<begin text>
I too was sent a copy of Petersen's book and asked to make
comments on it. My experience is in geology, so I can not say much
about
the archaeological or astronomical aspects, but I can talk about the
geology, which makes up about half of his presentation. It is hard to
know where to begin. On one hand, Petersen is to be commended for
actually going out, doing fieldwork, and collecting first-hand geologic
data. Many people composing similar criticisms of conventional science
merely do research (often from greatly outdated sources that have been
many times recycled), and pontificate from their armchair about how
conventional scientists have it all wrong. Some of the data he has
collected looks to be correctly interpreted (e.g., the snails he
describes
are indeed freshwater), and most of it would probably be of interest to
readers.
On the other hand, his background research is still seriously
flawed at the most fundamental levels. For example, he critiques plate
tectonics many times, but most of the information he presents about it
is
little better than a cartoon version, and the rest of it is grossly
wrong.
For example, he thinks the melting seen at subduction zones is primarily
a
result of friction between the moving plates. Actually, this has
almost
nothing to do with it. It usually is a result of the introduction of
water from the subducting plate (which lowers the melting temperature
in
the mantle).
Petersen thinks that nuee ardentes (with an acute accent over the
first "e" in nuee), a type of pyroclastic volcanic eruption (a glowing,
hot flow of rock fragments), are somehow mysterious, and he dismisses
the
conventional explanation of them in a vague sentence. For some reason,
he
thinks the eruption of Mt. Pelee on Martinique in 1902 was the first
time
they had been seen. Actually, this was merely the first time they were
given the name "nuee ardentes" (which means "glowing cloud" in
French).
Nuee ardentes get entire chapters and books about them in the
conventional
geological literature, and are no mystery at all. Many have been seen
during their eruption, going back for centuries (e.g., the eruption of
Vesuvius centuries ago was a nuee ardentes, one was also associated
with
an eruption in the Caribbean just a year or two ago). The deposit left
by
them is a welded volcanic tuff called an ignimbrite. Even an average
geology textbook would have a better explanation of them than Petersen
provides.
Petersen talks about the "molten" appearance of the surface of
certain sandstone rock outcrops in Arizona, yet he bases this only on
their shape, and does not provide any indication of a diagnostic test,
like a thin section, which would immediately test whether the rock at
the
surface had any glass or crystals consistent with former melting. It
is
trivial to distinguish between igneous (formerly molten) and
sedimentary
rocks. He also appears completely unaware of literature about the
erosive
features of sandstones and other rock surfaces in desert areas. All
sorts
of peculiar shapes are a result of spalling of rock surfaces, water
seeping through and over the rock, and wind-blown sand. The "melted"
appearance is simply a result of intermittent streams of water that
have
flowed over the rock surfaces, affecting the way the rock erodes (e.g.,
the water can chemically deposit or remove minerals, promote biological
activity that causes differential erosion, etc.). Peterson describes a
variety of concretions from loess, some of which formed around fossils,
but he makes little mention of the conventional explanation for their
formation -- concretions are just zones of cementation, and can be seen
forming in modern sedimentary environments too, often around fossils,
which provide appropriate chemistry during the decay of soft tissues
for
the precipiation of the cementing minerals.
There are many, many other problems with his analysis, most of
which could have been rectified with more thorough research on
geological
subjects, or consultation with a geologist, but perhaps the example
that
typifies the basic nature of the problem is a picture of a supposed
"fossil jellyfish" that has been "frozen" in a pebble of limestone
rock.
Petersen claims this is a result of the highly unusual hyperdimensional
physics that he invokes to explain all the *apparent* anomalies he has
observed (virtually all of which are not anomalous at all, as near as I
can tell). The rock was somehow instantly transformed into rock, thus
explaining the supposedly impossible preservation of soft tissues. In
reality, soft-tissue preservation (including of jellyfish) is not
unknown
from the fossil record as Petersen claims (apparently he has never
heard
of the Burgess Shale or Solnhofen), but it is rare because it takes
special conditions. Most importantly, the "tentacles" of the
"jellyfish"
are actually spines on the exterior of a cross section of a spiriferid
brachiopod, which is easily identifiable because of the distinctive
rows
of shell material from its internal lophophore support (forming four
sets
of repeating marks inside the shell cross section). In other words,
there
is nothing unusual about this fossil at all, it is just a *shell*, and,
thus, no exotic preservation explanation is necessary. Virtually the
same
pattern -- no real "anomaly", except via Petersen's misinterpretation,
thus no special explanation needed -- holds for virtually all of the
other
geological features Petersen identifies as unexplained "anomalies".
Petersen deserves alot of credit for going out and looking at the
evidence first hand, but few "new insights" to "antiquity" are offered
here for the geological aspects, just a great deal of misinterpretation
of
the evidence and misunderstanding of how conventional geologists
explain
it. Most of his representation of conventional geology is vintage
1960s
or earlier, and much of what he presents of it is grossly wrong even
for
that vintage (e.g., the confusion about the nature of nuee ardentes).
Maybe some of the other aspects, like the archaeology and astronomy,
make
more sense, but from my limited experience in those fields it did not
look
like it. Given the fantastic billing in the introduction and on the
cover, this book is a huge disappointment.
|If anyone reading these words is familiar
|with this work, or knows where I can find a critical review of it, I
|would be glad to hear from him.
I hope some of this helps. I plan on composing something more
comprehensive and with specific citations eventually.
-Andrew
macrae@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
<end text>
Yet another critique that Janet can't answer, but will claim doesn't
exist.
Ed