Kerr Watch

Elapsed time since Richard Kerr failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 6 years, 2 months, and 1 day

Pinter and Scott's Cheap Shot blows by diamonds in rush to undermine ET heresy

I’ve now had a quick read of the Pinter and Scott paper.  They agree with a lot of what the YD team has published previously regarding carbon spherules, principally that Carbon Spherules of some type can occur in ordinary, modern forest fires – but unfortunately they do not tell us they are in agreement.

See here from the 2007 paper that started all this from the original authors of the ET theory:

Carbon spherules. Carbon spherules (0.15–2.5 mm) are black,highly vesicular, subspherical-to-spherical objects (Fig. 3). SEM analyses show them to have cracked and patterned surfaces, athin rind, and honeycombed (spongy) interiors. SEM/energydispersive spectrometer and microprobe analyses show that thespherules are dominantly carbon (75%), with no evidence ofseed-like morphology or cellular plant structure, as in charcoal.They were found in 13 of 15 Bays and only in the YDB at six ofnine Clovis-age sites in concentrations up to 1,500 per kilogram. In addition, we recovered them [carbon spherules] from one of four modern forest fires (see SI Text, ‘‘Research Sites’’), confirming that they can be produced by intense heat in high-stand wildfires. At theP/T boundary, Miurat discovered carbon spherules up to 90 wt%C and up to 20 m in size, which he attributes to a controversialcosmic impact 250 Ma. More recently, Ro¨sler et al.u reported finding carbon spherules from undated sediment across Europe,and these appear identical to spherules from the YDB layer. Theauthors report that they contain fullerenes and nanodiamonds,the latter of which are extraordinarily rare on Earth but arefound in meteorites and at ET impact sites (29), leading those authors to propose an ET association for the carbon spherules. — Firestone, et. al., PNAS, 2007
Sadly, Pinter and Scott failed to tell their audience this.  They present their findings as though they contradict the claims in Firestone — presumably with full knowledge that their is no contradiction on this fundamental point.

I have been involved with the YDB since the beginning, and the YDB team has never claimed the Carbon Spherules were “Cosmic Spherules” from space.  What the YDB team did claim in the 2007 paper and later was:

1)  There is a peak in the CS at YDB.  This is not disputed by Pinter and Scott but lends credence to the ET impact, and;

2) They have nanodiamond in abundance CS in the YDB — but not outside of it.  They also find spherules not containing diamonds in the YDB.

So, unaddressed in the Pinter and Scott shot are the nanodiamonds themselves.  Their tellingly oblique reference to the possibility of such material only mentions their team finding that:

Ultrastructural morphologies resembling those interpreted by Kennett et al. as nanodiamonds are present……

Huh?  ULTRASTRUCTURAL MORPHOLOGIES?  What the hell are those?  Pinter and Scott, did you find diamonds or not?  If you did, then diamonds can be formed at low-temps and pressures in terrestrial forest fires.  Experiments by the Firestone group indicates that is impossible. The diamond only forms at high temperatures and under very low oxygen conditions — which is impossible in forest fires.  Is that your claim?

Make sure to check out German researchers independently locating the same diamonds.

  • Janet Presso

    “Pinter and Scott, did you find diamonds or not?”

    You will find out this week!