(urth) Recent human crash-landing on St Anne

[David Stockhoff]

I think this could be a very good accounting for how the tree-ring 
dating theory, while sound, may be a misdirection. We know an extant 
ring is a century old; we can also guess that it could survive to be 300 
or 500 if it had been left alone. There don't need to be much more than 
20 such to cover 10,000 years of "observation."

Another pro of this explanation is that these rings are called 
observatories, which makes us think of Stonehenge, which is a couple 
thousand years old, and which is stone. Whereas stone can survive, trees 
can't, but if anything, that implies they are older still, not younger.

The Wolfean narrative principle employed here seems to be implied 
repetition to hide/reveal vast stretches of time.

On 1/7/2011 8:28 AM, Tony Ellis wrote:
> Firstly, there*is*  no recently-lost spaceship in the text. You have
> to invent one out of whole cloth. Yes, you can say all records of such
> a ship were conveniently lost, but you can say that about any fact
> invented to support any theory. For example: I think the Annese grew
> tree-circle observatories for thousands of years. We don't have any
> record of them because, hey, they rotted, which Marsch actually says
> is happening to the current observatory. If we can have missing recent
> spaceships we can have missing ancient tree-circles.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 110106-1, 01/06/2011
Tested on: 1/7/2011 9:32:04 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com