The last British Neanderthals? Catastrophism and Cave Men Cave Men in Historic Times Timeline for Britain and Ireland from the Flood
Was there a Gap? The Flood    Chronology of  Neolithic  Man Links Creation to the Romans


On the Gap Theory    On the Ancestry of the Neanderthals   The Lifespan of Abraham                           More on the "Gap" Theory    The Shifting sands of devised Chronology and archaeological "ages"
Date of Creation ?  
     Radiocarbon dating

Subject: Re: Gunnar Heinsohn German catastrophist.

At 07:46 PM 11/20/2004 +0000, you wrote:
    Dear Larry many thanks for your reply on "Gunnar Heinsohn"; the German
catastrophist. The thing is he is asking for a reduction or shall we say
revision of chronology even more than Velelovskey; but by the same token it
would be wrong in my view to reduce the chronology even more than Bishop
Ussher has done whose chronology I have the greatest respect for. Larry can
you please give me a response to Heinsohn's chronology for ancient Europe
being that it undermines my table which is based on Ussher's chronology
which you already have; and indeed you have said ; to quote you ; "it looks
ok to me." Kind regards John.

    From: Larry Pierce
To: "John Hext-Fremlin"

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:50:32 -0500

At 04:39 PM 11/19/2004 +0000, you wrote:
    Dear Larry I have been in touch with Mr. Charles S Kimball (Xenophile
historian and quite clearly he is a gap theorist) because he can't see how
Satan fell with out a catastrophe of some kind before Adam. My answer to him
is that Satan must have fallen some time after day 7 of creation and without
catastrophe. However to get back to "Velekovskian catastrophist "Gunnar
Heinsohn". He has given a radical chronology for Ancient Europe which throws
a challenge to my "industry and chronology table for Britain and Ireland"
which I will rigorously defend when challenged by an evolutionist
catastrophist who gives his chronology thus: In "Cave men in Historic
Times": Ancient Europe time Line according to Heinsohn: Homo Erectus arrives
2000 BC . 1500 BC Neanderthal. 1400 BC Cro-Magnon>. 900 BC Bronze age. and
finally 600 BC the Iron age. It merely begs the question : "On what
historical evidence does Heinsohn match these dates?" When you compare mine
to his chronology you would expect to find the reigns of dynasties and the
archaeological evidence which matches the industries with the biblical and
historical records. So as far as I can see Heinsohn's work is sheer
speculation. I might add that he is a member or was a member of the SIS.
(Society for Interdisciplinary Studies). So I think I would rather stick to
that which is good and stay with the table which is mine and creationist
backed . Yours sincerely John.

Thank you. Most interesting.

... Larry Pierce

*Unless I know the basis on which the dates were determined and the
assumptions used, it is difficult for me to say anything meaningful on the
subject. It might be better to ask him where Ussher went wrong and why. That
gives us something positive to work with.

... Larry Pierce -



John Hext-Fremlin
Dear Bill I've had a great incentive to reduce the time line for Britain and
Ireland and indeed I have re-written the "Guildhall history of Britain and
Ireland and have submitted the new table for examination by Larry Pierce. I
most certainly have not added to your chronology from "after the Flood"
because in my view it would do great violence to your text and would be a
most unwise thing to do and indeed a very slippery slope to go down ; so
therefore this author has gone strictly with the creationist guideline and
started his stone age period (paleo/meso/Neolithic industries) from 2520 AM
or 1484 BC through to the bronze industries 1104 and 1145 BC to the
archaeological pre-Roman iron age started by the Melisians in am 3500 and
504 BC (which is remarkably the only archaeological date supported by
Bishop Ussher's chronology. If you would like to surf my website Bill you
will find my table also plus the re-written histories. It will probably be
painfully aware by now that this author rejects Mike Gascoigne's time line.
Best wishes John.

                                         ON THE "GAP THEORY"

Dear Mr. Hext-Fremlin

Thank you for your email of 11 March.

Gaines Johnson is incorrect regarding DNA and the ancestry of Neanderthals. 
See the articles listed under the heading 'Were Neanderthals human or a
"missing link"' within the topic 'Anthropology' in our 'Q & A' index.  See

       Michael Oard, Do genetic differences disprove that Neanderthals and
modern humans interbred?
<>, 18 June 2003.

       Marvin Lubenow, Recovery of Neanderthal mtDNA: an evaluation, TJ
12(1):87-97, 1998, <>.

For more, see our DVD Did Neanderthals and Modern Humans Share a Common Gene

The 'gap' theory that Johnson promotes cannot be correct.  Jesus said in
Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6 that people (Adam and Eve) have been here from
the beginning of the creation.  'But from the beginning of the creation God
made them male and female.' (Mark 10:6)  Thus there could not have been long
periods of time between the moment of creation in Genesis 1:1 and Day 6. 
And Genesis 1:5 indicates that Day 1 consisted of an evening and a morning,
effectively telling us exactly how long this day was.  This is further
reinforced in Exodus 20:11, where God tells us He created everything, which
includes the universe itself, in 6 days.

The most comprehensive resource we have on all this is our new book Refuting
Compromise, which I would highly recommend for Mr. Johnson.

The idea of a long period of time before Genesis 1:2 would contradict these
Bible verses.  The above-quoted statements by Jesus show that there was no
long period of time between the beginning and the creation of Adam and Eve. 
For more on this, see:

Gregg, R., Morning has broken ... but when? Was Creation's first day the
beginning? Creation 23(2):51-53, March-May 2001,



MORE ON THE "GAP" THEORY (Email from Mike Fischer reviewing the work of Gorman Gray) 

Dear John,
Sorry to hear there are no carbon-14 dates from
your source on Neanderthals, yet.  It should be
big news when such a finding is made.

The typical gap theory, as I understand it, has
two creations of life in it with a gap of time in the
middle.  Gorman Gray's version has only one
creation of life, and that fairly recent.  The big
difference between his idea and that of Young
Earth Creationists is that he has the stars and
planets form over some previous time, probably a
very long time, before the recent creation of
life.  This approach has the advantage of deftly
solving oddities in the creation story of Genesis
that have required some stretches of the
imagination to get around till now.  It also
conforms to the astronomical observations that
have been stumbling blocks for many Christians.
And he has support from two biblical scholars
for his interpretation of the relevant verses in
Genesis and other books of the Bible.  His book
is well-written, and I recommend it to you.  The
section on geology is speculative, in my opinion,
but does not detract from the value of his thesis.
Mike Fischer

On the Ancestry of the Neanderthals

Dear John,

I got your table, and am still catching up on my e-mails.  This semester I'm
teaching a history class on Wednesday nights at my church, in addition to
what I was doing previously.

The idea from Mr. Gaines about Neanderthals being descended from the "Sons
of God" doesn't make sense to me.  Genesis 6 says the union of "Sons of God"
and "Daughters of Men" produced giants, and Neanderthal man wasn't taller
than us.  In fact, aside from being stronger, he wasn't superior to us in
any way; not only was he shorter, he couldn't speak as well, and probably
had a shorter lifespan.  If anything, the DNA tests mentioned show a good
example of de-evolution.  Furthermore, it appears to me that quite of bit of
the original human genome was lost in the Flood.  How do we know the unusual
Neanderthal genes didn't appear in some individuals before that time?  In
Chapter 10 I speculated on the possibility that each of Noah's sons had a
different mother--Ham's mother being a descendant of Cain, Japheth's mother
being a descendant of Abel, and so on.  We know from Genesis 5 that Adam had
other sons and daughters, and none of their descendants appear to have been
on the Ark; who knows what kind of genes they had?

By the way, the history papers I've been working on for the past year deal
with Africa, not India.  The last time I worked on India was in 1998, so
I'll have to update those papers in the near future.

Take Care,

Charles Kimball

   Dear Ian I would further like to extend the courtesy by asking you if you
would like to write an article for my website and I'll get brother Bob to
publish it for you as after all it makes good sense to hear both sides of
the coin so to speak which is precisely why I have purchased your book to
see what you have to say and indeed it would be good to hear from you in
this regard. I'm most intrigued by the way that you have mentioned in your
book ; Mr. Donald A McKenzie ( almost interesting author.) He also mentions
tribes co-existing today for example in a stone age while at the same time
we're in the silicone and space ages. Coincidently in the book by Peter
colosemo Timeless earth I have seen a photo of a modern Neanderthal.
Kindest regards John.

Hi John

This is a very generous offer, but I'm not sure what I can usefully
contribute? As I have said, your revised chronology for British history is
not my specialty, while to write an article refuting the creation itself
would be a mammoth task to do proper justice to it. One possible answer
would be to direct people to my website at
where extracts from Genesis Unveiled are available. In particular, the
extract of chapter 8 on the creation of man traditions from around the
world, and of chapter 16 on the world origin traditions ditto, might be of
particular interest, plus in my view they are the two most important
elements of scholarly reappraisal in the book.

Let me know what you think.

All best wishes, Ian


    Hi Ian ; Thanks once again for your mail and here I am again at Stafford
library with some free time from my gardening work. I wondered if for
example I could publish a short extract obviously with all due
acknowledgements &c and with your very kind permission show this discussion
between you and myself on your chronology and perhaps I could put it in the
section: "Was there a Gap". This is of course the controversial gap theory
of Genesis 1 v 1 and 1 v 2; where it says: "In the beginning God created
the heavEns and the earth" and in verse two of chapter one of Genesis says:
"And the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the
deep and the spirit of God moved over the face of the waters. Now some
creationists hold that these two verses hold to the dateless past and this
is a thesis we could discuss in relation to neanderthal mt/dna which Mr
Gaines Johnson an old friend of mine is of the view that neanderthals were
not related to the human line of Adam and therefore could have been the
original "sons of God" in the Genesis Gap before the Lucifarian catastrophe;
if there was one. Personally I have problems with it but it is something
that I believe should be approached and indeed discussed with a view as I
have said before to keeping an open mind and this is precisely what I have
done with Gaines although indeed there are points on which we agree and
points on which we disagree. I do indeed agree with you for example that
some G Hancock's ideas are rather absurd and indeed I agree that Zachiria
Sitchin's idea of aliens is totally and utterly a figment of his imagination
for example. By the way Ian I don't know for example that when you mention
the Hopi indians in your book there is a painting on a cave wall of a
bipedal reptile like a dinosaur; This would back up the argument that
humans and indeed dinosaurs were contemporary hence the legends of dragons
in the age of man. There is certainly no smoke without a fire so whether my
chronology is different to the "accepted norm " I would simply say that this
author was'nt there at the time . There are even things upon which "young
earth creationists are not agreed. But what I would like to propose is that
we also discuss the possibility of the ice age having been caused by the
Genesis flood where by in antideluvian times the earth was much warmer than
it is today and the possibility of underground water having been released by
earthquake action and plus a comet with the breakup of the water vapour
canopy and if you look at these ideas they all seem to add up. What do you
reckon ? Look forward to hearing from you. Best regards John.

Hi John

Sorry not to have got back to you sooner, been a bit tied up. I am happy for
you to publish extracts with acknoweldgements, provided you let me see them
first just so I can see what you are using.

As for the ice age, there is every reason to suppose that my version of the
catastrophe or Genesis Flood actually helped to bring it to an end, not
cause it, as you will see in the chapter "Catastrophe!".

In haste, Ian

Subject :  Re: Post flood ice age and Gunnar Heinsohn.

  |  |  | Inbox

Dear John

Please bear in mind that even if there are, for example, problems with
radio-carbon dating (which there are in terms of absolutes, although not
IMHO enough to warrant a major revision of history such as yours), there is
still a whole mass of evidence to suggest you are not just a bit wrong but
massively wrong. That is, from all the disciplines I listed in my last
email. So it is not enough to cast doubt on one or even two of them, you
have to be able to cast massive doubt on all of them. Moreover, just because
it may be possible to question certain aspects of chronology in Britain or
even Europe as a whole, that it just a drop in the ocean compared to the
extensive prehistory of the world as a whole. On that basis I am really  not
sure there is much point in you sending me more material, because relatively
localised and recent history is really not my forte - even if it may be that
there is something in your revisions in this area specifically. That would
not, however, make the creation story right.

Moreover, as far as the "gap" in Genesis is concerned, you must appreciate
that my view of Genesis, and I must be frank that of any scholar worth their
salt, is that it is a late distortion of far, far earlier material from
Mesopotamia. Witness the multiple Sumerian and Akkadian texts which are the
clear forerunners, for example, of the flood story (if you are not familiar
with these they are discussed in detail on my website at So trying to take the specific words in
Genesis too literally with no awareness of their real, non-Christian or
Judaic historical context and origin is, to be frank, a nonsense and a
scholastic crime.

I wish you all the best with your research however

Best regards, Ian

PS I have looked at your own and the other websites you have mentioned
briefly. I'm afraid IMHO they really say nothing that I find of any great
importance to the "big picture" debate at hand.

Re: Post flood ice age and Gunnar Heinsohn.

    Dear Ian many thanks for this email and first let me say; that I do
apologise for the rather abruptness of my very first email to you and I
now realize that I should'nt have done so; but I think that what it was;
was your criticism in the introduction of your book (and which let me say
with a view to keeping an open mind and with great interest;   "Genesis
Unveiled") of young earth creationists with their time line for creation
at 4004 BC; and I would quote here; "Would get the short sharp shrift" &c
&c if you see my point. However I'm quite sure as you would no doubt
agree; that radio carbon 14 dating only goes back 3500 years or at most
to 4000 years; and so that ultimately any thing older than the flood which
on Ussher's chronology is 1656 after creation or for our purposes 2348 BC
cannot be dated with any degree of accuracy under the circumstances and
would be shear guess work at best. I am glad however that although you say
you're an evolutionist perhaps I should say a "Velekovskian evolutionist "
on the lines for example of David Rohl that you see the need to have
reduction in chronology from perhaps billions of years to let's say just
"tens of thousands of years" which is in my view a step in the right
direction; But that if we were to re-write history for example which I
have to say is something that I have attempted on my website to do this in line with Professor Gunnar
heinsohn's time line for ancient Europe and have drawn up a "revisionist
industry and chronology table" for Britain and Ireland on Ussher's
chronology. Now I realise that the thought for some might be too radicle
to contemplate; but it is something that can be discussed with a view if
you like to the topic of radiocarbon 14 dating without necesserrily
calibrating or increaing those dates. By the way Ian thanks for your
chronology on the flood; which I have to admit is amost intruiging date
although respectfully i might not necesserily aggree with it. What
particularly interests me in your book is your reffrence to the fallen
angels of Satan; and that was there a gap between Genesis one verse one
and Genesis one verse two; or in a nutshell; "The Gap theory " of Genesis
that gives scope for all the geologic ages although I have to admit that I
have real problems with it. There has been aview put forward for example
by Gaines Johnson an old friend who emails me quite regularly from that neanderthal/cromagnon were fallen angels of Satan
who took on flesh and blood form of humans although with respect to Gaines
is rather absurd but never the less that is his fixed belief because of
the mt/dna &c found in neanderthal/cromagnon which would make them
unrelated to the line of Adam and Noah. The point here is whether the key
to the present is the key to the past and is neanderthal mt/dna exempt
from the second law of thirmodynamics? I myself personally speaking would
say that given the remoteness of the period under investigation I think
you would agree "that we're never going to get absolutes" because we
were'nt there at the time. I really am so pleased Ian that you have taken
an interest in what I have had to say. Though I do say that I did'nt
expect you to change your mind on your timeline for the ancient world say
of four point five billion years; which is something we can discuss with
regard to the gap theory of Genesis 1v1 and 1v2. If you would like to go
to my website you will find some interesting articles on the gap theory and
"Were there Cave men in historic times". This is something we will have to
discuss in another email; I do apologise however for the lengthy email
this time however but there is indeed a lot here at steak for discussion.
Coincidently Ian I do have the book by Mr Donald A Mckenzy "Ancient man in
Britain" which indeed is most fascinating. Must go now and many thanks to
you for taking the time and interest and giving me the courtesy and
fairness of a good hearing. Many kindest regards John.


    Dear Mr Lawton many thanks for this email; I'm very pleased that you
answered my mail because it shows that you obviously take an interest in
catastrophism and I am not trying to ram my views down any one's throat
with the greatest of respect; and I also see that up to a point that you
are a follower of Velekovskey but perhaps only up to a point and like you
I take an interest in the giants that you mention in your book; but I
have to tell you that I do most certainly have a problem with the
millions of years &c proposed by evolutionists. And I have seen the
radical chronology proposed by Professor Gunnar Heinsohn for ancient
Europe proposed by Mr Charles S Kimball who is by the way a young earth
creationist but does'nt necesserrily agree with Ussher's chronology but
he does propose it for Britain and Ireland. Like you I agree there was a
world wide flood and yes I would be interested in having "rational debate
with you" being as I have got your book and am reading it. However that
dose'nt mean that I agree with every thing you say but obviously there
is as much I do agree on and equally just as much again that i cannot
agree on. So with regard to the time line of Bishop Ussher we will have
to respectfully agree to disagree ift hat is a more moderate way of
expressing myself. Have you heard of professor Gunnar Heinsohn by the
way. You see I believe the flood was coursed by a water vapour canopy
and that the dinosaurs were contemporary with man and were destroyed by
the flood. Is your chronology for the flood ca 9500 BC by the way? Or do
you hold with a lower chronology. You may think that Heinsohn's chronology
is absurd but let me say to you that there is another link that might
interest you yourd

Dear John

Many thanks for the more polite tone ;-) Yes I do go for a 9500 BC date or
thereabouts for the catastrophe. I still have to say that I find the
weight of evidence against your arguments totally insurmountable, with all
the multitude of scientific disciplines - including archaeology,
cosmology, geology, genetics, evolutionary biology and so on and so on -
that have to some extent independently arrived at the conclusion that the
earth is around 4.5 billion years old and a great many events can be dated
to a time between then and now. I am not sure that you would have any
coherent argument against this mass of evidence, although if you have and
it is not too lengthy I would be happy to hear it.

Best regards, Ian

Re The date of 3963 BC

Email to Larry Pierce, being a critique of Mike Gascoigne's suggested date of creation.

For Mike Gascoigne's work, visit his website:

   Dear Larry I'm trying to get Mike Gascoigne to be more objective about
his biblical chronology. Any one who knows the book of Genesis like your
self knows that Abraham was borne in 2008 AM or 1996 BC and that to the
time of the exodus from creation were 2513. However the problem seems to be
that Mike Gascoigne has used the above chronology for creation which is the
short time line compared to Ussher. According to this time line; Gascoigne
places Abraham in 1948 AM or 2015 BC and the exodus on 2448 annomundi
according to this annomundi calendar or 1515 BC. He puts Partholan at the
time of the Assyrian King Semiramis supposedly after the 21st year after the
berth of Abraham . That is to say according to Mike Gascoigne in 1969 AM or
1994 BC. The problem with this annomundi table is that it adds dates to
Ussher's chronology, where as we have Partholan arriving in Ireland on
Ussher's time line in AM 2520 and 1484 BC. The problem it seems to me with
Gascoigne's time line is that it creates something which happened in 1484 BC
earlier in 1994 BC with a gap of 510 years. Even worse when you take or
subtract 1969 from 2520 AM you get another 41 years added on or to be exact
510 + 41 = 551 years difference; So there seems to be something drastically
wrong with Gascoigne's annomundi calendar which co-incidentally does great
violence to Ussher's chronology:  Even worse he places King Herod in 3904
annomundi or 59 BC and this would make Herod a contemporary of Julius
Caesar; But you still have to add 41 years at the end of this table to make
it correct. So there seems to be something very wrong here. How do we get
over this problem Larry ? By the way I have sent my reduced papers to
Answers in Genesis in Leicester just to keep you updated on this front.
Problem is: "How do we get over the problem of "3963 BC" supposedly the
creation date according to Mike Gascoigne? John




The Lifespan of Abraham - email from Charles Kimball

Dear John,

For what it's worth, I now put the lifespan of Abraham from 1952 to 1777
B.C.  In recent years I have come to accept the Septuagint chronology which
has the patriarchs spend 215 years in Canaan, and then 215 years in Egypt,
because Exodus 6 only lists two generations between Levi and Moses.  In the
scheme of Middle Eastern history, he would have left Mesopotamia about 50
years before the destruction of Sumerian civilization (a good reason to get
away from Ur and Haran!), and he would have visited Egypt near the end of
the X dynasty, just before the start of the Middle Kingdom.

I don't remember any connection between Abraham and Partholan.  You may
remember I proposed Partholan's arrival at either 1484 B.C. (Ussher's
calendar) or 1240 B.C. (the Jewish calendar).  I'm thinking of changing
that, due to some evidence I discovered last year that could move Noah's
flood a couple of centuries closer to the present.  However, before I can do
that I'll have to update Chapter 1 of my Middle Eastern history.  I first
wrote that in 1991, and I need to add recent archaeological discoveries like
the tombs of the Assyrian queens at Nimrud, plus Urkesh,  Hamoukar, Tel Brak
and the BMAC cities.  The latter may be the oldest Indo-European
civilization anywhere.

Got to go now, time for Church.

Take Care,

Charles Kimball


John Hext-Fremlin wrote:

    Dear Mr Kimball in your history of Europe you place the Formorians and
some one called Fintan arriving first in Ireland before the flood; but we
don't know that for sure because what happened before the flood was blotted
out ; so if you are using Ussher's calendar for these migrations where would
you place the Cessair and Fintan and if as you say the formorians arrived in
Ireland before Partholan; would you place them 313 years after the flood
with a date of 2035 BC? because on my table I have them arrive at the same
time as Partholan in 1484 BC with the Neolithic colony of Partholan accept
my placement of them is Tory Island where Mesolithic flint tools have been
found and it is possible as you say that these Mesolithic industry people
could have been advanced Neanderthals. Don't forget Gunnar Heinsohn also has
on the conventional chronology of 2000 BC the Swanscombe people ariving at
this date; but I would still have them arriving in these islands in 1484 BC
along with the other stone age colonies. Would it be fair to say by the way
that Nemedius could also be classed as "Chalcolithic" and could have got his
bronze from Brutus in Cornwall In 1104 BC? John. Any way I have labelled him
Bronze industry whether that makes any difference or not I would'nt like to
say . John.

Dear John,

I repeat, I am NOT using Archbishop Ussher's calendar where ancient Europe
is concerned.  I still believe Noah's Flood happened some time in the fourth
millennium B.C., so any settlement date in the third or second millennium
B.C. works for me here.


Date of Stonehenge? (From Bill Cooper)

John Hext-Fremlin  wrote:
Bill I'm trying to get a rough date for the first construction of stone
henge and have dated provisionally to the beginning of the neolithic
industry in 1484 BC. I'm beginning to wonder if 1104 BC in the bronze age
might have been the more likely date. Do you have any ideas about this Bill;
but don't worry if you haven't. John.

According to the Welsh Chronicle, Brut-y-Britanniait (Jesus Coll. MS LXI), -
and the early Britons should know - Stonehenge was built in the early 6th
century AD. There's some sense in that date.



(Correspondence between Bill Cooper and JXHF)

Dear John, you really are stuck, aren't you? You have to approach the matter a little more certainly. The earlier the date for ANY settlement of these islands, the more it will argue with the Biblical chronology for the Flood. Let that - the Biblical chronology - be the concrete standard against which all others are measured, and you will always be right. Don't trust the shifting sands of human speculation. Devised chronologies alter all the time, even under the same author (as you have already seen). Now, I know that I don't really need to tell you this, but I do think that in the hub-bub of debate and guessing, you have lost sight of it. The Bible is very firm in telling us that the date for the Flood is 2348 BC (after Ussher's reckoning which has presented Bible scholars with very few problems - until now). And it is the Bible that is our concern here. In reconstructing the fascinating scenario of early post-Flood history, we are doing that for the Bible's sake and not for the history's sake. The history is merely a tool to help us understand the Bible more clearly and to vindicate it more lucidly in an unbelieving world. So please, my dear friend, don't lose sight of that. The surest indicator that you are on the wrong track is when you strain the Biblical record to such an extent that you can hear its timbers creak. So, to slightly misquote the Book, let the Bible be firm and every human speculation a jelly.
God bless you, John, and keep you at it.

Dear Bill I will certainly try this approach as you have suggested and you
are the only person I can honestly confide in; in such matters being as the
date of 2035 BC could be a "devised chronology" and I would say that all I
am trying to do is to be careful not to add to any dates that you have
given in "After the flood". However if there was an earlier date as you have
suggested that would argue for the date of the flood which I agree is 2348
BC; Then what would have been the date for the earliest palaeo/mesolithic
colony and indeed would the children of Ham fit the criteria during the
post flood ice age and for these islands? John.


Hi, John. Try to lose the terms - and with them the concepts - of Palaeolothic, and so on. There was never any such age. Metalwork in all its finery came down to our forebears from before the Flood, so there was never an age in history when man did not work metal. Old Stone Age etc is a purely evolutionary invention and has no place in our work. Homo erectus is also an evolutionary term. Was there ever a species of man who was not 'erect'? Of course not. There has only ever been the one species of man, descendants of Adam all. I say this because these ideas and terms will only confuse and muddy the issues. Palaeolithic? Forget it. Mesolithic? Forget it. And as for the same.

Dear Bill thanks for this and all that I need to do is remember what Philip
Bell at Answers in Genesis in Leicester once said to me:" Remember what I
said to you John that these stone age cultures or industries as you call
them were contemporary" and you know something Bill that is a much more
satisfying and interesting way of viewing the period of the "so called stone
age". Shall I delete Mike's table from my website or shall I expose it as a
"devised chronology" Bill so that people will see straight away that it is
wrong. I guess that trying to practice being a good christian I wanted to
show Mike Gascoigne this kindness or if you like "Turn the other cheek"
because I did'nt want to get involved in any kind of "muck raking " if you
see my point. "However if you think I should delete it then I will do it. I
would however make it clear that I accept no other biblical chronology other
than Bishop Ussher. And I know for example that while Britain and for that
matter Ireland might have been in the period called the stone age as is
evidenced by flint tools &c and notably Tory Island on which I've done some
research it must also be be stressed that other parts of Europe were in the
Bronze and iron ages or if you prefer "Industries" then we have all the
proof that we need in saying that some of the metal working technology was
lost at Babel while Egypt and all the far east and Assyrya were with the
bronze and iron industries at the same time as Mr Donals A Mcenzy in his
book "Ancient Man In Britain correctly points out and I agree with him and
that therefore the terms palaeolithic mesolithic and neolithic are
therefore confined to contemporary industries and nothing else. He also goes
on to say that you can't pleasure one set of scientists to "pleasure
another". And you know I believe that is very aptly put. Must go now and
enjoy your bank holiday weekend. God bless you Bill. John.

Dear Bill every thing you said about me losing sight of biblical chronology
is absolutely true and I feel guilty about listening to Satans words "Hath
God not said" by dabbling with Mike Gascoigne's half finished table and
it's blown up in my face; so maybe I should unpublish it or delete it from
my website and I shouldn't have used the words on my industry table
alaeolithic mesolithic and neolithic not to mention "Chalcolithic". Maybe I
would have been better with the word "stone age" or maybe stone tool
technology. As some of the migrations lost the knowledge at babel on
metal working technologies So maybe I would be ok with just that one phrase so
far as these islands are concerned until Brutus and Nemedius introduced
the bronze industries. Where I slipped up was to try and say one succeeded the
other. This is not correct . They were all there at the same time . John

It's a difficult decision for you, John, but what I would do is this. Keep Mike's website as an interesting link, but just make it clear that his is an alternative viewpoint to your own. Point out the simplicity - and the straightforwardness - of the Biblical account, and the superiority of those models that adhere strictly to a Biblical format. I'm sure that Mike would strongly protest that he is trying to follow the Biblical model, and is working hard toward vindicating it. I do not doubt that he is. In fact, I know that he is, which is why I wrote a glowing review for an article of his on early mythology. But I do think that any worker in this field is making things unnecessarily complicated for himself by doffing the cap to the archaeological terms that evolutionists have invented. Such terms and references are designed to be a shifting sand - which is why and how writers who pay them any kind of lip-service end up including in the same piece of work conflicting and contradictory dates and arguments. Simplicity is the key - always!

Bill How shall I change the terminology? Perhaps I ought to stick with
"stone tool Culture" John


I really wouldn't bother even with that. Just talk about the Immediate (or
>better still, Early) post-Flood Era, and Late post-Flood Era - spanning the
>centuries from the Flood (2348 BC) to the founding of the Kingdom of Israel
>(ca 1100-1000 BC). There never was a stone-tool culture any more than there
>has been an iron or bronze tool culture. When the evolutionsts first coined
>these terms, they really knew what they were doing (knowing also that they
>were false terms). They are so elastic in their application and definition,
>that even when archaeologists contradicted each other (which they knew
>would happen often), they would all still be right. It was like
>constructing rubber goal-posts which slide around on well-oiled castors.
>(They have done the same with astronomy and all the other sciences). And
>that is why their students are forever learning, yet never coming to a
>knowledge of the truth.
>God bless you, John.


Dear Bill I agree with you that there was no more a stone tool culture than
there was iron or bronze tool cultures; You see what I am attempting to do
or have at least attempted to write about the different tool technologies
that apply to these islands only and let me say strictly on a creation and
biblical model; and I have always been fascinated with the stone age bronze
and iron industries since I was a small boy and my endeavour or mission was
to find the truth on a creation model which is exactly what I've done where
this has never been attempted before and between you and me Mike has given
me some help with it ; but as it turns out Mike Gascoigne had the incorrect
chronology and I have since found out that the time line of Prof Gunnar
Heinsohn for the neanderthal in Europe is 1500 BC which gives a remarkable
correrlation for 1484 BC with the arrival of Partholan at the same time
which happens to be in one of Mr Charles S Kimball's papers in his history
of Europe. I might add by the way that there are still people in the Amazon
Jungle who are still at a level of stone tool technology even today while at
the same time they are contemporary with mainstream modern civilization and
some of them are ignorant of metal technology and this must have been the
case ever since Babel. So Having worked very hard on this reconstruction of
British history and drawn up my industry and chronology table in the way
that I have and indeed as we are stuck with these labels when trying to
describe a certain type of stone tool technology then how do we get rid of
them. I have based my model on Dr Osgood's "Better model for the stone age
which for the Middle east and Mesopotamia about 340 years is allowed by him
for the stone age so I have simply written a "Better stone age Model and
the Biblical stone age model for the British Isles and Ireland with the
bronze and iron industries overlapping. It should be made absolutely clear
from this author that the maximum or minimum what ever the case may be is no
more than 380 years at most. I would also emphasise that stone tools as well
as bronze and iron weapons have been found in Ireland but there has been
none as far as I am aware on Tory Island. And indeed no metal tools have
been found with Neanderthal Man but I think he can be linked to some of the
megaliths and I think that Easter Island could be a case in point. By the
way Bill I saw some old gentleman the other day with neanderthal
characteristics in Stafford .

God bless John.


Well said, John. God bless you.


At 02:30 PM 06/22/2005 +0000, you wrote:
    Dear Larry I found something interesting with regard to the above
subject. And I would like to recommend this page to you as it makes
interesting reading. If you have a slow dialing modem on your pc then why
not go to your local library and book on to a pc and click on and you will
find the relevant info on page 2 of 15 which says the indo european
migration of ca 1500 BC had a primitive metal technology before they came to
Europe which for our purposes would be 1484 BCand am 2520. The idea that the
copper age so called came after the neolithic here in these islands is false
because copper and stone age tools have been found in the tombs and burial
mounds of these peoples and the author of the webpage insists that the two
industries overlapped at the same time and it is interesting to note that
when they came to Britain and Ireland they also prospected for gold and even
silver as well as amber. I also suggest that the neanderthal were
contemporary with the indo european migration at the same time. It seems
that the so called neolithic is the stumbling block here and people don't
realise that the chalcolithic (copper industry) flowered at the same time as
the neolithic industry so it was chalcolithic and "neolithic " at the same
time. If you can go to your library Larry and read this page I know it will
interest you. John


BIBLICAL GEOLOGY (From Gorman Gray, Morningstar publications)
If you would like to send me the link to click on for
Biblical geology I would be most interested. But can you say what kind of

life existed before Adam. John.

The only thing I have on biblical geology is a 16 page commentary on "The
Biblical Flood as seen in the Grand Canyon." It consists of a cross
section view of the GC strata over which I have imposed balloon
directions with explanations of everything and how it relates to the
flood of Genesis 7 and post flood events such as the ice age.

The geology map and explanatory stuff is $8.  The Age of the Universe:
What Are the Biblical Limits? book is $15 both are post paid prices.
People with financial hardship may have both free of charge - - - just
explain and ask for it.   An abridged version of the geology explanatory
material appears as Appendix "C" in my age of the universe book.

I have not concluded personally whether Masoretic text or Septuagint
texts are the most valid and reliable (lean toward Masoretic) but it
makes no difference with my age book.  Anyway,  there was no life of any
kind - - - no fossils nor derivatives such as coal and oil - - - more
than 144 hours before Adam's creation.  Neanderthal's were post flood as
probably all the cave dwellers.

God is worthy of your trust - - -  Humble yourselves before the mighty
hand of God - - - If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be
accursed.  Maranatha.
Gorman Gray
Morningstar Publications
931 15th St., Washougal, WA 98671-1209


Yes send your dates etc if you like.  I have a friend who is a chronologist
(biblical and Egyptian specialty) who sets the date of the Exodus to 1581 BC
rather thatn the commonly accepterd 1447.  - - -  Very convincing to me. 
Makes Israel's history mesh with Egypt's and Jericho's fall fits much better
plus it is accomplished by sensible verbal, literal Biblical study.

Gorman Gray
>Dear Sir can you give me a post flood ice age date for the start of the
>Palaeolithic industry. Only as you know on my table I have them as
>contemporary arriving in 1484 BC. Some say that the Neanderthal and
>Swanscombe were in fact the formorians and descendents of Ham who preceded
>the Neolithic and if so did they arrive say 2000 BC on Ussher's time line
>near the time of Abraham?


 I think your date of 1484 BC is probably accurate. I no longer have access
>to the material I referred to when I wrote the article on the various
>movements of races and groups of people, since much of it came from various
>University Libraries on loan. For that reason I am not able to give you
>much help. Your chart falls into line with most of the dates with which I
>am familiar, perhaps with slight variations here and there, and as you have
>done a great deal of work on this matter you may be able to locate some of
>the material quoted or referred to in my paper. This may help you to more
>closely determine the accuracy of what is being stated in the article. My
>emphasis was on who these people were, as much as we can tell, and not so
>much on the various dates of the movements.
>Respectfully yours,
>Bryce G. Clark


Have you read the book Buried Alive by Jack Cuozzo?  This is the best book
on the subject.  Jack thinks that the Neanderthals were some of the earliest
peoples who dispersed soon after the flood (perhaps even before Tower of
Babel dispersal).  He believes they represent skeletal features (primarily
facial) that would develop over time due to longevities of life of up to
several hundred years.  The coastal regions would have been temperate but
the interior of central and northern Europe would have been heavily
glaciated during the ice age, which occurred right after the flood.  Some of
the Neanderthals would have been primitive because of deculturization (.i.e.
Endiku in the story of Gilgamish and also a reference in the book of Job to
decultured people even at the earliest times) and others would be
significantly more advanced than that presented by those in academia with an
evolutionary bias.

Timing of arrival in Europe would be difficult to date but my guess would be
at least 1500 BC and probably several hundred years earlier.  In several
books I have seen hints that the Paleolithic finds do not relate to 10's of
thousand years ago but actually to relatively recent past when some
civilizations were experiencing their golden ages.  A bone that was dated as
Paleolithic was found to have an ogam inscription (previously thought to be
just scratches) which is a relatively recent Celto-Iberian language.

Another must read is From Noah to Abraham by Erich von Fange.  I have
recently developed a friendship and he is becoming a great asset to my

Someone a true scholar will probably begin to classify the racial identity
of the Neanderthals.  So if Jack is right then one would learn to
distinguish between features related to 200+ age live spans and racial
features and begin to develop a picture of which these Neanderthals might be
(which race and which son/grandson of Noah they descend from).  I suspect if
Jack is right then it is possible to have several diverging racial types but
if is primarily a race that distinguishes them, then we should be able to
trace the movement from the Middle East (perhaps they have Hamitic Canaanite
origins since they are found in Israel) to Europe.  Many early histories
refer to a Hamitic people that came before the Caucasian people to Europe. 
These Hamitic people were driven off in some cases or assimilated in other
cases.  A recent article on the subject concludes that the Neanderthals were
the progenitors of the European people groups so another possibility would
be a proto-Germanic group if that conclusion is correct.  This would be a
wonderful study and perhaps you are up to the task...

If you want to take a more educated guess concerning the Neanderthals I
suggest you start by contacting Craig White at History Research Projects
(author of The Origin of Nations).  I have contact info for him.  I have
been thinking about asking him the same question.  I do not know of anyone
in more knowledgeable about origins (Bill Cooper comes a close second but
due to health problems he is not returning letters or emails).  Be careful
of his British-Israelism slant or bias.  It is interesting that he seems to
not fall into the same pitfalls as other British-Israelism scholars


Radiocarbon Dating
(Dan Janzen to JHXF)

I believe radio carbon dating to be so inaccurate that it is just a
coincidence that the date seems to match up with what you expect to be the
correct date.  Turles and seals that recently died or still living have been
dated and hundreds of thousands of years old.  The idea that radio carbon
dating has some accuracy or any accuracy at all up until near the time of
the flood is totally false.  I am not sure why you would want to lean on a
radio carbon derived date at all.  Lets lean on the peoples own recorded
history and on archeological evidence.  You have a wonderful nack for trying
to make links (i.e. the Neanderthals with the Picts or Formorans (sp?).  Now
you need to test your hypothesis.  The idea of the Aboriginals being the
last remaining Neanderthals was most likely on the wrong track but that is
not to discount that there could be a slight connection since the Hamitic
peoples were probably on the perimeter of civilization and the
Picts/Formorians (sp?) were also a Hamitic people--is that right?  First of
all you need to make contact with Jack Cuzco himself, no matter how
difficult or how long it takes.  Use him as your mentor.  Figure out what he
is interested in finding out and try to do some research that he would be
interested in.  You have a tremendous amount of energy that under the right
tutaleage could go very far.  What you lack is a good mentor.  I have a
friend, Dr. Chittick that serves as my mentor and he steers me in the right
direction and I do research that is helpful to him and updating a book.


Yes, I do not put much stock in carbon 14 dates.  They have no value as far
as I am concerned, especially since carbon 14 is still building up in the
atmosphere and this is not taken into account.  Radiometric materials are an
indication of process of formation rather than a method of dating.  Carbon
14 dating has never been calibrated and is totally unworthy of being used as
a dating method.  Dr. Libby who discovered radiometric decay rates warned us
about the need to first find a means of calibration before it could be used
for daing.  Did anyone listen--no.  They have some new methos with using
spectrometry that you could examine if you wish.  Best if you went to a
creationsist site for explanation.

Danny Janzen


From Mike Fischer

Dear John,
I am in the Geology library now, and looking at the
entry in Radiocarbon journal, Vol. 3, page 41.  Some
of the relevant sentences in the short paragraph on
the Galley Hill sample (BM-86), dated 3310+/- 150
are:  "Bone, fragments of the humeri of the Galley
Hill skeleton.  Found in 1888 by Robert Elliot at a
depth of 8 ft in gravel of the 100-ft terrace of River
Thames in a gravel pit 180 yards NW of All Saints
Church, Swanscombe, Kent.  Skeleton was
originally thought to be contemporaneous with
Paleolithic gravel, but this was later doubted.
Flourine dating in 1949 showed it to be an intrusive
burial "prehistoric but probably post-Paleolithic."
Comment: the post-Paleolithic dating is confirmed."
Does not really seem like much to hang your hat
on, unless the Swanscombe skeleton is confirmed

to be Neanderthal, in which case it is pretty neat.
If the Swanscombe skeleton is in a museum, it
could be re-tested to confirm the date.

I am glad you and your brother got to view the CD.
If you have ideas on how it can be improved, let
me know.  Right now I am gathering more material
in the library to challenge the notion of subduction.


To Larry Pierce

Dear Larry many thanks for yesterday's mail; as for me going beyond the
prescribed limits of radio carbon dating ; you need never worry on that
score. I have proved by simple arithmetic that if one adds 174 years to the
radio carbon date of 3310 then we get Ussher's date of 1484 BC simply by
deducting the 2000 years of up to the present day in order to obtain our BC
date. There are some creation scientists who have attempted to push the
Neanderthal back further than this date for their arrival in Europe; but I
am as equally adamant that this is not the case; being the fact that my
findings are in line with Bishop Ussher and indeed Prof. Gunnar Heinsohn
along with your good self and Bill Cooper. I must say that I'm deeply
indebted and indeed eternally greatful for the work of Mike Fischer who has
been of tremendous help in this task and this connection. I think that my
criticism of is that they try to push the neanderthal back several
hundred years before 1484 BC and their arrival in Europe so would therefore
be dubious of any date that they gave before 1484 BC. As for my part I'm
absolutely convinced that Britain finaly became an island after the
catastrophe described by Velekovskey in Worlds in Collision and "Earth in
Upheaval" of 687 BC and this is when I believe the ice age finally
terminated: Although this author wasn't there at the time. John.


Correspondence with Yair Davidy

At 03:53 PM 9/23/2005, you wrote:
Dear Sir at my website Ihave written some articles>on the stone age and there are interesting articles on the flood and post
flood rapid ice age and you will note my date for the colonization of
Britain and Ireland is annomundi 2520 and 1484 BC which coincidently has
been confirmed by by Mr Bryce G Clerk in this connection
so I wondered with your kind permission and all due ackknowledgements
publish some of these emails or extracts thereof on my website being that
in this connection we need to get the message out there.

You probably might know that I'm quite well known in the creation movement
and have had some interesting correspondense with Bill Cooper and indeed
AnswersinGenesis. I await your kind permission in this connection before
publishing. Yours sincerely John Hext-Fremlin;

You have permission. You site looks interesting. I hope to look at it again
in the near future.
God bless you
Yair Davidiy

 From Danny Janzen  (On the Origin of Nations)

John Hext-Fremlin wrote:
Dan I agree with you about the passage in chapter 19. Though is'nt this passage referring to Israel. It's interesting to note that one of the Israelite tribes had the "Lion" as a symbol. So do you think that there could have been a few Israelites that came to Britain and indeed is this passage inferring a little "Anglo Israelism " John

Dan Janzen wrote
I am really sorry, I meant Ezekiel 38:13.

Anything is possible but it does not take long to figure out that these Brit-Israelism people do not know what they are talking about.  They find very vague support and then expect us all to believe them.  I am not that gullable.  I need to see more solid evidence.  It means nothing to me that the Lion also appears in both Isreal and Britian as it wqs an important symbol in many places.  We have to have something more substantial.
Here are some interesting sites (right above).


> >>Dear
> >>It was interesting to read your supplement to
> >>Chapter 2, thanks. Glad to see you are up and
> >>running at last, with many postings. One can
> >>only imagine what Fox Hext-Fremlin will discover
> >>about prehistoric animals, as well as the global
> >>timeline.
> >>
> >>I have been distracted since my wife's father
> >>died suddenly, and then the nursing home where
> >>my father stays has tried to move him out of
> >>his apartment. Chaos as usual.
> >>
> >>You know the power that DNA evidence has over
> >>people. There is a new book that could provide
> >>you with such information to back up your charts.
> >>It is one of five selected in a recent issue of
> >>Science News magazine. The title is:
> >>Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain
> >>and Ireland, by Bryan Sykes, Norton Press, 2006,
> >>306 pages, 27 dollars.
> >>
> >>The description reads: Sykes, the founder of an
> >>organization that sequences individuals' DNA so
> >>they can explore their roots, here recounts the
> >>genetic history of the British Isles. At the
> >>forefront of genetic history, Sykes has participated
> >>in archaeological research throughout Great Britain.
> >>By sampling the DNA of more than 10,000 volunteers,
> >>Sykes has attempted to solve the mystery of who the
> >>British Isles' first inhabitants were and how they
> >>arrived. His book explores the traditional accounts
> >>passed on in England and Ireland and uses the DNA
> >>evidence to sort
>fact from fiction. Sykes looks to
> >>modern DNA evidence to sort the genetic legacies of
> >>the Vikings, Romans, Saxons, Celts, and other groups.
> >>
> >>Good hunting,
> >>Mike Fischer

>From: "Darrell White"
>Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:11:44 +0000

>From: "John Hext-Fremlin"
>Subject: RE: DNA Book
>Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:34:32 +0000
> >Hi Darrell Dan and Dr Cuozzo down below is some interesting
> >information about my theory on Phoenician origins of Neanderthal
> >from Mike Fischer who has contributed greatly in this connection to
> >solving the conundrem of Phoenician origins of Neanderthal and the
> >book he mentions might be just the break we've all been waiting for.
> >Good Hunting John

>Sounds like a very good source. Do you have a copy of it yet?

Fossilized Man in County Antrim?


That giant looks like a stone statue since almost never do you find soft
tissue, muscle etc.  fossilized so that the complete body outline is seen.
Even the Egyptian mummies who have been really preserved are shallow objects
of their former selves. I've never seen a full sized body preserved like
this, even with a cloth around its waist, which should have disintegrated

Dating the Ice Age


>Hi Darrell; I've started to read the chronology paper of about 33 pages and
>very interesting it is too. I notice that you have given Mike Oard's date
>(If he's correct as you say) about 2346 BC but we are both aggreed as per
>industries table for BRItain and Ireland that the ice took approximately
>101 years from the flood to the days of Peleg 2247 BC for the start of the
>ice age proper because you mention that on one of the surveys the poles
>were free o ice so I think 101 years for the ice to have built up is a
>reasonable estimate after the flood. Of particular interest in this
>connection is the 700 years you mention from the dispersion to the exodus
>2191 -1491=700 years and you give the exact date that the ice age ended. So
>2247BC - 1491 BC= exactly 756 years all total in my estimation and as you
>have informed me with more ice build up after this date could terminate in
>1200 BC. I wonder if there was also an ice planet catastrophe at the time
>of Babel. One most certainly cannot rule out astral catastrophism at this
>time in order to drive the people forcibly from Babel to their places
>around the world. One other point I'd like to make is that you have given
>me a date on my table for Britain and Ireland of 1055/1015 BC for the
>Milesian colonization of Ireland which in your paper you have about 1044 BC
>and I've not come to Brutus yet but would suggest that you have advised me
>to use the 1116 dating of Mike Gascoigne which I have done.  I know I'm a
>bit of a "Dates man" but it is good to have the correct chronology based on
>the original research. It might even pay me to improve my table by putting
>in the dIicovery of Ireland by Ciocal and his band in 2208 BC. Will let you
>know Darrell how I get on with the rest of the paper which you have made
>very interesting reading. Meanwhile Good Hunting John


I'm not so sure Dan. Mike Oard myself included were not there at the time so
any dating as far as the ice age is concerned should be treated as
provisional but at the same time a "yardstick"for creationists with different
ideas. I think Darrell has got a good point. Something had to knock the earth
of it's axes with the 23 degree tilt. Pattern proposed that the poles were
hit by an ice comet. Darrell reckons that something happened after 1491 BC.
I propose the same thing happened but at the end of the ice age. Are you
sugesting that the flood and the ice age were simultaneous. Perhaps maybe so
but I'd seriously doubt it. John



What I am saying is that I think it is highly irresponsible to say that the
ice age began on a particular date, particularly if the date does not end in
a 0 or better yet two 00s.  It just is not helpful to have a date that does
not have two 00s behind it and you keep suggesting dates and I even once
made up a date just to make a point and you took me seriously.

I am suspicious of the change in axis of the earth argument but I am rather
neutral at this point.  Some people have suggested that the day was shorter
in the past 360 days based on ancient records but I am thinking that is not
the case either.

If we were struck by a comet then it would have precipitated the flood and
that is a good possiblity.  We can speculate if we want.  An old book called
Ice Age Epoch suggested this some 50 years ago and also Velikoski did as

I would entertain the 1491 BC idea as there is probably some evidence but
that evidence may also point to an explosion such as the Island of Thera
scale volcanic eruption.

I tend to think of the earth as being the center of the universe and
everything created for the purpose of the earth.  I am not sure it is
possible that the earth could be thrown off it axis by any such force.



 I'm sorry about getting back to you so late but will pass the word
around as promised as of right now. Tell you what I'll do inas far as the
ice age date goes because for that matter Darrell does'nt agree either with
Mike Oard's dating of the ice age at 2347/46 BC. Darrell reckons the ice
sheets became visible in 2260 BC; so although the text on my website
indicates 2247 I will make an amendment in the text to say that they became
visible in 2260 in agreement with Darrell although my point is that the Ice
age had started by 2247 BC and ended as Darrell says in 1491 BC at the time
of the Exodus which from my chart for Britain and Ireland would indicate
exactly 756 years so if we add another 13 years ie 2247=13=2260 then adding
13 years to the 756 becomes 769 years so I'll do that and everyone should be
happy with it hopefully. John.


Please stop trying to date the ice age so exactly.  That is impossible since
the ice age had a gradual start.  So for that matter they could all be just
as wrong as they are right.  How do you qualify a date for something that
starts very gradually?  Lets focus on dating other items.


Ok Dan but it's already on my industries chart so I can't alter it now. By
the way Dr Cuozzo asked me what exactly is the GNU? Is it a uniformitarian
evolutionary organization? Sounds to me like it could be. John

The Water Vapour Canopy
Dear Jim thanks for your response on the Water Vapour Canopy. However with the greatest respect I have to dissaggree with you on that point. Are not "The Windows of Heaven" which Genesis mentions being opened ; the actual water vapour cannopy; and of course not forgetting that before the flood the whole earth was subtropicle and no rain before the flood; but that the earth was watered by mists. I also sugest that the "fountains of the Great Deep" were/ was water released by underground seismic action from volcanoes/and or earthquakes. We also read in Genesis chapter one that the waters were suspended above the earth (which was the firmament) thus creating if you like a "Greenhouse effect". Why do we now see the Rainbow? In conclusion therefore; As the flood was a worldwide event and killing off the dinosaurs I am sugesting that the rainbow could not be seen before the flood because of the watervapour cannopy; and the loss of which led to the Ice age. cce_john

Conversation on Chronology  with Emmet Sweeney

>>>>>>> Hi Emmet according to the book of Genesis on Larry Pierce's
>>>>>>> chronology the despersion happened in 2242 BC (A little earlier than my
>>>>>>> date.The flood of Noah (world wide) onUssher's timeline was 2348 BC 1656 yrs
>>>>>>> after creation (4004 BC) They are valied dates which I would stick to.
>>>>>>> We also know that Egypt (Old Kingdom) was founded by Misraem in
>>>>>>> 2189/2188 BC . If your date for the start of the New Kingdom is 1121 BC line
>>>>>>> Newton then would you say that the Egyptians were still in a stone age or
>>>>>>> chalcollithic at the time of the Exodus in 1491 BC and could the pharoe of
>>>>>>> the exodus be called a predynastic pharoe.?
>>>>>>> Were Ogyges and Ducallion one and the same person? My website places
>>>>>>> the Ducallion Flood at the time of the exodus with a rapid melt down of the
>>>>>>> pleistocene post flood rapid ice age.
>>>>>>> Did the Tyrian Phoenicians arrive in Britain in 1013 BC? If so when
>>>>>>> did they start the Bronze and Iron ages in Britain on a more or less exact
>>>>>>> date? Were they also respnsible for the Neolithic Industry? Please try to
>>>>>>> give me your evaluation on these four paragraghs, John

 Dear Emmet according to your chronology can you tellme when the
>>>>>>>> Neolithic occurred in Britain and then the Bronze age and then the early
>>>>>>>> iron age using Ussher's chronology.
>>>>>>>> Larry Pierce's book Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms
>>>>>>>> places the Phoenicians trading with Britain in 1013 BC and the
>>>>>>>> Neanderthal/Cromagnon in all parts of Europe at 1121 BC fro the far side of
>>>>>>>> the Black Sea.assuming Newton's timeline to be correct.However I would place
>>>>>>>> the Scythians and cimmerians assuming them to be Neanderthal/Cromagnon from
>>>>>>>> between 2242 and 1121 BC after the despersion at Babel
>>>>>>>> As already noted my date for the despersion is 2191 BC and my daTE
>>>>>>>> FOR the post flood rappid ice age. John

Dear Emmet many thanks for your email and a most interestingone it is too. Thus the Formorians were Cananites and I believe the Neanderthals were also cananites. I have a revolutionary hunch they also built the village of Skara Brae as is evidenced by the Red Ochre Paint that has been found there

Thus it is most interesting to note in this connection that Red Oche paint was used by the Neanderthals in burial cerimonies for the dead. I blieve and as Dr Velekovskey says that in Armania there were contemporary cultures of Palaeolithic Neolithic Bronze Iron and Steel industries not far from where the arc landed. These were the world survey teamflood rappid ice age  is 2191 BC at the despersion from Babel to the exous at 1491 BC Johns of ca 2295 BC using Darrell Whitrs Ussherian chronologyApr

Thus in conclusion I aggree with your concept that the Neanderthals Almas &^c could have survived into modern times and that my date for thepost  

Dear John,

Please forgive me for not answering earlier. I have been very unwell recently.

Personally I do not think Neanderthal man was completely exterminated
by the Flood, though their numbers must have been depleted - as were
those of our own ancestors, Cro-Magnon man. It seems highly likely
that a few isolated pockets of Neanderthals survived into ancient
times and became the troglodytes and satyrs of classical legend and
myth. The satyrs were typically hairy men who lived in caves and
isolated forests far from human habitation.

It is very likely that some pockets of Neanderthals survived even into
modern times, as the various accounts of the Almas, from Central Asia,
make very clear.

Once again, I apologize for not communicating earlier.


PS. I place the Flood around 1400 BC.