Kerr Watch

Elapsed time since Richard Kerr failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 5 years, 8 months, and 9 days

CT Post Calendar

August 2016
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

The Cosmic Tusk Newsletter

Loading...Loading...


B&W

pencil tusk

Multi-ringed depressions beneath Hudson Bay imitate impact craters

Screenshot 2016-08-01 19.55.39

 

Download (PDF, 1.29MB)

UofA: Short, enigmatic event causes geochemical changes at start of Younger Dryas

 

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality
 

More independent confirmation of the Younger Dryas Boundary event.

Download (PDF, 1.25MB)

Here They Go Again: Holliday and Surovell use dozer not trowel

bulldozer-drawing-black-and-white-dromgff-top-clipart

Surovell-Holliday 2012 Tusk commentary

Vance Holliday and Todd Surovell published a paper in PLOS One this week. It is unsurprising but again disappointing that these hacks continue their jihad on the YDB hypothesis based on negligent analysis.

Particular galling is their wanton substitution of an optical microscope for an electron microscope. I say “wanton” because the publication history regarding magnetic spherules resulting from impacts clearly calls for the more sensitive instrument to document a spherule as a melt product – not, for instance, rounded sand.

It is impossible to characterize a spherule (of cosmic or terrestrial material) as being of impact origin using a tool that is orders of magnitude less sensitive than what is called for and used to produce the previously published data.

It is as if someone double-checked Holliday and Surovell’s own archeological work by bulldozing an adjacent square, rummaging about, and tossing manhandled contrary items onto the balk.

From LeCompte (2012):

Because those authors did not perform SEM imaging and EDS analyses, it is impossible for them to reach reliable conclusions about what they found. Surovell et al. did not perform SEM imaging or geochemical analyses, and yet, like Pigati et al., asserted that all magnetic spherules are cosmic in origin. Pinter et al. and Haynes et al. did not report the results of their spherule SEM analyses and likewise concluded spherules were of cosmic origin without supporting data. Lacking SEM imaging and/or EDS analyses, the accuracy of their spherule counts and speculations about origin are highly suspect. As an example of this, Pinter et al. reported observing large numbers of framboids and detrital magnetite well outside the YDB and then speculated that most YDB spherules are simply these other particles. Our results and images indicate their claim to be unfounded. There are fundamental and easily observed differences between quench-melted spherules, unmelted detrital magnetite, and authigenic framboids.

 

Download (PDF, 2.18MB)

TEDx: Graham Hancock on Lost Civilizations and the Younger Dryas Boundary Impact

Comets and the Early Christian Mosaics of Ravenna

Hat Tip to Malaga Bay

Q-Mag

Whatapaper: Baillie and McAneney on the Bronze Age Cosmic Collapse

1024px-John_Martin_-_The_Great_Day_of_His_Wrath_-_Google_Art_Project

Mandelkehr

Kobres

Below is a superbly written exploration of the climate collapse(s) circa. 2200 B.C. by occasional Tusk commentor Jonny McAneney and his mentor, long-time Tusk favorite Mike Baillie.

I don’t know how I missed this paper, but I do know how I found it. Jonny thoughtfully posted the public link back in December 15, 2015 in a Tusk comment and, ever cognizant of each and every word posted here, I stumbled upon the link after midnight last night, May 14. I read late into the night, thrilled with the eloquence of their argument and the depth — and width — of their research and knowledge.

jonny

Jonny

Download (PDF, 730KB)

University of Arizona confirms spherule concentration in lower YDB sediments at famed Clovis site Blackwater Draw

 

LPLfull_Lockup_Endorsed_ALTERNATE
blacwater draw

Blackwater Draw

The presence of a high number of the hollow magnetic microspherules can be used for identification of the LYDB. Although some scientists failed to find any microspherules at all along the LYDB in the BWD-1 site (Surovell et al. 2009), others reported strongly elevated concentrations of the magnetic microspherules here (Firestone et al. 2007; LeCompte et al. 2012). Our observations confirm those made by Firestone et al. (2007) and LeCompte et al. (2012). In spite of the failure to find microspherules along the LYDB, Surovell et al (2009) reported a number of magnetic microspherules in sediments located above the LYDB (not as a discrete microspherule rich layer though). Such a distribution of the microspherules can be explained by redeposition in younger sediments of the microspherules delivered from along the LYDB. It is appropriate to suggest that Surovell et al. (2009) just failed to sample the microspherule-rich layer because it is visually featureless in the BWD-1 site and is very difficult to identify in the field.

Screenshot 2016-02-27 19.39.23

Alex Andronikov

 

Download (PDF, 1.49MB)

Download (PDF, 2.15MB)

2011 Poster