As you note, none of that stuff is new. It might surprise as much as it did me that the supereruption mania began in the 19th century; Marinatos revived it in the 1930s, Pellegrino in the 1960s; it has never been anything but a seeking of evidence for a groundless belief, and its advocates merely point at the same fallacious non-evidence, and scratch each others backs. Great way to milk gov’ts for grants though.
[snip] I, for one, find it difficult to believe that something as cataclysmic as the Theran eruption could have taken place without causing world-wide tremors or reactions and am therefore inclined to favor the earlier date.. all around 1628-1627 BC, possibly corroborated by the silence from Egypt... The Chinese evidence is not entirely secure as to its date, the Annals having been found, lost, and then recovered, and the question of the Shang Dynasty and its dates really depends on one line in the text (information from Professor Martin Bernal at Cornell)... [unsnip]
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/thera.html#16
IOW, the silence from Egypt — lack of any record of any kind of eruption, tsunami, etc — CORROBORATES the event. That’s a nice example of a delusional system in action.
Apparently you either didn’t read this:
Regarding evidence of Thera sunamis I recommend:
http://www.ugurkuran.com/eng/thams/geology.pd
Or chose to ignore it.
Your argument that there is nothing new is one of the weakest I’ve ever heard you express. Do we need new proof that Kin Tut’s tomb was found in order to believe it? While there is always the possibility that new evidence or theories will occur as research continues, the absence of ‘dittos” usually means that the research studies submitted are accepted as true until proven incorrect—and that the academic community sees no point—or possiblity of publication or funding—in rehashing them.
If you insist on recent news being the only viable proof, then where are your citations (recent) from scientists, experts or archeologists that no eruption occurred.
The absence of recent proofs is not proof of the absence of proof.