Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Clovis Comet, Carolina Bays, And Younger Dryas Related?
#41
John L Wrote:And this one, from Madagascar appears to have been from around 2800-3000BC. Perhaps this is where many of the Flood Myths come from, along with the flooding of the Black Sea shortly before.
John,
the flood myths have most likely nothing to do with neither Madagascar nor the Black Sea. It was probably a real adventure of an old Sumerian lifestock trader, who build a particularly big vessel (or roped several smaller ones up) and was taken by surprise by rare typhoon coming in from the Indian Ocean. Which flushed him out to the Persian Gulf and weeks later to the coast of whatever country that's around there.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#42
National Geographic had an article this month about comet/asteroid impacts with the earth.
There are some maps and photos in the article.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#43
This part here reminds me of the same computer work done on the Clovis Comet incident as well. Must have been the same people doing both sceneros. Just imagine the kinetic energy released almost instantly on such an explosion. Most people will not think of this, but without considering such, it is impossible to totally understand the scope of such an event.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#44
Well, I don't want to nit-pick, but the thing has kinetic energy as long as it's zooming in, but it becomes something else on impact. How much kinetic energy you can figure out yourself, KE (in joules) = 1/2 mv squared. m is kilogramm, and v the speed, metres/second.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#45
quadrat Wrote:Well, I don't want to nit-pick, but the thing has kinetic energy as long as it's zooming in, but it becomes something else on impact. How much kinetic energy you can figure out yourself, KE (in joules) = 1/2 mv squared. m is kilogramm, and v the speed, metres/second.

Naturally, I wasn't referring to you "Q", when I intimated that most people do not consider the kinetic displacement of energy. You are a certified Genius and already know such things.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#46
And speaking of Impactors, and their influence on the planet, there is this latest information.  And also take note: The Alvarez Impactor Theory, leading to mass extinctions, contends that some celestial eaction occurs every 30-32 million years, leading to mass extinctions.  Some are worse than others.  We all know about the K/T mass extinction of 65 million years ago.  And now this one fits neatly into the time frame, being around 35 million years ago.  

These are the Huge celestial events, which are over and beyond what happens more random, pretty much on an ongoing basis.  This is new information, so much more will be trickling out over time about this event.

Quote:A big impact on climate

Examining a new asteroid crater found in the Timor Sea

As new land-based oil deposits become increasingly scarce, oil companies have turned to the seabed in search of new reserves. The drilling and seismic surveying often find oil, but occasionally they turn up something far more interesting, at least from a scientific perspective.


This was exactly what happened when oil company geologist Dariusz Jablonski of Finder Exploration was conducting seismic surveys in areas straddling the Ashmore Platform and Browse Basin north of Australia. His results led him to suspect the existence of a large impact feature so Dariusz contacted Dr Andrew Glikson at ANU who is a specialist in the study of extraterrestrial impacts. Dr Glikson was asked to study cuttings from the Mount Ashmore-1B well and investigate whether there was indeed evidence for an ancient impact structure.

Click to Enlarge
   

But how exactly does a scientist go about determining if a 35 million years old structure deep below both rock and sea is indeed impact related?


‘It’s a process of elimination,” Dr Glikson explains, “Essentially we look at all plausible explanations and eliminate them one by one. But the process can be difficult depending on the type of rocks in that particular area.”


When an impact occurs in Igneous or Metamorphic Rocks it’s usually possible to see tell-tale crystallographic fracture planes under the microscope. These particular structures known as planar deformation features (PDFs) only form due to high velocity shock imparted by an impact but can’t form due to volcanic explosition, which makes them a “fingerprint” for impacts. However in the sedimentary rocks that are commonly found under the sea the high concentration of volaltiles – mainly water and carbon dioxide - makes it much less likely that PDFs will form, so scientists have to look for other clues.


Two candidates for non-impact explanations of dome structures are volcanism and salt domes. Salt domes are created when restricted marine basins have a cyclical evaporation causing salt and gypsum to be deposited over many centuries. As time progresses these salt deposits can become covered in layers of sediment. However because the salt is less dense than the sedimentary rock that forms over it, it has a tendency to rise up through the rocks above like a bubble.
“The Mount Ashmore feature extends far too deep into the crust to be a salt Dome and has a basement rise underneath it, “Dr Glikson says, ”In the seismic profiles we can see a number of features deep below that are not consistent with such an explanation. We also see no indication of igneous material in the drill core, which makes a volcanic explanation unlikely. So what we’re left with is an impact explanation.”


“At the time of the impact the ocean would have been a few hundred metres deep” Dr Glikson adds, “But when you’re talking about large impacts, the presence of a relatively small amount of water is not a major factor in attenuating the impact.”


Only very low angle impacts which plunge into deep water may be slowed down.  When a large mass of a hard material like silicate rock or iron hits the Earth the tremendous kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy at the end of its trajectory. This releases a vast amount of heat in a very small time, melting the rocks and vaporising the solid mass into a series of hot gasses such as CO2, water and silicate vapour. The process involves a rapid and enormous increase in volume, perhaps analogous to an underground nuclear detonation.


You can see clear evidence of this impact explosion mechanism for yourself if you look at the moon through a small telescope. The many thousands of asteroids and comets that have hit the moon over the last 4 billion years came in at every possible angle. If you imagine throwing stones into mud, the ones that hit at a grazing angle leave long elliptical indentations and it’s actually quite difficult to create a circular carter. However when you look at the moon, all the craters and basins are essentially perfect circles.


The explanation of this is that when an asteroid hits a planetary sized body, the initial crater (which may be elongated) is wiped out a few milliseconds later by the explosive release of kinetic energy. This explosion creates an essentially spherical impact feature. So all the craters on the moon are perfectly round despite the variety of impact angles.
There is a rule of thumb that says that the diameter of a particular crater sill will be about 10 to 20 times larger than the impactor that caused it. “The minimum size of the Mount Ashmore dome, which represents elastic rebound doming of the Earth’s crust triggered by the impact, is 50 kilometers at the base, but the full size of the impact crater - not yet defined - may be significantly larger” Dr Glikson says. “This would suggest that the asteroid that created the structure was at least 5 kilometers across.”


The impact of such a large asteroid throws up vast amounts of dust and fine particulate matter into the upper atmosphere. This reflects sunlight resulting in a significant, though temporary cooling of the planet. Although a single massive impact could create this effect, a series of smaller ones close together in time may have a bigger and more prolonged effect. Despite the fact that asteroid impacts are very infrequent, clusters of asteroid impacts have occurred several times through the history of Earth.


Relatively small objects like asteroids that orbit the Sun are very strongly influenced by the gravity of massive planets, in particular Jupiter. Astronomers believe that perturbations caused by Jupiter’s gravity either prevented a planet forming from the debris between Mars and Jupiter or even tore it apart. This perturbation coupled with gravitational attraction between different asteroids means that many of them orbit in loose clumps. The implications for the Earth being, that if one member of such a clump hits the Earth many of the others may also do so within a few orbits, creating an impact cluster. Scientists know that there have been a few such clusters of impacts throughout the history of the Earth. There are a number of impact features around the world that, like the Mount Ashmore dome, are about 35 million years old suggesting the newly discovered dome is part of this impact cluster.


“Around the same time as the Mount Ashmore impact, a 100 kilometer wide asteroid impact structure formed in Siberia, and another measuring 85 km in diameter in Chesapeake Bay, off Virginia, in the United States.  Likewise a large field of tektites – molten rock fragments splashed by impact – fell over northeast America. This defined a major impact cluster across the planet,” Dr Glikson says.


This impact cluster would have contributed significantly to a global cooling in so far as it may have triggered the opening of the Drake Passage between Antarctica and South America. The opening of the Drake Passage allowed continuous circulation of the circum-Antarctic ocean current, isolating the Antarctic continent from warm mid-latitude currents and allowing the onset of its large ice sheet, which acts as a ‘thermostat’ for the Earth’s climate.” Dr Glikson explains.
The opening of the Drake Passage and the impact may have occurred around the same time purely by coincidence. However it’s also possible that the disturbance of the crust caused by such massive impacts may have nudged the existing tectonic movements into action. A bit like kicking a boulder on a hill. The kick isn’t enough to move the boulder far but it can give it the tiny extra impetus it needs to start and gravity will do the rest.

"We really don't know for certain if there's any causal relationship between the impact cluster and the opening of the Drake Passage," Dr Glikson says, "But what we do know with certainty is that impact clusters have had and may continue to have, profound implications for life on planet Earth."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#47
I just came across this little tidbit.  And though it is not part of the Younger Dryas, it is still akin to it, and it occurred during this present Holocene period:The 8200-year Climate Event.  Although it's cause has not been verified yet, my guess is that it is the result of another rather large Impactor.  I cannot think of any other reason why global temperatures would suddenly drop and stay that way for about three hundred years.  Large scale volcanoes don't cause this havoc.

[Image: greenland-ice-core-gisp-cold-swing.gif]

PAGES IGP 3 Environmental Variability.

This figure shows snow accumulation and isotopically inferred temperature records in the Greenland GISP2 ice core and a temperature record derived from oxygen isotope measurements of fossil shells in the sediments of Lake Ammersee, southern Germany. These records all show a major climatic instability event which occurred around 8200 years ago, during the Holocene. The event was large both in magnitude, as reflected by a temperature signal in Greenland of order 5C, and in its geographical extent, as indicated by the close correlation of the signal in these two locations. The dramatic event is also seen in the methane record from Greenland (not shown here) indicating possible major shifts in hydrology and land cover in lower latitudes. source: Von Grafenstein et al (1998) Climate Dynamics, 14, 73-81.[/size]

Quote:Abrupt tropical cooling ~8,000 years ago
[size=13]M.K. Gagan, L.K. Ayliffe*, H. Scott-Gagan, W.S. Hantoro, B.W. Suwargadi, D. Prayudi, M.T. McCulloch

"We drilled a sequence of exceptionally large, well-preserved Porites corals within an uplifted palaeo-reef in Alor, Indonesia, with Th-230 ages spanning the period 8400 to 7600 calendar years before present (Figure 2). The corals lie within the Western Pacific Warm Pool, which at present has the highest mean annual temperature in the world's ocean. Measurements of coral Sr/Ca and oxygen 18 isotopes at 5-year sampling increments for five of the fossil corals (310 annual growth increments) have yielded a semi-continuous record spanning the 8.2 ka event. The measurements (Figure 2) show that sea-surface temperatures were essentially the same as today from 8400 to 8100 years ago, followed by an abrupt ~3�C cooling over a period of ~100 years, reaching a minimum ~8000 years ago. The cooling calculated from coral oxygen 18 isotopes is similar to that derived from Sr/Ca. The exact timing of the termination of the cooling event is not yet known, but a coral dated as 7600 years shows sea-surface temperatures similar to those of today."
-----------

"The 8200-year event is widely regarded as the strongest Holocene cooling episode, with clear expressions in Greenland, the North Atlantic, Europe, North America, North Africa, and the Venezuelan Cariaco Basin. Decreased snow accumulation rates, lower levels of atmospheric methane, and increased atmospheric dust and sea-salt loadings indicate widespread dry conditions. Explanations usually involve a perturbation of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) by increased freshwater inputs asso- ciated with the decay of the Laurentide ice sheet . A high-resolution global circulation model (GCM) indicates that a freshwater pulse of a magnitude similar to that associated with the catastrophic drainage of the large proglacial lakes Agassiz and Ojibway could have produced the 8200-year event, including a very brief warming episode within the event
-----

"The earliest Holocene abrupt climate changes occurred at 12,800, 8200, 5200, and 4200 B.P. . . ."
The 8200 B.P. event, "lasted four hundred years (6400-6000 B.C.) and, like the Younger Dryas, generated abrupt aridification and cooling in the North Atlantic and North America, Africa, and Asia. This event is well-known from the GISP2 analyses, within which it is second only to the Younger Dryas in magnitude of some measurable variables. The pronounced West Asian signal for the 8200 B.P. event is present in Soreq Cave speleothem records, Negev snail isotope variability, low Dead Sea levels, and the geochemistry of stage E to stage F transition at Lake Van. . . ."


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#48
impacts might be more common after all. the tunguska event was a mere 100 years ago, luckily in the middle of nowhere, and there are indications that the moon had a big hit in the 12th century. it's controversial, though. http://www.hairstyles2010.net/one-night-...ntury.html
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#49
quadrat Wrote:impacts might be more common after all. the tunguska event was a mere 100 years ago, luckily in the middle of nowhere, and there are indications that the moon had a big hit in the 12th century. it's controversial, though. http://www.hairstyles2010.net/one-night-...ntury.html

By the use of "horns" I presume they were referring to the tips of a partial moon illumination? And the nice part is that the impactor hit on the illuminated horn, instead of on the dark surface. neat!

Thanks for the 'heads up' "Q".

Impactors don't take up all of my time, on things to dread. but of all the things that worry me, including nuclear accidents, Impactors bother me more than just about anything out there. As time goes by, we are constantly having to adjust our thinking about them.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#50
I've been meaning to update this topic for a good while, but just keep putting it off. And in the last year, or so, it has taken some strange twists. In May of 2011, this article, Comet Theory Comes Crashing to Earth, threw a lot of cold water on the Clovis Comet theory. It wasn't so much due to the bad science, but due to the revelation that one of the principal claimants, Allen West, was exposed to have been someone else, and had a checkered past. And too, others on the other side of the academic isle claimed that they could find no evidence of an Impactor layer in other studies.

However, other finds have since been reported and the theory looks to be back on track, just as the Dinosaur Impactor theory that went on in the early 80s. here's some of the latest findings.

Study Jointly Led by UCSB Researcher Supports Theory of Extraterrestrial Impact

Quote:A 16-member international team of researchers that includes James Kennett, professor of earth science at UC Santa Barbara, has identified a nearly 13,000-year-old layer of thin, dark sediment buried in the floor of Lake Cuitzeo in central Mexico. The sediment layer contains an exotic assemblage of materials, including nanodiamonds, impact spherules, and more, which, according to the researchers, are the result of a cosmic body impacting Earth.

.............The data suggest that a comet or asteroid –– likely a large, previously fragmented body, greater than several hundred meters in diameter –– entered the atmosphere at a relatively shallow angle. The heat at impact burned biomass, melted surface rocks, and caused major environmental disruption. "These results are consistent with earlier reported discoveries throughout North America of abrupt ecosystem change, megafaunal extinction, and human cultural change and population reduction," Kennett explained.

But there has been more supporting evidence to come out lately. For example: California's Channel Islands hold evidence of Clovis-age comets.

Quote:In a paper appearing online ahead of regular publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, University of Oregon archaeologist Douglas J. Kennett and colleagues from nine institutions and three private research companies report the presence of shock-synthesized hexagonal diamonds in 12,900-year-old sediments on the Northern Channel Islands off the southern California coast.

These tiny diamonds and diamond clusters were buried deeply below four meters of sediment. They date to the end of Clovis -- a Paleoindian culture long thought to be North America's first human inhabitants. The nano-sized diamonds were pulled from Arlington Canyon on the island of Santa Rosa that had once been joined with three other Northern Channel Islands in a landmass known as Santarosae.

The diamonds were found in association with soot, which forms in extremely hot fires, and they suggest associated regional wildfires, based on nearby environmental records.

And a month earlier, there is this: New evidence supporting theory of extraterrestrial impact found.

Quote:An 18-member international team of researchers that includes James Kennett, professor of earth science at UC Santa Barbara, has discovered melt-glass material in a thin layer of sedimentary rock in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Syria. According to the researchers, the material –– which dates back nearly 13,000 years –– was formed at temperatures of 1,700 to 2,200 degrees Celsius (3,100 to 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit), and is the result of a cosmic body impacting Earth.

And note that this study includes a site in Syria as well.

Since all this has come out, things have been silent on both sides of the argument, as everyone closely studies the data and perhaps attempts at corroborating the information. But my guess is that things will start cooking again very soon.

This entire thing reminds me of the contest between Louis and Walter Alvarez and an ongoing number of scientists, who contest the finding. And the issue is still going on. My guess is that this one will continue as well.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#51
Too bad one cannot get the Arabs interested in science again. Looking for glass nodules in thin layers of earth about 13000 ya would keep them occupied instead of fighting each other and bombing westerners.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#52
Here's more update material on this Clovis Comet/Younger Dryas catastrophic event. Earlier this year a paper published by Dr. Kenneth Tankersley, (Abstract)ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE PLEISTOCENE–HOLOCENE TRANSITION IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA, pretty much laid to rest the thinking that this theory was pretty much a hoax.

[Image: 2-comprehensiv.jpg]

This article, from the University of Cincinnati, puts it more in layman terms: The Mammoth’s Lament: UC Research Shows How Cosmic Impact Sparked Devastating Climate Change. There are a lot of articles about this time, but this one pretty much covers everything concerning his findings.

My biggest complaint with most of these reports by the media, is the assertion that this must have been the result of some giant meteorite, or asteroid. The fact is, that this was almost certainly the result of a comet, which would come in at least twice as fast, and more easily fragment in the atmosphere, causing a great deal more spread out devastation. After all, the overwhelming majority, meteorites and asteroids, started out as parts of a comet.

And if you will note, the U. of Cincinnati referred to it as a "cosmic impact", walking a middle ground. I'm still trying to figure out whether or not the Media are just too stupid to know the difference, or if they think the readers are too stupid to know the difference.



Less than three months later, another study was released by Michail I. Petaev and a team from Harvard, concluding pretty much the same thing from their own field research: (Abstract) Large Pt anomaly in the Greenland ice core points to a cataclysm at the onset of Younger Dryas. A more layman article can be found here: New evidence that cosmic impact caused Younger Dryas extinctions.

Quote:According to one hypothesis, a cometary airburst triggered massive wildfires, which caused the climate to cool. Many scientists have rejected this hypothesis, citing lack of sufficient evidence, in favor of others. The most widely accepted one says that during the deglaciation process, fresh water from the proglacial lake Agassiz discharged into the Arctic Ocean, altering ocean currents.

The point here is that many scientists still support the theory that the warming of the North American ice sheet produced a giant lake near the US-Canadian border. And when the ice dam holding the water back, finally broke, all the cold waters swept down the St. Lawrence Freeway, and out into the north Atlantic, causing the Atlantic conveyor to suddenly halt. And old theories are hard to change with many. But the evidence is becoming overwhelming.

Finally, the talk is about comets, and not piddly meteorites .

As the UK Daily Mail stated: A comet DID wipe out first North American prehistoric humans: Ice core data suggests a cosmic impact killed off Clovis people.

Here's another: Cataclysmic Comet Crash In Canada Changed World Climate 12,900 Years Ago, Wiped Out Many Large Mammals And Mammoths.

And another: Canadian comet impact fingered for triggering prehistoric climate shift.

And even Nat. Geo. is talking about it: Did a Comet Really Kill the Mammoths 12,900 Years Ago?. Of course you have to take them with a grain of salt, since they are big time AGW freaks.

As an aside, this is a Great time to be a practicing geologist, and study things like this.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#53
Why did mammoths, mastodons, and other mega-beasts vanish from North America?


Was it because:

1) humans killed them;


2) they couldn't hack the climate after the Ice Age ended; or

3) an exploding comet ignited continent-wide wildfires, sent hundred-mile-an-hour winds and tornadoes howling across the land, and shattered the North American ice sheet, while also maybe gouging out the Great Lakes?


This NatGeo article covers the third possibility: Did a Comet Really Kill the Mammoths 12,900 Years Ago?.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#54
Here's more evidence supporting the Younger Dryas Boundary Event of almost thirteen thousand years ago. Supporting evidence continues to come in on a regular basis, showing that one or more Impactors caused the extinction of mega-fauna in North America, and plunging the globe back into the ice age for another thousand years.

Quote:Recent Developments in the Analysis of the Black Mat Layer and Cosmic Impact at 12.8 ka


Article first published online: 6 DEC 2013
Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography

Abstract:

Recent analyses of sediment samples from “black mat” sites in South America and Europe support previous interpretations of an ET impact event that reversed the Late Glacial demise of LGM ice during the Bølling Allerød warming, resulting in a resurgence of ice termed the Younger Dryas (YD) cooling episode. The breakup or impact of a cosmic vehicle at the YD boundary coincides with the onset of a 1-kyr long interval of glacial resurgence, one of the most studied events of the Late Pleistocene. New analytical databases reveal a corpus of data indicating that the cosmic impact was a real event, most possibly a cosmic airburst from Earth’s encounter with the Taurid Complex comet or unknown asteroid, an event that led to cosmic fragments exploding interhemispherically over widely dispersed areas, including the northern Andes of Venezuela and the Alps on the Italian/French frontier. While the databases in the two areas differ somewhat, the overall interpretation is that microtextural evidence in weathering rinds and in sands of associated paleosols and glaciofluvial deposits carry undeniable attributes of melted glassy carbon and Fe spherules, planar deformation features, shock-melted and contorted quartz, occasional transition and platinum metals, and brecciated and impacted minerals of diverse lithologies. In concert with other black mat localities in the Western USA, the Netherlands, coastal France, Syria, Central Asia, Peru, Argentina and Mexico, it appears that a widespread cosmic impact by an asteroid or comet is responsible for deposition of the black mat at the onset of the YD glacial event. Whether or not the impact caused a 1-kyr interval of glacial climate depends upon whether or not the Earth had multiple centuries-long episodic encounters with the Taurid Complex or asteroid remnants; impact-related changes in microclimates sustained climatic forcing sufficient to maintain positive mass balances in the reformed ice; and/or inertia in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation system persisted for 1 kyr.


Excerpt:

The hypothesis that a cosmic impact could have generated the YD reversal is still hotly debated in the literature (Haynes 2008; Pinter and Ishman 2008; Ge et al. 2009; Kenntt et al., 2009). Recent critical reviews of the YD event by Van der Hammen and Van Geel (2008) and Broecker et al. (2010) argue, respectively, that charcoal in paleosols of the Allerød–YD transition were not caused by impact, and that the impact event, by itself, could not have caused a glacial advance lasting 1 kyr. The evidence reported here conclusively contradicts alternative hypotheses for the onset of the YD glacial advance, with the most conclusive evidence coming from aerodynamically modified Fe spherules and microspherules, melted and contorted quartz and other lithologies, and carbon mats welded to various minerals.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#55
And the evidence just keeps accumulating, regardless the naysayers, that the Younger Dryas Boundry Event was caused by a comet strike: What Killed the Woolly Mammoth? UCSB Professor Finds Evidence to Support Comet Collision
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#56
(01-29-2014, 04:08 PM)John L Wrote: And the evidence just keeps accumulating, regardless the naysayers, that the Younger Dryas Boundry Event was caused by a comet strike: What Killed the Woolly Mammoth? UCSB Professor Finds Evidence to Support Comet Collision

Reply
#57
This is all based on the 2011 backlash, and mostly based on the accusation that Allen West was a fraud.

However, since all this, the evidence just keeps adding up. It will not go away, and for a reason. That event over Russia last year is common, and goes on all the time. But since the planet is mostly pristine, most occur over areas that don't get reported properly.

Richard Kerr made a totally incorrect statement that impacts of this magnitude are rare, and only occur once in a million years or more. Well, he's wrong. Impactors are occurring regularly, just as the Dark Ages was caused by one or more impactors.

Eugene Shoemaker proved this by showing that the moon's craters were all caused by impacts, not volcanic activity. In the 1960s the 'so called' experts just laughed at him. 99% of everything that affects this planet is the result of celestial events. The rest is due to the heat from within the planet.

NOTE: notice how the use of the word "Outsiders" is so common as in this. That is just a way of making the other side look like hicks and not qualified to make a definitive point. But just like the Left loves to do this, it won't work. Sorry, but it won't. Time will clear all this up.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#58
(01-30-2014, 11:38 AM)John L Wrote: That event over Russia last year is common, and goes on all the time.  But since the planet is mostly pristine, most occur over areas that don't get reported properly.

You mean after years of preparation and planning the earths entire contingent of astronomers & astrophysicists with their budgets maxed out alerted the media & public of a near earth orbit crossing of an asteroid when all of a sudden from an entirely different trajectory an asteroid becomes a meteorite at the bottom of a Russian lake, putting hundreds in the hospital...

Yeah, that vaguely sounds familiar(I had the NASA live broadcast at the time on the big screen hanging from the ceiling and was monitoring news at the moment on my laptop). When the Russian impact happen I flipped the Russian news to the big screen.

Meteor Hits Russia Feb 15, 2013 - Event Archive


Reply
#59
Here's another piece from U of South Carolina, which supports this.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#60
(01-30-2014, 01:01 PM)John L Wrote: Here's another piece from U of South Carolina, which supports this.

No John! It is just someone else commenting on the same freakin' study. No new evidence or analysis has been introduced. There are muliple articles written everywhere about this one outlier study written up in (PNAS 2007).

If you post 4000 cartoons and 6000 articles of other peoples take on the one study it still boils down to ONE STUDY.

I have actually lost the point of all this.

What is the point you want to drive home? Spell it out and I will tell you where I stand. As there is no additional actual evidence to offer to this it just comes down to what we have in terms of information. I & anyone else that is still following this can we weigh what has been laid out in front of us.

Spell it out man. I will comment and pick up the next round. S26
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)