Re: Nancy Lieder Exposed!

Chosp wrote:
> 
> "josX" wrote in message
> 
> > Look at the evidence, try the flash-frozen-Mammoth for instance... .
> 
> Provide even one shred of legitimate evidence for a flash-frozen
> mammoth.

Perhaps you spend too much time at your news reader and not enough time
reading the newspaper.  Here is an article from the most recent news
item about finding a nearly intact mammoth in Siberia that I found with
a casual search of "frozen mammoth" at Northern Light.

Now, on to the definition of "flash frozen".  A Mammoth is kind of like
a large elephant (which is known to be a vegetarian and consumes
grasses).  Based on the fact that undigested grass has been found in the
stomachs of these carcasses, it has been determined that Mammoths were
also grass eaters.

OBSERVATION: there is no grass currently in Siberia where these animals
were found as the area is a constantly frozen tundra.

CONCLUSION: either a) the climate changed and froze these animals, b)
they migrated there and subsequently froze to death, or c) a whole bunch
of UFOs picked up a whole herd of animals and dropped them in Siberia,
just to freak out our current scientists.

I'm sure you will not have any problem discarding item 'c'.  Item 'b'
simply does not make sense.  Why would a large number of Mammoths
suddenly decide to migrate to a clearly inhospitable climate, only to
die?  Ok, maybe the isolated single example of the deranged individual. 
However, if this were true, it would have arrived in Siberia after a
long migration over territory devoid of food, and it would have been a
starving emaciated example of the species.  This is not what was found. 
Instead what was found was an otherwise healthy individual, recently
fed, that had frozen.

OBSERVATION: dead animals rot.  They rot quickly.  Really large animals
take a while to totally decompose, but they do not take long to become
clearly rotten, through and through.

OBSERVATION: the animal that was most recently discovered was discovered
in a remarkable state of preservation, with the exception of its head,
which was not buried by the snow and ice.

OBSERVATION:  the animal was discovered almost totally covered in ice
and snow.

CONCLUSION: *whatever* happened did the following: a) it was fast enough
to freeze solid a multi-ton animal before it significantly decomposed b)
destroyed any evidence of the grassland environment that was clearly its
food source and c) covered the animal in snow for something like 12,000
years so deeply that it only recently became uncovered (and therefore
partially decomposed).

Now, the evidence of the existence of frozen mammoths is overwhelming. 
There are many scientific and anecdotal reports of finding the animals
intact and in such a fine state of preservation that the finders were
actually tempted to cook and eat them.  This is a simple and easily
verified historical fact.  All you have to do is a quick web search or
go to your community library.

There are reports of animals found where their eyeballs were intact, and
an inspection of their eyes indicated that the most probable cause of
death was hypothermia.  I.e. they froze to death.

Your only *possible* bone of contention could be in the definition of
"flash frozen".  So let me ask, what is your definition of the time
frame that would:

a) be fast enough to freeze solid a multi-ton animal before it
   significantly decomposed 
b) be fast enough to destroy any evidence of the grassland environment
   that was clearly its food source and 
c) be fast enough to cover the animal in snow for something like 12,000
   years so deeply that it only recently became uncovered (and therefore
   partially decomposed).

The only time frame I can think of is in the order of minutes to a
week.  Much less than minutes would require cryogenic processing and too
much over a week would have allowed the animal to significantly
decompose.  Lets, just for the sake of discussion, say that it took a
week.

This means that the climate went from a high grassland (where these
animals had clearly had time to exist in herds) to a permanently frozen
tundra in a week, and stayed that way for 12,000 years.  Now, sorry, but
by any reasonable definition you have to agree that this is "flash
frozen" when compared to *any* known climatic rate of change.

There cannot be any disagreement on the existence of these animals or
that they were flash frozen. The only possible point of disagreement is
in WHY they were flash frozen.  The evidence is just *so* overwhelming
and a casual search of the available information will show this to be
true.

The Small Kahuna