Blog on New Geology

3. Aug, 2016

The following link leads to my paper on Geology/History of the 'swastika peoples' as I have characterised them.

I hope you enjoy..

30. Jul, 2016

Confirmation of CUT Chronology from an Odd Co-incidence

30/07/2016, Brisbane

Abstract:  The city of Hazor had advanced trade relationships with Mari during the time of Hammurabi.  A find at the tell of Hazor recently highlighted the Egyptian Pharonic connection to Hazor thru the overlordship of Mycerinus.  Dating of Hammurabi and Mycerinus shows a 32-year overlap.

Web Research:


  Hazor is the largest biblical-era site in Israel, covering some 200 acres. The population of Hazor in the second millennium BCE is estimated to have been about 20,000, making it the largest and most important city in the entire region. Its size and strategic location on the route connecting Egypt and Babylon made it "the head of all those kingdoms" (Joshua 11:10). Hazor's conquest by the Israelites opened the way to the conquest and settlement of the Israelites in Canaan. The city was rebuilt and fortified by King Solomon (1 Kings 9:15) and prospered in the days of Ahab and Jeroboam II, until its final destruction by the Assyrians (2 Kings 15:29) in 732 BCE Hazor is presently one of Israel's national parks.


Hazor comprises of two distinct sections: The upper city (the acropolis) and the lower city (the fortified enclosure) lying close to the north. Hazor was the largest site of the Biblical period of Israel. It was approximately 10 times the size of Jerusalem in the days of David and Solomon.


Canaanite Hazor


The first settlement of Hazor, in the third millennium BCE (Early Bronze Age), was confined to the upper city. The lower city was founded in approximately the 18th century BCE (Middle Bronze Age) and continued to be settled until the 13th century (the end of the Late Bronze Age) when both the upper and lower city were violently destroyed.


Canaanite Hazor is mentioned on several occasions in external records: it is first mentioned in the 19th century BCE in the Egyptian Execration texts. Hazor is the only Canaanite site mentioned in the archive discovered in Mari (18th century BCE). The Mari documents clearly demonstrate the importance, wealth and far-reaching commercial ties of Hazor. In the archive discovered at El-Amarna, Egypt, (14th century BCE) there are several references to Hazor, as well as in records of the military campaigns conducted by the Egyptian Pharaohs, during the 15th - 14th centuries BCE


According to the Biblical narrative, Jabin, the King of Hazor, headed a coalition of Canaanite cities against the advancing Israelites, led by Joshua. The Israelites won the battle and Joshua burned and ravaged the city (Jos. 11:1 - 12).


"And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote its king with the sword: for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed them, not sparing anything that breathed, and he burned up Hazor itself .. Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds - except Hazor." (Jos 11:10-12)


Evidence of this violent destruction by burning was discovered in various areas of excavation of the site. Another Israelite battle, this time against a Canaanite army led by Sisera, Jabin's general, is described in the Book of Judges, Chapter 4.


Israelite Hazor


The Israelite settlement was again limited to the upper city. Meager remains, the most noteworthy of which is a cultic high-place, represent sporadic occupation during the time of the Judges. A six chambered gate and casemate wall of the 10th century BCE can most probably be attributed to King Solomon (Kings 1, 9:15), during whose reign only the western part of the upper city was occupied. In the 9th century BCE, most probably under King Ahab, the city expanded. The eastern part of the upper city was fortified by a solid wall and various important buildings, such as a store house, citadel and a water system, were added.


Hazor suffered repeated destruction, as a result of both the Aramean and Assyrian invasions. It was finally destroyed by the Assyrian King Tiglath-Pilesser III, who, in 732 BCE conquered the entire area of Galilee (Kings II, 15:29), in a campaign that marked the beginning of the end of the independence of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.


Hazor was never again to regain its importance. During the 7th - 2nd century BCE settlement was confined only to the citadels which were erected in the western extremity of the upper city.


The last historical reference to Hazor is to be found in the book of Macabees (I Macc. 11:67). Here we are told that Jonathan fought against Demetrius (147 BCE) in the "plain of Hazor".





Copyright ©,2004 , The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All Rights Reserved.


Cuneiform Tablets:  One of the most recently discovered finds at Hazor was the discovery of a palace with a throne room.  In the 1996 excavation season archaeologists discovered four clay cuneiform tablets.  These tablets, inscribed in the Akkadian language, include a list of goods sent from Hazor to Mari (an important trade city in Mesopotamia).  Scholars have dated these tablets to the Middle Bronze Age.


All 17 of the Hazor texts date to the second millennium BCE: 10 from the first half of the second millennium (the Old Babylonian Period = The Middle Bronze Age in Canaan), 5 from roughly the period of the 14 century Amarna Tablets in Egypt, with two small dockets th

2. For the historical background of this tablet, dating to before the restoration of Zimri-Lim and his dynasty to the throne of Mari, see Horowitz and Wasserman 2004. 3. Oppenheim (1956) 313 and see Horowitz (2000) 27.

being of uncertain date.  The 10 items from the Old Babylonian Period can be further divided into two sub-groups; an earlier group from the time of  Hammurabi of Babylon himself, and his contemporaries Zimri-Lim of Mari and King Ibni-Addu of Hazor; and a second later group. 


According to CUT chronology Hammurabi ruled Old Babylon from -2012 to -1957.  Again CUT gives us Mycerinus as dated -1989 to -1925.  The fact of a statue of Mycerinus in Hazor – a vassal(?) during the years -1989 to -1957 or 32 years at maximum is re-inforcement for the accuracy of CUT’s chronology.

However, we have a cacophony of views and voices all over the place.  IMO, Hazor is a very early settlement comparable to Egypt and Mesopotamia.  I subscribe to the last notion.  The for this is that Felix Hoflmeyer  in a recent paper gave Oxford Radiocarbon Lab’s statistical breakdown for a Levant city that had an outlier of -2872 which I compared to Dynasty One of Egypt at -2873.  Therefore -2900  to -2800 is very reasonable.  See the main web-sourced carry-ons below;


“Do the Execration Texts Reflect an Accurate Picture of the Contemporary Settlement Map of Palestine?”, by Amnon Ben-Tor, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

The picture emerging from the excavation of 15 different areas in Hazor in the

course of 20 seasons of excavation, and from the study of the stratigraphy

and the ceramic material, conducted since the 1950's until this very day

demonstrates unequivocally that no settlement existed at Hazor during MBIIA!

The picture emerging from the excavation of 15 different areas in Hazor in the

course of 20 seasons of excavation, and from the study of the stratigraphy

and the ceramic material, conducted since the 1950’s until this very day

demonstrates unequivocally that no settlement existed at Hazor during MBIIA!

Middle Bronze IIA (also called MB II) = 2000-1800/1750 BC


“New Radiocarbon Dates from Tel Kabri Support a High Middle Bronze Age Chronology”

Felix Hömayer, Assaf Yasur-Landau, Eric H Cline, Michael W Dee, Brita Lorentzen and Simone


Radiocarbon / FirstView Article / April 2016, pp 1 - 15

DOI: 10.1017/RDC.2016.27, Published online: 18 April 2016


An example of one such implication, to be further explored in a

separate article, concerns the chronology of the polity immediately to the east of Kabri in the

Middle Bronze II: the large and powerful polity of Hazor (see e.g. Marom et al. 2014). Hazor

was not a fortified city in the Middle Bronze I, and only in the Middle Bronze Age II was the

acropolis (Stratum XVII) as well as the huge lower town (Stratum 4) fortified for the first time.

Redating the Middle Bronze II in a region close to Hazor may impact the chronology of the rise

of “Greater Hazor,” the largest metropolis of the southern Levant, which may have occurred

earlier than previously estimated. The mention of this city in the Mari texts forms the most

important synchronism between the Middle Bronze Age southern Levant and Mesopotamia of

the Old Babylonian period (Horowitz and Wasserman 2000; Ben-Tor 2004, 2016: 69–73).

Yadin (1972: 200) placed the foundation of the lower town and the mention of the city in the

18th–17th centuries BC. Ben-Tor (2016: 57–63), however, argued for a slightly lower date,

placing the rise of Greater Hazor at ~1700 BC, after the transitional period between Middle

Bronze I and Middle Bronze II. If 1700 BC is indeed the transition date between Middle Bronze

II and Middle Bronze III, then the foundation of Greater Hazor should be raised into the 18th

century BC, perhaps to a date somewhere between the suggestions of Yadin and Ben-Tor. As

the study of the material culture remains from Kabri continues, the full implication of the

absolute chronology of this site and its interconnections with other sites at the Levant and

beyond is only beginning.



CUT concludes that the statue and its identified Pharaoh is a genuine artefact from a time when the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt held sway in Hazor.


28. Jul, 2016

A Conjecture as to the dating of Ruskamp’s ‘Chinese Characters’ in Albuquerque’s Petroglyph National Monument


The article above gives rise to certain conjectures that may possibly confirm CUT Geology.


This item will investigate the possibility that the Chinese Admiral Zheng He was working from a map which in his day was quite old.  It then looks at the petroglyphs and suggests that they are from the expedition that established the basic outlines of the map used by Zheng He. The Naqada Map so-called will be referenced in this paper as well.


We should establish at the outset that the settlement of the Earth post-Flood had an orderly and a disorderly side to it.  Many of the Neolithic, Mesolithic and even Palaeolithic  cave sites most probably represent quite early and non-Noachian movements.   The settlement of Italy and Spain and Ethiopia and Africa generally can be ascribed to Noah.  Early settlements in South and North America, Australia, China, Russia, Balkans, Turkey, Iran and India (e.g. Rajasthan) are of potentially Noachian origin.   And so it goes.  We could say we are dealing with anything but a ‘uniform’ process of development and dispersion.


The famous Tower of Babel is taken in this paper as beyond question and is dated to -3117 to -3115 or very close to that.   We will consider plus and minus a few years in this connection.   We further note that Noah’s life ranged post-Flood from -3327 to -2977.   We equate Nimrod with En-mer-kar according to the reading of David Rohl. 

So what do we know?


Zheng He had a map updated to reflect Australia’s position but drawn from a very early one and so some of its parts reflect an earlier time than the bulk of its landmasses positions would indicate, such as a western seaway opening north to the open ocean.

Ron Blakey has maps of the development of two critical parts of the Zheng He map which glare out at us – the narrow seaway between California and Arizona/New Mexico part of mainland USofA.

The Australia portion of the map reflects the developments set out In Collins and Pisarevsky

Barry Setterfield’s formula for conversion of Geological (radiometric, etc) dating to Historical units

e.g.  80,000,000 years ago    =   -2941.622321 or mid-June, 2942 BC  Aus. separates from Gondwana

 &  402,300,000 years ago    =   -3114.245229 or ca. Sept, 3115 BC

McCarthy and Rubidge’s model of Pangea – starts 500 Ma=; -3164.449 is complete 300 Ma = -3060.647  or approx. 104 years

CUT chronology as it exists in an incomplete state

The location of Petroglyph National Park in New Mexico of today.


We will include a filling out of our fact base in this discussion although this is not usual.  We should start by saying that the most interesting aspect of Zheng He’s map is the western portion of the United States.  Here, at first glance, he indicates the presence of a seaway to cut off nearly the whole of California etc.  At the time that Australia reached its current position after detaching ca. 80 Ma and drifting till 50 Ma to relatively free oceanic position or (16.646 = -2941.622 to -2924.976) after 17 yrs the Western portion of the USofA had lost its separated status. 






However, if we investigate the time some 15 million years earlier than the late Cretaceous map above we find that the inflow to the South-West of the USofA from the Gulf of Mexico so-to-speak had been cut off but open to the Pacific so-to-speak at the north end of the inflow forming Zheng He’s narrow seaway.  This 105 Ma corresponds to -2955.416 or end of July, 2956 BC.  It is about 4 or 5 years later that the peak of the sea rise occurs during the Cennomanian Age.



Now just to contextualise matters we should look at developments in the landmass/population distribution somewhat contemporaneously.  Pangaea starts forming -3164 by amalgamation as per current textbook explanations ; Babel has not occurred and Noah is still alive; Kish is still a basket case of ‘who shall rule?’; Mes-kiag-gasher = Cush has established himself in Uruk some 4 years earlier; Noah has been active since -3174 on a new burst of colony establishments; Genoa was established for a long time; Sudan has a dynasty headed by Ham 11 set up years prior; and finally we can assume many other places are settled including China. 

By the full formation of Pangaea all nations are connected by easy water navigation or land bridges.  Everyone knows everyone else.  That is by -3060 from “ Lemaire's history of the travels of Noah states that the great Patriarch and his retinue finally left Africa and moved into Spain 259 years after the Flood” we have Noah resident in Spain for 6 years.  Babel has come and not quite gone.  Nimrod/En-mer-kar rules -3117 to -3016.  Pangaea is breaking up at the end of En-mer-kar’s rule (-3016 = 222 Ma)


The period -3060/-3059 represents the Permo-Triassic extinction.

Further to the date at which Zheng He’s predecessor wrote his Chinese characters we have to look at the state of the Albuquerque site.  By referring to the p. 86 overlay map in “Ancient Landscapes[1]” we see that in 105 Ma the Western US has an embayment terminating at Albuquerque Petroglyph National Park – I jest.  In the other 90 Ma we note that Albuquerque exists as a peninsula with a nicely-sited National Park just swell for writing Chinese characters.

While Australia had a life, lost it in Gondwana/Pangaea , regained it Late Cretaceous the map in my opinion is of a later age than 600 or 522 Ma.  See Collins and Pisarevsky[2]


We may conclude the following:

Zheng He’s truly up to date 1418 AD whizz bang map was a composite of early and late data.  We have no evidence Zheng He ever reached America

The Petroglyph National Park was never inundated and the Chinese characters are authentic.  The unresolved character may be determined by looking at very early Chinese script and deducing a context for similar characters leading to the resolution.

The date of the visit is either – before end of July, 2956 BC if the inscription at Albuquerque represents a terminus of a journey or possibly sometime ca. -2947.148 if the open ended seaway is to be taken literally.  Either way Noah had died by -2977 and this exploration would not have been to people’s unknown for centuries or millennia.  At the most the Chinese would have met their local counterparts after no more than -2950 - -3016 =  66 years separation.

The Naqada map with its similar positioning of Australia tends to suggest that these two maps were to be dated as to their earliest sources as contemporaneous.  The Mollweide Projections used above come from Geologic History of the World.ppt.  These are sourced from Ron Blakey, Colorado Plateau Geosystems, Arizona, USA.







[1] Blakey, Ron and Wayne Ranney, “Ancient Landscapes; of the Colorado Plateau”, 2008, Grand Canyon Association

[2] “Amalgamating eastern Gondwana: The evolution

of the Circum-Indian Orogens”

Alan S. Collins, Sergei A. Pisarevsky

'Continental Evolution Research Group and Tectonics SRC, Geology and Geophysics, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences,

The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia


Tectonics SRC, School of Earth and Geographic Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway,

Crawley, WA 6907, Australia

Received 14 September 2004; accepted 15 February 2005

8. Jun, 2016

I looked at this video describing blast effects of the electric universe to create mountains.   Having taught a course in “photo geology” in which students examine both topographic maps and aerial or astronaut photos of the surface the earth where mountains are built in which the triangular shapes of flanks of mountains can be seen, I am quite familiar with the features that are described in this video.  (Perhaps there are 3 videos, but I saw only one, but they may have been connected as a continuous stream.)  I have also seen these features in various field trips around the world.

First of all, a supersonic blast effect should result in a chaotic jumble of debris.  The rocks on the ground in the places shown in video, however, show no such chaotic deposition of material.  The rock layers that have triangular shapes are composed of layers of different hardness (sandstone, which is hard, versus siltstone or shale, which is relatively soft), and the components of these layers are generally well-sorted according to grain size and are not typical of rapid deposition in a landslide (or blast) in which there is no time for sorting according to grain size. 

The triangular shapes result because the layers have been tilted from their former horizontal positions.  This happens when structural forces in the earth’s crust compress the rock layers into domes or basins or into plunging anticlines and synclines.  Then, streams eroding into these tilted beds on the sides of the folded layers, along nearly evenly spaced fractures, cut V-shaped valleys which produce triangular shaped forms with pointed tops (ridges) along the divides between the stream systems.  Thus, they are normal and perfectly shaped land features that have a well understood natural origin.  My students used these triangular shapes on topographic maps to calculate the angle of dip of the layers.

Second, the video suggest that the electric universe would produce extremely high energy like that in a lightning storm with very high temperatures.  In my mineralogy class I had examples of fulgurites where lightning struck sand in a desert and fused the sand grains into glass with a root-like forked pattern.  There is absolutely no evidence anywhere on earth where such fusion of rocks can be found on a huge scale.  Mountains have many reasons that they are formed from volcanic, to glacial, to plate tectonic uplift and thrusting, to whatever, but in none of these possible examples is there any evidence to support a model of an electric universe. 

Such is only in the imagination of the persons promoting this idea with no real physical evidence to support it.