The Daulton Gang is at it again. They are kibitzing again. Instead of doing their own science, they opine about others’ work. AGAIN. In this paper, in the section titled “Cratering and Comet Physics”, here are the starts to its paragraphs: “The YDIH impact mechanism has variously been described as an airburst, a cluster of airbursts, an ice sheet impact,multiple continent-spanning impacts (Firestone et al., 2007;Boslough et al., 2012) and ‘a swarm of comets or carbonaceous chondrites [that] produced multiple air shocks and possible surface impact’ (Kennett et al., 2009b, p. 94).” “Firestone et al. (2007) estimate the impactor size by assuming that it had effects over the entire continent.” “Wittke et al. (2013) provide a ‘Preliminary Impact Model’that diverges signiﬁcantly from the original of Firestone et al.(2007), but still lacks any physics-based argument.” “Wittke et al. (2013, E2096) propose that fragments of theYDB impactor entered Earth’s atmosphere, fragmented evenfurther and yielded ‘multiple atmospheric airbursts that eachproduced shock fronts’.” “Wittke et al. (2013, E2096) also suggest that ‘thermal radiation from the air shocks was intense enough to melt Fe-rich and Si-rich surﬁcial sediments … at >2,200 ˚C’, a temperature only brieﬂy exceeded in an air shock over a small area near the ablating impactor as it traverses the atmosphere (Nemtchinov, 1995).” “Many of the YDIH papers appeal to airbursts as amechanism by which surface materials can be combusted ormelted by a non-crater-forming impact.” First of all, notice that NONE of this addresses ANY orginal work by Holliday et al. In reading each paragraph, the clear understanding is that Holliday is drawing no the work of the YDIH team and other papers, but at no point does Boslough get in and show HIS OWN work contradicting ANYTHING that the YDIH papers has stated as fact. This is science by Internet, sitting behind a desk. Now THIS is the section that is supposed to rip the YDIH a new anal fissure on the grounds of physics. As they stated in the Abstract, “The basic physics in the YDIH is not in accord with the physics of impacts nor the basic laws of physics.” One would expect this to get VERY precise, very particular – as in, hypothetically, “Wittke did this, and I ran experiments that show this falsifying evidence. Therefore Wittke was wrong on this, because of X, Y, and Z.” I mean physics as ALL about NUMBERS – forces, masses, momentums, etc. They MENTION Boslough (2012), but don’t they have anything NEW to add to the discussion? They mention that paper in every paper, but they don’t show any new evidence. The following “physics” passage is their usual shameless plug for Boslough’s LDG papers, but it doesn’t SAY anything NEW in this paper. It is all re-hash. He is Johnny oOne Note, as we used to say. Where is the NE evidence? How do they get away with papers that don’t even have anything new in them? “Wu et al. (2013)propagated misunderstandings of airburst physics by citing Bunch et al. (2012) instead of the original publications which used physics-based models to suggest that layered tektites and Libyan Desert Glass are products of airbursts (Boslough, 1996; Boslough and Crawford, 2008).” And then there is THIS, “Which I swear is taken word-for-word from earlier papers: “The airbursts proposed by Bunch et al. (2012) are not consistent with the physics of either published mechanism.” Right, but at the same time, Boslough’s work is all models, NOT REAL WORLD, not empirical evidence. I would put up (YDIH team’s) Peter Schultz’s hyper-velocity experiments against Boslough’s models any day. FOLKS, if there is ONE field that is supposed to be about real world and nothing but real world it is non-cosmological physics. Hell, even particle physicists actually do REAL experiments. Does Boslough have ANY real experiments? Or are they all cyberspace models? * * * OKAY, evidently that is all the “physics” in the paper. WOW, a lot of nothing. After the buildup in the Abstract, I was expecting SOMETHING tangible, not just a bunch of vague “Your physics sucks!” claims. * * * Note: I will attempt to comment on each section of the skeptical paper this week.