Kerr Watch

Number of days writer Richard Kerr has failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 4 years, 2 months, and 13 days

CT Post Calendar

March 2015
« Feb    

The Cosmic Tusk Newsletter


Those darn nanodiamonds again in a High-Impact journal: More hard evidence and 26 independent researchers confirm cosmic Ice Age catastrophe

Screen Shot 2014-08-31 at 12.33.25 PM

Hot thread at WUWT

Download the PDF file .

Another requiem: Holiday-Meltzer doth protest too much


Download the PDF file .

International Space Station: Window scum supports Wickramasinghe and Sir Fred’s long contention of teeming life in space



The space station is orbiting the earth in a total vacuum, there is no air, so it is a total defiance of the laws of physics to say these organisms were blown into space from Earth.

‘The only explanation is that they have come from elsewhere in space, and this supports long-held theories that plankton, and therefore all life on Earth including humans, originated from organisms in space.

‘Everything that we have on the Earth is derived from space, including humans.

~ Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, August 21, 2014


April 8, 2013

Russian press release

Wickramasignhe vs. Plait @ HuffPo

Chandra heckled 58:22

The spacewalk….window cleaning @ 2:22

Updates from ProfChandra


The Tusk has long loved Chandra Wickramasinghe since I first came across the cool dude in the 90′s. His work with Sir Fred Hoyle – and every report since — is simply wonderful. Chandra and Fred are either the two smartest wrong guys in the history of modern science or the two smartest period.

Chandra made a widely derided contribution to our understanding last year when he identified aquatic diatoms in a meteorite. According to reports this week, one of which I post in part below, his findings are now supported by the collection of marine diatoms from a window of the International Space Station.

I offer two explanations for this news of the weird. Either:

1) Chandra Wickramasinghe detected diatoms in a meteorite in 2013 and is now vindicated in his long standing prediction that such life forms are relatively common in Space, or;

2) Those trickster Russians are deliberately providing false confirmation of Chandra’s kooky claims for unknown reasons.

Allow me to make a predictive claim as well: Public interest in the Russian findings will provoke critics to further defame Wickramasignhe. I can already hear Phil Plait typing. If you do not know of Plait, he is a “science guy” who specializes in the defense of the known. His too popular blogs rule out and frequently deride anything outside 3˚ of understood.

Screen Shot 2014-08-23 at 12.46.13 AM

Shaken not stirred: Zamora proposes ice impacts into fluidized sand surface to explain bays

Just Sayin’: Not all bays were lakes

Chris Moore, Andy Ivester and other skeptics of sudden bay formation recently published a beautiful poster detailing their findings and discussing their conclusions. I was impressed and disappointed. Impressed to see thoughtful research into the bay phenomena, disappointed that it ignored our previous published work determining that at least one (and presumably many more) Carolina bays were never lakes.

Here is their poster:

Download (PDF, 2.89MB)

And below is an excerpt from our abstract concerning the nature of the sands in the eponymous “Howard Bay,” and below that our 2007 Acapulco AGU Carolina Bay poster.

Point is, to refute our conclusion that bays formed suddenly by invoking long-lived “lakes,” Moore and Ivestor need to disprove that, 1) Howard Bay is indeed a Carolina bay formed like all others; and/or 2) It was never a lake.

If our poster helped reignite the terrestrial versus or ET causation debate, then the poster’s conclusions should be addressed directly. It seems the best way would be for Moore, Ivestor and team to core Howard Bay themselves and prove a lake once lived there.

Further analyses of samples in complete core sequences reveal that, unlike typical, peat-rich Carolina Bays, Howard Bay essentially lacks peat, diatoms, pollen, or other organic materials, suggesting that this Bay never stored water for any sustained length of time. Furthermore, several trenches confirm that the deepest part of the Bay is filled with >6 m of cross-bedded eolian sand with no evidence of lacustrine sedimentation. This evidence calls into question prevailing hypotheses (a) that all Bays were lakes and ponds in the past and that their shapes were formed by wave action, or (b) that groundwater movement led to subsidence that formed the Bay….


Found again: Cosmic geochemistry identified at Younger Dryas Boundary by independent international research team

In Search for Fingerprints of an Extraterrestrial Event: Trace Element Characteristics of Sediments from… by George Howard

Tusk TV: Younger Dryas Event at 27:00 minutes

India and Japan independently report ~552 AD comet


More from Juhl

and Lyenger