Exploring abrupt climate change induced by comets and asteroids during human history

Guest Blog: Rodney Chilton author of ‘Sudden Cold: An Examination of the Younger Dryas Cold Reversal’

Sudden Cold

Rod Chilton, author of the most recent (and perhaps only) comprehensive review of Younger Dryas science, was kind to contribute this fine critique of David Morrison’s recent paper in Skeptical Enquirer. I am reading Rod’s excellent book and look forward to reviewing it soon:

The debate continues as to the cause of the more than 1,000 year-long cold interval known as the Younger Dryas. Falling on the heels of the Last Ice Age, or more correctly immediately after the two warm intervals known as the Bolling and Allerod interstadials, the Younger Dryas onset appears now to have started in as little time as one to three years. The climate shifted that suddenly from near present day warmth to near Ice Age cold. A second important feature to be noted is that apparently most of the planet was affected, and that the teleconnection between various parts of the planet was swift. This suggests strongly that the forcing mechanism resided in the atmosphere, rather than in the Ocean (where a much slower teleconnection would have been evident). The Younger Dryas however was very different from another alleged cosmic encounter, that of the great Cretaceous extinction event of approximately 65 million years ago. At this time, a huge bolide struck the Gulf of Mexico. Likely measuring as much as ten kilometres’ across, the demise of the dinosaurs seems to have been assured.

However, the Younger Dryas cosmic event is envisioned as considerably different, that is if astronomers William Napier and Victor Clube are correct in their calculations. Drs, Napier and Clube believe that what is a far more likely type of encounter is best described as a “cosmic shower.” The nature of such an event would have a cosmic stream of already broken up comet and asteroid pieces striking earth, but extended over widespread areas as the influx took place more as showers than as single objects. All manner of sizes from very small through Tunguska-sized and finally on upwards to objects possibly one half kilometre wide or more pummelling planet earth.  Thus the proof of such an encounter will despite being from a much less distant time, will nonetheless be somewhat more difficult to discern than was the case for the K/T dinosaur event.

That said, only if scientists remain open minded will the clues that are out there reveal the true nature of the Younger Dryas cosmic encounter. So it is then that the evidence continues to accumulate despite considerable scepticism on many fronts. Apart from what was a very sudden onset, in as little time as one to three years. And too, the nature of the event in affecting all of the Northern Hemisphere and a good part of the south is revealing in itself. This because of the rapid teleconnection to most all parts of the planet all at once. I wish to stress here that the detection of nanodiamonds and magnetic microspheruels in what is an enigmatic layer throughout North America and Europe is but one part of the story. Considerable weight to this part of the evidence has now come to light in another part of the world by different researchers (this in Venezuela). Criticism of some of the results of the group of twenty plus scientists has been forthcoming from some quarters such as Dr. Todd Surovell. Dr. Surovell was unable to replicate the finding of increased nanodiamonds for instance in his work in North America for the sedimentary layer dated at 13,000 BP. However, a retort from Dr. Richard Firestone, one of the main investigators within the group of twenty plus scientists pointed out that the layer Dr. Surovell was testing a much wider and therefore less concentrated sample of any anomalous materials such as nanodiamonds.

The work of the scientists in North America has not been the only research that has revealed some enigmatic features round about the time of the Younger Dryas. A related but somewhat different means of detection. Dr. Lars Franzen of the University of Goteborg in Sweden has also collected some very good evidence of at least a cosmic presence in some form, extending all the way back from approximately 8,000 BP to the Younger Dryas 13,000 years ago. Dr. Franzen’s indices are based upon detection of rare on earth elements collected from a number of peat bogs from various localities around the planet, including China, South America, Ireland and Sweden.  Also as important in the ongoing debate must be the greatly elevated and difficult to account for peaks of ammonium and nitrates primarily found in the high resolution Greenland Ice Cores. The explanation that holds the most validity for the ammonium spikes is that of wildfires that appear to have affected large areas of North America at the time of the Younger Dryas. Wildfires that were I believe started by cosmic objects either air bursting over the landscape and/or actually striking vegetated portions of North America. Another possilbe sorce for ammonium is an interesting idea as presented by Dr. Adrian Melott; this is known as the Haber process, which literally cooks the atmosphere and produces ammonia in this fashion. Nitrates for their part can be seen as being a by-product of incoming bolides heating the atmosphere to ozone destroying levels; the nitrates then accumulate as well within localities such as the Greenland Ice Sheet.  Then there are increases in elements such as potassium 40 and Helium 3, both rare on earth but much less so in space. Looking to concurrent increases in two radionuclide’s ( a possible sign as well of cosmic activity) their marked increase is difficult to reconcile by any other means than a very large cosmic encounter.

The investigation should not end here! There are in addition a whole gamut of other important features that validate the Younger Dryas as caused by a cosmic encounter. These factors have largely been left out of the discussion to date. They are however, when considered in context with all the other evidence just as important to the ongoing debate. A brief list should include at least some of these important components:

1) Attention should be paid to the astronomical evidence in all its forms. So not just the deposition of comet remnants, but other important features that can be deduced from such items like the zodiacal light (just recently gaining support as caused by cometary influences). Also, a look to our moon has already shown some interesting evidence of increased comet visitation in the time frame 10,000 to 20,000 BP. Also, by predicting where the orbits and positions of potential candidates for comet impact here on earth as is the case with the Taurid meteor stream is of ongoing importance.

2) A look to not just the continents, but to the oceans as well is something that may be beginning to take place. As over 75% of the globe is covered by oceans, any evidence found here would be extremely valuable. Dr. Sharma presented some preliminary findings at the AGU conference last autumn in San Francisco. Here it was reported that there are indications of a cosmic event, possibly from the Younger Dryas time. Dr. Sharma is in the process of writing a paper on these results.

3) Somewhat related to this development I believe are the extremely enigmatic deposits of animal and forest remains that remain unexplained throughout parts of Alaska and Siberia. The distinct possibility exists that meteorites striking the Pacific Ocean created what can only be called “megatsunamis.” If so, the destruction of large number of ice age animals may well be seen as plausible by these means. In addition, all manner of other features that may well have taken place, such as the extremely rapid onset of cold, the destruction of much of the planet’s protective ozone layer, likely acid rain, destruction of much of the vegetation in large areas all like contributed to the ice age mammals demise. That the die-offs were extreme, especially in the Americas where as many as 73% of the species disappeared in North America, and even greater numbers (80%) than that in South America may well be reconciled by a cataclysm of the magnitude suggested here.

4) Finally, last but not least, I think that one part of the puzzle so far not entering into the debate, at least not in the forum between advocates and sceptics of a cosmic explanation for the Younger Dryas, is the very important alternative theory. Still favoured by many scientists, the slowing or cessation of the North Atlantic ocean circulation must also be more critically reviewed as a suggested cause. I think that with just a little digging so many problems exist with this hypothesis, that then should permit the cosmic explanation to begin to gain more favour.

36 Responses

  1. The trouble as I see it, is that all of the Earth sciences are trying to percieve, and make sense of, the most violent natural catastrophe in 65 million years while wearing 150 year old, uniformitarian blinders. They’re like blind scholars studying an elephant they can’t even imagine. And the elephant is in the room with them.

    As long as the Earth sciences are founded on the unquestioned uniformitarian asumptions of Sir Charles Lyell, they will never be able to recognize the planetary scaring of a recent, extinction level, multiple airburst, thermal atmospheric, geo-ablative impact event. Not even if they’re living right in the middle of the blast effected materials of the primary impact zone.

  2. Thanks Rod,

    The likelihood of the observations of a self taught amateur being taken seriously by the academic community inversely proportional to the significance of those observations. So that a really big idea that changes things has about as much chance of being heard as a mouse breaking wind in a huricane.

    Tests are underway to determine if these materials match the chemistry, and chronology of the YDB. But, for the record, I do have proof in hand, in the form of pristine, heat glazed, non-volcanogenic ignimbrites, of geologically recent, thermal atmospheric geo-ablation on a massive, mountain sculpting, scale. And I am prepared to completely debunk the principle of uniform change once and for all.

    Dennis Cox
    P.S. This thermal blast melt is magnetic.

  3. Dr. Firestone’s hypothesis is preposterous. The Younger Dryas cold snap was obviously caused by a Heinrich Event. Sudden cold snaps happened hundreds of times during the Pleistocene, and probably dozens of times during the Wisconsinian Ice Age. Sudden warming climate cycles melted ice dams which caused fresh water to flood into the North Atlantic, thus shutting down thermohaline circulation, resulting in catastrophic declines in average annual temperatures. There was nothing unusual about the Younger Dryas. Check ice core records, and you will find that sudden cold climate cycles occurred repeatedly.

  4. Hi Mark: Yes yours is the still most widely accepted hypothesis re: The Younger Dryas. I however, believe this is soon to change. That a comet encounter took place approximately 13,000 BP. In my examination of the evidence that allegedly supports the meltwater North Atlantic theory there were so many problems with the proxy that was supposedly indicating a North Atlantic slowing or shutdown of ocean circulation. Ranging from no appreciable increase (in fact if anything a slowing of meltwater entry), to proxy that used as support for the North Atlantic changes that either were subject to a condition called bioturbation (unwanted mixing of the water column), to locations that rather than indicating overall North Atlantic circulation, instead were merely depicting local conditions. Also, there are a number of other marine cores taken by scientists such as Michael Sarnthein that actually show the North Atlantic ocean circulation as still operative (having been so for about 1500 years before the start of the Younger Dryas) and continuing on through the interval as operative, This considered along with all the signs of a dense cosmic veil prevailing over many parts of the earth lead to the conclusion of a cosmic event of great size.

  5. Dennis,
    hopefully, you will soon let us have your details of “geo-ablation on a massive, mountain sculpting, scale [magnetic thermal blast melt],” to d-bunk the academic community’s stubborn hurricane of 150 year old uniformitarian blinders (great metaphors)!

  6. That’s easy enough to do. It’s described in detail on my blog. Click on the ‘Crater Hunter’ link George has provided.

    The area that I have samples from that are currently undergoing analysis is described in the section called ‘California Melt’. Those tests are going to take a while. But if any lab equipped persons would like to do independant analysis of some of the damnedest non-volcanogenic ignimbrite you have ever seen, just tell me where to send a rock sample.

  7. Dennis: Very interesting findings it would seem, though I am not a geologist. I wonder have you approached Dr. Richard Firestone, Dr West or Dr. James Kennett? They may well have some more enlightned comments than I.

  8. Hi Rod, I’ve emailed them all. So I’m sure they are aware of what I’m up to. And I am hoping to hear back from Dr Firestone on the subject soon.

  9. Hey Dennis. I will try to get some of your stuff up on the Tusk soon. Had to move my way through Davias, Grondine, Kloostermann, Bucharrd and Chilton…..time for Cox….

  10. Dennis, any dates for your amazing “California Melt” near Fresno, on Smith and Campbell Mountains and in between, buried under later sediment? Chicxulub?

  11. Thanks George.

    But more from all of the above would also be a good thing.

    Heck, all of them are heroes in the world accorfing to me. And all are very high on my reading list. From a personal perspective, it’s good to have people finally start to look where I’m pointing. But, as for me, I’ve already read my own stuff. And I’m still studying, and writing, more.

    I am a self taught amateur who’s got a long way to go. And who thrives best among multiple mentors. It’s always nice to be able to read more of what the big kids have to say.

  12. Hi Hermann,

    I didn’t notice your question before submitting my last post.

    We don’t have a date, or age since melt, yet. But it is all perfectly pristine surface material. Geologically speaking, this stuff is all brand spanking new. Do you know what the black fusion glaze on the outside of a metorite looks like? The objects outer surface melts, and ablates, as it moves through the atmosphere. And it fuses the outer surface into a black ceramic fusion crust.

    Here, it was the superheated atmosphere that was doing the moving, and blowing over the rocks. Imagine a more than huricane force dust storm, with all of the dirt, grit, and soils, kicked up into the wind that implies. The wind gusts are supersonic. And since they consist of impact plasma, they are hot enough to ablate the Earth’s surface into an aerosol spray that mixes with the vaporized materials of the comet, and accumulates with inclusions of little flecks of partially welded alluvium, and soils.

    These black, thermal glazed, geo-ablative, accumulations that tumbled, and splashed in the wind like the debris laden ripples of froth on a storm tossed beach are pristine.
    They ring like ceramic. And the iron content is high enough you can pick them up with a magnet. Yet there is no crater here, and no shocked grains. This location on the west side of the Sierra Nevada batholith has been volcanically stable since the early Mesozoic. So there is also no volcanic vent.

    Bill Napier, and Victor Clube, have been far out in front of the rest of the world for decades on this. It must have been frustrating to wait for us all to catch up.

    The startling message to the world is that most large impact events on this world are not the result of a single bolide as we have thought. But of clouds, and streams, of smaller, air bursting fragments that don’t make craters. There are far more violent, and effective, ways to deposit ET materials on the surface of the Earth then current impact science is ready to comprehend.

    The Earth sciences are founded on the basic, unquestioned, uniformitarian, assumption that “the present is the key to the past”. It isn’t. And we are on the verge of a major paradigm shift in all fields of the Earth sciences that will change them to their very foundations.

  13. Great stuff, guys. Keep up the dialogue and I will try to move info forward into posts. Not sure if I agree yet, but Dennis is a big lift!

  14. Yes, I agree George, Dennis has provided a real spark. He is so correct re: Bill Napier and Victor Clube. I think too that people like Marie Agnes Courty and Mike Baillie should also be give a lot of credit. I have just written a submission on my website where I highlight three, what I believe were comet encounters, much as Dennis describes in his recent posting. Dennis and I are of the same mind re: type of event most common (Clube and Napier comet showers). We do not see the role of the North Atlantic in the same way however. I hope to be able to convince him and others of the lesser role as I see it from the THC. The jury is out on that one I think for most people still. Thanks George again for this great forum!!!!!

  15. Dennis,
    any ET isotopes deposited in the glaze. Needs a little luck. Ask cosmo-geo-chemist Andrew Glikson, ANU, he may be willing to put samples through his mass spectrometer. He specializes in Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB). Or maybe there is someone nearer Fresno.

  16. Confidence is very high. And those tests, are already underway. As well as radiometric dating, and others. But the gentleman doing the testing says it ‘may take a while’. So, we wait.

    More people looking into this would also be good though. I can easilly provide samples to others.

  17. Ron Chilton has some good points in his brief. There has been too little attention paid to the vast deposits of frozen material in the Alaska “Muck” and the Siberian Islands; and in the widespread caves and crevices jammed with shattered and jumbled bones of animals and plants both extinct and extant. They speak of tsunamis of nightmare proportions, and they have 200 scientific papers written about them in the last 200 years. (See a detailed list of references in Allan & Delair (1997) “Cataclism!: Compelling evidence of a Cosmic Catastrphe in 9,500 BC.” [11,500 BP. Note that this title refers to the end of the YD, but dates may be misleading.]) Firestone et al do not refer to these striking deposits in so far as I can discover. (Can it be that because Velikovski mentioned them, that they became beyond the pale?) It may also be that the tsunamis–which Firestone suggests–may account for the remarkable assortment of animal species and climates of origin that have been mentioned w.r.t. Beringia: Were they imported by tsunami, mixed with the local species and entombed together?
    The “12,900 event” that Firestone et al refer to may well have been a complex and protracted happening as the K-T events apparently were. There was evidence (so we were taught in geology as far back as 1956) that the Dinosaurs–and co-existing creatures such as the Ammonites–were in obvious trouble before their world came to an end; and, as I recall, there was a gradual build-up of Iridium discovered in the geologic record that developed into the famous K-T Iridium interphase, indicating that there were bodies orbiting the sun and distributing the stuff as dust for the earth to sweep up before a large one(s?) hit.
    One suspects the YD Event was the culmination of a complex happening and the several abrupt downturns in temperature in the several thousand years before the YD may be records of this; only this time—unlike the K-T event–much of the incoming material seems to have been low density ice or even “snow” that, even at comet speed, leave little in the way of a crater depth.
    In addition Firestone et al mention several potential impact sites for the main bodies: W. Hudson Bay, Lake Michigan, and northern Europe. Further spectacular “Bays” exist at Point Barrow, Alaska (see them on Google Earth) and Old Crow Basin in N. Yukon (Where we seem to get our share of “rectangular” lakes which have me wondering). Matter of fact, the whole Old Crow Basin might be an impact site of some less dense material. Firestone mentions “Bays” as far south as Arabia and Texas.
    Whatever the case, extrapolating the elliptical “Bays” back to source indicates several impact sites, and potentially a protracted development. (But of course, not necessarily so.)
    Clint Unwin
    15 July 2010 AD

  18. Rodney –
    Wikipedia states this about Heinrich Events (mentioned by Mark):

    “Heinrich’s original observations were of six layers in ocean sediment cores with extremely high proportions of rocks of continental origin, “lithic fragments”, in the 180 μm to 3 mm size range (Heinrich 1988).”

    The article states that

    “[d]uring such events, armadas of icebergs broke off from glaciers and traversed the North Atlantic. The icebergs contained rock mass eroded by the glaciers, and as they melted, this matter was dropped onto the sea floor as ‘ice rafted debris’.”

    Mark stated (and then left after telling us all the “truth”) that these Heinrich Events have already been determined to have been the reason for the Y-D interstadial. You replied talking about just the Y-D, whereas the Heinrich Events happened six times (apparently) during “the last ice age”. NONE of them, BTW, was at 10,900 BPE. Heinrich only found the SIX, and the last of them was dated to 16.8 Kyr. So Mark seems to be inventing a Heinrich event that Heinrich found no evidence of.

    Another BTW, is that Heinrich events do NOT occur in tandem with cold events, so tying the Heinrich layers with climate spikes may be a stretch in and of itself.

    I’ve just read two books – not even including Ed’s – that talked about impact events in 7640 BCE and 3150 BCE, plus some even into the AD era. If there have been more than just the Y-D since 13,000 BPE, we should remain open to multiple impacts in the time of the Heinrich Events.

    Does it seem possible to you that the Heinrich Events themselves may have been caused not by melting icebergs dropping their load of continental rocks, but by ejecta? It would seem something not terribly difficult to determine, because there should be some shock-produced particles included in Heinrich’s rocks.

    In other words, if there are multiple possible impact events in the Holocene, is there any reason that the climate spikes in the Pleistocene couldn’t have also been caused by impacts?

    It seems something worth looking into (by someone – particularly if the Y-D impact event is eventually accepted).

    The rafted rocks hypothesis seems awfully speculative and ad hoc to me. The cause of such increases in the number of icebergs to account for the vast amount of fresh water to disturb the THC has not been determined. There are several candidates, but no single one stands out.

    The entire Heinrich Event scenario seems awfully speculative to me, like they are trying to blame every cold dip on the THC, trying to FORCE it into prominence. Since you have Sarnthein’s work that seems to show that the THC wasn’t connected to the Y-D, perhaps the THC wasn’t connected to ANY of the cold periods.

    After all, the possibility of the THC failing is a speculation in and of itself – something invented to explain something within the concept of global warming.

  19. Good post Steve,

    And since the Taurid Progenitor intered the inner solar system, and began breaking up, 20 to 30 thousand years ago, the idea of multiple catastrophes both before, and after, the YD event fits the Taurid complex like a well made glove.

  20. Hi, Rod:
    Firestone et al make mention of vast tsunami that would have been generated by the impacts of their “event”. Evidence: the gigantic piles of shredded and quick-frozen animal and vegitable matter found in the north and in caves; but the timing of them is problematic: If they happened as a result of impacts of “the event” of ~12,900 BP then they probably would have oblitereated the elliptical impact lakes, even if these were on the elevated ground. Thus these innumerable lakes must have been generated after the larger impacts, perhaps at the close of the YD, where Allen and Dellaire focus their attention. Or the lakes rims were on ground high enough to make them immune. The ground around Point Barrow Alaska is covered by little else, it seems, than these strange lakes that go on for hundreds of miles of coast. Oct 29 2010

  21. Hi Clint: Good to hear from you again! Yes, I believe that it is quite possilbe that the a giant tsumani or tsunamis may well have been responsilbe for the extensive bone beds in Alaska and Siberia at the beginning of the Younger Dryas. That is a good point re; the obliteration of lakes in the Point Barrow area. We must remember though that sea levles even as late as the younger Dryas were well below what they are presently (as there was stll much water locked up in the stll well-extended Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets. Also, I am not at all certain about the origins of “impact lakes’ either here or in the eastern U.S. (the Carolina Bays). I have not yet made up my mind if I think there are impact caused or not. It does seem to be a plausible explanation to be sure.

  22. Hi Steve: Yes, I agree with Dennis great post!!! I think you have hit the nail on the head re: Heinrich events and their supposed cause. Or more coorectly at this point I should say I think you are correct that cold intervals may not coincide with icebergs fluxes into the North Atlantic. They may instead have been synchronous with warm periods. Check out Dr. Richard Fairbank’s view (quite an old paper now, 1989, but still I think valid) on freshwater caps and their possible role; not as the initiators of cold but of warm intervals. At least during the summer and early autumn, in and around the North Atlantic. Also, oceanographer, yes I said oceanographer, Dr. Carl Wunsch in his papers (the very latest presented in the journal “Quaternary Science Reviews”) where he spells out his views that the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is not at all realistic, either from a physics standpoint. Nor is it confirmed by actual observations of large buoys deployed in the Atlantic. And yes, as Dennis states, it is possible a number of the cold intervals prior to the Younger Dryas may well have been caused by cosmic encounters. That is an exciting question that deserves study!!!

  23. Have the locations/ strata from which Heinrich rocks were plucked or ejected been determined? If possible, this might help answer your question “plucked or ejected.”

  24. Steve, my post misfired. You wrote: “Does it seem possible to you that the Heinrich Events themselves may have been caused not by melting icebergs dropping their load of continental rocks, but by ejecta? It would seem something not terribly difficult to determine, because there should be some shock-produced particles included in Heinrich’s rocks.”

    Have the locations/ strata from which Heinrich rocks were plucked or ejected been determined? If possible, this might help answer your question “plucked or ejected.”

  25. Dennis:
    There is another impact seris that is quite recent, about “the time of King Arthur” the one that the cleric Gildas wrote about that smote post-Roman Britain anad left great devistation in its wake. and paved the way for the Saxon take-over. According to Guildas the comet came from the didrection of Scotland,split up , one group going to Irelland, the other continuing on over Cornwall and into Britany, France.
    I have just been to the destroyed site of Wroxeter in England that used to be the third largest Roman town in the UK. Little left but foundations (probably assisted by scaveging) some claim that it went on to wreck havoc in Tiajuanacu in Blivia. Been there, too, and there is goood evidence of a cataclismic event that looks like it washed Lake titicaca over with red silt, boulders, skulls and pottery.

  26. Dennis:
    There is another impact series that is quite recent, about “the time of King Arthur” the one that the cleric Gildas wrote about that smote post-Roman Britain and left great devastation in its wake. (About 535 AD, if memory serves) And paved the way for the Saxon take-over. According to Guildas the huge comet came from the direction of Scotland and split up, one group going to Ireland, the other continuing on over Cornwall and into Brittany in France.
    I have just been to the destroyed site of Wroxeter in England near the Welsh border that used to be the third largest Roman town in the UK. Now little left but foundations (probably assisted by scavenging). Some claim (I believe this is Victor Clube’s concept)that the comet cluster went on to wreck havoc in Tiajuanaco, Bolivia. (about 500 AD). Been there, too, and there is good evidence of a cataclismic event that looks like it washed Lake Titicaca up on land and left 6 ft of fine red silt, boulders, skulls and pottery.
    As well, the “vitrified hill forts” in the UK, France and Germany may bear witness to a severe scorching. There is a learned society in England that is studying them seriously.
    Whatever did it must have achieved a local temp of about 1000 degrees.
    Cheers! Clint

  27. Gentlemen; I know I’m a litle late at getting into this blog session but this is all so fascinating. I’ve been trying to follow all this information and it gets a little confusing sometimes but keep it coming. If there is a blog site that is more contempory please let me know so I can folow along. As of late when watching the TV weather I’ve noticed 2 areas that seem to possibly be old craters of very large proportions. One is in the 4 corners area of CO. NM. AR. and UT. The center of that area seems to be in the middle of an extremely large depression. The other is on the eastern edge of the Yellowstone area. If something very large had hit there it just might have cracked the mantle like the impact at Mumbai India had done and allowed the vulcanism we see today to happen.

  28. Just for the sake of an update, here’s the PGAA analysis of that sample I spoke of. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2268163/CampbellMountainSample.pdf

    The test was conducted by Richard Firestone.

    Most notable is the high Iron content of 13% IT’s so high that specimens of the stuff can be picked up even with a fairly weak magnet. Also, at 400 PPM the specimen has 10 times the normal terrestrial abundance of nickel. All in all the chemistry of the stuff is very similar to that of a Urelite. So confidence is high that it’s origins are indeed extra terrestrial. But since its chemistry doesn’t have any similarity to that of the YDB layer, it’s probably not related to the YD event.

    Dr. Firestone tells me that more work needs to be done to pin it down further.

    However, since sending that specimen in for analysis I have also located two large and extremely pure iron masses that are exposed, and rusting out on the south flank of the mountain. I haven’t had any of that stuff analyzed yet. But it’s got a hell of a lot more iron in it than the specimen I sent Rick Firestone.

  29. Hermann –

    Wow, it’s been such along time since you posted this about the ejecta-vs-drop-stone question I had.

    I recently was looking into this, and yes, I do now have maps of the sample core locations that have been used for Heinrich event studies. I haven’t had time to look into it enough, though.

    First impression? I see nothing that rules out ejecta so far, but it’s early yet.

    Sorry to take so long to reply!

  30. Clint –

    I’m afraid I never even saw your comments above back in 2011. I would have responded if I’d seen them.

    The name Gildas really jumped out at me. Just this past week I was trying to get some idea just when King Arthur had lived (or the basis of the stories, anyway). I thought he might be close enough to the 536 AD event that the wasteland period in the Arthur story may be connected to what a few here believe was an impact event. It seems plausible, but at this time nothing more than that. But prehaps looking into.

    Ed probably has some good stuff on a Arthurian legendary account in the work he has assembled but not published.

    Looking up Arthur, of course, leads to many speculations, but little solid information. Some put him a bit earlier, in the late 400s. Some allow him to have been as late as the 536 AD event. But none of it is solid.

    In looking him up, Gildas’ name, of course, came up. I found the text of Gildas’ account of the destruction of England – but I have not yet had a chance to get into it.

    Your comments here give me a lot of inspiration to go forward with that.

    I am seeing if I can tie together some things in the British Isles with impacts, but so far not finding enough. Dead ends and all that… So I come and go on that, when I find a new direction to follow.

    Your bit about the comet coming over certain areas – much of what you mentioned does tie in well with what is formulating in my head.

    At this time I am pretty sure I am looking at two events separated by a long time. I think the earlier one in the Neolithic (or before) created the vitrified forts (quite a few in Scotland), but I think it was a shower of fragments that came in very low. It’s all speculation right now.

  31. Hello Dennis –

    Once again:
    What hit at the HSIE was a comet, not a urelite.

    Small meteroids fall all the time and create micro-spherules. Professionals use niodium magnets to pick them up.

    There have been a lotr of impacts, so even if you have finally found one, you have to show it is fom the HSIE.

    Those large fossil meeteorites are likely to bring you a lot of money. Please take somee of it and learn what scaling laws are.

  32. Gosh Ed, Have you ever heard of a spell checker?

    Ed Said:

    Once again:
    What hit at the HSIE was a comet, not a urelite.

    Since you are the only one who is insisting on the term “HSIE”, and the real scientists who are doing real science in the field, and in their labs, and publishing multiple papers in prominent, honest to somebody-check-me-on-this peer reviewed scientific journals, instead of a single poorly edited, self published paperback, I will be following the lead of the scientists of the YDB team in my choice of terminology. And since I already have the advice, help, and/or mentorship, of some of those very same scientists, I will not be considering the demands of a self convinced amateur with no academic credentials whatsoever who has deluded himself into thinking he is the worlds foremost expert on the subject, and believes that he “owns” it.

    But note that I have never said that the YD impact event was not caused by a comet. And I never even hinted that it was related to a urelite. Only that according to Richard Firestone’s analysis, the chemistry of the Campbell Mountain event matches that of a urelite.

    Small meteroids fall all the time and create micro-spherules. Professionals use niodium magnets to pick them up.

    Your poor reading comprehension skills are showing again. I also never said anything about micro-spherules being in the specimen Dr Firestone analyzed for me. As for the magnet I used: I simply pointed out that the iron content of the specimen is high enough that a powerful rare Earth magnet is not required to pick it up. An ordinary generic toy magnet is strong enough.

    Those same Professionals though, will tell you that there is no such thing as a “niodium magnet”. They will be happy to school you a bit, and tell you that the specific rare earth used in the alloy of a rare Earth magnet is Neodymium; a chemical element with the symbol Nd and atomic number 60.

    There have been a lotr of impacts, so even if you have finally found one, you have to show it is fom the HSIE.

    No, in fact I don’t. Since the chemistry is not similar to that of the Younger Dryas Boundary layer it’s a pretty safe bet that it’s not related to the YD event. However, since the zone of burnt facies from the Campbell event is 5 to 10 miles wide, and nearly 40 miles long, it is a significant event that needs to be dated properly. That’s why Dr Firestone said more work needs to be done to pin it down.

    Those large fossil meeteorites are likely to bring you a lot of money. Please take somee of it and learn what scaling laws are.

    Yup! there’s a whole lot of money up there. And it all belongs to the cattle rancher who owns the place.

    But if you will someday use the term “scaling laws” in the on-topic context of a sentence, and or conversation that indicates that you yourself actually know how to apply them, that your imagined comprehension of how they apply isn’t just another victim of your demonstrably poor reading comprehension skills, and you can provide a valid link to the literature you learned from, I’d be happy to read it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe for Updates

Tax deductible donations to the Comet Research Group can be made here