Abrupt climate change induced by comets and asteroids during human history
All good points. I DID want to do whatever I could to get them aware of Skeptical Raptor’s actions. Beyond that, I don’t give a sheit. All my pleadings are done with the ida that if I don’t get what I want, I simply don’t participate anymore. I only edit on Wiki about once every 5 months or so, so it isn’t like my life depends on it.
I was really put off by the fact that they bait-and-switched me. My block was about Outing the guy. Then in midstream they blew that off and decided I was a confrontational influence and blocked me for that. That’s like being in court on one charge and then the judge throwing another charge at me after I got off the first charge.
You are right – I don’t give a damned about what the YDIH page on Wiki is about, either. I just got in to help out TLE, and to test it out, see how long my edit would stay up.
And the big issue here IS that we are declaring the world to not be flat. I’ve commented before on how the consensus scientists think in reductionist terms – breaking every complex issue into the simplest possible parts. Then they think that by trying to understand the parts they will understand the whole. That is fine – IF they have the right overall POV when they look at the parts. And it is IMPOSSIBLE, IMHO, to really build up from the parts; it takes just the right projection forward in order to not get off track and end up with the wrong gestalt. But they started out with uniformitarianism as their model for all the parts, and that was their big mistake. It means that they have to go through ever more weird contortions to fit everything together. That is how you can tell they have the wrong basic premise, when the patches on patches appear.
Yes, uniformitarianism operates everywhere – but not every time. And without that catastrophe element in their minds, they have to come to wrong conclusions. It is just like when Galileo and Copernicus were having to realize that the consensus was wrong: What were they supposed to do then?
But we don’t have a good handle on it, either. It would help if we were funded, so we could do some fundamental research. I can probably come up with ten or so inquiries I’d like to undertake. Maybe twenty.
On to the topic of this post – the CBs.
A question: Do you yourself tie the CBs to the YDB, and if so, why? And if not, which time period/impact do you connect them with?
I jump back and forth myself. One of these days it might lock into one, but so far, no.
To tell the truth I’d like to think they are, but I’m ambivalent about it. I think I can identify enough pristine hydrothermal blast burns in the Canadian Shield to account for the almost complete destruction of the LIS in matter of seconds, and in the process account for enough hydrothermal explosive force to loft an awful lot of ice-based ejecta that far from multiple locations. But until some field work can get a definitive age date for the burns I’m looking at, and someone can come up with a reliable and consistent way to date the bays that inspires more confidence than what I’ve seen so far, I’ll hold off on categorically tying the Bays to the YD event.
I should note here though that the burns I’m studying don’t show any indication of being damaged by glacial activity after they formed, a fact puts them at or near the end of the last ice age. And the idea that the LIS took two hits on that scale in almost the same locations but a few thousand years apart is a bit of a stretch.
Ooops, I wasn’t paying attention, and answered a question aimed at George.
Shutting up now.
You know, Steve, at this point is all on the table for me. But, if pressed, I have always thought the YDB evidence that the location of blast(s) was in Canada\Mich\whatever was not as strong as the dating. So, I think they could be wrong about the location of the 12.9 event and right about the time. In which case something else could have happened around 34k bp in the mid-west to account for the bays, and the YDB event could have been centered elsewhere — or all over the place. Remember, that the tusks (including mine) and skulls with suspected ET material, which the researchers thought would date to 12.9, ending up all coming from ~34K. All sorts of other evidence point to something happening around this time, as detailed in the Cycle of Catastrophes. I also think there is a chance the bays have absolutely nothing to do with anything from space, as Gore-like certainty is not my thing.
I agree, Dennis. I will be putting up the definitive list which you and I have developed.
Thanks for your perspective. It is just about what mine is.
It is pretty obvious now that something catastrophic happened at 12.9kya. It also seems certain that something also happened at ~34kya. As I recall, Cycle of Catastrophes also pointed out the C14 problems of the mid-30-40kya range, so I maybe put TWO “~”s in front of that ~~34 kya.
It seems that Saginaw (or something reasonably close by) is tied to the CBs, though until I get a handle on where dating samples were taken, I neither accept nor argue with early dates. Chris’ pdfs got me to doubting the whole assumptions about the formation of the CBs – especially as it pertains to the dating of them.
At the risk of sounding “Gore-like,” I am thinking that the CBs have NO possible terrestrial explanations. With at least 20 rejected, it doesn’t look good for them. But do ET explanations stand on their own? Actually, I think they can – though not any yet that are out there.
What you are seeing in google earth are “features”, not “burns”, until they are confirmed as burns through field work by trained geologists.
So far your “yield rate” has been negligible, and absymal in comparison to Pierson’s.
Given the Sioux memories of the HSIE, and their location at that time, one place to look for impact structures is along the Cordillera.
Since the Bays were being utilized by Clovis peoples, clearly they predate the HSIE.
For everyone else:
Thus it seems likely to me that there will be yet more time spent in analyzing how this sampling went awry.
In my opinion, it also seems likely that there will be no wiki edits by anyone here at the Tusk for quite a while yet.
Finally, it’s going to take the dicovery of a larger astrobleme from the HSIE to close the debate. This is why the Assiniboine memories of the HSIE are so important.
You simply can’t proclaim a white man’s unproven personal subjetive interpretation of Native American oral traditions to be a “memory”.
The Bill Napier Interview
Kennett et al. 2015 on dating the YDB
Updated: A Catastrophist Bibliography from Thompson
Cosmic Tusk All Post Archive
Harvard Platinum spike at Younger Dryas in PNAS
Napier: Not So Fast Bos...
The Bos Files
YDB team in their own words on data replication - 2012!
With Google+ plugin by Geoff Janes