of her predictions
never happen.]


RE: .12

    >   What precautions are reasonable ?   What precautions can we
    reasonably take to prepare for the predicted earth changes?  < 

Preparation based on insubstantial belief cannot be called reasonable. 
Of course, it is always wise to be prepared for an emergency, but only a
fool prepares for a cataclysm.
    

    >  Can I assume that all of you who believe that nothing will change,
    will be taking no precautions?   John, would you consider a move if it
    looked like Mt Rainier might be becoming active?  < 

Mt. Rainier certainly has the potential, but geologic surveys do not predict
its erupting in the near future.  If there were cogent reasons to believe
that Seattle were endangered by an eruption in the near future, then it
would be wise to take appropriate action.


John M.
                                                                   

	RE: .18     (John)

> And you dare to ask me if I suffer from ignorance of geology?!  The deposits
> you see are the result of changes that took millennia to accomplish; they 
> didn't happen overnight!

	Yeah, I dare.  At first there, it sounded like you were saying
   that nothing is moving.   Now I understand you are just saying that
   all geological movement is *slow*.   Science is still in disagreement 
   about this stuff.   The conflict between "steady-state" theories and 
   "cataclysmic" theories is a long standing one, and is not yet all 
   resolved.   I think there are long periods of stability punctuated 
   by periods of *very* rapid change.   No point in arguing it, the
   future will provide us with new information for our respective theories.

> Preparation based on insubstantial belief cannot be called reasonable. 
> Of course, it is always wise to be prepared for an emergency, but only a
> fool prepares for a cataclysm.

	Well, I've been called a fool before, and no doubt will be again.
   But, in fact I think you might find many of my preparations are in
   fact "reasonable".   And of course you are right, that all I can really
   prepare for is the more basic emergencies.   How about you?   Do you
   keep spare food and drinking water on hand?   I started storing more
   drinking water, after Chernobyl, and the recent waterway chemical
   spills have reaffirmed that decision.   Remember, my original question
   here is "what are reasonable precautions?"   I would like to hear your
   answer to that question.   

> Mt. Rainier certainly has the potential, but geologic surveys do not predict
> its erupting in the near future.  If there were cogent reasons to believe
> that Seattle were endangered by an eruption in the near future, then it
> would be wise to take appropriate action.

	But, John, no scientist knows enough to predict when a volcano will
   blow !   Although we are learning more all the time.   Now, I ignore 
   psychics most of the time, but the reason I became interested in all these 
   predictions is because *many* psychics are making them.   Well, I suppose 
   they might have all read Edgar Cayce first, but I don't think that 
   accounts for all of it.   I think that all the parallel prophecies are very 
   important, and dangerous to ignore.   Here we differ on our views of
   what is a "cogent reason".   I have seen enough to begin taking some
   appropriate actions, and the only difficulty I am having is with deciding
   what is in fact appropriate.
                                                                   
		Alan.

    Cataclysmic change that can be evoked by man = nuclear war.
    
    A good book, if you are looking to survive either a nuclear war
    or survive major and rapid planetary changes is _Survival in to
    the 21st Century_.  It can be awfully depressing, though, and it
    certainly contains its share of controversial approaches to
    preparation. There is a rather rigorous body-cleansing regimen put
    forth; some of what is within that regimen has been widely debated
    in HOLISTIC.
    
    As for the original question...am I preparing for it...my feeling
    is that one should generally be prepared for anything and everything,
    but I relate that more to a mental attitude than to an attitude
    of actually making physical preparations (collecting food, water,
    etc).  However, my significant other complements me in that he is
    making certain survivalist-type plans on the physical level.
    
    Meredith

REP .19 (Alan)

    >   How about you?   Do you keep spare food and drinking water on hand?
    < 


When I lived in the S.F. Bay area, I kept bottled water and canned food
on hand (for earthquakes).  Now that I do not live in an earthquake-prone
area, I do not keep such supplies on hand.
     
    
    >  But, John, no scientist knows enough to predict when a volcano will
    blow !  < 

Oh no?  Ever hear of Mt. St. Helens?


    >  I think that all the parallel prophecies are very important, and
    dangerous to ignore.  < 

But they are only "parallel" because they are being interpreted that way. They
could as easily be interpreted any other way.  

I love how 99% of all prophecies
are interpreted in retrospect; they are otherwise useless.  It's easy to say
after the fact that a gourd of ashes hitting the ground represented the
Hiroshima bomb (never mind that the bomb was exploded *above* the ground).  And
now that Mt. St. Helens has gone off (a mountain way outside the geographic
sphere of the Hopi) it has entered the realm of prophetic fulfillment. Prophecy
is what you make of it.  Given enough time, just about EVERYTHING comes true. 

    In visions of another day, 
    The Hopi prophets watch the skies. 
    They dream destruction far away, 
    Yet can't predict their own demise! 

John M.

    Oh no John,.... not more Vogon Poetry.

    I think what bothers me about preparing for these Earth Changes
    is the problem with, say you institute a survivalble alternative.
    You get a underground house in the boonies with air and water
    filtration systems, food supplies, communications, batteries
    and power supplies. You have gasoline and fuel stocked, with
    4-Wheel drive vehicles for mobility and feel psychologically
    and physically prepared to survive for the future with your
    family.
    
    Now, for me the problem comes to bear, here you have the city
    people, the young tough thugs and hoodlums who haven't
    prepared so elegantly as you, and want to survive just as
    much. You've made for yourself this huge magnetic of sorts to
    attract all those people who want what you got, because it
    appears that you have prepared to survive and they didn't.
           
    Especially in this extremely live or die situation that millions
    of people will be encountering.
    
    What do you do now? Personal Survival above all else to
    weather these Earth Changes and do you defend you and your
    family against all these people who probably wouldn't stop
    at anything in their desperation to survive.
    
    What I'm saying is, did you forget your automatic weapons with
    fully loaded clips? 
                       
    How far does your own Personal Survival Instinct take you to
    live another day?
    
    This is so depressing, but I'd appreciate some replys.
    
    -Arthur
                                   

    	All I've got to say on this subject is, just remember THE ROAD
    WARRIOR...
    
    	Larry
    

    
    	Well, some of the Native Americans say that the richest person
    is the person who can survive comfortably with the least.   One
    of the preparations I am making, is to take a good wilderness
    survival class, and spend some time practicing.   It's said that
    a person can survive with only a knife, if they know how.  (and
    can even make their own flint knife!)
    
    	Of course there is a world of difference between survival by
    stocking material goods, and other possible methods such as
    aligning with some spiritual power, or by learning to do without
    posessions.   I consider all three possibilities quite valid,
    and hope to find a good balance.
    
    	I think there is a lot to be said for the non-materialist
    approach.   I am reminded of a few of Jesus's sayings:  "Do this
    (seek the Kingdom of Heaven) first, and all these other things will 
    be added unto you."   But he also mentions some maidens who are
    to keep their lamps ready and filled with oil...
    
    	As I said I thing there is a balance to be found here, and
    am still *very* interested to hear other people's ideas on whatever
    they feel are the realistic preparations that need to be made.
    
    			Alan.

    I just had a thought (OH NO! not *another* one!!).
    
    Do you think that our government is already making arrangements
    for itself!?!?!?!?                                

 
    For the top top officials in government they have underground mountain
    hideaways in Virginia.

    For you and I they have Subway Stations....
    
    -Arthur

    	Switzerland has quite an elaborate underground system which
    	can provide a safe habitat for hundreds of thousands in the
    	event of a natural disaster.  According to Swiss reports,
    	this would also be effectively functional in the event of a
    	nuclear war.  (They claim they're neutral, but Schwyz has
    	more underground mountain shelters per capita than any other
    	country in the world.)
    
    	In typical Swiss fashion, guards will require you to provide
    	a Swiss passport before allowing admittance.
    
    						Carla
    

    
    You can also make out the tank-stoppers tastefully hidden by plantlife
    when you travel by train if you're observant enough.  Pretty impressive
    place - Switzerland.
    
    Oh for some muesli and some coffee right now - preferably at the
    base of the Matterhorn in Zermatt while taking a break from skiing.
    
    The mind wanders.....
                        
    Cindy

    	If you want muesli, Cindy, stop over for breakfast some
    	time and I'll pour you a bowl of Zuricky Birchermuesli!  
    	(I get all the good stuff directly imported.)
    
    	Carla  who_even_has_raclette_and_a_bottle_of_REAL_Kirsch_
    	       clamoring_to_be_consumed...
    

    re: .29 (Cindy)
    
    	Haven't we had a similar conversation before???  Maybe we
    	shared a past life carousing through the Alps and chasing
    	Swiss bicyclists...  ;-)
    
    						Carla
    

    re: .28
    
    Aren't all houses in Switzerland also required to have a bomb shelter
    stocked with a certain amount of food and water at all times? I
    believe I was told this was the case when visiting a family there
    last summer.
    
    -Amy.
    

    
    	Here in Colorado Springs the government has built the NORAD
    (North American Air Defense Command) under Cheyenne mountain,
    which is just southwest of colorado springs, less than 15 miles
    from the DEC plant, as the crow flies.    I can see it from here.
    This is only for the bigwigs though.   There's not room for many 
    civilians in there.
    
    	However, a lot of the prophecies are predicting a lot of
    earthquake activity.   It seems to me that I wouldn't want to
    be in an underground tunnel if there was a quake.   Although they
    have "padded" the NORAD base to protect against a direct hit,
    there are no protections for Colorado Springs, which is right
    next door.   The Broadmoor neigborhood has been called "Ground zero
    estates" by ex-governor Lamm, since it's right at the foot of
    Cheyenne mountain.
    
    	But, anyway, it seems like the USA government is prepared
    only to protect the elite.   The Swiss system sounds a lot more
    democratic to me.   All the more reason for each of us to look
    to protect our own future options, since the government is not
    going to.
    
    	Alan.

RE: .18    
    
    John, in science (unlike, e.g., politics) when you are "right" for
    the wrong reasons, you are simply wrong.

    Yes -- there is no reasonable sense in which California is going to
    "fall into the ocean."  But *no* we cannot conclude this because
    "The shelf that is California is simply too thick to fall into the
    ocean."

    The latter is plausible sounding nonsense on a par with "The
    Continents can't move because they are too large and solid."

    Certainly, California, being continental structure, is too thick
    to become ocean basin floor in any human time scale, but such a
    radical interpretation is hardly required of the phrase.

    Inundation of the low-lying, populated areas as a result of
    a series of earthquakes could certainly legitimately described
    as "falling into the ocean".  Very large earthquakes can cause large
    scale movement measured in feet, and a drop of a foot or two
    would be all that is necessary to cause this disaster.  Such
    large fault-slips over such a large area is cataclysmic beyond
    anything in human history -- but not in geological history.

    The reason that we can discount the possibility that California
    is going to fall into the ocean is because the plate movement
    which causes earthquakes in the area are principally pushing
    California northward and slightly *upward* (as the Pacific plate
    subducts beneath it) rather than downward.  The direction of movment
    is only likely to change signficantly in geological rather than human
    time.  Of course local buckling might cause some limited area (e.g.,
    LA) to be flooded, but this *would* be local.

    (Didn't I go through this same thing with someone else earlier
    in the New Age/Harmonic Convergence discussions?  Oh, well, this
    *is* DEJAVU after all. :-)

				    Topher
   

    Re .34 (Topher):
    
    >The reason that we can discount the possibility that California
    >is going to fall into the ocean is because the plate movement
    >which causes earthquakes in the area are principally pushing
    >California northward and slightly *upward* (as the Pacific plate
    >subducts beneath it) rather than downward.
     
    The author, Ben Bova, once wrote a story suggesting that everything
    _East_ of California would fall into the ocean.  Hmm :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jy.

    
    	Continental drift theories are rather recent and not all entirely
    worked out.   One theory I read (can't remember where, perhaps John
    White's "Pole Shift") was that the drift was started when Atlantis 
    sank, and has been slowing down ever since.   (and it does seem to 
    be slowing down, according to my vaguely remembered reference.)   If 
    this is the case, a large enough event (like the "pole shift" some 
    prophets have mentioned) might start the continents sliding in new 
    directions.

    		Alan.

    RE: .35 (Steve)
    
    There IS nothing east of California!
    
    
    John M.

    re: .28 (Amy)
    
    	All houses built after 1950 (or thereabouts) are required
    	to have an underground shelter.  Most Swiss (that I know)
        don't particularly stock water or food other than surplus
    	homemade canned goods, but use the room as a wine cellar.
    	Priorities *are* priorities, after all...
    
    						Carla
    

RE: .36
    
    Continental drift theories *are* fairly recent as theories completely
    revamping entire major areas of science go (its not *quite* fair
    to say that pre-continental drift large-scale geology is to modern
    large-scale geology as alchemy is to chemistry).  They started to
    be taken seriously in the late 60's I believe.
    
    That's long enough for the major outline of the theory to be well
    developed and understood.
    
    Strong evidence (indeed, the specific evidence that lead to the
    acceptance of continental drift) indicates that it has functioned
    for hundreds of millions of years -- much longer than any figure
    I have seen proposed for the sinking of Atlantis.  Geologists generally
    believe that continental drift is as old as the crust -- billions
    (milliards for some of you British English speakers) of years.
    
    The force driving continental drift is the convection currents in
    the Earth's mantal.  As the Earth cools these do weaken.  And so
    in theory Continental drift is slowing down.  But again we are
    talking about an effect only measurable over periods of hundreds
    of millions of years.
    
    If there was ever an Atlantis which sank beneath the sea (which
    in any literal sense, I doubt) than it did so as part of the ongoing
    tectonic processes which existed before it and which still exist
    now.
    
    					Topher

RE: .36

If you look at a map of the world you can see how the continents fit together
like a puzzle.  If Atlantis ever existed (and why people think it did is
beyond me), it should have left a "hole."  There isn't one.


John M.

    Reply to .40, John,
    
    Unless of course if there wasn't another continent that sank pushing
    up other land masses that caused our continents to separate.
    
    I saw a very interesting computer simulated graphic that showed
    how the continents separated. All the continents were on one side
    of the planet. I wonder what was on the other side? Water? Were
    sea levels different? The Mediterranian was an open basin that somehow
    got filled.
    
    I agree with you about California. Part of it is moving northward, not
    sinking. It will be a giant island in about 1,000,000 years. Ocean
    levels may be different then too so who knows what property prices
    will be like. B^)
    
    I hope we're around in a million years! 

    
    I don't think that California will "sink", but my question is...
    
    If the earthquake is extremely big, what about tidal wave activity?
    
    If a tidal wave was big enough, would it not "appear" that part
    of California "sank"??
    
    Just a thought...
    
    Linda
    

    
    I just ran across another book on this stuff;  "The Phoenix Returns"
    by Kristina Gale-Kumar.    I haven't read much of it yet, but it
    seems to be an attempt to correlate all the various predictions.
    The symbolism of the Phoenix is interesting, and often seems to
    be related to these predicted events.
    
    	I don't really know for myself how plausable the California
    predictions are.   I have a brother who lives there now, and I
    decided I won't bring up the topic with him, *unless* (until?)
    the warning sequence of events that Cayce predicted (as I outlined 
    in .1) does begin to happen.   If these "warning sequence" events
    happen in the order predicted, then I would take the rest of it 
    more seriously.   At that point I will have to make some serious 
    long distance phone calls.    But for now, I am content to wait 
    and see.

    			Alan.

RE: .40
    
    John, as you know I don't think that Atlantis ever existed, but
    your argument is bogus.
    
    First, as pointed out by someone already, it might not have been
    part of Pangea.  That all the existing continents happened to come
    together at one time is an observation, not a logical necessity.
    Pieces which currently don't exist now may have existed then but
    not have been part of it.
    
    Second, it might have been on the coast of Pangea, and therefore
    our current picture of its outline may be incorrect.
    
    Third, if some unknown mechanism caused Atlantis to sink
    cataclysmically that same mechanism may have caused it to rise --
    post-pangea -- in the first place.
    
    Fourth, it may not have been a continent in the modern geological
    sense.
    
    Fifth, and perhaps most important, the whole neat jig-saw puzzle
    view of Pangea is an artifact.  The people who are concerned with
    these things are concerned with getting them to fit.  They use
    extensive (legitimate) fudge-factors such as changing water level
    subsequent subduction, etc to make the outlines fit.  You will
    find if you look that many of the maps disagree about what goes
    where, yet they all fit.  Furthermore, if you compare the outlines
    of the pieces you will find that virtually none of them match the
    current coastlines in detail.  Some of the maps leave rather large
    "lakes" rather than trying to stretch things too far.
    
    What is significant about the Pangea hypothesis is not that the
    current, much modified pieces fit perfectly; but that various
    independent lines of evidence point (e.g., tracing back sea floor
    spreading, direction of risidual magnetism in continental lava
    flows, matching fossils on distant shores, and apparent animal
    migration paths) back to a fit close enough for the fairly broad
    fudging that is justified to *make* them fit exactly.
    
    						Topher

    Re .44 (Topher):
    
    As you know, I also share doubts that Atlantis, as in the myth,
    existed.  However, to amplify on something said,
    
    >Fourth, it may not have been a continent in the modern geological
    >sense.
     
    A perusal of Greek writings shows that their basic early organization
    was city-states (Athens, Sparta, etc.).  The description of Atlantis
    in the Platonic dialogues doesn't sound like an area that's too
    large -- more like a big island than a continent.
    
    The cataclysmic disappearance of islands (or their appearance, for
    tghat matter) would be more or less unrelated to the Pangea hypothesis.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    An idea on a possible mechanism that might cause the sinking 
    (and rising) of continents;
    
    	In the "Prophecies of Dejavu Noters" topic I outline a possible
    mechanism for polar shifts;  when the ice caps grow large enough,
    the crust of the earth goes off balance, and the weight of the ice
    caps causes the entire crust to realign, with the heaviest part
    of the crust, and the ice caps, moving toward the equator by
    centrifugal force.
    
    	This scenario could also explain the rising or sinking of
    Atlantis, Lemuria, etc.    There is a rather large equatorial
    bulge, so that the Earth's diameter is larger at the equator
    than from pole to pole.   If a land mass moves over this bulge
    it might be raised to a higher altitude.   A land mass that
    was equatorial before a shift, might sink under the ocean if
    it moved farther from the equator, where there was less bulge.
    
	I have been reading "The Earth Changes Update" by Hugh Lynn
    Cayce recently, which outlines most of the things Edgar Cayce
    said about land movements.   He clearly states that Atlantis
    was an entire continent stretching between Florida and Gibraltar.
    It was said to have sunk in stages, and is predicted to rise
    again during the next several years.    There is a lot of evidence
    that there was once dry land east of Florida, where there have
    been discovered stone works under the water, and large 'sinkholes'
    that are believed to have once been fresh water lakes.   Drill
    cores from the mid Atlantic region have shown evidence of the area
    having once been above sea level, since there were diatoms (fresh
    water life forms) found in the sediments.   
    
         Here in my Colorado home, there is beach sand to be found 
    above 12,000 feet, on the side of Pike's Peak.   (I could enter 
    a whole note on the illogic of geologists explanations of the 
    evolution of Colorado Springs geology!   Their timing of events 
    is clearly screwed up!)   Pikes Peak is believed to be formed
    during the Miocene era (quite recent in geological terms) so it
    appears that this wole area was under water sometime during the
    last 10 million years.   This evidence does not agree at all with 
    the beliefs of the "steady state" geology school, or with those 
    who believe that the shapes of continents have stayed basically 
    the same for millions of years.
    
	I have gradually come to the conclusion that many modern
    geological theories are entirely wrong;  such as "continental drift"
    and "ice ages".   I believe the evidence is better explained by
    the theory that the Earth's crust periodically shifts position.
    In each new position, the ice caps form in new areas, causing the
    scars (moraines, etc.) that are usually attributed to "ice ages".

	Alan.

    	Yes, there was plenty of dry land east of Florida at one time;
    it was what we know know as Europe, Africa, and Asia, and all the
    continents formed one giant continent (roughly 200 million years
    ago) called Pangaea, before continental drift started splitting
    the land masses apart.
    
    	Larry
    

Did you ever notice all the waterlike fossils inside of the red rocks at Garden 
of the Gods?  Fishes, I say.  But I'm just me, not an expert in geology.

I heard one theory that there used to be a lot more water on the planet, but a 
giant comet came, clashed with Earth, and dried up a lot of her supply.

In my high-school Geology class, we learned about Gondwanaland (spelling??), 
which was one great land mass that separated into the seven continents as we 
know them now.  Could that be as a result of the Great Flood of Noah's time? Or 
was the Great Flood, a result of the separation?  Or neither?

These, and other questions, perhaps never to be answered at all...

Somewhere in the replies of this note I read about the unlikelihood of
rapid geologic changes.  What could be the explanation for the discovery
of Mammouths in Siberia frozen and preserved in ice - with unchewed food
in their mouths (tropical type, I might add)???

Terry

    Re .49 (Terry):
    
> ......................... What could be the explanation for the discovery
>of Mammouths in Siberia frozen and preserved in ice - with unchewed food
>in their mouths (tropical type, I might add)???
 
    Rapid freezing by mechanisms from alien UFOs. ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    Sorry; that was nigh on irresistible!   
         

    	There is a current theory about a planetoid or comet which
    struck Earth and was the cause for the extinction of the dinosaurs 
    65 million years ago, and that this was the reason for several other
    major extinctions of species throughout the ages.  A single comet
    or planetoid could not "dry up" most of Earth's water, and the kind
    of celestial object big enough to do it would also obliterate the
    entire planet, so obviously it has not happened.
    
    	As for the Flood in the Bible, there is no geological evidence
    to support a world-wide flood in the relatively recent past, though
    it seems the Bible borrowed this story from Greek and Babylonian
    myths; and these myths probably came from some big - though not 
    Earth-encompassing - floods which occured to those civilizations at 
    one time. 
                   
    	Larry
                                                        

    Re .51 (Larry):
    
    >	As for the Flood in the Bible, there is no geological evidence
    >to support a world-wide flood in the relatively recent past, though
    >it seems the Bible borrowed this story from Greek and Babylonian
    >myths; and these myths probably came from some big - though not 
    >Earth-encompassing - floods which occured to those civilizations at 
    >one time. 
     
    Will, there are those who might cite cases to you that'd "prove"
    it; though with the rise and fall of land masses, it'd be hard to
    convince geologists.
    
    My own pet hyopthesis (not unique).  Many thousand years ago, the
    Pillars of Hercules were a single mass, behind which was a depression.
    This depression, partially filled with water from various rivers,
    was sufficiently fertile so that many people settled in it.  In
    time, the solid mass eroded, and eventually split open, allowing
    the Atlantic Ocean to inundate the depression, which became the
    Mediterranean Sea.  The vast majority of the people who had settled
    in this area were killed, but a few straggklers found their way
    to the new shores.  The Noah story, and that of Deucalion, were
    time-distorted accounts of that inundation.
    
    If the Pillars of Hercules were dammed up, the evaporation from
    the Mediterranean, I've read, would empty about 2/3 of it before
    replacement from the river waters would match the evaporation. 
    This was calculated when some engineers wewre doing a feasibility
    study of constructing a dam for an international hydroelectric station.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re .51 (Larry)  [the link went down just before this reply got entered
    		     as .52]
    
>    	As for the Flood in the Bible, there is no geological evidence
>    to support a world-wide flood in the relatively recent past, though
>    it seems the Bible borrowed this story from Greek and Babylonian
>    myths; and these myths probably came from some big - though not 
>    Earth-encompassing - floods which occured to those civilizations at 
>    one time.
    
    	If you are able to, can you list the types of things that should be
    evident if there WAS a world-wide flood in the relatively recent past?
    I can't say that I could do so myself without having to do some
    research, but it sounds like you have, and it's something I've always
    wondered about, but haven't had the time to check out for myself.
    
    								-mark.

RE: .46 (Alan)
    
    OK let's take your points one by one.

    > <Ice caps destabilizing the Earth's rotation.>

    The Earth is *very* big.  Everything we are familiar with: the oceans,
    the ice caps, the continents, mountains, the atmosphere, etc. is,
    relative to the Earth, a tiny, almost unnoticeable skin.  The ice
    caps are pretty much symmetric around the poles and therefore there
    size does not have any "first-order" effect on the axis of rotation.
    That is to say, to a good degree of approximation, the centrifugal
    force pulls the ice caps towards the equator in all directions equally
    and therefore cancels itself out.  Second order effects, due to the
    asymmetries which exist and to the ability of the caps to exaggerate
    a large shift into a larger shift
    do not seem to be large enough to be significant.  Do the math and
    show me wrong, but I would guesstimate that the effects are several
    orders of magnitude too small.

    > <Continents being raised up by crossing the equatorial bulge>

    The equatorial bulge effects both the ocean and the continents.
    "Sea-level" at the equator is higher at the equator, as measured
    from the center of the earth, than it is at the poles.  As the
    continents are raised up as they move over the equator so is the
    ocean -- relative to each other they stay the same.

    > <Dry land east of Florida>

    How far east?  Who believes that the sinkholes were once lakes?
    What stone works?  (We're not talking about the large stone blocks
    which were shown to have been dumped from a quarry barge during
    a storm, are we?)  No modern geologist argues that continents don't
    sink (slowly) to form continental shelf, and vice versa.

    > <Diatoms in mid-Atlantic>

    Diatoms are fresh-water organisms?  Diatoms exist both in sea-water
    and fresh-water but are far more common in the former.  One of the
    geological indicators of deep-sea sediments is a high proportion of
    diatoms.

    I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that what was meant
    was that fresh-water diatoms were found in mid-Atlantic sediments.

    The modern picture of the formation of the Atlantic starts with
    North America and Europe joined what is now the edges of their
    respective continental shelves.  A rift formed between them and
    new crust started to form along that rift pushing them apart.
    Initially the effect would be similar to the Red Sea today, which
    is a relatively young rift.  The sediments laid down at this
    early stage would contain a lot of fresh-water sediments: lots of
    sand, dust and fresh-water organisms (including diatoms).  As
    the rift enlarged, these edges of the deep sea (which *are* deep
    sea, mind you) would continue to receive a high proportion of
    fresh-water sediment.  Relatively recently discovered phenomena
    -- strong currents, or rivers, on the floor of the ocean -- would
    in places displace some of this sediments further towards the
    center.  Nowhere would I expect to see *no* sign of fresh-water
    sediments.  As I understand it, however, one would only expect to
    find diatoms, fresh-water or salt-water, only in recent sediments
    in very deep sea water, since under pressure sea-water slowly dissolves
    the silicates which diatoms' shells are made of.

    If you have evidence that sediments close to the mid-Atlantic ridge
    contain fresh-water derived sediments in excess of what can be
    explained by the standard model of continental drift, please cite
    it (Really!  There is nothing I enjoy more than holes in current
    theory.  A good anomaly makes my day.  But it has to be real and
    well substantiated.).  From what I know of him, Mr. Cayce is sincere
    in his beliefs but his belief in anomalous sediments does not compel
    my belief.  Give me a reason to believe it other than that it would
    stick in the craw of the scientific establishment.

    > <Beach sand on Pike's Peak>

    First off, according to the dictionary I have here, the Miocene period
    *ended* 10 million years ago and started *25* million years ago.
    Furthermore, that Pike's Peak was formed during the Miocene does
    not mean that the ground it was formed from only appeared above
    the ocean when it was formed (I'm assuming that it *was* formed
    during the Miocene).  Therefore the correct deduction is not
    "It appears that this whole area was under water sometime during
    the last 10 million years." but the opposite, "It appears that this
    whole area was under water some time more than 10 million years ago".

    According to the article I just read in the Brittanica (not the most
    up-to-date source, but handy) the youngest sediments which make up
    the Rockies are judged, primarily on the basis of fossils, to have
    been laid down from 550 million to 225 million years ago, during
    the Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras.  Which is a bit earlier than
    "during the last 10 million years."

    Current geological theories, have the Pacific plate colliding with
    North America and subducting under it.  This action has "crumpled"
    up the west coast of North America to form the Rockies (much simplified
    description).  This started in the middle Mesozoic era and continues
    to this day.  Before that, what is now the Rocky Mountains was
    continental shelf -- sea floor.

    Once again, if you can substantiate errors in the current geological
    picture of your area, I am very interested.  But watch out for sign
    errors and inaccurate geological dates.

    > <Crustal shift vs continental drift and ice ages>

    There was once a fair body of evidence for crustal shift, as well as
    the sinking and raising of vast continental "land bridges".  Virtually
    all of these anomalies are very well explained by continental drift.
    There is now an incredible amount of evidence for continental drift.

    Anyone who wants to replace it has to explain (or at least make
    it plausible that a alternate explanations can be found) for a wide
    number of different phenomena, including the shapes of the continents,
    the relations between the rocks and fossils on either side of oceans,
    earthquakes, the form of island chains such as Hawaii, the abrupt
    transitions in geology in Northern California, the age and magnetic
    patterns in the mid-Atlantic ridge, the geology of Yellowstone park,
    the magnetic patterns in continental rocks, the distribution of
    volcanoes, what causes mountain building, metamorphic rocks, and
    last, but not least, the measured movements of the continents relative
    to each other (and that list is off the top of the head of someone
    only peripherally interested in Geology).

    Similarly for the ice ages.  There is an incredible amount of
    evidence for the ice ages and their timing.  Various measurements
    of sediment rates, oxygen ratios, as well as geological traces
    are all consistent with ice ages.  Your own theory of what triggers
    the crustal shifts require a strong cooling trend, (i.e., an ice
    age).  Otherwise ice will not accumulate at the poles but will
    simply continue to calve off icebergs at the edges and maintain
    a steady state (actually, today the balance is towards a recession
    of the caps -- i.e., ice is being lost faster than it is accumulating).

    I have seen some claims of data which argues for world-wide
    catastrophe.  Things like tropical vegetation in the stomachs of
    mammoths frozen in the tundra (but even in a catastrophic freeze,
    why would so clearly a cold adapted animal be eating tropical
    vegetation).  I have yet to see any of these substantiated, however.
    Once again, I'll buy it if I can get evidence for it from a reliable
    source.  The "ordinary glacial" features seem to be very well
    explained by extensive ice sheets and could be explained, though
    less cleanly by (physically a priori very unlikely) catastrophic
    crustal shifts.  Give me some substantial facts which can be explained
    by the latter but not the former and I'll be on your side.

					    Topher

    re: the Biblical Flood
    
    It was my understanding that there is a noticeable layer of
    sediment, indicating catastrophic flooding, in the "mideast"
    (Iran/Iraq/Syria?), the "fertile crescent".  This would not have
    been a literally world wide event, "world" for an ancient culture
    sometimes had a narrower perspective.  I believe the date match
    was within reason of the Biblical Flood.
    
    Anybody else remeber something along these lines?
    
    thanks
    dave pierson

    re: Topher
    
    There was an MIT hack back when the Hancock (or was it the Pru?)
    building was going up.  Calculations were devised that purported 
    to show that when completed the building was completed it would
    change the moment of inertia of the earth causing it to leave its
    orbit around the sun and predicting much mayhem therefrom.  :-)
    
    re: ? (Steve)
    
    Did you catch a TV (Nova?) segment on some findings in the
    Mediterranean?  As usual I was only half paying attention while
    reading the paper or something, but there seems to be core sampling
    evidence that supports the theory that Gibralter was dammed at one
    point.  This "dam" "broke" (sea rising or land subsidence or both)
    and the area known as the Mediterranean went from being a "dead
    inland sea" to a sea (process is supposed to have happened several
    times, I think).  I believe this would have been before the time of 
    civilization though.  Remember, all the time man has been on the 
    face of the earth is just a blink of the eye when geologic events 
    are discussed.  There are a few catastrophic events that could 
    have caused some ancient myths...
    
    re: others
    
    I caught a blurb in the Lawrence Eagle/Tribune that said there was
    a new theory of Atlantis.  Apparently there was a major volcano
    in the Mediterranean that blew up and made Krakatoah (sp?) look
    like a kid's fire cracker.  (I haven't heard of this one before and
    would expect that I would have since I have a general interest.)
    This explosion would have caused a tsunami that would have wiped
    out any number of Med civilizations (raising my suspicions about
    whether it is in fact true).  The one they thought might be Atlantis
    was the Minoan civilization.  Except they found that as best they
    could tell the Minoan civilization declined and/or died 50 years
    after this supposed explosion.  The article did not provide sufficient
    information for a me to have high confidence in its content.
    
    Stan
    
    P.S.  Krakatoah was a volcanic island that blew up (sea water and
    hot magma combining undergroud to create a massive explosion) with
    the force of a few megaton atomic bombs.  A date of 1868 or 1888
    seems to be floating around in memory but don't quote me.  All that
    was left was a small percentage of the island when the smoke cleared.

RE: .57 (Stan)
    
    > <MIT hack>
    
    I think they had an error somewhere in their calculations.
    
    > <NOVA on the dry Mediterranean>
    
    That was an exceptionally good NOVA.  That the Mediterranean was
    dry until about 10,000 years ago is now pretty much a mainstream
    geological belief.  The entire thing apparently filled up in a
    matter of years (<100).  When I first heard of this the possibility
    that the biblical Flood was a cultural memory of this event occurred
    to me as well.  It is a dramatic thought, and just barely possible,
    but an "ordinary" flood which grew in the telling seems more likely.
    
    > <Krakatoahoid source of Atlantis>
    
    You're right, it wasn't reliable -- this is hardly a new theory,
    its at least 25 years old (more I think).  Steve has discussed it
    in the Atlantis topic.  What's new is some more data as to the date
    of the eruption (ash in Greenland ice cores?  Something like that).
    This puts on firmer footing the belief that the Thieren eruption
    predated the colapse of the Minoan civilization by about 50 years,
    which already had a fair amount of evidence for it.  It is now thought
    likely that the erruption weakened the Minoans, wiped out one of
    their major trading cities (on the island itself) and perhaps directly
    resulted in a loss of political influence on the periphery of their
    empire.  In their weakened state, 50 years later, something else
    finally did them in.
    
    					Topher

    The Vogon News Service for April 15th gave an EXACT date for
    the eruption of Thera/Santorini: 1628 bce.
    
    Anyone know where that came from?
    
    Well before the Thera tsunami came the flooding of the Mediterranean
    basin, and the Flandrian Transgression, but both are VERY prehistoric.
    The early Egyptians had lovingly recorded the dates and extents
    of every flood between about 2700 and 2100 bce, and they don't mention
    any major non-Nile flood during *that* period.
    
    							Ann B.

    	The Mediterranean flood might have come down from oral legends
    by those who lived and survived in the area at the time.  There
    may not have been civilizations in Eurasia and Africa 10,000 years
    ago, but the people were Homo sapiens, and the first civilizations
    were only 5,000 years away.
    
    	Larry
    

    
    ref. frozen Siberian Mammoths...(my own theory)
    
    There are peat bogs in England that preserve for thousands of years
    animals that have fallen into them (including bronze age humans);
    the anarobic conditions and alkalinity of the bogs preserve tissue
    (no oxygen, so decay from microorganisms is slowed down; the alkalinity
    causes the fats to change to something quite like soap which is
    fairly stable).
    
    The climate of Siberia was know to be boggy grasslands at that time 
    (pollen analysis). It seems reasonable to assume that the mammoths fell
    into the bogs, drowned before they could finish their last meal,
    and were preserved in the same way as the Brittish specimens. The
    bogs were frozen in the next ice age and...PRESTO! Swanson's Frozen
    Mammoth TV Dinner!
    
    Ed E.
    
    
    

    Avram Davidson had a different theory.  He noticed that it was
    *only* mammoths who were found.  He therefore postulated that
    they would find their way into small depressions, and not be
    able to get out.  Other animals could escape because they could
    jump.  So, there the mammoth would stay, eating buttercups in
    this protected area, until a blizzard came howling down, and froze
    the beast solid, because he could not escape.
    
    The flaw in the peat bog theory is that the flesh of the thawed
    animals is often fresh enough to eat, which would not be the case
    for a body preserved in a tannic acid stew.  (I think that's the
    preservation method.)
    
    							Ann B.

    
    	Last night on NPR news, they said that there is a 99% probability
    that the drought in the midwest is being caused by changes brought
    on by the greenhouse effect.    There is a corresponding 1% probability
    that the weather is just a random fluctuation.   There has been
    a 3/4 degree rise in temperature this year, worldwide, where a 1/4
    change is normal.
    
    	It has been said that the harmonic convergence last August 17th was
    the start of the five years of "The Great Purification" that
    was prophecised as a time of great changes (ecological, and social)
    in our planet.   Could it be that the drought is the first real 
    evidence of such momentous changes?   I believe it is.

    			Alan.

RE: .63
    
    Not quite... There is a 99% chance that this is a real long-term
    climate change rather than a random hiccough of the weather.  That
    this change is due to the greenhouse effect is somewhat lower,
    say, 95%.
    
    This is a change which has been going on for 10 years at least.
    The climatologists are learning more, have better tools, and the
    climate change is continuing to grow.  That it was spotted now
    rather than 5 years ago says as much or more about our technology
    for detecting such things than anything about what is occuring.
    
    Assuming that it is the Greenhouse effect, it started 500 years
    or so ago (at least) and has steadily increased and steadily
    increased its rate of increase since that time.  Ten years ago
    it reached a point where retrospectively we can say that it was
    clearly showing significant effects on the weather, and now we
    can say something about what is happening *now* by looking at
    the past decade and before.
    
    					Topher

RE: .64 (Topher)

    Right.  But... with respect to the harmonic convergence and that this
    is supposed to be a time of cleansing (or whatever) I think relates to
    our becoming aware of the changes at this time even though the earth
    and it's atsmophere have been changing for a while (by our perception of
    time, geologically a second or two ago).  

    In the interest of quantum physics, since it is only recently that we
    have observed the change, was it really going on when we were unaware???
    (just trying to throw this out of perspective a bit...  :') )

    Terry

RE: .65 (Terry)
    
    > In the interest of quanum physics, ...
    
    You don't have to *notice* something to "observe" it in the quantum
    mechanical sense -- even in the most consciousness based
    interpretations.
    
    If you see a tree -- even if you don't pay any attention and even
    if you fail to notice that it is part of a pattern -- the forest
    has been observed.
    
    If you feel the temperature -- even if you don't notice that it
    is "too d**n hot" and even if you fail to notice that there have
    been a lot of hot summer days -- the climate change has been observed.
    
    				Topher

    re: -.1
      
          Would this be considered to be similar to determining the
    whole from any part of a hologram?  Sounds that way to me, anyway.
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .66 (Topher)

Yes, I agree that we do implicitly "observe" more than we see.  Our
subconscious minds see to that, but back to note .63, I think that it
is more than coincidence that the *affects* of this gradual climatic
change have only been significant (drought) to us recently.  Also, there
have been to many other *major* events for this to all be unrelated 
(I think, anyway), such as:

  October 87 stock market crash
  Several big time explosions (Nevada, Louisiana, Virginia)
  AIDS
  Shake up in the areospace industry by the Challenger disaster
  Russia's 'Glosnos' (sp).
  Chernobyl
  Increase in psychic/spiritual intrest by more and more people (ie, DEJAVU)
  Oh yes, and the discovery that Elvis is alive! ;') ;') ;') ;') 

Too much myth and lore seem to point to this time and the events occuring
within it to ignore or accept as coincendence.  I don't know what I'll do
if it's all true; I'm not a survivalist or anything like that so I'm not
running around preparing for who know's what. (It's late and I'm starting
to ramble...). 

Anyway, I'm keeping my eyes (all three) open and my ear to the ground.

Terry