Re: Pole Shifts vs Ice Ages (Revisited)

"Thomas McDonald" wrote:
> Dear Ian,
>
> An example:
>
> "Ian says that the REAL question is 'why is there an ice cap
> in SIBERIA today when there is NOT an ICE CAP on Greenland?"
>
> _That's_ the level of "rewording" Nancy did of some of my
> posts.  To my way of thinking, that constitutes a lie,
> especially if it is repeated after correction (as Nancy
> did.)  Unless, of course, you are willing to accept that
> Nancy is truly, deeply and unreservedly dunderheaded.  In
> that case, I'd withdraw the "liar" epithet on the theory
> that "there is no need to attribute to malice that which is
> adequately explained by stupidity."

Tom,

I have not seen any such action or any such gross misrepresentation of any
of your postings by Nancy. What I have seen, and which I believe you are
referring to, is when she has taken your arguments about different climate
conditions on the same latitude out of context and reworded that into

"... at the same latitude, on the other side of the globe, the climate is
mysteriously warmer, as Thomas McDonald argued",

when you do not find that mysterious, and that you resent your arguments
being used for such purposes by Nancy.

However, factually, you have argued that the climate may indeed be very
different at the same latitude, as in the Siberia discussions with Nancy.

While you started out in a factual and decent manner, I am disappointed at
the development where you are going for the player instead of the ball,
using wording like "liar", "mental illness", "scam" etc. I am not happy
either with the term "blatantly dishonest summarizing" just because your
arguments are used out of your context.

I do believe however that Nancy could benefit from being more clear on what
are direct quotes and what is her own summarization.

> What is your own explanation for why Greenland has an ice
> cap today and Siberia does not?  Or are you not able to
> generate or look up your own ideas?

I do not have any own explanations, as that would be pure speculation. If I
came forward with any theory on my own here, everybody would jump at me and
ask "where's the evidence?". However, based upon the available information &
logical thinking, I cannot accept the current theories about the ice ages
and the ice caps extending out from the current poles.

I believe Charles Hapgood's explanations may be the closest. IIRC from last
time I read him, he does not offer any good explanations as to why the pole
shifts, which is where Nancy and the Zetas come into the picture.

Hapgood's "Earth's Shifting Crust" was reprinted in 1999 under the title
"Path of the Pole", just arrived from Amazon.com. I look forward to a good
re-read. Hapgood should be a clear recommendation for anyone searching for
alternative answers to questions like why Siberia was never covered with an
ice cap, while Greenland at the same latitude still holds 1/8th of the
global ice mass.

> Also, do you insist, along with Nancy, that, in the latter
> stages of the last ice age, Siberia had a temperate climate,
> equivalent to the northern US today? Or do you agree with me
> that it was a dry, cold, tundra/taiga mosaic, in and
> adjacent to the then-Arctic Circle (which is also the
> current AC, to a very close approximation), with its
> permafrost in broadly its current distribution?

I don't insist on anything, nor can I agree with your explanation, as I
wasn't there at the time. However, there are a lot of unanswered questions
as to the climate changes in the region, like the coral reefs and the oil
reservoirs in the North See.

> BTW, where did you read the series of posts you were referring
> to when you wrote, "I cannot see she has claimed Tom wrong
> in his factual information."?  If from Nancy's site, you
> might want to compare them to the Google archived ones.  In
> fact, that exercise is a good one in any event.

I have been following these threads for a while, and keep a 60+ days archive
myself.

As to the ZetaTalk site, I find the ZetaTalk information extremely
interesting, offering an explanation to many of the unexplained questions we
humans are struggling with. In this respect, Nancy acts only as a messenger,
according to her own site.

Stupid comments like "voices in her head" etc. are only for those not daring
to consider the unconventional, and an easy
way to discard the information offered without giving it any real
consideration.

The Troubled Times part of the site is however compiled by the information
from the TT lists, and may be speculative in nature. I have not checked
Nancy's sci.astro archive, but I would not be surprised if she has filtered
out the insults received here on sci.astro. If she has chosen to only
include the positive parts or her own postings, that's fair as long as the
premise is clear.

> Peace,
What about a peaceful attitude as well?

Ian