Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Clovis Comet, Carolina Bays, And Younger Dryas Related?
#61
Where do you get this "one study" thing? Are you saying that only one position paper has been published on all this?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#62
(01-30-2014, 02:22 PM)John L Wrote: Where do you get this "one study" thing? Are you saying that only one position paper has been published on all this?

Yes!

Is there another paper published other than the one that you have cited in the 2007 PNAS journal that you have put forth to support that Mammoths and Mega-fauna demised due to a meteor/comet impact?
Reply
#63
Did you bother going back and looking at the entire thread? Try that first, and then come back. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#64
(01-30-2014, 03:52 PM)John L Wrote: Did you bothe going back and looking at the entire thread? Try that first, and then come back. S5

John I am going to cal BS@your
Quote:Did you bother going back and looking at the entire thread? Try that first, and then come back. S5

During this thread I have been an active participant not only carefully reading each and every participant's contributions but I have both interacted and also brought in other reference material.

From your beginning post the only outlier study presented that I have a recollection is the widely denounced in the science community study that you started this all with, that one singular 2007 PNAS study. There have been other links but they are simply some other reporter/journalist/tool's take on that same singular study submitted and published by PNAS 2007.

On face value it seems that you rest your case on that one singular widely denounced study from 2007 in PNAS. It is total BS to ask me to go through the entire thread when I think we both know it is only the one study that you have presented. Happy to be proven wrong that you have presented other studies on this thread regarding this matter but I really don't think it is going to happen.

If you have something else, present it. Otherwise I will let it stand that your position is based solely on that one singular denounced outlier study from 2007 PNAS. Which is quite honestly fine with me. Just because there is only the one denounced study that you brought forth from 2007 it does not mean that other studies will not come out tomorrow. Perhaps they will give credence to that outlier study. As far as the Wooly Mammoths & the Mega-fauna go... well they are extinct. Dead, that dog won't hunt, etc, etc... ain't no skin off their dead backs nor my own.
Reply
#65
Smart Ass! S13

But no, there have been many scientific reports from different sites, where shocked quartz, and other residue has been collected. This thing left residue all over the world, as it dropped out of the atmosphere.

If you had read the links, you would be familiar with the Allen West issue, and how this tended to halt the issue. But it won't go away, because of the accumulating evidence.

But anyway, you clearly don't go along with this. That's fine. Its a new theory, and new theories have to run the scientific gauntlet, which is loaded with some of the biggest egos in the world. The Alverezes went through the same thing concerning the mass extinctions at the K/T boundary. Only the discovery of the Chicxulub impact crater made it official.

The more we become aware of the threat of Impactors, the more we realize that behind almost every natural disaster, there is a celestial object involved. And same thing with solar activity, and cause of ice ages, and little ice ages. Its all celestial related, other than plate tectonics, which helped initiate this latest Pleistocene epoch.



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#66
(01-30-2014, 05:25 PM)John L Wrote: Smart Ass! S13
But anyway, you clearly don't go along with this. That's fine. Its a new theory, and new theories have to run the scientific gauntlet, which is loaded with some of the biggest egos in the world. The Alverezes went through the same thing concerning the mass extinctions at the K/T boundary. Only the discovery of the Chicxulub impact crater made it official.

That is 66 million years ago way outside of the envelope that we were speaking about the extinction of the Mammoth and the Mega-fauna and certainly not included in any of the posts on this thread or by that one singular widely denounced outlier study from 2007 from PNAS that you offered as you sole reference and THEN told me to go back and read the whole F'ning thread like I would find something that you didn't post there... Hiney

John - We are still golden. Beach
Reply
#67
Again,.........Smartass! Shock
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#68
And yet one more paper, backing up the original finding about the presence of a likely comet at YDBoundry.



Quote:Abstract

High levels of nanodiamonds (nds) have been used to support the
transformative hypothesis that an extraterrestrial (ET) event (comet
explosion) triggered Younger Dryas changes in temperature, flora
and faunaassemblages, and human adaptations [FirestoneRB, et al.
(2007) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(41):16016 –16021]. We evaluate
this hypothesis by establishing the distribution of nds within the
Bull Creek drainage of the Beaver River basin in the Oklahoma pan-
handle. The earlier report of an abundance spike of nds in the Bull
Creek I Younger Dryas boundary soil is confirmed, although no pure
cubic diamonds were identified. The lack of hexagonal nds suggests
Bull Creek I is not near any impact site. Potential hexagonal nds at
Bull Creek were found to be more consistent with graphene/graph-
ane. An additional nd spike is found in deposits of late Holocene
throughthemodernage,indicatingndsare not unique to theYoun-
ger Dryas boundary. Nd distributions do not correlate with deposi-
tional environment, pedogenesis, climate perturbations, periods of
surface stability, or cultural activity.

Looks like the Celestial Impact theory is continuing to gain ground.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#69
Here is one more half-hearted attempt to show that something other than an celestial object could have been the demise of North American mega fauna at the end of the last glaciation.

Disappearance of wildflowers may have doomed Ice Age giants

Common sense would tell anyone that once the planet began warming, the migration of plants would occur, and be followed by migratory animals, going after the flowers. Having been above the Arctic Circle, in Alaska, I can attest to the presence of huge varieties of flowers covering the land, especially in spring. It would have been a field day for the fauna.

And note that the article states that this change began "roughly 25,000 years ago". That is pure bunk, since the northern hemisphere was in the throes of the last ice age until around twelve thousand years ago.

This turkey won't fly. Sorry.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#70
There seems to be a lot of missing links. Lots of speculation on extinctions of entire species.

Can anyone point to what I would imagine is some huge pile of scientific evidence of the actual transition from one distinct species to another?

While I can offer no logical hypothesis it seems to me that we only have evidence based on observations that mega fauna appeared & mega fauna disappeared. Distinct species of dinosaurs appeared & distinct species of dinosaurs disappeared.

We point to one species and say we evolved from that species because we have common DNA. Humans share 15% common DNA with Mustard Grass & more than a third common DNA with fruit flies. The historic brickshithouse at the park shares more than 70% common structural elements with the slightly newer brick townhouses downtown. Obviously the brickshithouses did not spawn off later townhouses they are just made of the same building blocks. Building blocks like DNA. Hmmmm.... maybe just because one species shares DNA with another species it does not mean that one evolved from another. After all we have yet to find actual transition evidence from one species to another. We continue to find distinct species appear & distinct species disappears.

Quote:Scientists for years have been trying to figure out what caused this mass extinction, when two-thirds of all the large-bodied mammals in the Northern Hemisphere died out.

...and they will probably never actually know. Someone will say this is 'the way it happened' and kids in school will be told the mantra, be tested on it and that is it.

We recently had speculation that honey bees were going into extinction. All kinds of reasons were floated with much authority. Global Warming, the evil Monsanto GMO conglomerate, etc, etc... Well now the prevailing evidence indicates it was Varroa Mite infestation, bad practices by bee keepers & cross infection with wild populations.

Were the wildflowers overgrazed? I doubt it. Were certain species of wildflowers pushed into extinction by more successful competing plants? Possibly. Were certain distinct wildflower species decimated by a specific aphid like critter that just loved their taste or a fungus that was particular and exploded across the region? I don't know.
Reply
#71
(02-06-2014, 05:14 PM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: There seems to be a lot of missing links. Lots of speculation on extinctions of entire species.

Can anyone point to what I would imagine is some huge pile of scientific evidence of the actual transition from one distinct species to another?

Paul, there is usually concrete evidence showing change over time. But there is more to it than transitioning from one distinct species to another. Most changes are gradual, and occur when those critters actually begin branching into different ecological niches.

Take herbivores here. There are many different plant species, and different sizes/shapes that herbivores exploit. But what if a species finds it difficult to compete with other species on say, grass, they may move to eat the foliage of bushes instead. This can require an eventual change in dentition, neck size, length of legs, etc. Or what if there is more to be gained by grazing within higher trees, and the question is how to reach the food. Two approaches here: either a small arboreal creature, or one that is tall, with an extra long neck. Gradually body shape/style will accommodate a gradual change in this direction.

Quote:While I can offer no logical hypothesis it seems to me that we only have evidence based on observations that mega fauna appeared & mega fauna disappeared. Distinct species of dinosaurs appeared & distinct species of dinosaurs disappeared.

We have lots of evidence that is almost always in the ground, in the form of fossils, pollen, and other things that make up strata layers over time. Scientists study this evidence and make observations on this evidence.

Quote:We point to one species and say we evolved from that species because we have common DNA. Humans share 15% common DNA with Mustard Grass & more than a third common DNA with fruit flies. The historic brickshithouse at the park shares more than 70% common structural elements with the slightly newer brick townhouses downtown. Obviously the brickshithouses did not spawn off later townhouses they are just made of the same building blocks. Building blocks like DNA. Hmmmm.... maybe just because one species shares DNA with another species it does not mean that one evolved from another. After all we have yet to find actual transition evidence from one species to another. We continue to find distinct species appear & distinct species disappears.

Paul, we can't just point to another species and say that we evolved from it. That's almost never the case. Animals of similar relationship almost always developed from a common ancestor. So, humans did not evolve from monkeys, or apes. Apes and hominids(humans) all came from a common ancestor, over time. And one can study the skeletal material to note changes that show close, or distant, relationship.

Take whales, for example. We know that whales began life as four legged, land based, mammals. Over time, they moved into the water in order to exploit an ecological niche that allowed them to prosper. As an aside, moose, for example, love to exploit aquatic life, and spend a large portion of their life grazing on the bottom of lakes/ponds. They have developed very long legs, long necks, and cranium that allows them to graze the plant life there.

Getting back to whales, gradually this line split off, with some remaining in marshes, and some moving further out into deeper water, where they eventually were able to exist on both land and water. Eventually they became completely water borne.

We can look at the skeletal remains and study such things as where the limbs were positioned, the size of certain bones, such as carpals, tarsals, etc, and see how the feet gradually became webbed, and eventually reshaped into fins. And yet, the basic bone structure is still there. Those fins have the same number of carpals, same number of digits, and so on. They are just in a different shape.

Quote:Scientists for years have been trying to figure out what caused this mass extinction, when two-thirds of all the large-bodied mammals in the Northern Hemisphere died out.

...and they will probably never actually know. Someone will say this is 'the way it happened' and kids in school will be told the mantra, be tested on it and that is it.

And I don't agree that we will never know. On several papers I have referred to, I naturally assumed you would understand the importance of 'nano-diamonds' and 'shocked quartz' within certain layers of stratigraphy. Perhaps I am wrong.

Lets assume you are at a site, and you are trying to make heads or tails of each different layer of earth, stacked one on top of the others. And you see a darker layer/layers that is different from the rest. You know something is different, and it seems to be present in all the fossils you are looking for. So you take samples and send them off to labs that can tell you was is in that layer.

Now, let's suppose the report comes back and shows the presence of iridium, as with Louis Alverez in the late 70s. And that layer just happened to be the dividing line between the Cretaceous and Tertiary boundary. And you naturally want to know why this was there, because dinosaur fossils just halted at this layer. Something killed them off, but what. Well the presence of iridium alone tells you that this rare element is found a tiny bit from vulcanism, but large amounts originate from celestial origin. So what kind of celestial origin would this be? Obviously an impact of immense size would have been able to throw out a layer of debris, including iridium, all over the globe, with the most near the impact site, and gradually diminishing the further away.

You can draw a lot of scientific conclusions from that alone, after more sites are excavated around the world. You are fairly certain that a large asteroid, but most likely a comet, actually plowed into the planet. And it did so somewhere in the Western Hemisphere. And it was Huge!

That's how science gathers evidence and makes judgments. Its like a murder investigation, where you take evidence and come up with conclusions, based on science.

This is why all this presence of nano-diamonds is so important. At a particular time on the planet(approx 12,900 years bp) North America was either struck, or had a large air explosion, almost certainly from a comet. The kinetic energy from such an impact, or explosion, would put immense stress on the fauna, especially the mega-fauna. It probably wouldn't kill all of them, but they would be so stressed that any interference could end their line. If the Clovis people have hunted these larger animals, they would continue doing the same, in order to survive. And this may well be the best answer. But it would still be the comet that did the dirty deed. Humans were just doing what the did to stay alive.

Quote:Were the wildflowers overgrazed? I doubt it. Were certain species of wildflowers pushed into extinction by more successful competing plants? Possibly. Were certain distinct wildflower species decimated by a specific aphid like critter that just loved their taste or a fungus that was particular and exploded across the region? I don't know.

A change in climate almost always allows for migration, either north or south. The Pleistocene has been around for at least three million years, and if each glaciation lasts around 108,000 years, that's a lot of glaciations, right? So why was this one period the one that killed off the mega-fauna? Why not the one before it, or the one before that, or...............

Here's my rule of thumb. Almost all major mass extinctions are the result of something celestial slamming into the planet. The sudden change in climate throws everything else out of kilter. Those animals best able to roll with the punches are at a select advantage to continue on, and fill the ecological niches of those that didn't make it. That is why dinosaurs, with some exception such as birds, ended at the K-T border. Mammals came out of their holes and quickly spread out, filling all those open niches that were suddenly vacant.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I haven't even scratched the surface. Its a shame you can't get the Science Channel, or the History Channel over there. They have a lot of good programs that cover such things.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#72
(02-06-2014, 06:29 PM)John L Wrote:
(02-06-2014, 05:14 PM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: There seems to be a lot of missing links. Lots of speculation on extinctions of entire species.

Can anyone point to what I would imagine is some huge pile of scientific evidence of the actual transition from one distinct species to another?
(John I will start with your first point)

Paul, there is usually concrete evidence showing change over time. But there is more to it than transitioning from one distinct species to another. Most changes are gradual, and occur when those critters actually begin branching into different ecological niches.

Why then do we not have fossil remains? Should there not be fossil remains of examples of species such as humans as they evolved? Seems we only have fossil remains of distinct humanoid like species? Does the process of fossilization only take place on fully formed species and not members of said species undergoing this proposed evolutionary process?
Reply
#73
(02-06-2014, 07:10 PM)Paul In Sweden Wrote:
(02-06-2014, 06:29 PM)John L Wrote:
(02-06-2014, 05:14 PM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: There seems to be a lot of missing links. Lots of speculation on extinctions of entire species.

Can anyone point to what I would imagine is some huge pile of scientific evidence of the actual transition from one distinct species to another?
(John I will start with your first point)

Paul, there is usually concrete evidence showing change over time. But there is more to it than transitioning from one distinct species to another. Most changes are gradual, and occur when those critters actually begin branching into different ecological niches.

Why then do we not have fossil remains? Should there not be fossil remains of examples of species such as humans as they evolved? Seems we only have fossil remains of distinct humanoid like species? Does the process of fossilization only take place on fully formed species and not members of said species undergoing this proposed evolutionary process?

There are in fact fossil specimens that anthropologists have been studying. But remember, most of the very early material is very hard to find. Most of the dead are scavenged by other animals and strewn all over the place. It takes a lot of work to find new ones, but many have in fact been discovered.

As for much earlier fossils, again they are difficult to find. And the further back you have to go, the harder they are to come across. But you begin with one sample, and slowly over time build on the number as they come in. This was the same with Neanderthal, Homo-erectus, and australopithecine material. And as time goes by, the total numbers just keep growing.

But there is more involved here, the further back you go. For instance, what you think may be an ancestor, may in fact be another offshoot that didn't go anywhere. You just do the best archaeology possible, and keep the samples up to date, and properly catalogued for future study. We find out all sorts of new information from older finds all the time.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#74
(02-06-2014, 07:31 PM)John L Wrote:
(02-06-2014, 07:10 PM)Paul In Sweden Wrote:
(02-06-2014, 06:29 PM)John L Wrote:
(02-06-2014, 05:14 PM)Paul In Sweden Wrote: There seems to be a lot of missing links. Lots of speculation on extinctions of entire species.

Can anyone point to what I would imagine is some huge pile of scientific evidence of the actual transition from one distinct species to another?
(John I will start with your first point)

Paul, there is usually concrete evidence [but we find a void] showing change over time. But there is more to it than transitioning from one distinct species to another. Most changes are gradual, and occur when those critters actually begin branching into different ecological niches.

Why then do we not have fossil remains? Should there not be fossil remains of examples of species such as humans as they evolved? Seems we only have fossil remains of distinct humanoid like species? Does the process of fossilization only take place on fully formed species and not members of said species undergoing this proposed evolutionary process?

There are in fact fossil specimens that anthropologists have been studying. [certainly anthropologists are studding remains but none show transition from one species to another] But remember, most of the very early material is very hard to find. [WHY? Why are we expected to use our imaginations toward these theories? Do you have a personal objection to concrete evidence?] Most of the dead are scavenged by other animals and strewn all over the place. It takes a lot of work to find new ones, but many have in fact been discovered.

As for much earlier fossils, again they are difficult to find. And the further back you have to go[modern humans only date a few hundred thousand years yet conclusive proclamations are made on dinosaurs which died of more than 100 million years ago. I smell BS], the harder they are to come across. But you begin with one sample, and slowly over time build on the number as they come in. This was the same with Neanderthal, Homo-erectus, and australopithecine material. And as time goes by, the total numbers just keep growing.

But there is more involved here, the further back you go. For instance, what you think may be an ancestor, may in fact be another offshoot that didn't go anywhere. You just do the best archaeology possible, and keep the samples up to date, and properly catalogued for future study. We find out all sorts of new information from older finds all the time.
Gah

So to sum it up BS!

Pigs shed their wings in an evolutionary process because they over time it was more productive to be omnivorous existing on the ground. Like all of the other mental masturbation crap if presented in text book form and issued as required reading it becomes dogma.

I got it. S22
Reply
#75
No, its not BS. You just don't understand, but that's alright. You would really need to take an introductory course to know the history and how fossils were discovered. Mostly they were craniums, pelvis, and long bones, which tell a tremendous amount about the creature. Just studying the cranium can tell if the creature was bipedal, or on all fours. The pelvis can tell whether the creature stood upright, or was crouched, etc.

A lot of information can be garnered from small amounts of data. Just placement of dentition, and their shape can tell a lot about what they ate, whether they were predators or not, etc.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#76
(02-06-2014, 08:15 PM)John L Wrote: Mostly they were craniums, pelvis, and long bones, which tell a tremendous amount about the creature. Just studying the cranium can tell if the creature was bipedal, or on all fours. The pelvis can tell whether the creature stood upright, or was crouched, etc.

Very cool and thank you again for taking the time to explain all this to me. Now can you address the fact that there are no, nada, zippo, nothing, 'HELLO' craniums, pelvis, and long bones of anything that resembles a possible transition between distinct identified species?

Why is it that there are only fossil remains of distinct species and none in the proposed transitional state?
Reply
#77
Ok, I'm getting your point, finally. Besides, this thread is not about missing links. This is about the Younger Dryas Boundary Event.

Let me point you to Ron. I think he can perhaps satisfy you more than I can on this.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#78
Sandia National Laboratories Wrote:We argue that the physics of fragmentation, dispersion, and airburst is not consistent with the hypothesis; that observations are no more compatible with impact than with other causes; and that the probability of the scenario is effectively nil. Moreover, millennial-scale climate events are far more frequent than catastrophic impacts, and pose a much greater threat to humanity.

Sandia National Laboratories Wrote:Faulty Physics: The idea of widely-spaced airbursts is physically unrealistic because there is no lateral aerodynamic force that can separate fragments by a large distance between the upper and lower atmosphere. Likewise, no lateral force exists to accelerate pieces apart between the Roche Limit and atmospheric entry. Fragments of a broken comet would drift apart at a speed of tens of cm/s, and in the ten minutes or so between fragmentation and impact they would be separated by much less than the initial diameter of the object. Impact of such a tight cluster would be indistinguishable from a single impact of a lower-density object.

The authors have also suggested the possibility that the comet broke up on a previous near-approach (like Shoemaker-Levy 9) or spontaneously (like Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 ). However, to prevent dispersion over an area larger than North America, the breakup event would have had to take place within weeks or months of impact. Others have suggested it broke up as it passed the moon on final approach to Earth, an event that could happen no more often than once out of every 100,000 impacts. Such a combination of rare events is unlikely, even over timescales as large as the age of the Earth.

Sandia National Laboratories Wrote:What about the Evidence?: The YDB impact authors have undoubtedly uncovered exciting new evidence that needs to be explained. However, impact and cratering specialists do not consider any of this evidence to be diagnostic of an impact event. Charcoal and soot are associated with wildfires that can have many causes, especially at a time of abrupt environmental change. Magnetic grains, magnetic microspherules, iridium, and nanodiamonds are associated with the continuous flux of micrometeorites. Nanodiamonds can also be generated by low-pressure combustion and other terrestrial processes. Many of the observations, quantitative measurements, and stratigraphic associations still await independent confirmation. The proposed breakup of a comet to rationalize the absence of a crater is physically unsupportable, and the lack of a crater is fatal to this hypothesis. It is more likely that there are errors in the interpretation of the evidence than that our understanding of the physics of impacts and explosions is wrong.
Reply
#79
Interesting in that it reminds me of Dr. Charles B Officer's skepticism the Alvarez's K-T mass extinction event, and the role Impactors play in mass extinctions.

Late Cretaceous and paroxysmal Cretaceous/Tertiary extinctions

Quote:The various geological signatures at Cretaceous/ Tertiary time including iridium and other associated elements, microspherules, and shock deformation features are compatible with the suggestion that the transition is marked by a period of intense volcanism. The volatile emissions from this volcanism would lead to acid rain, reduction in the alkalinity and pH of the surface ocean, global atmospheric temperature changes, and ozone layer depletion. These environmental effects coupled with those related to the major sea level regression of the late Cretaceous provide the framework for an explanation of the selective nature of the observed extinction record.

Terminal Cretaceous environmental events

Quote:The geol. record of terminal Cretaceous environmental events indicates that Ir and other associated elements were not deposited instantaneously but during a time interval spanning 103-104 yr. The available geol. evidence favors a mantle rather than meteoritic origin for these elements. These results are in accord with the scenario of a series of intense eruptive volcanic events occurring during a relatively short geol. time interval and not with the scenario of a single large asteroid impact event.

The cretaceous-tertiary transition.

Quote:The fossil sequences from cores across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary show a, range of transition times and transition time intervals depending on the fossil indicators and the location of the site. These variations, together with the pattern of iridium distribution with depth at some sites, differences in total amounts of iridium, variations in noble metal abundances normalized to extraterrestrial concentrations, the depositional effects that might be expected in a reducing environment, and the clay mineralogy of the boundary layer clays, put into question the interpretation that an extraterrestrial event was the cause of the faunal changes and the iridium anomaly in the vicinity of the Cretaceous-Tertiary transition. It seems more likely that an explanation for the changes during the transition will come from continued examination of the great variety of terrestrial events that took place at that time, including extensive volcanism, major regression of the sea from the land, geochemical changes, and paleoclimatic and paleoceanographic changes.



Paul, my point is this: the science field is filled with some of the most ego laden individuals in the world. They totally resist the possibility of change, and will attempt to destroy anyone who dares to challenge them, their long held views. And going back to the late 70s, early 80s food fight concerning the iridium layers that marked the transition from dinosaurs to mammals, was fought for almost two decades until the Chicxulub crater finally settled the debate.

I personally followed this one very closely, and it was the main reason why I started looking closely at the threat of Impactors and the role they have played in mass extinctions. And what some scientists are doing to fight a similar explanation concerning the Younger Dryas Boundary Event, is remarkably parallel to the K-T event boundary marker.

One of the bones of contention is the missing crater, and it really does need to be explored more closely. Consequently, the hypothesis of an air burst must be defeated from the beginning. If one can disprove that, then it is easier to defeat the new upstarts. However, there may be another answer. The planet was still in the end process of the ice age, and Canada was still covered with a thick sheet of ice that while still retreating, was substantial. If there was an impact, it would be on the ice sheet, and the melting ice would mask the impact for all time.

Sorry you don't believe this, but you are entitled to that belief. But I am more than comfortable in stating that when the dust settles, an Impactor hypothesis will be once again carrying the day.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#80
Incidentally, that position paper by Boslough, was published in 2009, and led to the initial discredit. However, since 2011, most of the latest articles I have linked to have been since 2012. Sooooo, his hypothesis is lacking the latest information. You will need to come up with perhaps some later criticism?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)