Alivia Brown took on Graham Hancock · Kayleigh took on Graham Hancock · Kayleigh Took on Episode 2 · Kayleigh Took On Malta - Sirius (Episode 3) · Kayleigh on Atlantis (Episode 4) · Göbekli Tepe
Ancient Apocalypse, Ep 3. Malta Sirius Connection?
History with Kayleigh, 18 Dec. 2022
3:57 5900 BC, let's look.
- 2265 B. Chr.
- 0.646199 pmC/100, so dated as 5865 B. Chr.
If in 2265 BC (between Biblical dates for Göbekli Tepe and evacuation of chalcolithic En Gedi) the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere was 64.62 pmC, this instantly added 3600 years to the measureable age. 2265 + 3600 = 5865 BC.
Abraham was born 2015 BC, so this is 250 years before Abraham was born.
First arrivals on Malta.
4:09 3600 BC, let's look.
- 1952 B. Chr.
- 0.81476 pmC/100, so dated as 3652 B. Chr.
If in 1952 BC the carbon level was 81.476 pmC, this gives and added 1700 years, 1700 + 1952 = 3652 BC.
Next point would be 1935 BC, Genesis 14, En Geddi dated to 3500 BC.
So, it was before the vocation of Abraham. Sarug had been dead for 13 years.
1952 + 1952 + 1935 = 5839; 5839 / 3 = 1946 - does this fit?
81.476 + 81.476 + 82.73 = 245.682, 245.682 / 3 = 81.894 pmC
81.894 - > 1650 extra years. 1650 + 1946 = 3596 BC, yes, it does fit.
They started creating the first massive monument on the island ...
2252 BC - 1946 BC = 306 years
... after in fact just 306 years, not 2300. Much more compatible with simply continuing the heritage from Göbekli Tepe, aka Babel.
... which had ended in 2556, so 2556 - 2252 = 304 years to find Malta.
7:01 With my tables, the skeleta and other human remains found would concentrate into shorter timespans, meaning that there would probably have been a greater population density on Malta than thought. This would take care of Graham Hancock's manpower argument.
Precisely as this being in early post-Babel times, 610 years after the end of Göbekli Tepe, rather than 5000 years after it, takes care of the argument against continuity and for an indigenous learning curve.
7:37 First abandonment of Malta. Carbon dated 2500 BC.
- 1678 B. Chr.
- 0.894653 pmC/100, so dated as 2598 B. Chr.
- 1655 B. Chr.
- 0.914498 pmC/100, so dated as 2395 B. Chr.
2598 + 2395 = 4993; 4993 / 2 = 2496 ~2497 BC.
(1678 + 1655)/2 = 1666 ~ 1667 BC.
(89.4653 + 91.4498)/2 = 90.45755 pmC
90.45755 pmC -> 830 extra years, 830 + 1667 = 2497 BC.
7:46 New influx of bronze age immigrants came to the island "many decades" later ... according to how the tables look at this point, perhaps 1 or 2 decades later?
7:46 The new bronze age immigrants, have they been genetically tested to verify they are unrelated to previous population?
7:56 Malta uninhabited for over 170 years during the Arab Byzantine wars?
Wait "practically uninhabited" = not totally. That time could have not broken the continuity of tradition.
So, two options. Bronze Age population was unrelated to previous and invented the giant woman. Or Bronze Age population was related, and recalled the giant woman. Either way, the tradition of the Bronze Age arrivers could well have continued past those 170 years, since Malta was not totally uninhabited.
8:13 Maltese Middle Ages.
In the German Middle Ages, you find a Troy book (Trojabuch) which involves collecting diverse epics (Homer, Dictys Cretensis etc) and possibly other info, and according to Zanggerer, an archaeologist, this has a plan that is very close to the actual Luwian city that was eventually excavated.
So, I disagree on the massive difference being absolutely there.
10:01 12 000 years on Sicily ...10 000 BC
- 2621 B. Chr.
- 0.406138 pmC/100, so dated as 10 071 B. Chr.
2621 BC. Much closer than the next hit, aka death of Noah, beginning of Babel / Göbekli Tepe:
- 2607 B. Chr.
- 0.428224 pmC/100, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.
So, 2621 BC
Let's check viability ... Sicily 2621 BC, Malta 2265 BC.
2621 - 2265 = 356 years with presence and without evidence? Possible.
On the other hand, after Noah's Ark, arriving on board would not have been a technically impossible challenge either.
2957 BC - 2265 BC = 692 years with a few boats that haven't been actually found.
12:39 "[Anton Mifsud is] not an official historian"
15:24 If the teeth are by anthropologists confirmed to be Neanderthal, I'd like to know if that involves a paleogenetic one.
Svante Pääbo might want to weigh in some day. A countryman of mine who actually sequenced the El Sidrón genomes.
Now, if they are Neanderthal, it stands to reason it is more probable that Neanderthals came (at least a short time) than that teeth were washed across this distance.
My tables, cited more than once, above:
Creation vs. Evolution: New Tables